Romans 14

Place for books, articles, and websites with content that connect or detail Anabaptist theology
Hats Off
Posts: 2532
Joined: Thu Feb 09, 2017 6:42 pm
Affiliation: Plain Menno OO

Romans 14

Post by Hats Off »

We see Romans 14 quoted quite regularly on this forum. I read yesterday - but didn't take note of where it was - that Romans 14 is currently replacing John 3:16 as the most quoted scripture. I find this interesting. Apparently we do want scripture that allows us to enjoy our own opinion and frees us from what others may think.
0 x
User avatar
Josh
Posts: 23823
Joined: Wed Oct 19, 2016 6:23 pm
Location: 1000' ASL
Affiliation: The church of God

Re: Romans 14

Post by Josh »

Hats Off wrote:We see Romans 14 quoted quite regularly on this forum. I read yesterday - but didn't take note of where it was - that Romans 14 is currently replacing John 3:16 as the most quoted scripture. I find this interesting. Apparently we do want scripture that allows us to enjoy our own opinion and frees us from what others may think.
Romans 13 seems to be a lot less popular. I posted it verbatim from the NET somewhere else yesterday, but without explictly stating that it was a Bible verse, like below:
Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except by God’s appointment, and the authorities that exist have been instituted by God. So the person who resists such authority resists the ordinance of God, and those who resist will incur judgment (for rulers cause no fear for good conduct but for bad). Do you desire not to fear authority? Do good and you will receive its commendation, for it is God’s servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be in fear, for it does not bear the sword in vain. It is God’s servant to administer retribution on the wrongdoer.
I editorialised at the end "Are there exceptions to above? Can we say we won't submit to the federal government, or CPS, or ... ?"

The most interesting response:
this might get some people mad or me kicked off here, but, I believe this no longer applies in this day and age. I don't believe God would appointment people who believe and support abortion or any other of the gay rights business as he has commandments against such things and i just can't believe he would appoint such authorities. yes in old time it might have been true.
Such a response is fairly common, and I think it highlights how Christians are getting "stuck" in Romans 14 but can't grasp the truth of the simple obedience of Romans 13.
0 x
Sudsy
Posts: 5856
Joined: Sat Feb 11, 2017 3:32 pm
Affiliation: .

Re: Romans 14

Post by Sudsy »

Hats Off wrote:We see Romans 14 quoted quite regularly on this forum. I read yesterday - but didn't take note of where it was - that Romans 14 is currently replacing John 3:16 as the most quoted scripture. I find this interesting. Apparently we do want scripture that allows us to enjoy our own opinion and frees us from what others may think.
Good topic. I'm interested in where other Anabaptists draw the line between an individual relationship with God and a community relationship with God. I think Romans 14 speaks of both.

I don't believe Romans 14 is talking about our own opinions but rather our personal convictions. To me, this does not negate the advice of other Christians but this chapter does speak strongly against condemning other Christians in how they go about serving the Lord. And if we serve the Lord in some way that offends another believer, then, out of love, we should not do this 'in their face', so to speak. I think this supports the idea of a private walk with the Lord while still living within a community of believers. There is an individual side to our walking in the Spirit as there is a community side. And in the end, we will be judged by God and not by what others think.

As I think this chapter says, we can live in harmony with one another and build each other up without dictating that everyone must serve the Lord in a certain way. And if we are living the Kingdom life experiencing good living, peace and joy in the Spirit in harmony with others, then we have found the right balance.

How do others interpret this chapter ? I suspect it may be quite controversial as to application within various groups of Anabaptists.
0 x
Pursuing a Kingdom life in the Spirit
Hats Off
Posts: 2532
Joined: Thu Feb 09, 2017 6:42 pm
Affiliation: Plain Menno OO

Re: Romans 14

Post by Hats Off »

In my mind when reference is made to Romans 14, it is so often in defence of my (our) rights. My earliest recollection of this scripture being used was by a brother who "also wanted to be right" or in defence of his rights. I don't think that should be what we get out of it primarily. It is not so much to defend "my rights" as to acknowledge that we do not all think the same and we need to have love, tolerance and forbearance for other viewpoints.
0 x
Valerie
Posts: 5309
Joined: Fri Dec 23, 2016 6:59 am
Location: Medina OH
Affiliation: non-denominational

Re: Romans 14

Post by Valerie »

Hats Off wrote:We see Romans 14 quoted quite regularly on this forum. I read yesterday - but didn't take note of where it was - that Romans 14 is currently replacing John 3:16 as the most quoted scripture. I find this interesting. Apparently we do want scripture that allows us to enjoy our own opinion and frees us from what others may think.
Whoever is quoting Romans 14 as affirming their 'rights' to enjoy whatever opinion they want to do, is missing the main point of Romans 14 it seems to me. How do we know this chapter is being quoted more than John 3:16? where do we get that statistic?

