No Condemnation For Those In Christ (Romans 8:1)

[CadyandZoe]

1. I thought you said a "true believer" would never judge another believer.

That's right. I did. And I haven't changed my mind.

2. For you, conveniently, there seems to be only one aspect of this entire text: make sure you don't do something another "true believer" will judge. That's not what it says. It says "let each man be fully convinced in his own mind" when he eats or doesn't eat, or when he observes or doesn't observe a day. It is a personal command.

Paul is dealing with religious people who hold religious beliefs. What is a "religious belief"? A religious belief is the tenet of a religious system that is not based on reason or independent conclusions based on correct facts.

For example, "avoid eating meat offered to idols" is an ethical code based on religious belief. This ethical rule does not rely on dietary or health reasons but on a religious assumption that first, the meat is ritually unclean or impure and second, those who eat the meat are unclean or impure.

Paul encourages his audience to form their own conclusions based on evidence, an accurate grasp of reality, and God's intentions. Both Paul and Jesus tolerate religion, but they prefer we no longer practice religion. We are no longer obligated to obey religiously derived legal codes, especially Christian canon Law, Jewish Law, Islamic sharia, and Hindu law.

Each person must be convinced in his own mind. This implies that we thoroughly consider an idea, argument, or perspective and independently arrive at a firm conviction. To be "fully convinced" means to have unwavering confidence or certainty about something. It implies that you firmly believe in a particular idea, principle, or course of action. For instance, in the context of faith, being fully persuaded means having complete trust in God's promises and guidance. Similarly, in Romans 14:5, the apostle Paul encourages believers to be fully convinced in their own minds regarding matters of conscience and personal convictions. So, being fully convinced involves having a strong, unshakable belief based on your understanding and conviction.

To put it in the negative sense, don't simply obey because your religion tells you what to do.

So Paul is dealing with religious people. Religion tells us to avoid eating meat offered to idols because the meat is unclean, and those who eat the meat are unclean. Is this true? No. According to Paul, all foods are clean.

Nonetheless, the church is filling up with new congregants who, perhaps, were formerly practicing idolaters. These folks will need to unlearn some things and relearn others. We all come to Jesus carrying our own baggage, and new Christians are in the process of deciding what to keep and what to leave behind.

So we can imagine the case of a beginning believer who mistakenly believes that meat offered to idols is unclean. And so, yes, in this case we should be sensitive to his or her religious convictions while the sort things out. Paul is concerned that someone might get the wrong idea about the Faith if they should see a group of Christians causally eating the meat. It might give the new Christian the wrong idea.

This is why Paul also says, "So then we pursue the things which make for peace and the building up of one another."

No, Paul is not concerned with believing all foods are clean being a good thing,

We are attempting to understand what Paul means to say in verse 16. "Therefore do not let what is for you a good thing be spoken of as evil . . ." It is good for everyone to be convinced in his or her mind. Verse 16 is talking about "what is for you a good thing. What good does the meat eater have in mind that someone else might consider evil? Isn't freedom the good? And isn't freedom founded on truth, righteousness, and joy in the Holy Spirit?

he's more concerned that each man be fully convinced in his own mind--and, regarding which foods are clean or unclean, he says as much of himself, "I know and am fully persuaded in the Lord that nothing is unclean in itself...", therefore, he can eat what ever, but to the person who thinks the food is unclean, it actually is unclean, and will defile him if he eats it, because he will have doubts, and anything that is not from faith is sin.

Are you suggesting that believing that a thing is real makes it real. Is that what you think Paul means to say?

Conveniently, you "don't see" the rule for living in Christ is "let each man be fully convinced in his own mind".

I don't know what I could have said that would lead you to conclude this.

The matter is transparent. It's so "odd" that you "don't see" it.

Well, you've said a lot of things that we can agree about. But I have no idea what you think I can't see. I suppose that is the danger in writing a commentary, which examines each idea outside the context. :) It's a hazard, I know. Sorry if it was confusing. As I said, I found a lot in your explanation to agree about. But I am at a loss to understand what you think I didn't see. :)

 

[CadyandZoe]

If you want to deny people eat with doubt, why would you affirm people eat with faith?
LOL
If "doubt" and "faith" are not categories that apply to eating, how have you been affirming that this whole time (when referring to the one free to eat meat, and the one not free to eat meat)?

The contrast is not between faith and doubt, but rather between correct belief and incorrect belief. For instance, a person who consumes meat because they believe that all foods are clean is doing so with correct belief. Conversely, a person who abstains from eating meat offered to an idol, even though they are serving the Lord, holds an incorrect belief about the meat.

"However, a meat eater can be 'correct and wrong about it,' as a wise man once said. The meat eater's belief about the meat is correct, but if he allows the question to be a source of division, he is incorrect about how he practices what he believes."

 

[CadyandZoe]

@CadyandZoe You sure did go through a lot of trouble to try to skirt around the issue, downplay, suppress, all to uphold your rejection of the obvious teaching of Romans 14:23 (the one who does not do what he is fully persuaded is correct is sinning and is condemned), because it threatens your assertion that those who are in Christ cannot ever not be found in Him.

