Offered for discussion:

Ro 14:1. Him that is weak in the faith receive ye. What was the nature of the weakness? Scholars differ dramatically on the root of the weakness in the lives of the Roman believers. But whatever were the particular religious scruples which caused differences between them, the basic problem was that some of the believers had not grasped the great truths Paul has just expounded in his epistle. Those who are weak in the faith were Christians who did not have full understanding that salvation is the free gift of God and that the believer faces no condemnation whatever because of the atonement of Christ. Paul enjoyed his Christian liberty to the fullest and was totally emancipated from foolish superstitions and unbiblical taboos. Some of the Romans, however, were yet clinging to these taboos for they did not fully accept the doctrine of justification by faith alone. In relation to this, Paul addresses both those living freely in Christ and those in Christ who are still bound by fleshly legalism. The strong who had internalized Bible doctrine, were to receive the weak, those who did not fully rest in the grace of God. But they were not to argue with them over secondary points of difference.
2-3 For one believeth that he may eat all things: another, who is weak, eateth herbs. Let not him that eateth despise him...and let not him which eateth not judge him. So that he may be easily understood, Paul immediately advances two concrete examples of the weak in faith verses the strong in faith. What is the proper diet for the seperated Christian? Some believers (whom Paul characterizes as the weak in faith), in order to avoid eating the flesh of animals that had been consecrated to pagan gods (cf. Dan 1:8), refused to eat anything but vegetables. Converts from heathenism would be especially sensitive to the eating of such meat. Paul's contention is that the meat itself is not destroyed of nutritional value because it was offered to idols. Since these idols have no validity before God, there is no reason not to partake of this meat. However, he counsels those who do eat, not to despise those who do not. Those who feel no compelling reason not to eat are to refrain from ridiculing those who have definite scruples against meat. The reason is God has received this brother who is weak in the faith and we must as well.
4. Who art thou that judgest another man's servant? Essentially addressing the weak in faith, Paul draws a principle which is found many times in Scripture (cf. Mt 7:1; Lk 6:37: 1 Cor 4:3ff). Each Christian is the property of God and we are not in a position to see the inner motives of others. God's jurisdiction over all believers is not to be infringed upon by either those who are weak or those who are strong. God is judge and not we ourselves.
5-6. A second concrete example is now given of the differences between those who have laid hold on the truths of God's Word and those who tenaciously cling to some legalistic practice. It is the keeping or honoring of certain days. One man esteemeth one day above another: another esteemeth every day. Some of the brethern, those who are weak, pick out a certain day and proclaim it holy, more holy than other days. Those who, like Paul, understand the liberty we have in Christ Jesus, do not observe days but rather serve and worship Him consistently seven days a week. Paul clearly aligns himself with those who are seven-day-a-week Christians, those who view one hundred percent of their income as holy to the Lord, not just one-tenth. But he says that even though believers disagree with regard to this issue, they must respect the opinion of others for the motive of both the weak and the strong is to honor God with thanksgiving.

Woodrow Michael Kroll, Th.D. General Director and Bible teacher, Back to the Bible B.A., Barrington College; M.Div., Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary; Th.M., Th.D., Geneva Theological Seminary. Additional graduate study at Harvard Divinity School; Princeton Theological Seminary; the University of Strasbourg (France).

The conclusion is this;

It is a sin for a believer to believe that it is wrong for another believer to eat anything they choose as well as it being a sin for a believer to believe it is wrong for another believer to abstain from certain foods.

The same goes for declaring certain days more holy than others. It is not a sin personally to esteem one day above another, nor to esteem all days the same. It would be a sin to teach others your own personal views on these matters as though they are God's views and that condemnation will follow if one does not comply one way or the other. According to God's Word it is a personal matter which holds no eternal value nor condemnation one way or the other.

If one wants to hold the Sabbath as a holier day than Sunday, then God Bless them. But when it becomes sinful is when this person declares that a day MUST be observed or consequences will follow from God or vise-versa. The Word declares that each believer is free to observe days and food as they want. The Word does distinguish that those who do abstain and hold special days as holy are those who are weak in the faith and have not yet studied the meat of the Word enough yet to have grasped the full meaning of Grace.