So what is the main point of Romans 14? To "Walk in Love" towards those who are weaker in the faith- those who have scruples or convictions about things (namely in this section of Romans, food, liturgical calendar, wine, but of course we could add to this list in these days we live).

Apostle Paul makes it clear how he sees this:

"I know and am convinced by the Lord Jesus that there is nothing unclean of itself; but to him wo considers anything to be unclean, to him it is unclean. 15 Yet if your brother is grieved because of your food, you are no longer walking in love.


I agree with Sudsy, in that this seems to be more about personal convictions, than opinions- of course we like to give our opinions, about personal convictions! There are SO many more things to add to the list than the original list Paul gave in Romans 14 which seems to cause more ordinances & divisions in the church- can you name some? I'm sure many come to mind. When you are doing something that you have a personal conviction against, even if another has freedom in that area, you are condemning yourself.

22Happy is he who does not condemn himself in what he approves. 23 But he who doubts is condemned if he eats because he does not eat from faith; for whatever is not from faith is sin.

For me (to apply this to my walk) it is summed up like this- all things are lawful but not all things are profitable-(Apostle Paul is already convinced of this when he said this in 1 Corinthians 10:13)
Jesus Christ gives freedom, but some people have scruples and therefore not free in certain areas- when in their presence, we MUST walk in love, and not grieve those who do not have the same freedom in these areas-
Don't judge each other in these areas!
One thing though- I feel we cannot apply this 'freedom' to areas that the New Testament is clear to do, nor not to do- yet I realize interpretations (and especially modern ones) may cause confusion about these things-
In our modern day, this could apply to SO many things- which can lead to divisions as it does- WALK IN LOVE towards each other. Because of the modern days, technology etc that so many Christians have had to make decisions on allowing in their own lives, while others do not- it is so much more difficult it seems, than when Romans was written. Lord have mercy!
Last edited by Valerie on Fri Jul 21, 2017 8:36 am, edited 1 time in total.
0 x
Valerie
Posts: 5309
Joined: Fri Dec 23, 2016 6:59 am
Location: Medina OH
Affiliation: non-denominational

Re: Romans 14

Post by Valerie »

Hats Off wrote:In my mind when reference is made to Romans 14, it is so often in defence of my (our) rights. My earliest recollection of this scripture being used was by a brother who "also wanted to be right" or in defence of his rights. I don't think that should be what we get out of it primarily. It is not so much to defend "my rights" as to acknowledge that we do not all think the same and we need to have love, tolerance and forbearance for other viewpoints.
Apostle Paul uses the word 'freedom' instead of 'rights'- in other words, I have the freedom to do things that I do not have a scruple or a conviction against- UNLESS it grieves my brother/sister, to witness this, or unless it causes them to stumble.
What I find difficult is when we talk too much about these things to the point we begin trying to convince each other- I don't think Apostle Paul was recommending doing this- (I recently went through this regarding facebook, going back & forth with someone who is convinced it is useful by God- and I on the other hand tend to be concerned about the overuse of facebook in the lives of Christians- we got to the point we were trying to convince each other against what it seemed, as our own personal conviction- I started to feel uncomfortable that we aren't walking in love with this approach of trying to convince the other) Sometimes I feel like when we have the 'freedom' Apostle Paul is talking about, we are trying to justify ourselves to the one who doesn't have the same freedom because it may seem in their eyes, we are not as holy or pious and so we try to justify our freedoms to them- (as I'm writing this many conversations between brothers & sisters pop in my mind, we are definitely living in more difficult times to sift through so much of this stuff!
0 x
silentreader
Posts: 2511
Joined: Wed Nov 02, 2016 9:41 pm
Affiliation: MidWest Fellowship

Re: Romans 14

Post by silentreader »