It is absolutely transparent what you are doing and why.
You may congratulate yourself, but, to everyone else, it couldn't be clearer what you are doing.
How could you let yourself do that to Scripture?

It's surprising to hear this from you. Is this your way of concluding our discussion? I was under the impression that we were making progress together. Did you genuinely believe that I was seeking personal glory or the approval of others?

I am firmly convinced in my own mind that Paul employs the phrase "in Christ" to indicate those whom God has sanctified and will glorify in the end. And, by his definition, they will never fall away or be lost.

I asserted this without complete proof, I'll admit, but my view is based on a thorough examination of Paul's usage. Perhaps we can pursue this line of investigation by looking at other epistles, such as Ephesians and Colossians. (Our men's group is starting Colossians this week.)

 

[CadyandZoe]

No, not even close:

Calvin's Commentary on the Bible

I don't think Calvin understood the passage. He mistakenly concluded that Paul was talking about indecision. But Paul explicitly says that the person eats. Those who eat are not undecided in what they consume. The very act of eating is a commitment to a course of action. Calvin is supposing an uncertainty that doesn't exist in Paul's argument. The meat-eater is certain that eating the meat is okay, and the vegetarian is convinced that not eating the meat is the right thing to do.

Furthermore, the second paragraph of his commentary is a non-sequitur, completely disregarding his first paragraph. In his first paragraph, he suggests that the man is unsure whether to eat the meat and Paul is critical of his uncertainty. In his second paragraph, the man is indeed certain about his choice, but his motives are questionable and charged with prevarication. This commentary is replete with 'high and mighty sounding rhetoric' but unfortunately Calvin made no effort to elucidate Paul's meaning. He simply used the text to make his own point rather than aiding the reader in understanding Paul's point.

 

[GracePeace]

That's right. I did. And I haven't changed my mind.

But they "will speak negatively"?
Why did Paul give the rule?
What were they doing that made him give the rule before he gave the rule?

Paul is dealing with religious people who hold religious beliefs. What is a "religious belief"? A religious belief is the tenet of a religious system that is not based on reason or independent conclusions based on correct facts.

Nope, the rule Paul lays down is not "make sure you get your beliefs correct", it's "you are bound to the freedom of living out your convictions, even if your convictions are held in ignorance (eg, you ignorantly think only eating vegetables is acceptable)"--so much so that the one whose beliefs are "correctly informed" (eg, the meat eater) is not free to impose his "reason based conclusion based on correct facts" on his brother, because he could destroy him by so doing.

For example, "avoid eating meat offered to idols" is an ethical code based on religious belief. This ethical rule does not rely on dietary or health reasons but on a religious assumption that first, the meat is ritually unclean or impure and second, those who eat the meat are unclean or impure.

No,
a) A person could have a religious conviction about dietary matters--eg, by the time Peter had the vision, years after the Gospel had been being preached, he still hadn't eaten anything forbidden by the Law, because he had heartfelt convictions about abstaining from those foods. He had an ethical code based on religious belief that was also dietary.
b) "Avoid eating meat offered to idols" is a sound doctrine, depending on how it is applied (revolving around "each man must be fully convinced in his own mind", and whether they have knowledge, and whether they are convinced by that knowledge).
c) The person who believes the food is unclean is actually defiled if he eats it--even if in reality he oughtn't be, he actually is, thus underlining "each man must be fully convinced in his own mind", and "what ever does not proceed from faith is sin".

Paul encourages his audience to form their own conclusions based on evidence, an accurate grasp of reality, and God's intentions.

No, he doesn't; he commands the audience to do only those things which they are fully persuaded are correct, and to not overstep that boundary.

Both Paul and Jesus tolerate religion, but they prefer we no longer practice religion. We are no longer obligated to obey religiously derived legal codes, especially Christian canon Law, Jewish Law, Islamic sharia, and Hindu law.

The issue is each person has their own personal conviction, and they are to stick with that.

Each person must be convinced in his own mind. This implies that we thoroughly consider an idea, argument, or perspective and independently arrive at a firm conviction.

Rather, it allows for the freedom that each person walk in their own, even uninformed, convictions "as unto the Lord".

To be "fully convinced" means to have unwavering confidence or certainty about something. It implies that you firmly believe in a particular idea, principle, or course of action. For instance, in the context of faith, being fully persuaded means having complete trust in God's promises and guidance. Similarly, in Romans 14:5, the apostle Paul encourages believers to be fully convinced in their own minds regarding matters of conscience and personal convictions. So, being fully convinced involves having a strong, unshakable belief based on your understanding and conviction.

To put it in the negative sense, don't simply obey because your religion tells you what to do.

1. To keep things in perspective, you were denying this was a personal issue, and trying to say it had more to do with the community not being led into judging one another, and my response was to say, no, "let each man be fully convinced in his own mind" is a personal command which individuals are held accountable to.
2. No, "in the context of faith", it's not about "God's promises", because the examples given are about people differing in their personal views about the rightness of eating a food or observing a day, and Paul permits these differences--ie, if it were about "God's promises", Paul would be sinning to let them doubt "God's promises" (ie, by having differing views).

