"Doubtful Disputations"
 

What does Romans 14:1 mean?

Re: "Doubtful Disputations"
 

Why do I feel a one step vs three step combined with a little standards debate coming on?

Re: "Doubtful Disputations"
 

Cause you are on AFF?

Re: "Doubtful Disputations"
 

:) :) :)

I just discovered this verse!!!

Maybe this is why I really had no problem calling my AOG best friend from the USMC "brother" and really mean it.


But I would like to see this scripture discussed among other Apostolics, who are much more Apsotolic than I am-- maybe I've got the wrong idea or something.

Re: "Doubtful Disputations"
 

before the forthcoming answers, this portion of Scriptures is talking about Gentile Christians and Jewish Christians, and the differences they had. The gentiles in Rome were cautioned against offending Jews by boasting of some of their "freedoms" from Judaic custom. Paul thought it better that Jews believe Christ and Him crucified, than to digress on some of their convictions. If they believed in Christ, served Him and had a genuine Christian spirit, the other things they did certainly did not hinder. Causing contention over it would have been a disaster. The major issue of contention was circumcision.

Personally glad that tradition never ceased :)

Re: "Doubtful Disputations"
 

Well, the churches in Rome were "Apostolic". Context means everything for this.

Count me out if this turns into a three-step/standards debate.

Re: "Doubtful Disputations"
 

I know Paul told Timothy to be circumcised and he did so as an adult to help in spreading the Gospel.


Which that is mind boggling to me. How would they know if others were circumcised or not?

WHY DID THEY CARE?!

I mean, I know about the law, the commandment and the separation, but it seems a bit uh misguided for them to care so much about their "brothers" private parts.


"Brothers" are in quote because wasn't their status as a brother questioned or even denied if they weren't circumcised?

Re: "Doubtful Disputations"
 

ROFLOL! I think this was such a big part of culture. They probably asked each other. Maybe he didn't want to be a fraud either. I don't know. Hopefully they didn't carry around the foreskin.

Re: "Doubtful Disputations"
 

That was Paul's point and the debate in Acts 15. They concluded the are brethern, and on the flip side, the Gentiles "liberty" of not requiring the snip job was not to be lauded. Along with other customs.

Re: "Doubtful Disputations"
 

lol

sick!

Re: "Doubtful Disputations"
 

So has someone on AFF already tried to apply this scriptural concept to our favorite dead horses?

I've never noticed this scripture before!

Re: "Doubtful Disputations"
 

Paul had Timothy circumcised because it was common knowledge that his father was a gentile and never had his son circumcised. Since Timothy had a Jewish mother and would therefore be considered "Jewish" by most, Paul wanted him to have the sign of the old covenant. Titus was Gentile and therefore circumcision was not an issue with him. He was not expected to be circumcised and he was OK with the Jerusalem church that way.

Re: "Doubtful Disputations"
 

Ha! I'm sure this would go over non-doctrinal disputes and things that have low impact on each other's fellowship. With original context, I'm not sure how it can read into 2008 to scratch the dead horse itch that "it all doesn't matter". We have many doubtful disputes that aren't dead horses. My take at least.

Re: "Doubtful Disputations"
 

Could this scripture be enough to help bridge the gap between trinitarian and oneness Pentecostals, in your opinion?