The Removal of Romans 14:22
 

Romans 14:21-22 KJV It is good neither to eat flesh, nor to drink wine, nor any thing whereby thy brother stumbleth, or is offended, or is made weak. (22) Hast thou faith? have it to thyself before God. Happy is he that condemneth not himself in that thing which he alloweth.

Romans 14:22 says that if there is something you truly see nothing wrong with, and it is not sin and it is not spoken against in the bible, then you can have liberty to enjoy it to yourself. In other words, do not do it around those who think it is sinful.

This does not condone sin of any kind, obviously. But there are things like certain standards that are not laid out in the bible that some believe are not required of God while others think they are.

I know folks in a church who have to sign a paper for membership now, that lists all the things they cannot do. The paper distinctly says that it does not matter where they are, they are told they cannot do these restrictions. Facial hair is mentioned, and even during the week when one is not around church, the men must always be clean shaven. Paul said just the opposite. If a person does not feel something is incorrect, then they are given the liberty to enjoy it so long as they do not do so around those who disagree with it.

Now, some may try to use this to condone sin, but also some may think something is a sin that is not said to be sin, and think others who disagree it is sin will use this verse to sin. The bottom line is that if one is sincere, and they prayerfully see no error in a thing, then simply enjoy it without the presence of those who do see error.

Romans 14:22 is removed from the lives of folks who have to sign such papers and agree to such conditions. They do not have the chance to fulfill that verse. Paul gave people this liberty that some churches are removing from people's lives.

Anyone else know what I mean?

Re: The Removal of Romans 14:22
 

i understand what you are saying

Re: The Removal of Romans 14:22
 

What is your opinion of this issue?

I preached this once, and a woman came up to me after service and said she was just thinking that very week how she knows of no preachers who will preach that verse. She said they all avoid it. lol

Re: The Removal of Romans 14:22
 

I understand and agree.

But what about if someone from church sees you during the week with your stubble and is offended?

Re: The Removal of Romans 14:22
 

Good question.

I think intention is a point to consider. We cannot live in paranoia. We have not disobeyed scripture to refrain while around others who disagree if we did not intend such a thing to happen. Some things are unavoidable, and we simply must abandon them totally. But it can get to a choice of whether we want to be involved with some churches.

I also think the issue regards offending someone as to to actually offend. OFFEND means to actually cause to stumble, and move someone towards losing salvation.

Re: The Removal of Romans 14:22
 

Interesting. I made that same point on a previous thread some time back and no one agreed with me.

Re: The Removal of Romans 14:22
 

I think we have bandied about this poor, abused word "offend" entirely too carelessly.

I was once wearing a simple tie pen to keep my tie from getting in the way and a pastor came up to me and said, "Brother, why don't you take that thing off, it offends me." That same man some time later ran off with a woman in the church. I hope it wasn't my tie pen that caused that.

The word translated offend is "skandalizo" and, you guessed, it, that is the word we get "scandal" from. It literally means to put a snare or stumblingblock in the way.

When it is used in the case of one who has taken offense it means that one has actually stumbled or fallen.

To put in context, if a person stumbled, or fell, because of my beard I would wonder about their foundation.

Now, if they didn't like it and if it made them angry to see me with a beard, but they didn't stumble over it, then I would have no obligation to them.

Re: The Removal of Romans 14:22
 

Well, I agree with you! :)

Re: The Removal of Romans 14:22
 

Well, thank you! Where were you when I was being dogpiled?!!! :tissue :toofunny

Re: The Removal of Romans 14:22
 

Offense has two meanings - skandalon and skandalizo. In our terms it would be defined as scandal and scandalize.

Skandializo is used primarily as something we often come against - just being annoyed or slighted by someone.

Skandalon means a trigger of a trap that has bait placed on it. The animal will touch the bait and the trap springs. In the moral sense it is referring to an enticement to some conduct that will ruin a person. In Matthew 18:7 Jesus is concerned with the temptation or the enticement that will cause others to sin.

The Bible speaks in all of these verses of NOT being instrumental or having been instrumental in causing another to stumble and thereby fall into temptation and sin.

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?

Re: The Removal of Romans 14:22
 

I agree! :thumbsup

Re: The Removal of Romans 14:22
 

I have always gone to churches (UPC and ALJC) and then later to a couple of other churches where the wearing of jewelry was not an issue. As a young minister I fellowshipped with and preached for ministers who were against the wearing of jewelry. I did not take off my wedding ring when I got on their platforms. Later, I decided to stop wearing my wedding ring just so it wouldn't be a possible offense. I went for several months not wearing my wedding ring. I don't know if any of those ministers even noticed that I was not wearing it so I later put it back on. The only person who was offended at this was my wife and she was offended that I was not wearing my wedding ring.

