[donfriesen1]

Dom says this in post 13 "The subject matter is a "weak brother" translated as immature convert who isn't at the level of his brethren. One individual is eating nothing but vegetables because of his fear of not wanting to eat meat offered to idols. Days are observed in ritualistic fashion by those "weak" in the faith. Paul, would rather have the stronger brethren tolerate the weaker instead of beating the snot out of them. Until those weaker brothers come to the fullness of truth in time."

Some, when they come to AFF, get the snot beat out with words, as in saying they are ecclesiastical narcissists. Some people in AFF exihibit themselves as the strong bear which should not be poked.

There is much more to this Ro14 story than just the attitude a wrong, strong brother may have toward a weak brother. To restrict the thought, that the many, many words of Ro14; 15.1-7 are only said for this reason, using many words when this could have been said in a few, may then miss the point Paul wants to make using many words. Many words are used to convey an important concept which is applicable to churches/Christians over the globe and for all time. He addresses the part of human nature, which when after deciding to stand for something worthwhile, will then want to stand unbending. As a Pastor said, people are extremists. They may neglect forever but when they choose not to, they take it as far as possible in the other direction.

Someone conscientious about tending to scripture to formulate doctrine for life guidance, like those of Ro14, causing them to discipline their eating habits is far from 'weak' in all things. 'Weak' does not describe someone who examines the Word to gain an understanding for how to conduct themselves in the fear of God. Those referred to in Ro14, do so. When challenged by someone opposing their view, they may stand to defend it, and this may result in an argument and division. Paul is reaching deeper and farther than just surface conflicts. He is not a babysitter nor a referee. He is exposing the root cause. He wants Roman Christians to know something which will be carried with them for their lives.

Whatever weakness Paul is describing in Ro14, does not cause Paul to say to any there, that they should discontinue believing contrary views.

The role of the preacher in Ro14 is not, Dom, as you have wrongly suggested, to tell some that for them to continue holding false doctrine is acceptable, telling them so with the hopes that the passing of time will result in a change of their views to believe the right view. Paul says the role of the preacher (he is one) is to convince, rebuke, exhort, with all longsuffering and teaching.

Giving instruction in Ro14 for the correct view which all should hold would resolve conflicts about which view is correct. Paul does not here do this. Saying he doesn't do so to avoid elevating conflicts in the Rome church, would say he holds intimate knowledge of the individuals in conflict, which could only be possible had he lived with them.

Paul also says to Timothy, a preacher, about those who are desiring to be teachers of the law (the law is the source of the two topics which Paul references in Ro14) that Timothy should charge some that they teach no other doctrine. He does not tell Timothy to put on hold the idea of waiting to see if their views will correct. Address the issue, is his message.

If Paul believes that God always communicates doctrine with perfect clarity, then anyone believing in something other than that which this clarity brings, believes in false doctrine. But Paul tells those Romans who believe contrary things about holy days and foods, that all are OK. He would thus be condoning the holding of false doctrine in either one or all. Those with opposing views can't all be right.

But Paul is smarter than this. He himself has seen, during his studies of the Word, that different conclusions can be correctly reached when reading the same things. He knows that God's Word does not always clearly convey concepts. That is why he tells those Romans with contrary views they are all OK. It could be concluded that Paul believes God sometimes communicates unclearly, purposely. Jesus' teaching about his use of parables, Mt13, shows him using this same method. Did his study of scripture lead him to the idea that God does not always communicate clearly, resulting in this methodolgy? Perhaps.

Paul also says the law is good if it is used for any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine. Paul does not condone false doctrine. He would nip false doctrine in the bud, not teach someone to continue to hold it for a time, because time may help solidify it.

I have put My words in your mouth...to root out and to pull down, to destroy and to throw down, to build and to plant. Jer1.9,10. God's word is given to destroy false doctrine, not to put on hold the correcting of it. You, Dom, are so far out to lunch with your idea that we wonder if you'll ever be back to work on time.

Your idea of Ro14, Dom, that 'Paul would teach the Romans to ignore false doctrine in some, to give them time to potentially change over time', is weak. It does not agree with the practices seen in Paul elsewhere, as per the above.

I would agree with you, that the method you suggest, may potentially work with some saints on some topics, and would sometimes cause a change of mind to come later, in some. But this is not the way of God for the Apostle, Prophet, Evangelist, Teacher. They are called to proclaim/teach truth and true doctrine, to teach against falsehood, and are not called to allow the idea that false doctrines are acceptable.

That Paul apparently teaches the opposite to this in Ro14 demands an explanation. For, he tells those with opposing views of the same topic that it is OK to do so. Without an explanation as to why, it leaves the impression (if God is thought always to speak clearly on a subject with perfect clarity resulting in only one possible correct view), that Paul must then be saying it is OK to hold false doctrine when he tells those with two opposing views they are both OK to do so. I have provided an explanation which shows why Paul is OK to do so. Why not accept it, so as to bring Paul into good light, which the view of him accepting and teaching that false doctrine is acceptable does not.

But, perhaps I'm out to lunch with these thoughts. Perhaps you have an example or another scripture to bolster your view. Where does the NT show activity or instruction which mirrors your thought that an Apostle teaches that false doctrine must be accepted for peace-purposes, in hopes that time will cause future changes in views? I'd suggest that if you cannot provide this, that your view should not be propagated because it only has support in the mind.

As usual, you will not respond, and will deflect from the question by raising another point. Perhaps it will be about an Org or my activities in my church, which you have frequently referenced when not wanting to address the topic of this thread.

We've watched the methodologies you've used in the past. Saying this about you is not being like the racists who automatically paint everyone of the same skin colour the same negative way. This view of you has been learned from experience here in AFF. All can see it reading your replies in threads.

But disprove this opinion of you.

Dom will now run away from this thread. He has already laid the groundwork for doing so when saying that he has already amply disproved the ideas I have put forth, saying he has correctly said all there is to say. He will also say, wrongly, that my lack of responses to his points has frustrated him out of this thread.

Bible views which ring true should be accepted by all when they refute errors of thought. Those who do not, shamelessly exhibit disdain for truth.