Was Paul in doubt about things?

[donfriesen1]

The key to understanding Ro14,15.1-7 is in the phrase 'doubtful things'. 14.1 says, Receive one who is weak in the faith, but not to disputes over doubtful things. Without the key we are left wondering why Paul teaches as he does, because, when has Paul ever been in doubt about anything? Without the key to understanding we are left wondering why the Apostle doesn't just give authoritative instructions on the topics shown here, when he has done so elsewhere and could have done so here also. Instead of laying down the law on these topics, he says, v5 Let each be fully convinced in his own mind. What?... when does any Apostle say 'make up your own mind' on doctrine? Why doesn't he lay down the law instead of saying 'make up your own mind'?

By saying 'doubtful things', in the plural, Paul opens the possibility that he addresses more here than just the topics he speaks of in these chapters; that he is portraying a principle which can also be applied elsewhere.

Paul is a knowledgeable scholar of the things of the OT, but not just of raw facts. He knows how they relate to the Kingdom shown in the NT. He does not usually appear to have many doubts on things, like how days and foods, etc., fit in; showing this by how he usually teaches them: his writings on days and food found elsewhere in the NT on the topics he addresses in Ro 14,15. Though knowing he has authoritatively taught others elsewhere on the topics, he still calls them 'doubtful things' here. Why does he?

The reasons are from the way they are derived. While reading the OT scriptures, the only Word of Truth he possesses, we can see that some of what he teaches is deduced. (For example, he writes on Types and Shadows. Where is there an OT verse saying that anything there is a Type and Shadow? Yet Paul says it is. Paul has figured out, deduced, that there are Types and Shadows. Either Types and Shadows are a deduced revelation by Paul or it is something he was shown by the Lord, or most likely both at once.) Because what he knows and teaches from the OT is 'deduced knowledge', he calls this knowledge a 'doubtful thing', because, someone else reading the same thing may rightly deduce something other than he. Is that why he calls the Ro 14,15 topics 'doubtful things', because different people reading the same thing deduce or conclude different things? Why else would he say it here, but for that reason, when he is shown authoritatively teaching, laying down the law on these subjects in other places in the NT?

It is interesting to note that, though Paul says these with doubtful views of days and food should be received, he does call them weak in the faith, in the first sentence. Why not instruct those weak in the faith to make them strong in the faith? Does Paul choose not to?

1Co 11.2-16, among other scripture, brings many conflicting thoughts deduced from it, because of how it is written by Paul. Scholars dispute the contextual sense, syntactical items, dispute whether it is one continuous argument or not, dispute whether statements are rhetorical questions, question the relevance of its occasional nature, question the significance of the headship structure, and question who are the angels. Any doctrine derived from it could then fit into this category of 'doubtful things'. Paul teaches the Romans 'not to despise', 'not to judge', 'to receive' and not to 'show contempt' of those who hold to 'doubtful things'. But often in Apostolic circles any Apostolic who holds views of 1Co 11 which don't align with the majority or long-held views are maligned and shunned, viewed with suspicion, even without any attempts to show the other's their error, if so - contrary to what Paul says of despising or judging or showing contempt or not receiving. This should not be, Paul teaches; but sadly, those who present scriptural views not held by the majority are set aside in mind, if not in other practical ways, by some other Apostolics. They are denied the olive branch or right-hand that true fellowship normally brings.

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by donfriesen1

Because what he knows and teaches from the OT is 'deduced knowledge', he calls this knowledge a 'doubtful thing', because, someone else reading the same thing may rightly deduce something other than he.

Wrong.

First, It is not established at all that "BECAUSE what he knows and teaches from the OT is deduced knowledge" THEREFORE "he calls this knowledge a doubtful thing".

Second, you said someone reading the same thing may RIGHTLY deduce something other than he (did). Deduction is a part of logic. If something can be RIGHTLY deduced from a text, then anyone else RIGHTLY deducing from the text will not deduce the opposite or contrary thing. They may deduce something IN ADDITION to, or something else ALONGSIDE of, what was RIGHTLY deduced, but it cannot be contrary or mutually exclusive.