So Paul is dealing with religious people. Religion tells us to avoid eating meat offered to idols because the meat is unclean, and those who eat the meat are unclean. Is this true? No. According to Paul, all foods are clean.

No, because then Paul would've instructed, "Command that vegetarian to think correctly about how to eat before the Lord!"? Instead, he allows the vegetarian to follow his convictions. Clearly, it is not as you say.

Nonetheless, the church is filling up with new congregants who, perhaps, were formerly practicing idolaters. These folks will need to unlearn some things and relearn others. We all come to Jesus carrying our own baggage, and new Christians are in the process of deciding what to keep and what to leave behind.

So we can imagine the case of a beginning believer who mistakenly believes that meat offered to idols is unclean. And so, yes, in this case we should be sensitive to his or her religious convictions while the sort things out. Paul is concerned that someone might get the wrong idea about the Faith if they should see a group of Christians causally eating the meat. It might give the new Christian the wrong idea.

This is why Paul also says, "So then we pursue the things which make for peace and the building up of one another."

Right--but, to redirect (back on course), again, the overarching rule at play is "each man must be fully convinced in his own mind" so that they do not "sin" and be "condemned" (Ro 14:23).

We are attempting to understand what Paul means to say in verse 16. "Therefore do not let what is for you a good thing be spoken of as evil . . ." It is good for everyone to be convinced in his or her mind. Verse 16 is talking about "what is for you a good thing. What good does the meat eater have in mind that someone else might consider evil? Isn't freedom the good? And isn't freedom founded on truth, righteousness, and joy in the Holy Spirit?

Paul's concern is NOT "I want all of you to understand foods are clean", it is "do not do things you do not believe are correct--even if the knowledge would indicate it is correct, if you do not have the faith to do it, you are not permitted to do it".

Are you suggesting that believing that a thing is real makes it real. Is that what you think Paul means to say?

On a moral level, if a person is fully convinced that something is unclean, for him it will defile him if he eats it.

I don't know what I could have said that would lead you to conclude this.

Your insistence on making the issue about the group not judging one another, instead of acknowledging that there is the other issue of the individual not crossing the boundary of his personal conviction even if it is wrongly informed.

Sorry if it was confusing.

I didn't say I was confused, I said it was "odd", which means I said it sarcastically.

 

[GracePeace]

The contrast is not between faith and doubt, but rather between correct belief and incorrect belief. For instance, a person who consumes meat because they believe that all foods are clean is doing so with correct belief. Conversely, a person who abstains from eating meat offered to an idol, even though they are serving the Lord, holds an incorrect belief about the meat.

Incorrect. Each person is to do what they are fully persuaded is correct. This means the issue is not about correct and incorrect belief (and, again, you introduce your concession that men DO eat with faith), but about whether each is fully convinced about the correctness of what the are doing.

What would you call it if someone did not adhere to the rule "each man is to be fully convinced in his own mind"? It would be called doing things about whose correctness one was not fully convinced in his own mind. That would be the "wavering" spoken of in Ro 4:20 and Ro 14:23--which is sin, which leads to condemnation (Ro 14:23).

What would that look like?
A person who believes he may only eat vegetables go against that conviction and eating meat.
A person who believes every day is the same being forced to observe a day as special.

"However, a meat eater can be 'correct and wrong about it,' as a wise man once said. The meat eater's belief about the meat is correct, but if he allows the question to be a source of division, he is incorrect about how he practices what he believes."

You're missing the point: you denied that eating was something that could be done with "doubt", yet you want to affirm that eating can be done with "faith"--as soon as you put eating in the category of things that can be done with "faith", you automatically enter it into the category of things that can be done "without faith" (ie, with "doubt").

 

[GracePeace]

I don't think Calvin understood the passage. He mistakenly concluded that Paul was talking about indecision. But Paul explicitly says that the person eats. Those who eat are not undecided in what they consume.

No, Calvin hit the nail on the head: it describes a person who doesn't believe he should eat meat offered to idols eats meat offered to idols, or a person who believes he may only eat vegetables going against his conviction and eating meat, or a person who really believes there is a special day ignoring that special day.

The very act of eating is a commitment to a course of action.

So, to you, then, Paul is wrong when he says that if a person believes a food to be unclean for him it is unclean, because as soon as he takes the course of action of eating it automatically makes the action acceptable. Paul then has nothing to say in Romans 14 because "anything goes".
Incoherence.
No, rather, Paul says the rule is that each man is to be fully convinced in his own mind.

Calvin is supposing an uncertainty that doesn't exist in Paul's argument. The meat-eater is certain that eating the meat is okay, and the vegetarian is convinced that not eating the meat is the right thing to do.

Yeah, Paul says "stick with your conviction--if you go beyond your conviction, you are sinning", which is what the "wavering" mentioned is about, which, when you do things with wavering, that is sin for which you are condemned proving you're not remaining "in Christ", because there's no condemnation for those "in Christ".

