Was Paul in doubt about things?

[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'.

Also, I don't need to comment on everything you wrote down in this post.
You are clearly totally confused. You are confused with what you would like the Bible to say, and what the Bible actually says. You must only read one Bible translation and that in itself could be problematic. Not for everyone mind you, but for you it is. Bible verses having "multiple conclusions?" That's only if you aren't taking the Bible as a whole story, which explains itself. Since you seem to me to be ecclesiastically lobotomized by your religious traditions. My only take away from your lengthy post is that you are confused. Doubtful disputations means exactly what the Apostle Paul is talking about in Romans 14. Not that he has doubts, not that the elder saints have doubts. But it is the weak in the faith, babes in Christ, who are the ones Paul is addressing. Still, you have to continually try to present your teaching of a Gospel of Inclusion. Where the after life is chuck full of all sorts of different beliefs. Here you are trying to present a topic on how the Bible means different things to different people. So in your mind it's why can't we all just get along and be "right living?"

You have a Jesus who has a broad way and a wide gate leading to eternal life and many there be who go there in. But, the opposite is true. What is awesome, is that Jesus knows His sheep, they know Him. They hear His voice, and they run from the voice of strangers. No matter what nonsense you try to peddle here, Jesus already made a way for His sheep. Those sincere hearts who love God, who desire His truth, will find His truth.

[Esaias]

Barnes':

Not to doubtful disputations - The plain meaning of this is, Do not admit him to your society for the purpose of debating the matter in an angry and harsh manner; of repelling him by denunciation; and thus, "by the natural reaction of such a course," confirming him in his doubts. Or, "do not deal with him in such a manner as shall have a tendency to increase his scruples about meats, days, etc." (Stuart.) The "leading" idea here - which all Christians should remember - is, that a harsh and angry denunciation of a man in relation to things not morally wrong, but where he may have honest scruples, will only tend to confirm him more and more in his doubts. To denounce and abuse him will be to confirm him. To receive him affectionately, to admit him to fellowship with us, to talk freely and kindly with him, to do him good, will have a far greater tendency to overcome his scruples. In questions which now occur about modes of "dress," about "measures" and means of promoting revivals, and about rites and ceremonies, this is by far the wisest course, if we wish to overcome the scruples of a brother, and to induce him to think as we do. Greek, "Unto doubts or fluctuations of opinions or reasonings." Various senses have been given to the words, but the above probably expresses the true meaning.

Cambridge Bible commentary:

but not to doubtful disputations] Lit. not to criticisms of (his) scruples. The word “but” is not in the Gr., and changes the exact point of the clause, which is q. d., “receive him, do not criticize him; let him in with a welcome, not with a call to discussion.”—The noun rendered “criticisms” (or its cognate verb) is used (e.g. 1 Corinthians 12:10; Hebrews 5:14;) for detection of differences; and again (e.g. 1 Corinthians 11:31, E. V. “judge ourselves,”) for judicial enquiry and sentence, literal or figurative. “Criticism” thus fairly represents it in a context like this, where needless keenness in balancing varying convictions, and the consequent sentence of private or public opinion, is in view.—“His scruples”:—same word as Romans 1:21, (E. V. “imaginations,”) where see note. Here it is the reasoning of the mind with itself; doubt and perplexity.

Geneva Bible:

(1) Now he shows how we ought to behave ourselves toward our brethren in matters and things indifferent, who offend in the use of them not from malice or damnable superstition, but for lack of knowledge of the benefit of Christ. And thus he teaches that they are to be instructed gently and patiently, and so that we apply ourselves to their ignorance in such matters according to the rule of charity.

(a) Do not for a matter or thing which is indifferent, and such a thing as you may do or not do, shun his company, but take him to you.

(b) To make him by your doubtful and uncertain disputations go away in more doubt than he came, or return back with a troubled conscience.