Third, the fact that two people come to two different conclusions about the meaning or application of a text does NOT mean the text or subject matter is a "doubtful thing". If that were the case, then the entire Bible and all revealed truth is a "doubtful thing".

Therefore, your entire chain of reasoning and your conclusions are incorrect, beginning as they do with an erroneous foundation.

Doubtful things, as used by the apostle in Romans 14, are things that are not addressed in Scripture. The examples he gives, such as vegetarianism and special days with meaning to the individual (not commanded or addressed in Scripture), are not addressed in Scripture, they are not commanded, they were not taught by Jesus, they are not part of the apostolic tradition or "ordinances". They are matters of personal preference. Certain believers were "weak in the faith" and therefore had personal convictions about these things. They were not to be forced into a conformity with others on those subjects, precisely because they were "doubtful things", that is, things about which people could argue till the cows came home and yet still not be able to point to any sure word of God on the subject. The doubtfulness of the things is not due simply to people having different opinions, but is rather due to the things themselves being entirely based upon and grounded in personal opinion rather than Scripture or the teaching of Christ.

[donfriesen1]

Originally Posted by Esaias

Wrong.

First, It is not established at all that "BECAUSE what he knows and teaches from the OT is deduced knowledge" THEREFORE "he calls this knowledge a doubtful thing".

Second, you said someone reading the same thing may RIGHTLY deduce something other than he (did). Deduction is a part of logic. If something can be RIGHTLY deduced from a text, then anyone else RIGHTLY deducing from the text will not deduce the opposite or contrary thing. They may deduce something IN ADDITION to, or something else ALONGSIDE of, what was RIGHTLY deduced, but it cannot be contrary or mutually exclusive.

Third, the fact that two people come to two different conclusions about the meaning or application of a text does NOT mean the text or subject matter is a "doubtful thing". If that were the case, then the entire Bible and all revealed truth is a "doubtful thing".

Therefore, your entire chain of reasoning and your conclusions are incorrect, beginning as they do with an erroneous foundation.

Doubtful things, as used by the apostle in Romans 14, are things that are not addressed in Scripture. The examples he gives, such as vegetarianism and special days with meaning to the individual (not commanded or addressed in Scripture), are not addressed in Scripture, they are not commanded, they were not taught by Jesus, they are not part of the apostolic tradition or "ordinances". They are matters of personal preference. Certain believers were "weak in the faith" and therefore had personal convictions about these things. They were not to be forced into a conformity with others on those subjects, precisely because they were "doubtful things", that is, things about which people could argue till the cows came home and yet still not be able to point to any sure word of God on the subject. The doubtfulness of the things is not due simply to people having different opinions, but is rather due to the things themselves being entirely based upon and grounded in personal opinion rather than Scripture or the teaching of Christ.

Thx for replying. Any thread getting a response from you is blest by your vast knowledge and insights.

You said something which showed you thought of something which I hadn't - that Paul referred to secular days and foods in a secular sense/practises. 1) Did I see your comments right, that you thought these were both secular things Paul refers to?

If so, you deduce differently than I. I deduce, because Paul is an ex-Jewish rabbi and now a Christian apostle, that he writes about religious things from the law of Moses, which some Christians readers and interpretters of the OT (the only scriptures they had) erroneously held onto, whether as a Jew or Gentile. 2) Do we thus mutually point to all the points you made in your second point?

3) How can it be determined which of our opposing deductions is correct? Is it the religious or secular he refers to?

4) Can you provide any proofs to show support for your secularity premise? Plz do so.

