Was Paul in doubt about things?

[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.

[donfriesen1]

Originally Posted by Evang.Benincasa

I already gave you my thoughts.

Do you mean this extensive comment from post 4? "Paul is not having doubts,"

[Amanah]

Romans 14:1-8 Amplified Bible

Principles of Conscience
14 As for the one whose faith is weak, accept him [into your fellowship], but not for [the purpose of] quarreling over his opinions. 2 One man’s faith permits him to eat everything, while the weak believer eats only vegetables [to avoid eating ritually unclean meat or something previously considered unclean]. 3 The one who eats [everything] is not to look down on the one who does not eat, and the one who does not eat must not criticize or pass judgment on the one who eats [everything], for God has accepted him. 4 Who are you to judge the servant of another? Before his own master he stands [approved] or falls [out of favor]. And he [who serves the Master—the Lord] will stand, for the Lord is able to make him stand.

5 One person regards one day as better [or more important] than another, while another regards every day [the same as any other]. Let everyone be fully convinced (assured, satisfied) in his own mind. 6 He who observes the day, observes it for the Lord. He who eats, eats for the Lord, since he gives thanks to God; while he who abstains, abstains for the Lord and gives thanks to God. 7 None of us lives for himself [for his own benefit, but for the Lord], and none of us dies for himself [but for the Lord]. 8 If we live, we live for the Lord, and if we die, we die for the Lord. So then, whether we live or die, we are the Lord’s.

***
Footnotes
Romans 14:1 Some Jewish believers may have struggled with abandoning all the old requirements of the Law regarding eating things considered unclean, while some Gentile believers may have been overly sensitive to anything associated with paganism, such as eating meat offered to idols.

[donfriesen1]

[QUOTE=Amanah;1617909]Romans 14:1-8 Amplified Bible

[QUOTE]

Principles of Conscience
14 As for the one whose faith is weak, accept him [into your fellowship], but not for [the purpose of] quarreling over his opinions.

Opinions on what? It must be scriptural topics. That these people read the same Word about two topics, days and food, and end not agreeing on it tells us what? Paul doesn't say here that the varying opinions of these people are wrong, which would be a possible if coming from a misinterpretation. If they are not wrong interpretations then these peoples differing opinions must all be right. This leads Paul to say that disputes on doubtful (doubtful is his word, I just quote) scriptural topics shouldn't be, because some verses can be correctly interpreted in more than one way. Differing opinions on such verses is acceptable.

Thus, any person interpretting doubtful scripture which has varying interpretations should be received, be pleased, not destroyed, not disputed over, not judged, not contempted, and not despised, according to Paul. 1Co11.2-16 is one such doubtful passage, along side the topics of days and food.

We must accomodate varying opinions others hold on doubtful passages, if we desire to emulate the one who says emulate me Phlp3.17; 2Thes3.9; 1Co11.1.

[Amanah]

Sound Doctrine:

The Bible emphasizes the importance of teaching sound doctrine (1 Timothy 1:10, Titus 2:1). Elders are tasked with teaching and upholding sound doctrine (1 Timothy 3:2, Titus 1:9), ensuring believers are grounded in biblical truth.

Romans 14:1 is a Call for Charity, Not Compromise

Romans 14:1, "Receive one who is weak in faith, but not to disputes over doubtful things," does not contradict the imperative of teaching sound doctrine.

Paul addresses disputes over opinions (14:1), not fundamental doctrines. Weak in faith: Refers to immature believers, not those promoting false teachings. Charity and unity: Paul prioritizes loving acceptance over divisive debates.

Distinctions:
1. Essential doctrines (e.g., salvation) vs. debatable opinions (e.g., dietary laws).
2. Teaching sound doctrine vs. disputing over secondary issues.

Sound doctrine provides a foundation for unity:

Ephesians 4:11-16 KJV
11 And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers;
12 For the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ:
13 Till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ:
14 That we henceforth be no more children, tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men, and cunning craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive;
15 But speaking the truth in love, may grow up into him in all things, which is the head, even Christ:
16 From whom the whole body fitly joined together and compacted by that which every joint supplieth, according to the effectual working in the measure of every part, maketh increase of the body unto the edifying of itself in love.