God Bless!

 

But Steaver what would you say about sunday, is that a special holy day at all??

 

For me it is not a special "holy day". It is a day many chose to set aside for assembly with saints in corporate worship and study and for family and rest. I use Sunday for this myself. If one choses another day for this then God bless them as well. I strive to honor every day as keeping it holy before the Lord. Some believe they can live like the devil six days as long as they honor God the seventh. Shame on them!

God Bless!

 

What do you believe would be the definition of "passing judgment"?

If it is as you say "condemning, mocking" then that is not Ok because that is not "accepting your brother who is weak in the faith".

But wouldn't it be a good thing to persuade and teach a weak brother the truth so that weak brother could become a strong brother in faith and then go on to help teach other weak brothers and so on? Without any ridicule of course.

God Bless!

 

I agree we should not be condemning or mocking to fellow believers, but that does not mean we cannot speak out on what the Bible says and on departures from it.

You seem to always take the position that no one should criticize any theology here. I don't know why you hang around because that is basically all you seem to do - try to stifle anyone speaking out against departures from the Bible.

Yes, there are some things that are not clear and we can disagree on -- but there is much more that is clear and that is doctrinal, and departure from it needs to be addressed. And sometimes, people just want discussion.

You make a false equivalency between pointing out error and judging people. We are told to judge teachings and doctrines according to God's word, and that is what many of us do here.

 

2-3 For one believeth that he may eat all things: another, who is weak, eateth herbs. Let not him that eateth despise him...and let not him which eateth not judge him.

This is a pretty reasonable post from Steaver.

But the issue is even more glaring.

In Acts 15 the Jerusalem council instructed that Gentiles should pay attention to the Word of God - but particularly emphasized a few moral rules and the Romans 14 idea of NOT eating meat offerred to idols!!

Paul is actually arguing AGAINST the Acts 15 decision here and in 1Cor 8 and in 1Cor 10. This issue of eating meat offerred to idols kept coming up.

Paul said THAT HE WOULD EAT MEAT NO MORE if that is what it took to keep from offending those who believed AS the Council instructed - that it was wrong to eat meat offerred to idols.

Many times Romans 14 is trivialized as if it as nothing to do with this raging debate that went on in the Gentile churches during the first century.

In Christ,

Bob

 

I agree that pointless criticism and mocking is not good. There should be sane discussion.

I did get too personal in my criticism of you in that post. I apologize, Tragic_Pizza.

 

13 Therefore, if food causes my brother to stumble, I will never eat meat again, so that I will not cause my brother to stumble

This is not an OT Jewish concept. Rather it is the case of Jews eating meat that Gentile feel squeemish about since it was offerred to idols. (The very thing that Acts 15 instructed the Gentiles to avoid).

In Christ,

Bob

 

TP, don't you know by now that you can't, "Fight City Hall."

Remember *you* are the one on the outside looking in..like a fly...one minute your here and the next you could be 'splattered' by a fly swatter! PING!! ...goodbye cruel world!

MEE

 

I got your report Tragic. Here is what one of your last posts said:

"without judging" Are you not judging? I didn't even say anything. But you are the one judging. The entire thread, BTW, is about mocking or ridiculing--or more to the point about making a joke concerning the stand of another's odd belief, as the OP did on the other thread. So, in reality, you don't know my motive because I didn't not say anything did I?

 

Why do you get so personal and assume everything is against you personally. You made a judgment--something you said one should not do--and your judgment was wrong. Sure I answered your post, but I didn't answer you, and I didn't say anything about you personally. The icons were in reference to the topic, not to a person. And I believe that most people can see that. Even your post mentioned ridiculing and mocking. I referred to that via icons, and you took needless objection. You made a bad judgement call. You judged when you had no motive, and no way of knowing the motive of the person posting. You were clearly in the wrong to do so.
DHK