Quote:
Originally Posted by donfriesen1
Thx, Dom. Good info.
This fits quite well with my words, when I had said that the Org has already determined to accept both the ulv and the vv. If they accept two head covering views, then what should prevent the acceptance of a third - the iv?
|
A third view? That's what you are going to hash out with the pastor. Not with the entire organization, right? You are B. Smith, and therefore are going to present your thoughts to to Pastor John Doe. It will be up to him, and him alone whether or not you continue in any capacity as a teacher minister in his congregation. Are you holding license with the Canadian UPCI?
Quote:
Originally Posted by donfriesen1
This may also put forth the thought that they who had put forward this way of acceptance of multiple views, did so as their response to Ro14. Does Clanton say anything about the reason to accept multiple head covering views, or about Ro14?
|
No
Quote:
Originally Posted by donfriesen1
I contend that the reason that Paul writes Ro14 is to diminish the tendency of human nature to adamantly stand for what they believe, even in small things, causing division. To lessen the potential divisions over small things (which can't be proven with certainty one way or another anyway) Paul says to accept those who strive for small unproveable things, in order to better the unity surrounding the important things (which are able to be seen as approved by all). Acceptance of minor points maintains unity on major points. Acceptance of minor differences makes the Kingdom stronger.
|
Where does Paul explain how the items of "meat used in pagan sacrifice" or sabbaths were unprovable? Paul's primary goal is to maintain unity and prevent division within the church over matters of personal conscience, which mainly deals with spiritually weak brethren. Individuals who were to be tolerated until they went from being weak to becoming strong. Eating food offered to idols wasn't a small matter to Paul. He viewed it as a major problem. As demon worship which couldn't be mingled with the table of Christ. Yet, his issue was how the weaker saints would deal with the problem. By concocting a system to only eat vegetables and abstaining from meat. Paul, never intended that anyone would remain weak, and continue to Holy Vegetrainism.
Quote:
Originally Posted by donfriesen1
But Dom, while you appear to be hell-bent to smack down anything I have said in the Ro14 thread, here you are putting forward evidence that agrees with my assertions. Did you hit your head on something today, causing dizziness before posting this? What brings forth this unusual agreeableness? Is this a Christmas present from you?
|
Oh, you are agreeing with what I wrote? Ok, so let's see. You believe that Paul felt that meat offered to idols wasn't a good thing. The only reason he deals with the issues in
1 Corinthians 8:9-13, and
Romans 14:1-3 was primarily on how to treat brethren who really were immature and haven't reached the fullness and stature of Christ. The stronger brethren were to show love and gentle guidance until the weaker brethren came up to speed. Ok, so how does this help your case in the pastor excepting your views? I asked you this before, are you the "weak brethren?" therefore the pastor is supposed to not make your view an issue and let you climb behind the pulpit?
Quote:
Originally Posted by donfriesen1
Merry Christmas to you and your family!
|
That means nothing to my family or myself. We don't celebrate Xmas.