Was Paul in doubt about things?

[donfriesen1]

[QUOTE=Esaias;1617951]

Barnes':
Cambridge Bible commentary:
Geneva Bible:
Vincent's Word Studies:

1. Barnes notes are about his opinion of Ro14,15. 2. Cambridge Bible commentary's discussions on grammar do not change my views but reinforce them because they indicate these Ro's hold varying opinions on topics . 3. Geneva Bible is an opinion of the reader. 4. Vincent's Word Studies discussions on grammar are much like Cambridge Bible.

...
My conclusion then is the apostle is saying that the church is to receive as brethren even those who may be weak in the faith, who may have certain scruples or opinions concerning things not spelled out in God's Word or by the doctrine of Christ, but we are not to receive them for the purpose of haranguing them or "arguing" with them, lest they become confused and confounded and possibly stumble.

The passage does NOT say or mean "ignore differences in doctrine" or "there are a few key major doctrines we agree on as essentials and everything is nonessential so let it all ride". Rather, new converts are not to be introduced to the assembly to be critically examined (and found wanting) in their immature opinions and scruples. Instead, they are to be received as brethren (since they have in fact been converted) and any deficiencies in their opinions are to be taken care of through the regular teaching ministry of the church. No putting newcomers into the hot seat or ganging up on them to put them on blast and argue with them about stuff that is literally not solid apostolic doctrine.

Your last 2 paragraphs are 1. an opinion of the view you hold. 2. An explaining away of what Paul plainly says. You say The passage does NOT say or mean "ignore differences in doctrine". When Paul tells holders of opposing conclusions to accept one another, what else can be concluded but that he means they should accept differences in doctrinal conclusions?

I repeat what I've said elsewhere: Paul does not indicate that he is addressing new converts unformed/not matured opinions when using the word weak. What he says can be applied to the Christians of any maturity.

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by donfriesen1

I repeat what I've said elsewhere: Paul does not indicate that he is addressing new converts unformed/not matured opinions when using the word weak. What he says can be applied to the Christians of any maturity.

No it can not. What you are saying is a contradiction. One cannot be a mature Christian and also weak in faith. One cancels out the other. But in your ecclesiastical world view you have a religious dumpster fire going on. Where Paul the Apostle is condoning everyone having a free for all. Where everyone holds their own opinion and it's all accounted for good. Your idea of a "right living man" gets more perverted as you post. Good God in Zion!

[Evang.Benincasa]

The title of this thread is "Was Paul in doubt about things?"

Everyone has given their thoughts on this matter and concluded by the Biblical evidence that Paul had no doubts. We have also concluded (except for Don) that Paul wasn't advocating that everyone could have their own opinions on theology. That some being Trinitarian, or Dualists, or holding to different forms of soteriology weren't supposed to be brought up for discussion. Because the ones who believed differently were only "weak in the faith." Don, hasn't been able to produce anything but his own opinions as evidence. Therefore he hasn't convinced anyone. Again, I submit that Don, has a "buy the world a Coke, and keep them company" theology. Where "right living" Trinitarians are in heaven. We are still holding the same discussion we were holding in the locked thread. Same devil, just wearing a different dress. The Gospel of Inclusion.

[donfriesen1]

Originally Posted by Esaias

1.
I had said to Dominic: Quote:
9. Rather, it is not I but Paul/God showing us something about inclusion. Perhaps the result of what I have said about Ro14,15 is getting to the root of the matter - that the Word as I present it, rubs your feelings of exclusivity the wrong way. Of course I have only guessed because I only know you through brief interactions on AFF and therefore not at all really knowing you. Esaias replies:

I'm on AFF to discuss scripture. I have no hidden motivations because the Lord Jesus Christ is the love of my life and to use deceitful means to share the Word wouldn't jive with the Spirit, who says things which jives with truth. If what I speak of doesn't jive with the Scripture then show how. You've said my logic is faulty but I've shown how my logic is derived from, and runs parallel with, the logic Paul used.



2.

It would be foolish to argue that what you say is not true. I also believe this to be true. Yet you yourself have said in this thread that two people can come to different conclusions when reading the same thing. Here you say the opposite. The truth is that some times, but not in every case, that logic will lead to only one correct conclusion. This is not the truth for every case. Paul in Ro14,15 gives such an example. You and I have both said that reading the same thing can result in people to hold to different conclusions. The words in some text allow this because words are different than mathematics, where the result of a formula must always come to the same conclusion. Paul, in Ro14,15 is showing us that what he believes about days and foods is an example of a time when the meanings of words results in multiple conclusions. To deny that he does would contradict what is plainly seen.

My proof text has been the Bible itself, in how Paul shows that he doesn't tell those Ro people who hold opposing conclusions that: one or all are wrong and then provide the correct conclusion. He does neither of these, showing he thinks it is possible to correctly come, in some cases, to multiple conclusions reading the same scripture. To say otherwise is to contradict Paul/the Word.

.

[donfriesen1]

Originally Posted by Evang.Benincasa

No it can not. What you are saying is a contradiction. One cannot be a mature Christian and also weak in faith. One cancels out the other. But in your ecclesiastical world view you have a religious dumpster fire going on. Where Paul the Apostle is condoning everyone having a free for all. Where everyone holds their own opinion and it's all accounted for good. Your idea of a "right living man" gets more perverted as you post. Good God in Zion!

no comment

[donfriesen1]

Originally Posted by Evang.Benincasa

The title of this thread is "Was Paul in doubt about things?"

Everyone has given their thoughts on this matter and concluded by the Biblical evidence that Paul had no doubts. We have also concluded (except for Don) that Paul wasn't advocating that everyone could have their own opinions on theology. That some being Trinitarian, or Dualists, or holding to different forms of soteriology weren't supposed to be brought up for discussion. Because the ones who believed differently were only "weak in the faith." Don, hasn't been able to produce anything but his own opinions as evidence. Therefore he hasn't convinced anyone. Again, I submit that Don, has a "buy the world a Coke, and keep them company" theology. Where "right living" Trinitarians are in heaven. We are still holding the same discussion we were holding in the locked thread. Same devil, just wearing a different dress. The Gospel of Inclusion.

no comment