Furthermore, the second paragraph of his commentary is a non-sequitur, completely disregarding his first paragraph. In his first paragraph, he suggests that the man is unsure whether to eat the meat and Paul is critical of his uncertainty. In his second paragraph, the man is indeed certain about his choice, but his motives are questionable and charged with prevarication. This commentary is replete with 'high and mighty sounding rhetoric' but unfortunately Calvin made no effort to elucidate Paul's meaning. He simply used the text to make his own point rather than aiding the reader in understanding Paul's point.

1. Funny that Calvin is "wrong", but "wrong" in a way literally every Bible translator has ever been, because they've ALL translated the word as "doubt".
2. Actually, the commentary gives great reasons for seeing the word as "doubt"--again:

(435) The Greek isὁ διακρινόμενος, “he who discerns,” that is, a difference as to meats; so [Doddridge ], [Macknight ], and [Chalmers ] regard its meaning. [Beza ] has “qui dubitat — who doubts,” and so our version. The word used by [Calvin ] is dijudicat , which properly means to judge between things, to discern, but according to his explanation it means to judge in two ways, to be undecided.

The verb no doubt admits of these two meanings; it is used evidently in the sense of making or putting a difference, but only, as some say, in the active voice. There are indeed two places where it seems to have this meaning in its passive or middle form, James 2:4, and Judges 1:22. But as Paul has before used it in this Epistle, Romans 4:20, in the sense of hesitating, staggering, or doubting, we may reasonably suppose that it has this meaning here, and especially as in every place where he expresses the other idea, he has employed the active form. See 1 Corinthians 4:7; 1 Corinthians 11:29; etc. — Ed.
_______

Since it is raised in the commentary...

Romans 4
20No unbelief made him waver concerning the promise of God, but he grew strong in his faith as he gave glory to God,

Should the word be translated "contentious" there, too?

Of course not, because, not least, the theme is faith, and we see that the counter to the "wavering by reason of doubt" is "faith"--same as is the case in Romans 14:23 (the theme is faith, "each man must be fully convinced in his own mind", and the counter, the opposite, to the "wavering" is "faith", "he who wavers is condemned if he eats, because what ever does not come from faith is sin").

The person who is "wavering" in Romans 14:23 is in a form of unbelief in the sense that they are not doing the thing they are fully convinced is correct--that constitutes sin whereby they are "condemned", proving they're not remaining in Christ, where there is no condemnation, because remaining in Him is by keeping His commands.

 

[GracePeace]

It's surprising to hear this from you. Is this your way of concluding our discussion? I was under the impression that we were making progress together. Did you genuinely believe that I was seeking personal glory or the approval of others?

I am firmly convinced in my own mind that Paul employs the phrase "in Christ" to indicate those whom God has sanctified and will glorify in the end. And, by his definition, they will never fall away or be lost.

I asserted this without complete proof, I'll admit, but my view is based on a thorough examination of Paul's usage. Perhaps we can pursue this line of investigation by looking at other epistles, such as Ephesians and Colossians. (Our men's group is starting Colossians this week.)

1. No, I would find it hard to believe if you were not knowingly contorting the text, trying to make it pronounce the most unlikely of things, to protect your view--it really is that clear what the text is saying, and it really would take that much effort to try to cover it up and deny it.
2. This topic of this discussion is that those "in Christ" do not always remain in Christ. Your interaction with the material, in my view, hasn't bode well for your view.
3. No, I haven't changed a single view of mine--except, I did get the insight that the word translated "doubt" in Ro 14:23 is actually "waver" (as "unbelief" would make someone "waver" Ro 4:20--again, contrasted in the immediate context against faith).

 

[CadyandZoe]

Oh, really? Why is eating such a special activity that you are seemingly saying God doesn't care about it? Didn't God give laws about eating (not that we're held to them today)? So, why wouldn't God care today? Of course God cares--He cares about everything!
God spelled out which foods were clean, and which were unclean, and, today, what is unclean is what ever that individual considers to be unclean--he is free to walk in his conviction, but if he breaks his conviction, the food actually defiles him.

I raised this point earlier. The question of what foods are clean and which foods are unclean is a religious question. God declared certain foods to be "unclean" within the context of the Mt. Sinai Covenant and was unique to the Jewish praxis. And the questions at hand is a matter of participation in the Jewish praxis. Those who were ritually unclean were not allowed to participate in the rituals until they were declared "clean" again.

It is important to follow Paul's logic and allow him to define his terms. In this context, the one who "eats" is the person who is convinced in his mind that there is no prohibition against eating meat. Otherwise, logically speaking, he wouldn't eat it.

Coming to terms with Paul requires that we go all the way back to verse 2 of chapter 14, where Paul writes, "One person has faith that he may eat all things, but he who is weak eats vegetables only." The contrast is between "those who have faith" and "those who are weak," so what does Paul mean by "weak"?

Paul isn't talking about people who lack strength or willpower or those who are vacillating or indecisive. The question centers on the strength or weakness of the argument. A person is "weak" if his argument is weak. By contrast, if his beliefs are factually grounded and logically presented, then his faith is strong.

