When does Romans 14 apply?

[JimFoxvog]

This is similar to another thread I started, but I wanted to focus a little differently.
[bible]Rom 14,1-10[/bible]
How do we decide on what issues we are not to judge or criticize one another? What are current day equivalents to special days or meat sacrificed to idols?

[lesterb]

Maybe vaccinations, celebrating Christmas, medical system vs alternative medicine

[KingdomBuilder]

What sense of "judgement" is this chapter using?

[JimFoxvog]

What sense of "judgement" is this chapter using?

ISV and HCSB translate the word "criticism." So that's the opinion of at least two scholars.

[MaxPC]

This is similar to another thread I started, but I wanted to focus a little differently.
[bible]Rom 14,1-10[/bible]
How do we decide on what issues we are not to judge or criticize one another? What are current day equivalents to special days or meat sacrificed to idols?

It seems to me that the kinds of behavioral issues that are considered small are spelled out in the first 3 verses. These are cultural customs he's highlighting, not Truths of the Faith. In modern slang it could be paraphrased as "don't sweat the small stuff and love each other instead of bickering."

This section always sounded to me like the effort is focused on building a community of believers with individuals who come from a diversity of backgrounds. Cultural bigotries existed then as they do now. Further, early Christian communities were often a mix of Jews and Gentiles: there were religious and cultural conflicts between those two.

[Ernie]

We used this recently in our congregation whenever a couple brothers felt it was unscriptural for a person to return to his first wife after having married another. They would have felt uncomfortable communing with a brother who did this. So we agreed that we won't commune with people who do this, but will not object to a brother going to a church that allows this.

[Heirbyadoption]

We used this recently in our congregation whenever a couple brothers felt it was unscriptural for a person to return to his first wife after having married another. They would have felt uncomfortable communing with a brother who did this. So we agreed that we won't commune with people who do this, but will not object to a brother going to a church that allows this.

Interesting. I never heard how that ended up. So do I understand correctly that your congregation is willing to apply some of this beyond just cultural customs then, to the point of letting the interpretation of a couple brothers cause you (as a congregation) to literally withhold communion from another brother who has reunited in his original marriage? And where does that leave the rest of your congregation who feel it acceptable for the brother to reunite in his original marriage?

Ultimately, where does that pattern stop? Or shouldn't it?

[Dan Z]

If I would put Paul's examples from these verses into one category (eating meat or not, esteeming one day over another), I would say they are examples of personal religious conviction sincerely aimed at pleasing God. A brother or sister doesn't eat meat because they believe this practice is what God wants. A brother or sister esteems Sat as the Sabbath because they believe it is what God desires. Regardless of the practice's significance in the big picture, they get credit for their desire to be faithful to their convictions.

But just as important is what these examples are not:

• They are not matters of sin. (e.g. Just a few sentences earlier Paul says - v 13:13 "Let us behave decently, as in the daytime, not in carousing and drunkenness, not in sexual immorality and debauchery, not in dissension and jealousy.").
  
  They are not matters of core doctrine or belief (i.e. They are built on the foundation a of Jesus as Lord, Savior and King - not in place of it).
  
  They are matters of personal conviction not collective (church) conviction.
  
  Finally, they are extrapolated beliefs not explicit beliefs. In other words, they do not represent the clear and direct teaching of Christ and his apostles, but are arrived at via interpretation of indirect teachings.

Bottom line, if someone who desires to please Christ is sincere in their personal conviction, and if it is not sin or heresy, give them space to do their thing in good conscience before the Lord.

Now...what if they begin to insist that their personal extrapolated conviction is a universal truth that must obeyed by all (as many do)?

[Josh]

We used this recently in our congregation whenever a couple brothers felt it was unscriptural for a person to return to his first wife after having married another. They would have felt uncomfortable communing with a brother who did this. So we agreed that we won't commune with people who do this, but will not object to a brother going to a church that allows this.

When does this end? Can I just pick anything I want and say it's "unscriptural" and force others out of communion?

[Josh]

Bottom line, if someone who desires to please Christ is sincere in their personal conviction, and if it is not sin or heresy, give them space to do their thing in good conscience before the Lord.

Now...what if they begin to insist that their personal extrapolated conviction is a universal truth that must obeyed by all (as many do)?

That's when it gets interesting, particularly when two brothers have incompatible convictions and both feel the need to mutually excommunicate one another.

Whenever this happens, I can confidently say that at least one person is not being a healthy part of Christ's body.