Elders must balance doctrine and love, avoiding unnecessary divisions. Sound doctrine and charitable acceptance are complementary, not contradictory. Elders teach sound doctrine with conviction. Show compassion and understanding for immature believers. Distinguish between essential and debatable issues.

[donfriesen1]

[QUOTE=Esaias;1617872]

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".

You say 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". While this is true in some cases it is not true in every case. Case in point: Ro14, where these people have varying opinions on days and food. What isn't said here is that any of their varying opinions are wrong; rather, it is implied they are right. Thus, he shows that varying opinions need not necessarily be from wrong interpretations. That these people have varying opinions on a scriptural topic shows that varying right opinions are possible and that some passages are described as 'doubtful' because they 'can't' be interpretted in only one way. Some prophecies are shown to be applicable in the times they were written in, and also applicable to the future. 2 right opinions from one verse, but not doubtful in this instance. Some portions of scripture must lead to only one conclusion. God's Word has portions that are doubtful, meaning there are doubtful opinions of that scripture. Is the Lord in doubt in what he thinks? No, but hasn't communicated his thoughts in such a manner to be perfectly clear to every reader. It might be concluded that the Lord writes some things in such a manner for a purposeful reason. (Certainly, without controversy, it is believed that God has abilities such that he could be perfectly clear every time, but why then doesn't He? Man could be blamed each and every time for a misinterpretation leading to a wrong opinion but that isn't shown to be so here in Ro14, leading to a conclusion that the Lord has written some portions in such a manner to allow for varying opinions.) If not so, then why does the Word say here to accept these peoples varying opinions. This thought is a crazy thought, but what conclusion would you state for what is shown in scripture to be fact: The Lord writes in a manner to allow for doubtful opinions.

[diakonos]

That was already addressed. CLEARLY, you didn’t read the post.

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by donfriesen1

Do you mean this extensive comment from post 4? "Paul is not having doubts,"

Don, I said a little more than those five words in post 4.
So, what are you doing here? I explained what I thought about the portion of scripture. You think I’m wrong, point it out. You think I’m correct, then amen it and move on.

[donfriesen1]

Originally Posted by Evang.Benincasa

Don, I said a little more than those five words in post 4.
So, what are you doing here? I explained what I thought about the portion of scripture. You think I’m wrong, point it out. You think I’m correct, then amen it and move on.

Good morning Dom.

I think you are right about what you wrote in that post, and not wrong. This is my Amen.

What I meant in my reply was, that I'd thought that you weren't commenting on the main point of the thread. You had just commented on Paul's main point in this entire Biblical passage, which missed commenting on the thread's main topic.

The main point of the thread is 'why does Paul call it a doubtful thing?' I think it is because Paul wants to show us that some verses are interpretted using deducing to get to a conclusion and some people deduce conclusions on the same verses differently than others. Some verses allow for multiple conclusions; he points this out, right? This makes any disputes of the conclusions 'doubtful', because he believes that it is not possible to make just one exclusively right conclusion of some verses. He is trying to show Man that some verses don't have only one exclusively right conclusion.

Calling the conclusions of the verses of the topics in Ro14 'doubtful', is to show an example of the possibility of other doubtful verses. Paul wants to show Man that this possibility exists. Paul usually does not have doubts on anything, does he? If not calling it doubtful to show us the possibility for this reason, then why would he call anything God speaks on doubtful? It must be because of what he believes of how God has written, because God is not in doubt of anything either, is he? This shows us God chooses to write some things in a doubtful manner, for some reason; perhaps to test Man. This leads to the question 'why does Paul call it a doubtful thing?'

My past theology said to me that God would always be 'crystal clear' when he speaks, to avoid confusion but Paul shows us otherwise here in Ro14. He says God is not always 'crystal clear', that he sometimes writes otherwise. What is clear from what Paul says is that multiple conclusions can be arrived at correctly on some verses, that God allows some verses to show 'not crystal clear'. This has the appearance to show that God has multiple opinions on one topic when it should rather be said to show that God allows for multiple opinions of Man on some topics.

There are verses where only one absolutely right conclusion is possible, just not ones similar to the examples he gives here. Thus, Paul tells us to be aware, to know and watch for the difference, to avoid arguments.