[Evang.Benincasa]

Romans 14:1 Is Paul telling the church family to tolerate those new followers who have opinions that aren't Biblical. It's dealing with the neophyte who needs assistance to carry on to maturity in Christ. Basically the chapter is asking those whose faith is strong to help those who are weak. The elder saint (male or female) understands the deep things of the Gospel, understanding soteriology how it works. We are not to place stumbling blocks before a new saint in Christ. Therefore instead of putting them on full blast, because they hold a certain belief on a subject, we are to trust Jesus Christ's abilities to Shepard them. Because Romans 14:4 explains that the Lord is guiding His own servant. We who are Spiritual should be able to not hinder the babe in Christ. As stomping out the fire the Lord Jesus Christ has lit in their soul. Paul is not having doubts, but is asking the elder saints to not to get into a hair pulling contests with new converts. Paul is actually explaining how not to have a millstone around our necks.

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by Evang.Benincasa

Romans 14:1 Is Paul telling the church family to tolerate those new followers who have opinions that aren't Biblical. It's dealing with the neophyte who needs assistance to carry on to maturity in Christ. Basically the chapter is asking those whose faith is strong to help those who are weak. The elder saint (male or female) understands the deep things of the Gospel, understanding soteriology how it works. We are not to place stumbling blocks before a new saint in Christ. Therefore instead of putting them on full blast, because they hold a certain belief on a subject, we are to trust Jesus Christ's abilities to Shepard them. Because Romans 14:4 explains that the Lord is guiding His own servant. We who are Spiritual should be able to not hinder the babe in Christ. As stomping out the fire the Lord Jesus Christ has lit in their soul. Paul is not having doubts, but is asking the elder saints to not to get into a hair pulling contests with new converts. Paul is actually explaining how not to have a millstone around our necks.

[donfriesen1]

Originally Posted by Evang.Benincasa

Romans 14:1 Is Paul telling the church family to tolerate those new followers who have opinions that aren't Biblical. It's dealing with the neophyte who needs assistance to carry on to maturity in Christ. Basically the chapter is asking those whose faith is strong to help those who are weak. The elder saint (male or female) understands the deep things of the Gospel, understanding soteriology how it works. We are not to place stumbling blocks before a new saint in Christ. Therefore instead of putting them on full blast, because they hold a certain belief on a subject, we are to trust Jesus Christ's abilities to Shepard them. Because Romans 14:4 explains that the Lord is guiding His own servant. We who are Spiritual should be able to not hinder the babe in Christ. As stomping out the fire the Lord Jesus Christ has lit in their soul. Paul is not having doubts, but is asking the elder saints to not to get into a hair pulling contests with new converts. Paul is actually explaining how not to have a millstone around our necks.

Agreed, and expressing my thoughts also.

I'll wait to hear from you about your thoughts on 'doubtful things', that he is portraying a principle which can also be applied elsewhere.

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by donfriesen1

Agreed, and expressing my thoughts also.

I'll wait to hear from you about your thoughts on 'doubtful things', that he is portraying a principle which can also be applied elsewhere.

I already gave you my thoughts.

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by donfriesen1

You said something which showed you thought of something which I hadn't - that Paul referred to secular days and foods in a secular sense/practises. 1) Did I see your comments right, that you thought these were both secular things Paul refers to?

The subject has to do with both Jews and Greeks/Gentiles being in one fellowship. Most of those Jews had a Pharisaic background, which enjoined several religious beliefs:

1. Fasting twice a week (see for example Luke 18:12).
2. Refusing to eat any meat prepared by a Gentile (because it may have been offered in sacrifice to idols, as well as just the general "uncleanness" of Gentiles which defiled the foods they had, to even enter a Gentile's house would expose them to "uncleanness" and defile them, according to their belief (see for example Acts 11:3). And so many of them would simply eat "herbs" while outside of Judea, or at least while with Gentiles.

Many of these Jewish Christians still had these traditions, which was creating conflict in the assembly. The church is urged by Paul to receive one another and not to judge one another about people's scruples when it came to such things. They are "doubtful things" because there is no command of God or teaching of Christ dealing with such specific issues.