Vincent's Word Studies:

Doubtful disputations (διακρίσεις διαλογισμῶν)

Lit., judgings of thoughts. The primary meaning of διαλογισμός is a thinking-through or over. Hence of those speculations or reasonings in one's mind which take the form of scruples. See on Mark 7:21. Διάκρισις has the same sense as in the other two passages where it occurs (1 Corinthians 12:10; Hebrews 5:14); discerning with a view to forming a judgment. Hence the meaning is, "receive these weak brethren, but not for the purpose of passing judgment upon their scruples."

...

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.

[Amanah]

Here's Romans 14:1 with the Greek text alongside an English translation:

*Literal Word-for-Word Translation:*

Accept (Προσλαμβάνομεν) but (δὲ) the weak one (τὸν ἀσθενῆ) in faith (τῇ πίστει) not (οὐκ) for judgment (εἰς κρίμα)

*Interlinear Translation:*

Accept [Proslambanomen] but [de] the-one [ton] weak [asthenē] in [tē] faith [pistei] not [ouk] for [eis] judgment [krima]

Let's dive deeper into the word meanings in Romans 14:1:

*Προσλαμβάνομεν (Proslambanomen)*

- Definition: Receive, accept, welcome
- Context: Emphasizes embracing or including someone
- Root: προσλαμβάνω (proslambano), from προσ (pros) + λαμβάνω (lambano)
- Sense: Warmly receive, take in, or include

*δὲ (de)*

- Definition: But, and, now
- Context: Contrasts or connects ideas
- Root: δὲ (de), a conjunction
- Sense: Indicates a shift or addition

*τὸν ἀσθενῆ (ton asthenē)*

- Definition: Weak, feeble, powerless
- Context: Describes someone struggling with faith or convictions
- Root: ἀσθενής (asthenes), from α (a) + σθένος (sthenos)
- Sense: Lacking strength, vulnerable

*τῇ πίστει (tē pistei)*

- Definition: Faith, trust, belief
- Context: Specifies the area of weakness (faith)
- Root: πίστις (pistis), from πείθω (peitho)
- Sense: Trust, reliance, or confidence

*οὐκ (ouk)*

- Definition: Not, no
- Context: Negates the purpose or intention
- Root: οὐκ (ouk), an adverb
- Sense: Indicates exclusion or denial

*εἰς κρίμα (eis krima)*

- Definition: Judgment, condemnation, criticism
- Context: Specifies the excluded purpose (judgment)
- Root: κρίμα (krima), from κρίνω (krino)
- Sense: Evaluation, verdict, or condemnation

Another example:

1 Corinthians 8:8-13 ESV
Food Offered to Idols
8 Now concerning food offered to idols: we know that “all of us possess knowledge.” This “knowledge” puffs up, but love builds up. 2 If anyone imagines that he knows something, he does not yet know as he ought to know. 3 But if anyone loves God, he is known by God.
4 Therefore, as to the eating of food offered to idols, we know that “an idol has no real existence,” and that “there is no God but one.” 5 For although there may be so-called gods in heaven or on earth—as indeed there are many “gods” and many “lords”— 6 yet for us there is one God, the Father, from whom are all things and for whom we exist, and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom are all things and through whom we exist.
7 However, not all possess this knowledge. But some, through former association with idols, eat food as really offered to an idol, and their conscience, being weak, is defiled. 8 Food will not commend us to God. We are no worse off if we do not eat, and no better off if we do. 9 But take care that this right of yours does not somehow become a stumbling block to the weak. 10 For if anyone sees you who have knowledge eating in an idol's temple, will he not be encouraged, if his conscience is weak, to eat food offered to idols? 11 And so by your knowledge this weak person is destroyed, the brother for whom Christ died. 12 Thus, sinning against your brothers and wounding their conscience when it is weak, you sin against Christ. 13 Therefore, if food makes my brother stumble, I will never eat meat, lest I make my brother stumble.