Re: The Removal of Romans 14:22
 

Definitely.

Re: The Removal of Romans 14:22
 

Sam,

Thinking of your necktie example, I think in some cases lack of necktie would not offend anyone. But since it is PREACHED in contrary manners in two different places, people might get offended in the CONTRADICTION and not the tie or lack thereof, itself. They stumble at why two preachers contradict one another if they're both preachers. So THAT offense is what is actually avoided.

Re: The Removal of Romans 14:22
 

There are things that right and wrong for everybody,there are issues of personal convictions and personal preferences,why make salvation out of things that the bible does not.

For example fornication and adultery are wrong for everybody,but what if somebody was a sports fanatic before they got saved,and then after they got saved,they felt convicted to throw a ball even in their yard can such a one say to other Christians if you throw a ball in your yard you are sinning ?

Why major in minors ?

We should respect others convictions on non-salvational matters,yet there are differences of convictions on non-salvational things,and we must know our bibles well enough to know what God requires and what He doesn't.

Re: The Removal of Romans 14:22
 

Great words!

Re: The Removal of Romans 14:22
 

In short, if Paul gave liberty for people to do what is not sinful away from those who think it is offensive, then churches should not make people sign papers that require them to keep some ordinances at all times, whether they are around those offended or not.

Re: The Removal of Romans 14:22
 

How do you reconcile Romans 14:22 with I Cor 10:13 "There hath no temptation taken you but such as is common to man: but God is faithful, who will not suffer you to be tempted above that ye are able; but will with the temptation also make a way to escape, that ye may be able to bear it."

We are saying a person is weak or offended and therefore can fall away from salvation. How does that work with I Cor 10:13?

Re: The Removal of Romans 14:22
 

Such a weak person is not full of faith enough to believe God for such a promise. And that is associated with the same reason their faith is weak in being easily offended.

Re: The Removal of Romans 14:22
 

If one is around believers who are always looking at you with a fine tooth comb always looking for fault examining your every move,you'll get frustrated to where you can't function,and one can get so in despair to where one can feel like thinking what the use living for God when every move I make seems wrong.

Re: The Removal of Romans 14:22
 

I agree and so he says, "You have an advocate with the Father..." always reaching for us. That is love!

Re: The Removal of Romans 14:22
 

And that is time to get away from such people.

Re: The Removal of Romans 14:22
 

Amen.

(But some have no faith in that either. lol)

Re: The Removal of Romans 14:22
 

God doesn't take a cookie -cutter and make us all the same,there are things that I have personal preferences about,but if those things aren't edicts from God,I don't have the right to impose them on others in the body of Christ.

Re: The Removal of Romans 14:22
 

Amen, and I believe we should distance ourselves from churches that do.

Re: The Removal of Romans 14:22
 

True. So much involved in that - could simply be a person's upbringing that skewed their view even in the church and affected them in whatever circumstance came up.

It's, sort of, like a preacher I heard telling how he loved to sing, but his family always told him he couldn't sing very well. Well, guess what? He has a good voice, but doesn't use it because he never could overcome being self-conscious about it. Another person may overcome it and go on to sing. Not everyone is the same.

Re: The Removal of Romans 14:22
 

What do you think is the motivation for a pastor to require the members to sign such a paper?

Re: The Removal of Romans 14:22
 

Probably a sincere effort to deal with a problem with some members who cannot restrain themselves. But it is a mistake of acting like God to people who do not want to heed God. We cannot make people do things they refuse to do for the Lord.

If people do not want to do something, it is no use making them do so, for it neither blesses them nor God. It's still in their hearts.

In this particular instance, it was an alternative to actually dealing with certain unrestrained people individually, and was so much easier to bully the issue to everyone from the pulpit. Anyway, it's no church I belong to nor ever did belong to. But it's sad to hear it is happening in some places.

Re: The Removal of Romans 14:22
 

Right. We have to be very careful with everyone as individuals.

Re: The Removal of Romans 14:22
 

Alot of pastors are scared of what their peers think,many people are afraid of being labeled a compromiser,and many pastors want the reputation that they control the saints,and they don't anybody to think that they aren't in control of a flock as so their reputations are tarnished.