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.