Was Paul in doubt about things?

[donfriesen1]

Originally Posted by diakonos

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

Thx for contributing.

I do read replies.

Plz, diakonos, state what you refer to and a reply to your thoughts may be forthcoming.

[donfriesen1]

Originally Posted by Evang.Benincasa

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

no comment

[Amanah]

Yet again we are at an impasse.

[donfriesen1]

Originally Posted by Amanah

Yet again we are at an impasse.

Indeed!

The impasse may indicate that there is there something wrong with my reasoning abilities or that there is something wrong with your reasoning abilities. The real answer may be that both of us are right. And doesn't this impasse prove the point that I'm making in this thread - that two people reading the same scripture can deduce different correct conclusions? It may be because of how the Lord has written some portions of his Word, that he has given it in such a manner purposely, that it can be interpretted in multiple ways.

Something somewhat similar is done with some prophecies seen in the OT. Some prophecies show that they are given both for their present time and also for the future - that the same prophecy can be interpretted to apply to different times, in a sense two interpretations.

What is seen with these prophecies and with Ro14,15 is that this is OK to have different conclusions and let each person be fully persuaded in their own mind, even if differing. This clashes in the mind of some, with the thought that when God speaks he must mean only one thing, because it shows him saying two or more things at the same time. But who are we, in our understanding of things, to say that the Lord must mean only one thing when we as mere humans at times use words with double meanings? Perhaps we do so because we are created in his image. Would we deny the Lord doing something similar on a more sophisticated level?

In Ro14,15 Paul shows that he allows for multiple interpretations of the same scriptures on days and food. He doesn't disparage them, or call them fools, or say they are confused but accepts them with their multiple conclusions because the wisdom of God and love of God abides in him. He tells others to receive them and not to judge them, even though he has his own conclusions.

But this principle can only be carried so far with some scriptures. The Lord is a God of truth and this principle cannot be applied to all areas or when conclusions are opposed to truth shown elsewhere. It may be that the allowance of multiple interpretations is given by the Lord to test us and snare some who obviously do not want to follow truth, for whatever reason, the Lord giving them the ability to reason themselves into error because their heart is against truth. Thus the Lord gives them enough rope to hang themselves. Mt13.14,15
‘Hearing you will hear and shall not understand,
And seeing you will see and not perceive;
For the hearts of this people have grown dull.
Their ears are hard of hearing,
And their eyes they have closed,
Lest they should see with their eyes and hear with their ears,
Lest they should understand with their hearts and turn,
So that I should heal them.’

The interpretation Jesus shows us from this Isaiah prophecy shows a God who gives Man his Word, which these read and hear, but don't having the (proper) understanding of to know the truth. Its not the fault of the Word/God that from the Light given them, that they see and they don't perceive truth, for their dark heart prevents it.

Keep your heart with all diligence,
For out of it spring the issues of life.
[/COLOR]

[donfriesen1]

When Paul says 'doubtful disputations' do you understand him to say that the disputations are described as doubtful; therefore, used as an adjective? Or do you see that the disputations are titled 'doubtful', as a noun coming from those in a group of different kinds of disputations? ie, disputations of confusing things, disputations of sure things, disputations of incorrect things?

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by donfriesen1

The impasse may indicate that there is there something wrong with my reasoning abilities or that there is something wrong with your reasoning abilities. The real answer may be that both of us are right. And doesn't this impasse prove the point that I'm making in this thread - that two people reading the same scripture can deduce different correct conclusions?

That was not the point you were making in this thread, though. It is accepted by everyone that "two people reading the same scripture can deduce different conclusions". It is however incorrect - as I have repeatedly pointed out - that two people can come to two contradictory or contrary conclusions that are both correct.

What is seen with these prophecies and with Ro14,15 is that this is OK to have different conclusions and let each person be fully persuaded in their own mind, even if differing.

As has been repeatedly pointed out, your conclusion about the meaning and application of Romans 14 is incorrect. It is not grammatically or linguistically correct, it is not logically correct, it is not historically correct, and it is not hermeneutically correct. This has been shown to you multiple times, yet you never actually address the points that are made which refute your position. Instead, you simply reassert your position. The fact that you disagree is not at all proof that "Paul says it's okay to disagree about Scripture". That is called begging the question and is a logically fallacy. And simply repeating your position without actually addressing (logically) the points made in rebuttal to you is called "Argumentum ad nauseum", it's a fallacy based on repeating one's assertions as if to "win the argument by sheer volume".

In Ro14,15 Paul shows that he allows for multiple interpretations of the same scriptures on days and food.

See? Here you are simply asserting your conclusion and interpretation, but you never actually show any proof or reasonings that lead from Paul's statements to your conclusion. Once again, you are arguing ad nauseum and begging the question.

That is why there is an impasse.

[donfriesen1]

Originally Posted by Esaias

(quoted from Don to Amanah in an earlier post): The impasse may indicate that there is something wrong with my reasoning abilities or that there is something wrong with your reasoning abilities. The real answer may be that both of us are right. And doesn't this impasse prove the point that I'm making in this thread - that two people reading the same scripture can deduce different correct conclusions? Esaias responds:

Different conclusions vs contrary conclusions? There may be a very fine line between the two. Perhaps you have an example to your points. This may be a time to read between the lines to see what a person is actually trying to say versus what their words appear to be saying. Reading the whole instead of focussing on a small portion usually brings out the true intent clearer. Or is your saying this a smoke screen?