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by Esaias

Barnes':

Not to doubtful disputations - The plain meaning of this is, Do not admit him to your society for the purpose of debating the matter in an angry and harsh manner; of repelling him by denunciation; and thus, "by the natural reaction of such a course," confirming him in his doubts. Or, "do not deal with him in such a manner as shall have a tendency to increase his scruples about meats, days, etc." (Stuart.) The "leading" idea here - which all Christians should remember - is, that a harsh and angry denunciation of a man in relation to things not morally wrong, but where he may have honest scruples, will only tend to confirm him more and more in his doubts. To denounce and abuse him will be to confirm him. To receive him affectionately, to admit him to fellowship with us, to talk freely and kindly with him, to do him good, will have a far greater tendency to overcome his scruples. In questions which now occur about modes of "dress," about "measures" and means of promoting revivals, and about rites and ceremonies, this is by far the wisest course, if we wish to overcome the scruples of a brother, and to induce him to think as we do. Greek, "Unto doubts or fluctuations of opinions or reasonings." Various senses have been given to the words, but the above probably expresses the true meaning.

Cambridge Bible commentary:

but not to doubtful disputations] Lit. not to criticisms of (his) scruples. The word “but” is not in the Gr., and changes the exact point of the clause, which is q. d., “receive him, do not criticize him; let him in with a welcome, not with a call to discussion.”—The noun rendered “criticisms” (or its cognate verb) is used (e.g. 1 Corinthians 12:10; Hebrews 5:14 for detection of differences; and again (e.g. 1 Corinthians 11:31, E. V. “judge ourselves,”) for judicial enquiry and sentence, literal or figurative. “Criticism” thus fairly represents it in a context like this, where needless keenness in balancing varying convictions, and the consequent sentence of private or public opinion, is in view.—“His scruples”:—same word as Romans 1:21, (E. V. “imaginations,”) where see note. Here it is the reasoning of the mind with itself; doubt and perplexity.

Geneva Bible:

(1) Now he shows how we ought to behave ourselves toward our brethren in matters and things indifferent, who offend in the use of them not from malice or damnable superstition, but for lack of knowledge of the benefit of Christ. And thus he teaches that they are to be instructed gently and patiently, and so that we apply ourselves to their ignorance in such matters according to the rule of charity.

(a) Do not for a matter or thing which is indifferent, and such a thing as you may do or not do, shun his company, but take him to you.

(b) To make him by your doubtful and uncertain disputations go away in more doubt than he came, or return back with a troubled conscience.

Vincent's Word Studies:

Doubtful disputations (διακρίσεις διαλογισμῶν)

Lit., judgings of thoughts. The primary meaning of διαλογισμός is a thinking-through or over. Hence of those speculations or reasonings in one's mind which take the form of scruples. See on Mark 7:21. Διάκρισις has the same sense as in the other two passages where it occurs (1 Corinthians 12:10; Hebrews 5:14); discerning with a view to forming a judgment. Hence the meaning is, "receive these weak brethren, but not for the purpose of passing judgment upon their scruples."

...

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.

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by Amanah

Here's Romans 14:1 with the Greek text alongside an English translation:

*Literal Word-for-Word Translation:*

Accept (Προσλαμβάνομεν) but (δὲ) the weak one (τὸν ἀσθενῆ) in faith (τῇ πίστει) not (οὐκ) for judgment (εἰς κρίμα)

*Interlinear Translation:*

Accept [Proslambanomen] but [de] the-one [ton] weak [asthenē] in [tē] faith [pistei] not [ouk] for [eis] judgment [krima]

Let's dive deeper into the word meanings in Romans 14:1:

*Προσλαμβάνομεν (Proslambanomen)*

- Definition: Receive, accept, welcome
- Context: Emphasizes embracing or including someone
- Root: προσλαμβάνω (proslambano), from προσ (pros) + λαμβάνω (lambano)
- Sense: Warmly receive, take in, or include

*δὲ (de)*

- Definition: But, and, now
- Context: Contrasts or connects ideas
- Root: δὲ (de), a conjunction
- Sense: Indicates a shift or addition