Paul believes that some people have accurate knowledge and information about our beliefs, while others have inaccurate knowledge and information. Some people have good reasons for their beliefs, while others have weaker reasons. Those with accurate information are considered "strong in faith," while those with inaccurate information are seen as "weak in faith."

The man who eats has a good reason to eat. The meat-eater's belief is strong. He knows that all foods are clean. Those who abstain from eating meat have a weaker reason for holding their beliefs. The point is, since Paul has defined "he who eats" as someone who has the stronger faith, he would never postulate a person who "eats in doubt", which would be a contradiction of terms. The one who eats the meat has faith, and the one who eats vegetables also has faith. The meat eater simply has better reasons for eating than the vegetarian has for not eating.

No, because Paul said even if the meat eater ate with faith, he was wrong to do it if his faith caused others to stumble, and, now, Paul delineates the sin of the one who eats without faith, eating while wavering about its correctness.

I don't see wavering in his argument. It isn't like Paul to mention an idea in his conclusion that he didn't raise earlier.

Nope, the issue is "what ever does not proceed from faith is sin" because "each man is to be fully convinced in his own mind" about what ever he does, just as it says, "Whether you eat or drink, or what ever you do [observe the day or not], do all for God's glory."

We go back to verse one to discover why Paul said that each man is to be fully convinced in his own mind. It has nothing to do with doubt or uncertainty.

Romans 14:1 Now accept the one who is weak in faith, but not for the purpose of passing judgment on his opinions.

His purpose is to explain how to accept the one who is weak in faith -- avoid passing judgment on his opinions. He develops his argument for an entire chapter, and then he concludes, "The faith which you have, have as your own conviction before God." In other words, Paul is saying, "If you want my advice about how to live among those who are weak in faith, own your conviction before God. The emphasis is on our standpoint. Look to God for approval and keep your focus on him.

 

[GracePeace]

I raised this point earlier. The question of what foods are clean and which foods are unclean is a religious question.

How is your personal opinion about the matter (ie, that eating foods is a "religious" question) relevant to the text, which says the one who "wavers" is condemned if he eats "because", it explains, "whatever does not proceed from faith is sin"?
The eating is sin because it is not done in faith, which, because "wavers" is in this context, renders the definition of the word "waver" clear and certain.

As if emptily asserting the issue falls into a category that doesn't exist in the text--the rule "each man is to be fully convinced in his own mind" is an all-encompassing rule--that, somehow, saves it from the plain meaning of the text? That's "bananas".

God declared certain foods to be "unclean" within the context of the Mt. Sinai Covenant and was unique to the Jewish praxis. And the questions at hand is a matter of participation in the Jewish praxis. Those who were ritually unclean were not allowed to participate in the rituals until they were declared "clean" again.

It is important to follow Paul's logic and allow him to define his terms.

That's what I'm doing. LOL

In this context, the one who "eats" is the person who is convinced in his mind that there is no prohibition against eating meat. Otherwise, logically speaking, he wouldn't eat it.

Incorrect. Again, you have to deny the reality that Christians sin in order to uphold your view. Christians do sin. This is what Paul refers to in 1 Co 8 and in Ro 14:23.

1 John 2
1My little children, I am writing these things to you so that you may not sin. But if anyone does sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous.

Why do we have an advocate with the Father? Because we never sin?

Why would he tell a believer not to practice his freedom in a way as could trip his brother up if it were not possible to trip his brother up?

Again, have you ever judged another believer? Does that make you a "false believer"? Are you sinless?

Coming to terms with Paul requires that we go all the way back to verse 2 of chapter 14,

Actually, coming to terms with this text "requires that we go all the way back" to Romans 1:17, where it states "God's righteousness is revealed from faith to faith", which is the reason why "each man must be fully convinced in his own mind" and "what ever does not proceed from faith is sin": when we are walking in faith, that is a revelation of God's righteousness, and is not the "works" that establish our own righteousness (Ro 10:3) or justify us (Ro 3:20) so that we do not boast in ourselves (Ro 3:27) but in God (Jer 9:24; Gal 6:14).

where Paul writes, "One person has faith that he may eat all things, but he who is weak eats vegetables only." The contrast is between "those who have faith" and "those who are weak," so what does Paul mean by "weak"?

Paul isn't talking about people who lack strength or willpower or those who are vacillating or indecisive. The question centers on the strength or weakness of the argument. A person is "weak" if his argument is weak. By contrast, if his beliefs are factually grounded and logically presented, then his faith is strong.

Paul believes that some people have accurate knowledge and information about our beliefs, while others have inaccurate knowledge and information. Some people have good reasons for their beliefs, while others have weaker reasons. Those with accurate information are considered "strong in faith," while those with inaccurate information are seen as "weak in faith."

The man who eats has a good reason to eat. The meat-eater's belief is strong. He knows that all foods are clean. Those who abstain from eating meat have a weaker reason for holding their beliefs. The point is, since Paul has defined "he who eats" as someone who has the stronger faith, he would never postulate a person who "eats in doubt", which would be a contradiction of terms. The one who eats the meat has faith, and the one who eats vegetables also has faith. The meat eater simply has better reasons for eating than the vegetarian has for not eating.

