Personal Convictions

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by mizpeh

Romans 14:19 Let us therefore follow after the things which make for peace, and things wherewith one may edify another.
20 For meat destroy not the work of God. All things indeed are pure; but it is evil for that man who eateth with offence.
21 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.
23 And he that doubteth is damned if he eat, because he eateth not of faith: for whatsoever is not of faith is sin

It was sin depending on the attitude and faith of the person.

If the one who did not believe it was right to eat meat, ate meat, doubting and not convinced through faith that it was okay to eat meat, he was damned!

If the one who had liberty, flaunted his liberty and caused a weaker brother to fall, he condemned himself.

Not eating meat may have not been a commandment of God but it seems one can be damned if they eat meat while still believing to do so is wrong. You may not be able to cut this area as fine as you want to in black and white.

Again...where does it say this is a commandment for one person and NOT a commandment for the other? Where does it say GOD condemns that person for not obeying God? It's not there. This is not contrary to my point in the thread. I never argued someone can't have a personal conviction. I am asking where does it come from?

In this case Paul speaks of faith and doubt. He speaks of NOT putting a stumbling block. There is nothing here about God giving someone a conviction that HE did not give another and that it will decide his eternal fate

In fact in Paul's mind the issue here is between those that are weak and those that have faith. Really not related to the topic of this thread

[mizpeh]

Originally Posted by Praxeas

Again...where does it say this is a commandment for one person and NOT a commandment for the other? Where does it say GOD condemns that person for not obeying God? It's not there. This is not contrary to my point in the thread. I never argued someone can't have a personal conviction. I am asking where does it come from?

In this case Paul speaks of faith and doubt. He speaks of NOT putting a stumbling block. There is nothing here about God giving someone a conviction that HE did not give another and that it will decide his eternal fate

In fact in Paul's mind the issue here is between those that are weak and those that have faith. Really not related to the topic of this thread

Those who are weak have faith and those who are strong have faith, Prax. They each believe different things. One believes it is okay to eat meat and the other believes it is not. Paul doesn't condemn those who hold a conviction that it is wrong to eat meat.

We have come to call these personal convictions. Maybe you are tripping over the word, conviction. It doesn't have to be a commandment of God that would be a sin if disobeyed. It truly can be sinful for someone who believes that it is wrong in God's eyes to eat meat if they were to eat meat in a doubting frame of mind.

[mizpeh]

Personal convictions that don't line up with the word of God appear to come from a weak conscience.

[Encryptus]

Originally Posted by mizpeh

Personal convictions that don't line up with the word of God appear to come from a weak conscience.

I would say weaker understanding, but I know where you are coming from on this.

Basically those who would add extra-Biblical standards are like those forbidding to eat meat,which are the ones actually of weaker understanding.

So by extension those who have a deeper understanding of grace should be tolerant of those who impose extra-Biblical standards lest they cause them to take offense and backslide. Until they (the weaker ones) come into a full understanding of grace.

Well said Mizpeh.

[mizpeh]

Originally Posted by Encryptus

I would say weaker understanding, but I know where you are coming from on this.

Basically those who would add extra-Biblical standards are like those forbidding to eat meat,which are the ones actually of weaker understanding.

So by extension those who have a deeper understanding of grace should be tolerant of those who impose extra-Biblical standards lest they cause them to take offense and backslide. Until they (the weaker ones) come into a full understanding of grace.

Well said Mizpeh.

LOL,

Paul wasn't tolerant of those who IMPOSED extra biblical standards but he was tolerant of those who had personal convictions and kept them personal. Not only was he tolerant of those with personal convictions, he sought not to offend them.

http://www.apostolicfriendsforum.com...1&postcount=26

[Encryptus]

Originally Posted by mizpeh

LOL,

Paul wasn't tolerant of those who IMPOSED extra biblical standards but he was tolerant of those who had personal convictions and kept them personal. Not only was he tolerant of those with personal convictions, he sought not to offend them.

http://www.apostolicfriendsforum.com...1&postcount=26

I understand and agree, Paul taught for those who had understanding to be tolerant of the ultra-cons in his day.

[Scott Hutchinson]

There are things that the bible tells us that are right and wrong for everybody and then there are non essential matters.For example it is wrong to everybody to fornicate.
But suppose Sister Susie feels it's wrong to wear the color red does it make wrong for all the sisters to wear the color red.
Suppose Bro.Jim feels convicted agains't throwing a football in his yard,does this mean that all christians who throw a football in their yard with their children are lost ?

[AbundantGrace]

Originally Posted by Rico

Prax, are you saying that God has never required something from you that He doesn't require from everyone else?

I don't have time to argue this point, but I do want to say something real quickly in line with what Rico made mention of here. Jesus Himself said in Luke the 12th chapter, "To whom much is given, much will be required". There is no question that because of certain variables in individuals, God has some different requirements for different people.

Anyway, I've got to get to bed, but I was reading over this and just wanted to drop a quick line.

Good Night!

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by mizpeh

Those who are weak have faith and those who are strong have faith, Prax. They each believe different things. One believes it is okay to eat meat and the other believes it is not. Paul doesn't condemn those who hold a conviction that it is wrong to eat meat.

We have come to call these personal convictions. Maybe you are tripping over the word, conviction. It doesn't have to be a commandment of God that would be a sin if disobeyed. It truly can be sinful for someone who believes that it is wrong in God's eyes to eat meat if they were to eat meat in a doubting frame of mind.

Mizpeh...let me say this a little more clearly what Paul is saying. No I am not saying the weak have no faith whatsoever, but Paul connects it to faith and being weak. He very clearly spells that out. He also says "he that doubts".

paul does not condemn them. I know that. But the question is or was...are these convictions FROM God?

Is this persons belief or weakness from God? If it is then we have a God that has two sets of laws for different people. All these posts seem to be going off topic.

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by mizpeh

Personal convictions that don't line up with the word of God appear to come from a weak conscience.

Are you asserting that? This is my point, not so much from a weak conscience but that they are not from God as though God has different sets of laws or rules for different people