*τὸν ἀσθενῆ (ton asthenē)*

- Definition: Weak, feeble, powerless
- Context: Describes someone struggling with faith or convictions
- Root: ἀσθενής (asthenes), from α (a) + σθένος (sthenos)
- Sense: Lacking strength, vulnerable

*τῇ πίστει (tē pistei)*

- Definition: Faith, trust, belief
- Context: Specifies the area of weakness (faith)
- Root: πίστις (pistis), from πείθω (peitho)
- Sense: Trust, reliance, or confidence

*οὐκ (ouk)*

- Definition: Not, no
- Context: Negates the purpose or intention
- Root: οὐκ (ouk), an adverb
- Sense: Indicates exclusion or denial

*εἰς κρίμα (eis krima)*

- Definition: Judgment, condemnation, criticism
- Context: Specifies the excluded purpose (judgment)
- Root: κρίμα (krima), from κρίνω (krino)
- Sense: Evaluation, verdict, or condemnation

Another example:

1 Corinthians 8:8-13 ESV
Food Offered to Idols
8 Now concerning food offered to idols: we know that “all of us possess knowledge.” This “knowledge” puffs up, but love builds up. 2 If anyone imagines that he knows something, he does not yet know as he ought to know. 3 But if anyone loves God, he is known by God.
4 Therefore, as to the eating of food offered to idols, we know that “an idol has no real existence,” and that “there is no God but one.” 5 For although there may be so-called gods in heaven or on earth—as indeed there are many “gods” and many “lords”— 6 yet for us there is one God, the Father, from whom are all things and for whom we exist, and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom are all things and through whom we exist.
7 However, not all possess this knowledge. But some, through former association with idols, eat food as really offered to an idol, and their conscience, being weak, is defiled. 8 Food will not commend us to God. We are no worse off if we do not eat, and no better off if we do. 9 But take care that this right of yours does not somehow become a stumbling block to the weak. 10 For if anyone sees you who have knowledge eating in an idol's temple, will he not be encouraged, if his conscience is weak, to eat food offered to idols? 11 And so by your knowledge this weak person is destroyed, the brother for whom Christ died. 12 Thus, sinning against your brothers and wounding their conscience when it is weak, you sin against Christ. 13 Therefore, if food makes my brother stumble, I will never eat meat, lest I make my brother stumble.

Nice

[donfriesen1]

Originally Posted by Evang.Benincasa

Also, I don't need to comment on everything you wrote down in this post.
You are clearly totally confused. You are confused with what you would like the Bible to say, and what the Bible actually says. You must only read one Bible translation and that in itself could be problematic. Not for everyone mind you, but for you it is. Bible verses having "multiple conclusions?" That's only if you aren't taking the Bible as a whole story, which explains itself. Since you seem to me to be ecclesiastically lobotomized by your religious traditions. My only take away from your lengthy post is that you are confused. Doubtful disputations means exactly what the Apostle Paul is talking about in Romans 14. Not that he has doubts, not that the elder saints have doubts. But it is the weak in the faith, babes in Christ, who are the ones Paul is addressing. Still, you have to continually try to present your teaching of a Gospel of Inclusion. Where the after life is chuck full of all sorts of different beliefs. Here you are trying to present a topic on how the Bible means different things to different people. So in your mind it's why can't we all just get along and be "right living?"

You have a Jesus who has a broad way and a wide gate leading to eternal life and many there be who go there in. But, the opposite is true. What is awesome, is that Jesus knows His sheep, they know Him. They hear His voice, and they run from the voice of strangers. No matter what nonsense you try to peddle here, Jesus already made a way for His sheep. Those sincere hearts who love God, who desire His truth, will find His truth.

1. Readers of this thread: Plz note the many times where I've said 'I agree' or 'true', in my response to others, both in this post and previous posts.

2. I had said, post19, "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."Dom replied the following:

Also, I don't need to comment on everything you wrote down in this post.

3. True, but most would think that the main point of a post would be the main commented area.

You are clearly totally confused. You are confused with what you would like the Bible to say, and what the Bible actually says.