Valerie wrote:
Hats Off wrote:In my mind when reference is made to Romans 14, it is so often in defence of my (our) rights. My earliest recollection of this scripture being used was by a brother who "also wanted to be right" or in defence of his rights. I don't think that should be what we get out of it primarily. It is not so much to defend "my rights" as to acknowledge that we do not all think the same and we need to have love, tolerance and forbearance for other viewpoints.
Apostle Paul uses the word 'freedom' instead of 'rights'- in other words, I have the freedom to do things that I do not have a scruple or a conviction against- UNLESS it grieves my brother/sister, to witness this, or unless it causes them to stumble.
What I find difficult is when we talk too much about these things to the point we begin trying to convince each other- I don't think Apostle Paul was recommending doing this- (I recently went through this regarding facebook, going back & forth with someone who is convinced it is useful by God- and I on the other hand tend to be concerned about the overuse of facebook in the lives of Christians- we got to the point we were trying to convince each other against what it seemed, as our own personal conviction- I started to feel uncomfortable that we aren't walking in love with this approach of trying to convince the other) Sometimes I feel like when we have the 'freedom' Apostle Paul is talking about, we are trying to justify ourselves to the one who doesn't have the same freedom because it may seem in their eyes, we are not as holy or pious and so we try to justify our freedoms to them- (as I'm writing this many conversations between brothers & sisters pop in my mind, we are definitely living in more difficult times to sift through so much of this stuff!
Probably the immediate context of what Paul was dealing with was the cultural diversity of converts entering the church.
0 x
Noah was a conspiracy theorist...and then it began to rain.~Unknown
Valerie
Posts: 5309
Joined: Fri Dec 23, 2016 6:59 am
Location: Medina OH
Affiliation: non-denominational

Re: Romans 14

Post by Valerie »

silentreader wrote:
Valerie wrote:
Hats Off wrote:In my mind when reference is made to Romans 14, it is so often in defence of my (our) rights. My earliest recollection of this scripture being used was by a brother who "also wanted to be right" or in defence of his rights. I don't think that should be what we get out of it primarily. It is not so much to defend "my rights" as to acknowledge that we do not all think the same and we need to have love, tolerance and forbearance for other viewpoints.
Apostle Paul uses the word 'freedom' instead of 'rights'- in other words, I have the freedom to do things that I do not have a scruple or a conviction against- UNLESS it grieves my brother/sister, to witness this, or unless it causes them to stumble.
What I find difficult is when we talk too much about these things to the point we begin trying to convince each other- I don't think Apostle Paul was recommending doing this- (I recently went through this regarding facebook, going back & forth with someone who is convinced it is useful by God- and I on the other hand tend to be concerned about the overuse of facebook in the lives of Christians- we got to the point we were trying to convince each other against what it seemed, as our own personal conviction- I started to feel uncomfortable that we aren't walking in love with this approach of trying to convince the other) Sometimes I feel like when we have the 'freedom' Apostle Paul is talking about, we are trying to justify ourselves to the one who doesn't have the same freedom because it may seem in their eyes, we are not as holy or pious and so we try to justify our freedoms to them- (as I'm writing this many conversations between brothers & sisters pop in my mind, we are definitely living in more difficult times to sift through so much of this stuff!
Probably the immediate context of what Paul was dealing with was the cultural diversity of converts entering the church.
Wonder then, what he would say 'today'? with the cultural diversity of converts entering the church.
0 x
Sudsy
Posts: 5856
Joined: Sat Feb 11, 2017 3:32 pm
Affiliation: .

Re: Romans 14

Post by Sudsy »

Questions for further discussion -

1) Hats Off - How is Romans 14 a 'replacement' for John 3:16 ? I don't see the replacement idea here.

2) Valerie - You posted this verse - "Yet if your brother is grieved because of your food, you are no longer walking in love." I would like to get some thoughts from you and others regarding a circumstance, for instance, where a brother has a personal conviction (i.e. drinking any alcohol) and he is grieved by those who do (i.e. drink wine with their meal). On the other hand, perhaps the brother who drinks the wine is grieved by the brother who does not and thinks his total abstinence is not a requirement of scripture. How do you see this being worked out in love between the two brothers ?

Or one you are quite familiar with, one sister is grieved that another sister is not wearing the head covering throughout the day and that other sister is grieved as she understands the head covering to be worn only in times of corporate prayer and prophesying. How do you see this being worked out in love between the two sisters ?

