How to Challenge Conservative Superiority

[Jazman]

Romans 14

1. Accept the one whose faith is weak, without quarreling over disputable matters. 2 One person’s faith allows them to eat anything, but another, whose faith is weak, eats only vegetables. 3 The one who eats everything must not treat with contempt the one who does not, and the one who does not eat everything must not judge the one who does, for God has accepted them. 4 Who are you to judge someone else’s servant? To their own master, servants stand or fall. And they will stand, for the Lord is able to make them stand.

5 One person considers one day more sacred than another; another considers every day alike. Each of them should be fully convinced in their own mind.

This is specifically about meat, vegetarianism, and having special sacred days.

It rather obviously doesn't apply to other areas - we wouldn't apply this to whether or not to take multiple wives for example.

Ah, but there's a principle... in play as well. It is also about more than meat, vegetables and special sacred days...

[barnhart]

Ah, but there's a principle... in play as well. It is also about more than meat, vegetables and special sacred days...

Maybe this is an example of the Regulative principle vs. Normative principle. If you are committed to the former, the text only speaks to the specifics formally mentioned. If you prefer the latter, the text speaks to a broader principle that extends beyond the specifics mentioned.

[MattY]

Ah, but there's a principle... in play as well. It is also about more than meat, vegetables and special sacred days...

Maybe this is an example of the Regulative principle vs. Normative principle. If you are committed to the former, the text only speaks to the specifics formally mentioned. If you prefer the latter, the text speaks to a broader principle that extends beyond the specifics mentioned.

No, I don't think that's it. (The regulative vs. normative principle is primarily about what is okay to do in public worship services; but one could argue that a "regulative" principle of church standards would hold that standards must only say what Scripture explicitly says, while a "normative" principle would argue that extrabiblical rules and standards to help maintain nonconformity and separation from the world are fine. That would turn your taxonomy on its head). The argument that it's just about meat, vegetables, and special sacred days is committing the error of restricting the text to its historical particulars, and I would say it's transparently an attempt to limit the force of a Scriptural passage so it doesn't apply to us. It denies that there is a principle in the passage, but rather it's merely about a niche historical disagreement.

Vs. 4: Who are you to pass judgment on the servant of another? It is before his own master that he stands or falls.

Vs. 13: Therefore let us not pass judgment on one another any longer, but rather decide never to put a stumbling block or hindrance in the way of a brother.

Vs. 17-19: For the kingdom of God is not a matter of eating and drinking but of righteousness and peace and joy in the Holy Spirit. Whoever thus serves Christ is acceptable to God and approved by men. So then let us pursue what makes for peace and for mutual upbuilding.

Vs. 21: It is good not to eat meat or drink wine or do anything that causes your brother to stumble.

Clearly it's not only about eating, drinking, or observing Jewish holy days. That would be like saying 1 Corinthians 8:13 is only about eating meat and not about anything else that could cause someone to fall into sin: "Therefore, if what I eat causes my brother or sister to fall into sin, I will never eat meat again, so that I will not cause them to fall."

[JohnH]

Arguing that the text here says things it doesn't say (a popular Protestant and evangelical pastime, to be sure) for this passage, though, means eventually embracing that basically anyone can do whatever they want. That doesn't seem to be the thrust of the rest of the New Testament.

Alternatively, it means you basically can't do anything that might ever cause any brother anywhere to "stumble". That's awfully broad, too. What if all the Amish decided we're making them stumble by driving cars? Would you really stop driving one?

[barnhart]

Ah, but there's a principle... in play as well. It is also about more than meat, vegetables and special sacred days...

Maybe this is an example of the Regulative principle vs. Normative principle. If you are committed to the former, the text only speaks to the specifics formally mentioned. If you prefer the latter, the text speaks to a broader principle that extends beyond the specifics mentioned.

No, I don't think that's it. (The regulative vs. normative principle is primarily about what is okay to do in public worship services; but one could argue that a "regulative" principle of church standards would hold that standards must only say what Scripture explicitly says, while a "normative" principle would argue that extrabiblical rules and standards to help maintain nonconformity and separation from the world are fine. That would turn your taxonomy on its head). The argument that it's just about meat, vegetables, and special sacred days is committing the error of restricting the text to its historical particulars, and I would say it's transparently an attempt to limit the force of a Scriptural passage so it doesn't apply to us. It denies that there is a principle in the passage, but rather it's merely about a niche historical disagreement.

Vs. 4: Who are you to pass judgment on the servant of another? It is before his own master that he stands or falls.

Vs. 13: Therefore let us not pass judgment on one another any longer, but rather decide never to put a stumbling block or hindrance in the way of a brother.

Vs. 17-19: For the kingdom of God is not a matter of eating and drinking but of righteousness and peace and joy in the Holy Spirit. Whoever thus serves Christ is acceptable to God and approved by men. So then let us pursue what makes for peace and for mutual upbuilding.

Vs. 21: It is good not to eat meat or drink wine or do anything that causes your brother to stumble.

Clearly it's not only about eating, drinking, or observing Jewish holy days. That would be like saying 1 Corinthians 8:13 is only about eating meat and not about anything else that could cause someone to fall into sin: "Therefore, if what I eat causes my brother or sister to fall into sin, I will never eat meat again, so that I will not cause them to fall."

I agree with you but there are plenty who would say this passage only applies to the specific controversies mentioned.