Re: The Removal of Romans 14:22
 

lol

I was around some folks for a while who always said, "That offends me". Or "you oeffended me." They loved saying that. They took it so casually that I finally said, the bible tells us that if we love the Word of God, nothing will offend us. So they are only say they are spiritually immature. lol

Psalms 119:165 KJV Great peace have they which love thy law: and nothing shall offend them.

Re: The Removal of Romans 14:22
 

I'm never quite sure how to comply with Romans 14, 1 Corinthians 8, and 1 Corinthians 10 which all seem to be joined in my mind.

These passages seem to teach that we (Christians) will not all agree on what things are wrong and what things are OK for us to do. There will be differences of opinion. Each of us should respect the opinion of others. None of us should do things that cause others to stumble. But, how far do we go with this.

Take alcohol for example. The way I understand the Bible, alcohol in moderation is OK and drunkenness is not. It would be OK then for a Christian to drink alcohol as long as it is in moderation. Some Christians think that drinking any alcohol at all is a sin. I know of a couple of pastors who used to meet and discuss their ministry (one reported to the other in that local church organization) over a couple of beers. This was not a problem for either one of them. That would be a problem for some others though.

In order to comply with the Word, is it wrong for these ministers to drink any alcohol since some of their brothers or sisters think it is wrong?

Should these ministers abstain from all alcohol use because others may think it is wrong?

Should these ministers go ahead and drink together but not offer a drink to someone who thinks it is wrong? Or should they not drink at all when in the presence of someone who thinks it is wrong?

This same question could apply to nicotine or caffein use, or to eating meat vs. vegetarianism, or to keeping a sabbath, or to the wearing of certain colored clothing and many other things.

Re: The Removal of Romans 14:22
 

Sam, it is a shame this passage in Romans has not been preached hardly at all. Otherwise we might clearly have the answers. But other passages are stressed more than this. lol

Re: The Removal of Romans 14:22
 

I love that scripture because it is in essence saying, "Great peace have they which love they law and nothing shall cause them to stumble."

Now, in Romans 14:22 ".....nor any thing whereby thy brother stumbleth, or is offended, or is made weak."

How do we reconcile Romans 14:22 with Psalms 119:165? It doesn't appear that Romans is conveying that the person that is weak or offended doesn't love God, but needs special care given in their circumstances.

Could you elaborate on that?

Re: The Removal of Romans 14:22
 

Lets just say that I have been living my life that way for the past several years. =) Think that will explain what I think about it.

Re: The Removal of Romans 14:22
 

Quite a few years ago I belonged to an organization called The Church of Jesus Christ Pentecostal Faith. Our Presiding Bishop was G.R. Brock. He pastored a church in Indianapolis. He believed that a minister should always wear a neck tie and he based that on the Old Testament where it described how a priest should dress.

Bishop Brock visited a church in Kentucky pastored by Bro. Martin. Bro. Martin did not believe men should wear neckties. He considered them to be nothing more than useless adornment. At his request, Bishop Brock removed his necktie when he stood up on the platform behind the pulpit to preach. Bishop Brock said something about honoring the local pastor and obeying him. Then Bishop Brock turned to Bro. Martin and offered him an invitation to come to preach for him in Indianapolis. He then told Bro. Martin that he (Bishop Brock) required any man who preached for him to wear a necktie. He went on to inform Bro. Martin that he kept a necktie in the pulpit just in case a minister came along who didn't have one.

Does this comply with Romans 14?

Re: The Removal of Romans 14:22
 

Romans 15 gives the answer. There are some who are weak in the faith, and that the strong, who have strong faith and believe in more liberty, should bear the infirmities of the weak and stop doing what they feel they are at liberty to do. Jesus suffered for us when He did not have to.

Romans 15:1-7 KJV We then that are strong ought to bear the infirmities of the weak, and not to please ourselves. (2) Let every one of us please his neighbour for his good to edification. (3) For even Christ pleased not himself; but, as it is written, The reproaches of them that reproached thee fell on me. (4) For whatsoever things were written aforetime were written for our learning, that we through patience and comfort of the scriptures might have hope. (5) Now the God of patience and consolation grant you to be likeminded one toward another according to Christ Jesus: (6) That ye may with one mind and one mouth glorify God, even the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ. (7) Wherefore receive ye one another, as Christ also received us to the glory of God.

We are to consider those who are weak as easily offended. We cannot hurt them, or else we are hurting Christ. Being easily offended is a sign of immaturity and weak faith, but it is not a sign they do not love God. That is why we are told to have our liberty to ourselves and not around them..

Re: The Removal of Romans 14:22
 

I think so. A silly application, but still applicable.

Re: The Removal of Romans 14:22
 

It is true that these two words are often translated offend, or offense. However, according to Vines skandalizo is derived from skandalon and means "to put a snare or stumblingblock in the way".

our challenge is to carefully guard our life and actions so that we do not become the cause of another stumbling or falling away.

Re: The Removal of Romans 14:22
 

:thumbsup

Do you think that a person could become weak in faith at intervals in their Christian walk due to very trying circumstances that surround a person?