Repeatedly pointed out incorrect? Compared with what - another's opinion or with scripture? I use the scripture, good reading ability and good reasoning to make a good scriptural interpretation which doesn't contradict the scripture. That it may not be the same opinion as what someone else sees does not automatically make it wrong. Prove it unscriptural or logically unacceptable.

Not historically correct? The first mention historically of the conclusions Paul makes is within Ro14,15. Any other later historical conclusions should agree with the earliest first conclusion. Plz show how my actual lack of mentioning any history can contradict Ro14,15, when it hasn't been made. Thus you use smoke and mirrors to prove you points. What gives that you use such methods? I'm convinced you are capable of much better methods.

Not hermeneutically/logically correct? The premise I make is taken from the facts found in Ro14,15. All who read Ro14,15 should conclude similarily as I do, because: Paul clearly states for all to read, that there are disputes over doctrines of food and days. This logically indicates to everyone who reads that Roman people were having different opinions when reading/hearing the scriptures which indicate food and days. It is not a giant step then to logically assume that, when these opinions of days and foods are seen by Paul to be different from each other, that he may believe them to oppose or be contradictory opinions, but accepts them. Thus they fit the premise that you stated I had made.

It is also thus shown not to be my premise, but a reiteration of a premise Paul would make. Any opinions from hermeneutics or logic of Ro14,15 then should agree with what is seen as Paul showing all of us a premise. If they don't get their premise from Paul's facts, as I do, then where do they come from? - not the text of Ro14,15 - but elsewhere in the reasonings of Man's mind. Conclusions made hermeneutically/logically should first come from the facts of the text in question not the mind of Man from elsewhere.

I repeated the premise, which I have stated is not mine but Paul's. It is taken from scripture. It is correct to do so. It is the logical first step to a premise and is a logical defense against accusations of error. The reason I had done so is to show that all should logically come to the same conclusion as he. If you see the premise as wrong, then state what premise might be concluded of these facts: 1. Paul states there are doubtful disputations. 2. Paul gives two examples of areas of disputation. 3. Paul does not warn that the conclusions of those who are disputing are wrong. 4. Paul does not offer any corrected conclusions. 5. Paul says, in effect, that multiple conclusions are OK, when stating that everyone who makes conclusions should be fully convinced of what they are doing. 6. Paul repeatedly admonishes and instructs that all those who hold to opposing conclusions should be received, not judged, etc (even if they don't have the same conclusions? Yes even so). What would you conclude is a suitable premise and conclusion from these facts? My premise and conclusions leave out none of these facts and explains why something seen as an irregularity (opposing opinions) should be received as OK.

If Paul had concluded other than to say that he thinks it OK to come to multiple contrary conclusions of some scriptures, then he instead of doing what he had done, as stated in the 6 pts above, he would have done the following: He might have explained why one, or all sides, of the conclusions of those who dispute are wrong. He would not have told them to be fully persuaded in their own minds. He would have shown the correct doctrine to hold. He does none of these. If he does not show us that the premise 'that it is Ok to hold contrary conclusions' is correct, then he has dropped the ball in his response to the Ro, forsaken his apostolic duty, and wrongly taught others to receive, not judge, etc, any persons who hold multiple contrary conclusions. But he didn't drop the ball, did his apostolic duty and must think he does right in saying to receive all who have opposing opinions on some scripture.

That Paul teaches it is acceptable to have multiple contrary conclusions on some Scripture is a logical conclusion that fits the facts of Ro14,15 well. Often, if deduced conclusions fit the facts well, then it is believed that it should be seen as a truth.

Plz show how these disputors in Ro14,15 do not show an example of contradicting what you say. That they dispute views of scripture shows they have multiple contrary conclusions.


Quote: Don says in another post: Plz show how these disputors in Ro14,15 do not show an example of contradicting what you say. That they argue shows they have contrary conclusions. Esaias responds:
See? Here you are simply asserting your conclusion and interpretation, but you never actually show any proof or reasonings that lead from Paul's statements to your conclusion. Once again, you are arguing ad nauseum and begging the question. Not so. I have shown my reasoning, as I have done in this post as well.

That is why there is an impasse. Rather, I'm inclined to think that you throw up smoke screens in this post, because you have nothing of substance to contradict the premise in what Paul shows he believes. Plz explain why Paul would say it is acceptable to hold to doubtful things.

.

[Amanah]

I think a misinterpretation of Romans 14 is used to justify liberal opinions that can be refuted with sound doctrine.

The point of Romans 14 is to not argue over opinions that have no scriptural basis.

[donfriesen1]

Originally Posted by Amanah

Actually I'm focussing my discussion more on the phrase in the first verse, rather than, as you say, a misinterpretation of the whole passage. I'm trying to answer this question, 'Why does Paul use the phrase "doubtful things?". What are doubtful things?

No scriptural basis? How can you say this when Paul writes about those who argue about scriptural interpretations?

.

[donfriesen1]

reply to post 2.

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". I should have added the words 'some of' when I said "Because what he knows and teaches from the OT is 'deduced knowledge', he calls this knowledge a 'doubtful thing'," making it "Because some of what he knows and teaches from the OT is 'deduced knowledge', he calls this knowledge a 'doubtful thing',". An example is the deduced NT knowledge of types and shadows.


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. Paul's conclusions of the conclusions which some Ro's had on food and days proves your conclusion here is wrong. This is not mathematics where a formula must come to the same answer everytime.


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". What then of the mind of Paul, for that is how thinks of these Ro's conclusions. Why does he call it a 'doubtful thing'. It is his definition of doubtful things.


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. No one reading the OT, the only Bible Paul has, would say that days and food are 'not addressed in Scripture'.