4. Instead of just saying 'Don is wrong', like I had said you shouldn't do, in post19, you now instead say I'm confused. But what you fail to show is solid proofs of how what I say is confusing or what it is that should be believed instead, giving proofs for your conclusions. And you fail to reply to the main point of the thread. Instead, you will only say Don is wrong or confused; but to the enquiring mind of any reader, this gives the appearance that you want to be believed without providing evidence - just because you say it. You thus may convince someone who doesn't think about what they've read, but not those who do.

You must only read one Bible translation and that in itself could be problematic. Not for everyone mind you, but for you it is. Bible verses having "multiple conclusions?"

5. YES, clearly multiple, for any who read Ro14,15. Paul addresses a problem in the church at Rome which shows people having multiple conclusions (on two topics), which results in them having disagreements. Mature Paul must think multiple conclusions are OK, because, he tells them to be fully convinced in his own mind about their differing conclusions. You'd think that Paul instead, would have set them straight about what to believe on these topics and tell one or the other or both, that they are wrong and then give them the right doctrine to believe. He doesn't do any of this, showing us that multiple conclusions on Biblical topics are OK in Paul's eyes.

That's only if you aren't taking the Bible as a whole story, which explains itself.

6. True. And here and now you would have had opportunity to explain how my views can be proven wrong but you don't detail how the Bible or logic shows me wrong.

Since you seem to me to be ecclesiastically lobotomized by your religious traditions.

7. You would criticise me for 1. that which you have no knowledge of, my tradition. And 2. along with which Bible translation I read, again with no knowledge of it. How is it that the mature Evangelist Dominic Benincasa criticises on assumptions? And you resort to character assassinations, instead of providing proofs of the topic under discusssion. Do you think of your own opinions that others should believe them without proofs just because you say them? Is this the reason why you give no proofs of your opinions?

My only take away from your lengthy post is that you are confused. Doubtful disputations means exactly what the Apostle Paul is talking about in Romans 14.

8. Is this your proof, by saying that Paul means what he says?

Not that he has doubts, not that the elder saints have doubts. But it is the weak in the faith, babes in Christ, who are the ones Paul is addressing. Still, you have to continually try to present your teaching of a Gospel of Inclusion.

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.

Where the after life is chuck full of all sorts of different beliefs. Here you are trying to present a topic on how the Bible means different things to different people. So in your mind it's why can't we all just get along and be "right living?"

10, Sorry, NO, its not about that. I'm just commenting on what Paul says here in Ro14,15.

You have a Jesus who has a broad way and a wide gate leading to eternal life and many there be who go there in. But, the opposite is true. What is awesome, is that Jesus knows His sheep, they know Him. They hear His voice, and they run from the voice of strangers. No matter what nonsense you try to peddle here, Jesus already made a way for His sheep. Those sincere hearts who love God, who desire His truth, will find His truth.

11. I agree that there is a narrow way, which is the Jesus way. The scriptures must be the Jesus way, when interpretted right. When we disagree on interpretting Ro14,15 differently, then which interpretation is correct? In 'the world of deducing conclusions' in the absence of many details, we may both be right. We've had a disagreement, similar to what Paul shows in Ro14,15 which has resulted with you saying a bunch of negative things about me, instead of pointing out with proofs how my opinions are wrong. Thus, the result is that it is you who could apply to yourself the following: (quote from post 14) "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." Words in red from Ro14,15. It seems to me that you could learn some lessons from Paul about receiving others, don't being contemptuous of others, nor despising others in discussions which have no bearing on eternal destinys, topics such as days and food. I would happly listen to any opposing opinions of my conclusions, when presented in a logical reasonable manner. Plz do so.Instead of any useful discussion with proofs from you, you bring out the character assassinations and negative innuendo. I'm even criticised as if I am only reading one Bible translation, which has zero bearing on the discussion topic.

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by donfriesen1

1. Readers of this thread: Plz note the many times where I've said 'I agree' or 'true', in my response to others, both in this post and previous posts.

