[donfriesen1]

God bless Evang. Benincasa. God loves him with an everlasting love. Those who do not love those who God loves set themselves against God.

Originally Posted by Evang.Benincasa

Nothing strained at all. Paul starts out with labeling one individual as weak in their faith, and in Corinth they are labeled weak in conscience. Obviously if we follow the totality of Paul's teachings to the first century church he doesn't want everyone to remain weak in faith and conscience. Paul called for spiritual growth. Paul stressed that mature saints must protect the conscience of less-mature believers (the "weak") from stumbling into sin, even if it means temporarily restricting their own freedoms, because the goal is unity and building others up, not religiosity to the point of causing harm. This is the entire point of what is seen in 1 Corinthians 8-10 and Romans 14.

When Paul includes in Ro14 that which he had not included in 1Co, we then see he is referring also to a principle he applies to those areas of scripture which he knows are capable of having multiple interpretations. In this we may be seeing the understanding of Paul maturing as he gains more experience. Ro is written after 1Co, after Gal. And Col yet to come.

It still remains true that Paul does not teach those Ro's, those who have contrary views, what they should believe on this subject. He isn't seen correcting their improper views if he thinks they have them.

To think he knows they have knowledge of his earlier writings may be describing him as slopily relying on something which may be untrue for an individual, but which is true for their church. Do we have evidence beyond assumption that this knowledge was common, that every saint in Ro knew what the Co church knew along the lines of a particular practice or doctrine? In today's world that would be like the saints in Nome knowing what hot topics were discussed by saints in Dubai. Possible, but likely? Only, maybe possible.

It remains true that many things he says in Ro14 are not specific to only days or foods. He applies and speaks of that which is a principle which applies to other areas of God's Word.

So, I would yet disagree, when your view would conclude that it is acceptable to place a foundation which will later need to be taken down. Seeing Paul telling a new saint (new is your concept) to hold false doctrine temporarily for peace sake, which they later will find out is wrong, is the same as telling them that their shaky foundation is good to be built in a shaky way because it'll later be torn down to be replaced with a good foundation. Saying as you say shows disregard to the things which aren't only applicable to only days and foods. Surface reading, and then applying what was read to only two topics, insults the God who asks us to dig deeper, who gives us our noodle to dig deeper for greater purposes in the things he has provided. You have such a noodle Dom and also great knowledge of many things secular and Biblical.

Read Ro15.1-7 and tell me you believe he only speaks on two topics, days and foods. No one should say so, you included. Days and foods were the hot topic that applied to Rome but the principles apply to more topics than just these two. I hope you believe this is true. Confirm it by saying you do.

Paul is smarter than to allow the impression that false doctrine is acceptable for a temporary time, much smarter. Nip mistakes in the bud would be his philosophy. Build up from a strong foundation of true doctrine. He would never condone false doctrine or to build on a weak foundation; which is the gist of your thoughts.

What evidence can you present to brace your shaky views? Referring to 1Co8-10 confirms what about having a foundation which is weak? Is 1Co8-10 relevant to Ro14. Yes, very. If Ro is written after 1Co we then might then think this shows Paul is maturing in his theology and practices.