Nope, Paul's concern is not with shoving "correct knowledge" down peoples' pipes, his concern is that individuals be fully convinced in their own minds about what they're doing, and with parties who differ not passing judgment on one another, and with those whose convictions accord with the ultimate reality not accidentally causing others whose convictions do not entirely accord with the ultimate reality to go against their convictions, because those brothers are actually held accountable to walking in their own convictions ("each man is to be fully persuaded in his own mind... what ever does not proceed from faith is sin"), because that is how he loves and serves God until a time when God may choose to inform him otherwise (eg, Peter and his vision of eating unclean things--before then, nothing unclean had ever touched his lips), and you are not to dare to tamper with that.
There are different realities that are to be respected--eg, there is the greater reality all foods are clean, but there is also the reality of the individual who does not know and/or is not convinced (knowing a thing is acceptable and being convinced a thing is acceptable are two different things--we come to information from different backgrounds) of that greater reality, and the person is bound to walk freely in their conviction "as unto the Lord, and to "give thanks", even if and when it is not in accord with the ultimate reality.
This is why being a cause for the brother to go against his beliefs is causing him to sin--he is held liable to what he believes.

I don't see wavering in his argument. It isn't like Paul to mention an idea in his conclusion that he didn't raise earlier.

1. It's right there in Romans 14:23--it's the same word as was used of what Abraham did not do, by reason of unbelief, but, rather, he waxed strong in faith giving glory to God.
Also, here: "what ever you do do all for God's glory" belongs to "each man is to be fully convinced in his own mind", because when you do not do so, when you waver, it is by reason of doubt, and God's righteousness is revealed from faith to faith.
2. No one said Paul raised an issue at the conclusion that he hadn't raised earlier--the issue of wavering is the failure to meet the threshold of the requirement "each man is to be fully convinced in his own mind".

As always, you "do not see" what ever is inconvenient for your view--but any honest reader will see what is obvious.

We go back to verse one to discover why Paul said that each man is to be fully convinced in his own mind. It has nothing to do with doubt or uncertainty.

Romans 14:1 Now accept the one who is weak in faith, but not for the purpose of passing judgment on his opinions.

His purpose is to explain how to accept the one who is weak in faith -- avoid passing judgment on his opinions. He develops his argument for an entire chapter, and then he concludes, "The faith which you have, have as your own conviction before God." In other words, Paul is saying, "If you want my advice about how to live among those who are weak in faith, own your conviction before God. The emphasis is on our standpoint. Look to God for approval and keep your focus on him.

No, as previously explained, Paul is able to deal with, and is dealing with, overlapping issues--it's not this or that, but this and that (just briefly (not comprehensively): the one rule for all, how that looks in practice among other believers who differ, and what it means to break that rule).

 

[GracePeace]

Paul isn't talking about people who lack strength or willpower or those who are vacillating or indecisive.

Yeah, he is: διεκρίθη is contrasted against πίστεως.

Romans 4:20 V-AIP-3S
GRK: θεοῦ οὐ διεκρίθη τῇ ἀπιστίᾳ
NAS: of God, he did not waver in unbelief
KJV: He staggered not at
INT: of God not he doubted through unbelief

Romans 14:23 V-PPM-NMS
GRK: ὁ δὲ διακρινόμενος ἐὰν φάγῃ
NAS: But he who doubts is condemned if
KJV: And he that doubteth is damned if
INT: he who however doubts if he eats

Romans 14
23But the one who doubts is condemned if he eats, because his eating is not from faith; and whatever is not from faith is sin.

Romans 4:21 V-APP-NMS
GRK: καὶ πληροφορηθεὶς ὅτι ὃ
NAS: and being fully assured that what
KJV: And being fully persuaded that, what
INT: and having been fully assured that what

Romans 14:5 V-PMM/P-3S
GRK: ἰδίῳ νοῒ πληροφορείσθω
NAS: [alike]. Each person must be fully convinced in his own
KJV: every man be fully persuaded in
INT: own mind let be fully assured

"Coincidence", I'm sure: the same word to describe the full persuasion Abraham had is the one used to describe the full persuasion we are to have in our actions.

So, "Abraham did not waver in unbelief but waxed strong in faith giving glory to God being fully persuaded..."--just as we are not to do things we are wavering about, but only those things we are fully convinced are correct, as unto the Lord, giving thanks, unto God's glorification, and falling short of this, what ever does not proceed from faith, but from doubt and wavering, is called sin, whereby one brings condemnation on oneself, proving that they're not remaining in Christ, where there is no condemnation, because remaining in Christ is by keeping His Word and obeying His commands.

It couldn't be clearer.

 

[GracePeace]

Yeah, he is: διεκρίθη is contrasted against πίστεως.