2. I had said, post19, "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."Dom replied the following:3. True, but most would think that the main point of a post would be the main commented area.




4. Instead of just saying 'Don is wrong', like I had said you shouldn't do, in post19, you now instead say I'm confused. But what you fail to show is solid proofs of how what I say is confusing or what it is that should be believed instead, giving proofs for your conclusions. And you fail to reply to the main point of the thread. Instead, you will only say Don is wrong or confused; but to the enquiring mind of any reader, this gives the appearance that you want to be believed without providing evidence - just because you say it. You thus may convince someone who doesn't think about what they've read, but not those who do.



5. YES, clearly multiple, for any who read Ro14,15. Paul addresses a problem in the church at Rome which shows people having multiple conclusions (on two topics), which results in them having disagreements. Mature Paul must think multiple conclusions are OK, because, he tells them to be fully convinced in his own mind about their differing conclusions. You'd think that Paul instead, would have set them straight about what to believe on these topics and tell one or the other or both, that they are wrong and then give them the right doctrine to believe. He doesn't do any of this, showing us that multiple conclusions on Biblical topics are OK in Paul's eyes.



6. True. And here and now you would have had opportunity to explain how my views can be proven wrong but you don't detail how the Bible or logic shows me wrong.




7. You would criticise me for 1. that which you have no knowledge of, my tradition. And 2. along with which Bible translation I read, again with no knowledge of it. How is it that the mature Evangelist Dominic Benincasa criticises on assumptions? And you resort to character assassinations, instead of providing proofs of the topic under discusssion. Do you think of your own opinions that others should believe them without proofs just because you say them? Is this the reason why you give no proofs of your opinions?




8. Is this your proof, by saying that Paul means what he says?




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.





10, Sorry, NO, its not about that. I'm just commenting on what Paul says here in Ro14,15.




11. I agree that there is a narrow way, which is the Jesus way. The scriptures must be the Jesus way, when interpretted right. When we disagree on interpretting Ro14,15 differently, then which interpretation is correct? In 'the world of deducing conclusions' in the absence of many details, we may both be right. We've had a disagreement, similar to what Paul shows in Ro14,15 which has resulted with you saying a bunch of negative things about me, instead of pointing out with proofs how my opinions are wrong. Thus, the result is that it is you who could apply to yourself the following: (quote from post 14) "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." Words in red from Ro14,15. It seems to me that you could learn some lessons from Paul about receiving others, don't being contemptuous of others, nor despising others in discussions which have no bearing on eternal destinys, topics such as days and food. I would happly listen to any opposing opinions of my conclusions, when presented in a logical reasonable manner. Plz do so.Instead of any useful discussion with proofs from you, you bring out the character assassinations and negative innuendo. I'm even criticised as if I am only reading one Bible translation, which has zero bearing on the discussion topic.

Sorry pal, but you aren’t a new convert. So I don’t need to proceed with gentleness, but with a rod. The fool’s mouth calls for blows. You see Don, you wouldn’t listen happily to an opposing view. We’ve tried that already and found it a fruitless endeavor. I gave you my thoughts which should have satisfied any honest soul. But, you chose to accuse me of not dealing with the title of the thread. You then had other posters give you extensive proofs on their thoughts. So save your rebukes for the mindless droolers, who have the great misfortune of sitting under your tutelage. The Apostle Paul didn’t teach a free for all in Romans 14. As for you believing in a narrow way, and correct focus on correct doctrine. I highly doubt it. Since having gone over your drivel in these threads.

Paul had no doubts.

You on the other hand have many

[Amanah]

God used Paul to write a majority of the new testament under the divine inspiration of the Spirit. To say Paul is doubtful is to undermine the Scripture.

2 Timothy 3:16-17 KJV
16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
17 That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works.