If so, you deduce differently than I. I deduce, because Paul is an ex-Jewish rabbi and now a Christian apostle, that he writes about religious things from the law of Moses, which some Christians readers and interpreters of the OT (the only scriptures they had) erroneously held onto, whether as a Jew or Gentile. 2) Do we thus mutually point to all the points you made in your second point?

The plain statements of God's word are not "doubtful things", even if there are differences of opinion in regards to application. The Law of God was always meant to be studied, interpreted, and applied (see for example Deuteronomy 16:18, Deuteronomy 25:1, 1 Corinthians 5:12). But doubtful disputations (disputes about things which are not written and for which there is no Scriptural guidance, such as man-made fast days, man-made religious traditions, man-made standards of fellowship, etc) are not things that should cause contention.

Rather, the strong ought to bear the weak, that is, those who are strong in the faith, being educated in the Word of God and the doctrine of Christ, should be patient with those who are not yet so educated and who are still clinging to various man-made traditions. Assuming of course those man-made traditions are not themselves contrary to the Word of God. In that case, it is no longer a matter of a doubtful dispute, but a matter of the Word, and the Word must stand. So for example when ex-Pharisees who had become Christians demanded that Greeks must be circumcised in order to be Christians, they were soundly rebuked, not tolerated.

3) How can it be determined which of our opposing deductions is correct? Is it the religious or secular he refers to?

I did not say "secular", so that is not really in view. Although the principle would still apply, if a believer thinks some secular tradition or activity is somehow an act of service to God, even though it is not commanded by Scripture, such a person should be tolerated and not have stumbling blocks thrown in their way.

In any event, whenever two opinions are compared, to determine which is correct requires an examination of each, in light of Scripture, the facts, reason, etc. If one is refuted by Scripture, the facts of the case, and reason, then obviously it is rejected. If neither can be directly or irrefutably refuted, then it is a matter of determining which is the more likely, which is the more reasonable, which is the more Biblical, which reflects the known character and will of God more, and/or which reflects the known will and character of the person or persons or culture that produced the text under discussion.

4) Can you provide any proofs to show support for your secularity premise? Plz do so.

Again, it isn't about "secularity". It is primarily about religious traditions of Pharisees (and traditions of Greeks) and other religious opinions which are not founded on clear statements of Scripture, but which instead are in essence opinions of men and religious groups. People who hold to such scruples hold them sincerely, as unto the Lord, and people who don't likewise reject them "unto the Lord". We are to receive one another into fellowship. We are not to receive them into fellowship (or refuse to do so) on the basis of such doubtful disputations, nor are we to put stumbling blocks in front of people. Thus the brother who for whatever reason is vegetarian (as an act of worship to the Lord) should not be forced to endure other brethren shoving steaks and fried chicken in their face. Nor should a brother who has no problem eating meat be forced to endure censure or shaming or condemnation at the hands of vegetarian brethren.

The epistle to the Romans is focused almost entirely about the Judean and Greek believers coming together in one body as one people. It is all about refuting Pharisaic beliefs about their superiority over Greeks, as well as refuting Greek assumptions of "replacement theology" over against the Judeans. It is about tearing down the middle wall of partition between the two. Therefore the doubtful disputations are most certainly in keeping with the same theme. Since we know the very things mentioned (esteeming one day above another vs esteeming every day alike, eating meat vs eating only herbs) are in fact points of contention between Judean and Greek believers in the first century, it is reasonable to believe that is, in fact, what is being discussed.

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by Esaias

The subject has to do with both Jews and Greeks/Gentiles being in one fellowship. Most of those Jews had a Pharisaic background, which enjoined several religious beliefs:

1. Fasting twice a week (see for example Luke 18:12).
2. Refusing to eat any meat prepared by a Gentile (because it may have been offered in sacrifice to idols, as well as just the general "uncleanness" of Gentiles which defiled the foods they had, to even enter a Gentile's house would expose them to "uncleanness" and defile them, according to their belief (see for example Acts 11:3). And so many of them would simply eat "herbs" while outside of Judea, or at least while with Gentiles.