Romans 4:20 V-AIP-3S
GRK: θεοῦ οὐ διεκρίθη τῇ ἀπιστίᾳ
NAS: of God, he did not waver in unbelief
KJV: He staggered not at
INT: of God not he doubted through unbelief

Romans 14:23 V-PPM-NMS
GRK: ὁ δὲ διακρινόμενος ἐὰν φάγῃ
NAS: But he who doubts is condemned if
KJV: And he that doubteth is damned if
INT: he who however doubts if he eats

Romans 14
23But the one who doubts is condemned if he eats, because his eating is not from faith; and whatever is not from faith is sin.

Romans 4:21 V-APP-NMS
GRK: καὶ πληροφορηθεὶς ὅτι ὃ
NAS: and being fully assured that what
KJV: And being fully persuaded that, what
INT: and having been fully assured that what

Romans 14:5 V-PMM/P-3S
GRK: ἰδίῳ νοῒ πληροφορείσθω
NAS: [alike]. Each person must be fully convinced in his own
KJV: every man be fully persuaded in
INT: own mind let be fully assured

"Coincidence", I'm sure: the same word to describe the full persuasion Abraham had is the one used to describe the full persuasion we are to have in our actions.

So, "Abraham did not waver in unbelief but waxed strong in faith giving glory to God being fully persuaded..."--just as we are not to do things we are wavering about, but only those things we are fully convinced are correct, as unto the Lord, giving thanks, unto God's glorification, and falling short of this, what ever does not proceed from faith, but from doubt and wavering, is called sin, whereby one brings condemnation on oneself, proving that they're not remaining in Christ, where there is no condemnation, because remaining in Christ is by keeping His Word and obeying His commands.

It couldn't be clearer.

@CadyandZoe The rule is "let each man be fully convinced in his own mind": this is a rule for individuals to walk by.

Logically, if God has a rule for individuals, what is it called if an individual breaks it? "Sin"! "Incidentally", Ro 14:23 says exactly that--"what ever does not proceed from faith [doing any act, even eating, with wavering of doubt] is sin".

 

[GracePeace]

Quote me, where that can even be suggested... @GracePeace

Here's just one that happened recently: you said...

Look at your verse like this....

"To HIM">...... it is sin.

Not to God.

See that?

So, this verse is talking about getting under self inflicted condemnation... guilt tripping, so, to HIM that is what is happening.
"HIM" sees it as "sin"., and that is THEIR Condemnation.

God doesn't see it like that, but "HIM" does, and that is why millions of "HIMS" and "HERS" "confess it".

See "confession" is "how to remove the self condemnation". "How to get out of the guilt trip".

= Oh i know...(the confused believer thinks)......"I'll do what i always do.. .i'll confess it", and then i'll start to FEEL BETTER, and by Tomorrow afternoon, i wont even remember it.

See that reader?
That is all "confessing sin" does............nothing more.
Its a way of dealing with the CONSCIENCE, .. its a way of soothing it.........until you do it again... whatever it is.

So, the issue isn't the deed, the issue is not understanding How God sees it, so that by this revelation, you can see it the same way, and that is your FREEDOM, finally found.

Here it is..

"There is now no condemnation to those who are IN CHRIST".

"Where sin abounds, Grace more abounds".

"God hath made Jesus to be SIN....for US"... so that we can be free from sin and from Condemnation.

.................................."Behold, how does God see my sin," ?????????????????

A.) ON CHRIST, forever. Paid...in FULL...for ETERNITY.

See the CROSS of CHRIST for the update, in case you haven't realized it yet, Reader.
And if your Pope, Pastor, Bishop, Minister, or "other" can not explain to you what i just did, .. if they dont believe it, then find another church where the Minister, understands The Grace of God, as The Cross of Christ.

I said...

Nope.

Luke 12
47And that slave who knew his master’s will and did not get ready or act in accordance with his will, will receive many blows, 48but the one who did not know it, and committed acts deserving of [ag]a beating, will receive only a few blows. From everyone who has been given much, much will be demanded; and to whom they entrusted much, of him they will ask all the more.

...you retorted...

Christians are not "slaves".

Christians are "Sons / Daughters" of God.

Christians are..

"Heirs of God"
"Joint Heirs with Jesus"
"Seated in Heavenly Places "IN CHRIST"

CHRISTians, are "The Temple of the Holy Spirit."

God is not "Master"... God is "Heavenly Father".. to the born again.

Christians are the "children of God" and the "Body of Christ".....not slaves.

That is not a "slave and master situation" so, dont use symbolic verses to try to deny CHRISTianity., and never belong to a Cult that teaches you to do that.. Reader.

...but...

Oops, you don't know the Greek!
It's the same word as Paul uses to describe himself!

Luke 12:47 N-NMS
GRK: δὲ ὁ δοῦλος ὁ γνοὺς
NAS: And that slave who knew his master's
KJV: And that servant, which knew
INT: moreover servant who having known

Romans 1:1 N-NMS
GRK: ΠΑΥΛΟΣ δοῦλος Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ
NAS: Paul, a bond-servant of Christ Jesus,
KJV: Paul, a servant of Jesus Christ,
INT: Paul servant of Jesus Christ

You stopped engaging because you had no way of defending your indefensible incoherence--but, it seems, you didn't want admit you were in error. If you can't be trusted to admit error in such a small matter, you can't be trusted to admit error in deeper matters--you're not an honest interlocutor.