3) And then there is the whole issue of brothers and sisters being at varying places in their spiritual growth. If, for instance, a new convert is convicted that he/she should play a sport and in so be a witness to others in how he/she plays and how he/she shares their faith and yet another believer, who has been a believer for years and is convicted to abstain from sports, believes this to being 'a friend of the world', and both are grieved by the action of the other, then how is this to be handled ?

I have my views on these but would like to hear from others first.
0 x
Pursuing a Kingdom life in the Spirit
Valerie
Posts: 5309
Joined: Fri Dec 23, 2016 6:59 am
Location: Medina OH
Affiliation: non-denominational

Re: Romans 14

Post by Valerie »

Sudsy wrote:Questions for further discussion -



2) Valerie - You posted this verse - "Yet if your brother is grieved because of your food, you are no longer walking in love." I would like to get some thoughts from you and others regarding a circumstance, for instance, where a brother has a personal conviction (i.e. drinking any alcohol) and he is grieved by those who do (i.e. drink wine with their meal). On the other hand, perhaps the brother who drinks the wine is grieved by the brother who does not and thinks his total abstinence is not a requirement of scripture. How do you see this being worked out in love between the two brothers ?

Okay, since you asked- I can plug myself into this scenario. I feel the freedom to have a glass of wine (or even a beer). I do not like to feel the affects of alcohol so I stop at one-. My personal belief from Scripture & Church history does not call for abstaining. HOWEVER I will not have a drink if it is bothering someone else. For the passage to say 'if the brother is grieved' I would think 1) they either had shared how this grieves them and so I am aware of it or 2) if I took the liberty to have a glass of wine among others and I could tell it was upsetting someone- I would know to stop- and not to in front of them anymore. I never feel grieved that someone has a conviction NOT to drink- what I DO get upset about is when pastors make up things like the wine that Jesus drank was merely grape juice. So I do have friends in the Lord that believes anytime the appearance of the Lord condoning wine was present, it was really grape juice. False teaching is grievous to me but- I am never grieved if someone is practicing their personal convictions, I probably hold some that I could have the freedom in, that I don't want to exercise the freedom in as well.

Or one you are quite familiar with, one sister is grieved that another sister is not wearing the head covering throughout the day and that other sister is grieved as she understands the head covering to be worn only in times of corporate prayer and prophesying. How do you see this being worked out in love between the two sisters ?

This one- I never see girls/women wearing a headcovering, grieving over those who don't, whether full time or in worship. So far, I haven't witnessed that. I have witnessed women who don't wear one getting upset about me wearing one, telling me "Valerie, we are free!" and then yanking it off my head (this was at work a few years ago.) To me, that was not walking in love. When you all of a sudden pick up a practice because you learned about it, such as this, it is very difficult to take the step and deal with what comes- by fellow brothers & sisters in the Lord. It's not been easy, I've had former Mennonites (or liberal ones who left conservative) question me about it to see if I really understood it- it's so easy to be seen as legalistic. I have to confess it bothers me that women don't cover (now) because I realize how all this came to be the last several decades & I think there's a reason to be discouraged at times- I've never been in the shoes of those ladies who have been taught it is to be done outside of worship too- to really know if it grieves them one way or another, but if it does, I cannot tell. Not sure then I can honestly answer this question, only my own part- It would be easier to drop the practice altogether for me! That's been a temptation- and sometimes I wonder how God feels about it NOW considering all the fuss- example, He is the one who instituted ritualistic worship, but sometimes He was grieved about it, because their hearts were not attached, they would just go through the motions- I consider- could He feel that way about headcovering TODAY?


3) And then there is the whole issue of brothers and sisters being at varying places in their spiritual growth. If, for instance, a new convert is convicted that he/she should play a sport and in so be a witness to others in how he/she plays and how he/she shares their faith and yet another believer, who has been a believer for years and is convicted to abstain from sports, believes this to being 'a friend of the world', and both are grieved by the action of the other, then how is this to be handled ?

Good question! Which is probably why it is easier to go to a church that tells you what to do, instead of leaving it up to personal conviction, in areas that aren't 'clear' in the Scriptures- especially in the modern world. We have to keep trusting that God is at work in their lives, and that WE are not supposed to judge! If they are in actual sin, that is a different story-

I have my views on these but would like to hear from others first.
0 x
Post Reply