Many of these Jewish Christians still had these traditions, which was creating conflict in the assembly. The church is urged by Paul to receive one another and not to judge one another about people's scruples when it came to such things. They are "doubtful things" because there is no command of God or teaching of Christ dealing with such specific issues.



The plain statements of God's word are not "doubtful things", even if there are differences of opinion in regards to application. The Law of God was always meant to be studied, interpreted, and applied (see for example Deuteronomy 16:18, Deuteronomy 25:1, 1 Corinthians 5:12). But doubtful disputations (disputes about things which are not written and for which there is no Scriptural guidance, such as man-made fast days, man-made religious traditions, man-made standards of fellowship, etc) are not things that should cause contention.

Rather, the strong ought to bear the weak, that is, those who are strong in the faith, being educated in the Word of God and the doctrine of Christ, should be patient with those who are not yet so educated and who are still clinging to various man-made traditions. Assuming of course those man-made traditions are not themselves contrary to the Word of God. In that case, it is no longer a matter of a doubtful dispute, but a matter of the Word, and the Word must stand. So for example when ex-Pharisees who had become Christians demanded that Greeks must be circumcised in order to be Christians, they were soundly rebuked, not tolerated.




I did not say "secular", so that is not really in view. Although the principle would still apply, if a believer thinks some secular tradition or activity is somehow an act of service to God, even though it is not commanded by Scripture, such a person should be tolerated and not have stumbling blocks thrown in their way.

In any event, whenever two opinions are compared, to determine which is correct requires an examination of each, in light of Scripture, the facts, reason, etc. If one is refuted by Scripture, the facts of the case, and reason, then obviously it is rejected. If neither can be directly or irrefutably refuted, then it is a matter of determining which is the more likely, which is the more reasonable, which is the more Biblical, which reflects the known character and will of God more, and/or which reflects the known will and character of the person or persons or culture that produced the text under discussion.



Again, it isn't about "secularity". It is primarily about religious traditions of Pharisees (and traditions of Greeks) and other religious opinions which are not founded on clear statements of Scripture, but which instead are in essence opinions of men and religious groups. People who hold to such scruples hold them sincerely, as unto the Lord, and people who don't likewise reject them "unto the Lord". We are to receive one another into fellowship. We are not to receive them into fellowship (or refuse to do so) on the basis of such doubtful disputations, nor are we to put stumbling blocks in front of people. Thus the brother who for whatever reason is vegetarian (as an act of worship to the Lord) should not be forced to endure other brethren shoving steaks and fried chicken in their face. Nor should a brother who has no problem eating meat be forced to endure censure or shaming or condemnation at the hands of vegetarian brethren.

The epistle to the Romans is focused almost entirely about the Judean and Greek believers coming together in one body as one people. It is all about refuting Pharisaic beliefs about their superiority over Greeks, as well as refuting Greek assumptions of "replacement theology" over against the Judeans. It is about tearing down the middle wall of partition between the two. Therefore the doubtful disputations are most certainly in keeping with the same theme. Since we know the very things mentioned (esteeming one day above another vs esteeming every day alike, eating meat vs eating only herbs) are in fact points of contention between Judean and Greek believers in the first century, it is reasonable to believe that is, in fact, what is being discussed.

[donfriesen1]

Originally Posted by Esaias

.

Thx for the clarification. What you had said in post 2 led me to believe other wise. In post two you said things like are things that are not addressed in Scripture. and (not commanded or addressed in Scripture), are not addressed in Scripture, they are not commanded, and they were not taught by Jesus, they are not part of the apostolic tradition or "ordinances" and They are matters of personal preference. Certain believers were "weak in the faith" and therefore had personal convictions about these things. and but is rather due to the things themselves being entirely based upon and grounded in personal opinion rather than Scripture or the teaching of Christ. making me think you thought the things referred to as secular.