1 Corinthians 2 KJV
2 And I, brethren, when I came to you, came not with excellency of speech or of wisdom, declaring unto you the testimony of God.
2 For I determined not to know any thing among you, save Jesus Christ, and him crucified.
3 And I was with you in weakness, and in fear, and in much trembling.
4 And my speech and my preaching was not with enticing words of man's wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power:
5 That your faith should not stand in the wisdom of men, but in the power of God.
6 Howbeit we speak wisdom among them that are perfect: yet not the wisdom of this world, nor of the princes of this world, that come to nought:
7 But we speak the wisdom of God in a mystery, even the hidden wisdom, which God ordained before the world unto our glory:
8 Which none of the princes of this world knew: for had they known it, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory.
9 But as it is written, Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither have entered into the heart of man, the things which God hath prepared for them that love him.
10 But God hath revealed them unto us by his Spirit: for the Spirit searcheth all things, yea, the deep things of God.
11 For what man knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit of man which is in him? even so the things of God knoweth no man, but the Spirit of God.
12 Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God.
13 Which things also we speak, not in the words which man's wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual.
14 But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.
15 But he that is spiritual judgeth all things, yet he himself is judged of no man.
16 For who hath known the mind of the Lord, that he may instruct him? but we have the mind of Christ.

Galatians 1:11-12 KJV
11 But I certify you, brethren, that the gospel which was preached of me is not after man.
12 For I neither received it of man, neither was I taught it, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ.

1 Thessalonians 2:13 KJV
13 For this cause also thank we God without ceasing, because, when ye received the word of God which ye heard of us, ye received it not as the word of men, but as it is in truth, the word of God, which effectually worketh also in you that believe.


2 Peter 3:15-18 Amplified
15 And consider the patience of our Lord [His delay in judging and avenging wrongs] as salvation [that is, allowing time for more to be saved]; just as our beloved brother Paul also wrote to you according to the wisdom given to him [by God], 16 speaking about these things as he does in all of his letters. In which there are some things that are difficult to understand, which the untaught and unstable [who have fallen into error] twist and misinterpret, just as they do the rest of the Scriptures, to their own destruction. 17 Therefore, [let me warn you] beloved, knowing these things beforehand, be on your guard so that you are not carried away by the error of unprincipled men [who distort doctrine] and fall from your own steadfastness [of mind, knowledge, truth, and faith], 18 but grow [spiritually mature] in the grace and knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. To Him be glory (honor, majesty, splendor), both now and to the day of eternity. Amen.

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by donfriesen1

5. YES, clearly multiple, for any who read Ro14,15. Paul addresses a problem in the church at Rome which shows people having multiple conclusions (on two topics), which results in them having disagreements. Mature Paul must think multiple conclusions are OK, because, he tells them to be fully convinced in his own mind about their differing conclusions. You'd think that Paul instead, would have set them straight about what to believe on these topics and tell one or the other or both, that they are wrong and then give them the right doctrine to believe. He doesn't do any of this, showing us that multiple conclusions on Biblical topics are OK in Paul's eyes.

This is incorrect, you have drawn a conclusion that does not follow from the premises. Paul did not say "multiple conclusions on Bible topics are ok". In fact, your conclusion there is completely illogical and unreasonable. You go too far, way beyond what is being discussed in Romans 14. Paul is first of all talking about receiving people, that is to say, new converts, who may not be strong in the faith. Meaning, they are not fully grounded in apostolic doctrine (as taught by Jesus and His apostles). They may have unbiblical notions and opinions, unbiblical in the sense that those notions are not founded upon "thus sayeth the Lord, as it is written" but on their own scruples or opinions. And again, not unbiblical in the sense those opinions are CONTRARY to Scripture and sound doctrine (for Paul never makes allowances for things contrary to sound doctrine), but rather they are simply opinions about things that the Bible does not specify. For example, religious holy days not founded upon God's commands but upon pious tradition (such as the 2 weekly fast days of the Judeans), or whether or not vegetarianism is the religiously safer way to conduct oneself. Such persons are to be received into the church but not for the purpose of haranguing them about their notions. They are not be received as subjects of debate and strife, because that will simply confuse them and possibly cause them to sin against their own conscience. Their scruples, being personal convictions they have and are neither commanded nor forbidden by God, are not to be made the subject of strife and debate and condemnation, precisely because they are new converts.

