[donfriesen1]

Dom , aff, 41

Originally Posted by Evang.Benincasa

Plz read the following slowly. Speeding through may lead to not grasping important parts.


Don, you don’t understand Romans 14. Do I have perfect understanding of all things in the scripture? No. But I do have partial, including Ro14. Plz do not say that you are different from others, that you have perfect understanding of all.Paul isn’t saying to tolerate false doctrine. Of course, but... Think through the following.

When Paul shows 'that those who hold opposing views on the same subject are OK to do so' he gives the appearance that both views are OK, even while they are opposing views. Both views can't be 100% right, right? Am I right? Thus, one or both could be false doctrine.

This is especially true in those who believe that God always shines doctrinal light with perfect clarity, for every doctrine. Does Paul believe this, about God? If he does, then why would he say all those with opposing views are OK. He wouldn't.

Does Paul condone false doctrine? No. But why does he condone two opposing views of the same topic? It appears from this that he condones false doctrine. There must be another reason why he does so, when he wouldn't condone false doctrine.

It may be that the following tells us why he does so:

Paul believes God does not always shine Light perfectly clearly, so everyone will see every doctrine clearly and with the same view. By saying both of those Ro saints are OK to believe what they believe, he demonstrates that he believes that God does not always shine Light perfectly. If it is not this conclusion, but that he believes God always gives Light perfectly, then he has shown acceptance of false doctrine in those with opposing views.

Thus, Ro14 is not only about weak/strong saints putting up with each other until their understandings mature. Ro14 is instructing (by reading between the lines) that not all topics have only one correct interpretation.

This had rubbed my Apostolic sensibilities the wrong way. They told me God would always only give scripture for doctrine which can only have one result. But, who am I to argue with Paul? I then changed my sensibilities to align with Ro14.

Paul shows us, from reading Ro14 'between the lines', that he demonstrates that multiple views of some doctrines are acceptable, if you believe he does not see God giving Light perfectly every time. That he says that all Romans with contrary views (on some subjects only) are OK to hold them, he must then believe that God does not always shine Light clearly or that he believes that holding false doctrine is OK. It can't be both. The former is more palatable.

If Pastor Doe rejects B Smith on one such unclearly given doctrine, then he sins against Ro14. That Apostolic Orgs have demonstrated that multiple head covering doctrines are acceptable, demonstrates that they (some of them anyway) believe that head covering is an unclear doctrine with more than one such conclusion, that this topic has multiple acceptable views.

Doe is practicing contrary to accepted Org practice and Ro14, if head covering is truly a subject which fits into 'multiple acceptable views'. Not being present when those Apostolics first decided to accept multiple head covering views does not provide light as to why it was done. We only guess that it was done for reasons of Ro14.

Even if they didn't use Ro14 as a guide, this doesn't negate the conclusions of Ro14. It is true regardless of which reasons Apostolic Orgs accept multiple head coverings.

Doe is wrong on both: Org counts and Ro14 counts. This indicates that the past demonstrated a lack of Apostolic teaching on Ro14. It demonstrates a future need to highlight it for its proper practice in all those wanting to be 100% NT - the Apostolic.

I’ve explained this in previous posts. Paul is telling the stronger mature brethren not to destroy the already weak faith of the new converts. And I've said I've agreed. But deeper reading/thinking of Ro14 shows other conclusions which aren't contradictory to that thought. Other Biblically seen occurrences of the use of reading-between-the-lines are seen revealing truth, showing the conclusions I've presented as acceptable. If the reasoning used to reach these conclusions is faulty, then plz share with all here in AFF how so. I would welcome all such thoughts. Paul had already established his thoughts on meat offered to idols that it was demon worship. That the table of Christ cannot be mixed with demon worship. The weaker brethren’s remedy for this is just not to ever eat meat again. But only become holy vegetarians. Paul wants to educate the weaker saints, but not by destroying them. He also brings up the point if you are bid to go to the butchers, eat what is set before you. Yet, don’t ask questions wether or not the meat was offered to idols. Just eat it, but if someone brings it up that the meat was indeed offered to an idol push back the plate. Not for you, but for those who may get the wrong idea about you. Paul is trying to teach wisdom concerning the neophytes in the first century.

I see that Pastor Doe saw you as an extremist? I can’t imagine why he had that idea? Hoho, you are so funny. I am the creator of fictional Pastor Doe. You know more of him than the creator. Doe sees anyone who sees scripture in ways other than he does, as holding false doctrine.

Had Paul met Pastor Doe, he would have explained to Doe that the scriptures show that God does not always give doctrinal light with great clarity in every topic. He would say to Doe that more than one conclusion is OK, "just like I described in writing Ro14".

Is Doe a proud, unbending Apostolic?

Some think only Apostolics have the perfect understanding of everything Biblical, leading them to think 'we cannot ever be wrong'.

If Doe thinks this, then he will kick Paul in the butt, and usher him out the door.

But even the Word shows one of the earliest Apostolics as being reluctantly proved wrong about their Bible interpretation, admitting it, then preaching to Gentiles to receive them into the church. Thank God, we have an example exemplifying that change is possible for Apostolics willing to listen to and think through rational explanations of scripture.

.