One conclusion why Paul uses the word 'doubtful' is to show us that God sometimes speaks in a 'doubtful' way, allowing for multiple conclusions. Are there other conclusions as to why or is this conclusion an excluding conclusion? Do I get an Amen or an 'Oh my'. My conclusions of what Paul says should get an Amen, but plz show why not, if otherwise, when he says multiple opinions of days and foods are all acceptable.

Why does the Apostle/God not use his authority here to clarify doctrine, when he could? Instead, he says it is acceptable to have many opinions things on the same topic. He doesn't correct the many opinions of days/foods because he honestly believes otherwise. If it is said that he does so, just to teach that doing so avoids conflicts, then it shows Paul/God saying we can compromise truth-doctrine to avoid conflict. Paul/God would never compromise on something as important as truth. Another explanation must be arrived to explain why he says what he says, other than to avoid conflict by compromising truth. It must be because he believes that some verses can have multiple conclusions. It is a reasonable explanation and may be the only one.

Plz say more than just 'wrong' when you reply. It is meangingless to just say 'wrong'.

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by donfriesen1

Good morning Dom.

I think you are right about what you wrote in that post, and not wrong. This is my Amen.

What I meant in my reply was, that I'd thought that you weren't commenting on the main point of the thread. You had just commented on Paul's main point in this entire Biblical passage, which missed commenting on the thread's main topic.

The main point of the thread is 'why does Paul call it a doubtful thing?' I think it is because Paul wants to show us that some verses are interpretted using deducing to get to a conclusion and some people deduce conclusions on the same verses differently than others. Some verses allow for multiple conclusions; he points this out, right? This makes any disputes of the conclusions 'doubtful', because he believes that it is not possible to make just one exclusively right conclusion of some verses. He is trying to show Man that some verses don't have only one exclusively right conclusion.

Calling the conclusions of the verses of the topics in Ro14 'doubtful', is to show an example of the possibility of other doubtful verses. Paul wants to show Man that this possibility exists. Paul usually does not have doubts on anything, does he? If not calling it doubtful to show us the possibility for this reason, then why would he call anything God speaks on doubtful? It must be because of what he believes of how God has written, because God is not in doubt of anything either, is he? This shows us God chooses to write some things in a doubtful manner, for some reason; perhaps to test Man. This leads to the question 'why does Paul call it a doubtful thing?'

My past theology said to me that God would always be 'crystal clear' when he speaks, to avoid confusion but Paul shows us otherwise here in Ro14. He says God is not always 'crystal clear', that he sometimes writes otherwise. What is clear from what Paul says is that multiple conclusions can be arrived at correctly on some verses, that God allows some verses to show 'not crystal clear'. This has the appearance to show that God has multiple opinions on one topic when it should rather be said to show that God allows for multiple opinions of Man on some topics.

There are verses where only one absolutely right conclusion is possible, just not ones similar to the examples he gives here. Thus, Paul tells us to be aware, to know and watch for the difference, to avoid arguments.

One conclusion why Paul uses the word 'doubtful' is to show us that God sometimes speaks in a 'doubtful' way, allowing for multiple conclusions. Are there other conclusions as to why or is this conclusion an excluding conclusion? Do I get an Amen or an 'Oh my'. My conclusions of what Paul says should get an Amen, but plz show why not, if otherwise, when he says multiple opinions of days and foods are all acceptable.

Why does the Apostle/God not use his authority here to clarify doctrine, when he could? Instead, he says it is acceptable to have many opinions things on the same topic. He doesn't correct the many opinions of days/foods because he honestly believes otherwise. If it is said that he does so, just to teach that doing so avoids conflicts, then it shows Paul/God saying we can compromise truth-doctrine to avoid conflict. Paul/God would never compromise on something as important as truth. Another explanation must be arrived to explain why he says what he says, other than to avoid conflict by compromising truth. It must be because he believes that some verses can have multiple conclusions. It is a reasonable explanation and may be the only one.

Plz say more than just 'wrong' when you reply. It is meangingless to just say 'wrong'.

Again, I gave you my thoughts. Not much else to add to something that the Apostle spells out for us clearly. But the words “doubtful disputations” is an Elizabethan term for making a judgement on someone’s opinion. Other English translations do a better job than the KJV or the NKJV. In Greek, Paul is simply telling the Romans to not to get into arguments with a new converts opinions. Not much more to add to what I’ve already posted above. In short, Paul is telling the saints not to get into wrestling matches with new converts about the new convert’s opinions.