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: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.
I editorialised at the end "Are there exceptions to above? Can we say we won't submit to the federal government, or CPS, or ... ?"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.
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.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.
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.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?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.
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.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.
Probably the immediate context of what Paul was dealing with was the cultural diversity of converts entering the church.Valerie wrote: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.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.
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!
Wonder then, what he would say 'today'? with the cultural diversity of converts entering the church.silentreader wrote:Probably the immediate context of what Paul was dealing with was the cultural diversity of converts entering the church.Valerie wrote: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.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.
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!
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.