 

[GracePeace]

It seems like we should focus on Romans 14:23.

Romans 14
23But whoever has doubts is condemned if he eats,
because the eating is not from faith.
For whatever does not proceed from faith is sin.

1. Does Paul describe a sin?
2a. If so, is the reasoning given for it being a sin "what ever does not proceed from faith"?
2b. If so, how are you denying that the "wavers"/"doubts" (διεκρίθη) is the "what ever does not proceed from faith"?
3. Do you deny that "what ever does not proceed from faith is sin" is, "definitionally", nothing other than the breaking of the rule previously established ("let each man be fully convinced in his own mind")?

 

[GracePeace]

@CadyandZoe Dr. Douglas Moo, Reformed (Calvinist) New Testament Scholar, on Romans 14:

Paul here asserts a general theological principle. But it is necessary to describe accurately just what that principle is.
Most important is to realize that “faith” here almost certainly has the same meaning that it has elsewhere in this chapter (vv. 1, 22): “conviction” stemming from one’s faith in Christ.
Paul is not, then, claiming that any act that does not arise out of a basic trust and dependency on Christ is sinful, true as that may be. What he here labels “sin,” rather, is any act that does not match our sincerely held convictions about what our Christian faith allows us to do and prohibits us from doing.
“For a Christian not a single decision and action can be good which he does not think he can justify on the ground of his Christian conviction and his liberty before God in Christ.”
Violation of the dictates of the conscience, even when the conscience does not conform perfectly with God’s will, is sinful. And we must remember that Paul cites this theological point to buttress his exhortation of the “strong.” The “strong,” he is suggesting, should not force the “weak” to eat meat, or drink wine, or ignore the Sabbath, when the “weak” are not yet convinced that their faith in Christ allows them to do so. For to do so would be to force them into sin, to put a “stumbling” block in their way (cf. vv. 13, 20-21). First, their faith must be strengthened, their consciences enlightened; and then they can follow the “strong” in exercising Christian liberty together.11

Douglas Moo has published many Biblical Greek resources, teaching Biblical Greek, for decades. He is renowned. Are you saying you are going to teach John Calvin and Douglas Moo about the Greek, and how to properly understand the section? How is it that these renowned teachers agree with me on the matter, and not with you?

Is it possible they're just going with the plain reading, like I am?

 

[Wynona]

How did the Christian, the justified, become condemned?
By not abiding in Christ.
How?
By not keeping God's commands (1 Jn 3:23,24).

Romans 1:17 says "God's righteousness is revealed from faith to faith", thus the Christian, who is to reveal God's righteousness (not his own), is, in all his actions, to be "fully convinced in his own mind" (Romans 14:5)--and, because this is true, if the Christian does what he doubts is correct before the Lord, it is sin (not the revelation of God's righteousness) whereby the Christian is condemned (Romans 14:23).

I can usually trace back to the moment I stumbled and stopped walking in the Spirit. For example, two days ago, the doubtful action was a bunch of crazy Youtube videos about cultural gender wars. I knew watching them would get me out of focus. It did and I think my "setting my mind on things above" has been shaken since then.

Now its time to ask God for help and get back on track

 

[GracePeace]

I can usually trace back to the moment I stumbled and stopped walking in the Spirit. For example, two days ago, the doubtful action was a bunch of crazy Youtube videos about cultural gender wars. I knew watching them would get me out of focus. It did and I think my "setting my mind on things above" has been shaken since then.

Now its time to ask God for help and get back on track

Yes, you are free to walk in your convictions "as unto the Lord", and to "give thanks" as you glorify the Lord.

 

[Peterlag]

Since I like staying on topic, we can start on topic: how do you resolve the apparent tension between Romans 8:1 and 14:23?

My solution is to just take some basic truths into account:
1. There is no condemnation for those "in Christ" Ro 8:1
2. Believers who break the rule of faith are condemned Ro 14:23
3. Remaining "in Christ" is by keeping Christ's commands Jn 15:4-10; 1 Jn 3:23,24
4. Children are warned to remain 1 Jn 2:28, abstain from idolatry 1 Jn 5:21
5. Sinning is idolatry Ep 5:5
6. Each man is to be fully convinced in his own mind Ro 14:6
7. Disobeying #6, acting in doubt, is sin Ro 14:23

3. Remaining in Christ is by keeping Christ's commands Jn 15:4-10; 1 Jn 3:23,24​

Solution: Instances of sin are instances of not remaining in Christ.

I do not keep his commandments because I want to dwell in him nor is it how to dwell in him. I dwell in him which is why I keep his commandments.

24 And he that keepeth his commandments dwelleth in him, and he in him. And hereby we know that he abideth in us, by the Spirit which he hath given us.

 

[Behold]

You stopped engaging because you had no way of defending your indefensible incoherence-.

I stopped coming to the Thread because i finished what i was doing here.

 

[GracePeace]

I stopped coming to the Thread because i finished what i was doing here.

Oh, sorry, it just happened to coincide with your ignorance being debunked.
My mistake.