That DOES NOT MEAN "anybody can have different opinions about the Bible and its teachings and we should all just love each other and get along and sing kumbaya and not make any distinctions about true and false doctrines." that's the modern ecumenical, liberal way that has basically destroyed Christianity in the west.

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.

Why do I get the impression you have something going on in your life that would not be found acceptable in the average oneness pentecostal assembly? I am not trying to bring an accusation, but I am saying your entire course of conduct here on the forum seems directed toward promoting the idea that *something* most apostolics don't want anything to do with needs to be *accepted and included*. So let's get to the "root of the matter". What gives? What is your objective in these threads? Just saying some kind of generalised "apostolics need to have a better understanding of scripture" (which I suppose you are purporting to bring to us here) seems to be skirting the "root of the matter". Again, maybe I am wrong. But then maybe I am right.

In 'the world of deducing conclusions' in the absence of many details, we may both be right.

I already showed that no, this is not the case. If two people argue from the same premises but come to contrary and/or contradictory conclusions, then one (or both) are WRONG. If one is right, the other must of necessity be wrong. Also, it has already been showed several times that "doubtful disputations" does NOT mean "people disagree about Scripture". You have yet to prove that when Paul says "doubtful disputations" he means "when people disagree about Scripture".

[donfriesen1]

Originally Posted by Amanah

[b]God used Paul to write a majority of the new testament under the divine inspiration of the Spirit. To say Paul is doubtful is to undermine the Scripture.

Did I say Paul was doubtful? Plz note that the title of this thread is used to draw attention to bait readers to read it. Also note: that the third sentence of post 1 implies that I believe that Paul is never in doubt.

Reading Bible topics in the numerous commentaries will show various contrary opinions on the same scripture, I dare say, on every last topic. (I say this without checking the facts, but human nature being what it is, along with partial checking, leads me to deduce this is going to be seen true. Because I'm fallibly human I may deduce wrong in this opinion, and realise I'm going out on a very thin limb - someone may prove me wrong.) Paul, as brilliant and educated and close to God that he is, will as a human have opinions varying from others. Those opinions which have entered scripture are shown, by being there, to be inspired by the Lord and thus are facts of truth. Paul, in scripture elsewhere, is seen expressing opinions which he himself says aren't inspired from God, leading readers to a quandry.

To say that To say Paul is doubtful is to undermine the Scripture will only be true to those who chose to believe so - they have their right to their human opinion. But any doubt shown by Paul, if so, shows that he is human. Let's not elevate a man to the position that only God can fill by saying To say Paul is doubtful is to undermine the Scripture.

And let's not contradict scripture either: Paul shows us in Ro14 that he knows of Roman Christians who believe contrary to one another, enough to fight over it. Let's hope they didn't stoop to use character assinations, inflaming disagreements counterproductively, but only repudiated other's opinions. He does not correct their doctrine by saying they should believe his. He tells them to be fully persuaded in their contrary opinions. Thus he shows it is OK to believe contrary conclusions on some topics. How could anyone today see otherwise and contradict that which is clear in Ro14? Paul is not in doubt that some scriptures may lead readers to make many contrary conclusions.

Plz don't conclude that I would think contrary opinions are true for every topic, because I don't know this, by facts, to be true.

Plz also note this fact: Paul nowhere says those Romans with contrary opinions are new Christians. He does call them weak, but any of the many concluding they are new Christians have deduced their opinions, however logical they may be, but are not facts stated there. Any stating they are new Christians should throw in a note that this is only an opinion. Thus, what he says in Ro14,15 he is applying to the mature as well as new - everyone. It may apply most-aptly to those mature whose studious habits compel them to think to make 'unbendable to them' conclusions.

Paul may not ever be in doubt but still he allows others to make up their own minds about topics/scripture which allow for various conclusions. To say otherwise is contrary to what is shown in Ro14,15.