Convictions and Complexities about Drinking

Steve Davis’ post included the following:

We lived in Romania for 5 years and I took the wine with Lord’s Supper. We would warn visiting American pastors of the custom and many of them chose to abstain from observing the Lord’s Supper.

I find it interesting that some would not obey the Lord’s clear command to participate in the Lord’s Supper over this.

It also seems that the practice of abstinence is relatively new in church history and is mainly in North America.

Ed,

Charles Spurgeon, in the last years of his ministry, came out very much against beverage alcohol and was for total abstinence.

Charles H. Spurgeon on Alcohol

http://gulfcoastpastor.blogspot.com/2010/04/charles-h-spurgeon-on-alcoh…

David R. Brumbelow

[Don Johnson]…This includes to a measure keeping one’s opinions about your liberty to eat pork (for example) to yourself. (Rm 14.22). That doesn’t mean, I think, necessarily keeping it a secret, so that the weak would never know, but rather restraining your practices so that you never place the weak into a difficult situation.

Your concern about the “strong” demanding their rights instead of living according to love is so important. I agree with you. I also see the application of liberty vs. love to be often a tough line to follow.

That concern ought to be the main message we read when open Romans 14 & 1 Cor 7-10. Second ought to be the need we all have to seek God’s will through His Word by his Spirit in our convictions.

But unfortunately we must always contend with questions of who the weak guy is.

[Don Johnson] (I don’t concede that, BTW, I think alcohol is in some measure covered [by application] by 1 Cor 8-10, but also by many other passages. I don’t see it as a matter of indifference…

…

I think the lesson is that Paul is interested in diaphora. He never mentions adiaphora. When a Roman sees market meat as unclean, he should think of it as diaphora. In a grand sense, it might be adiaphora, so the term might be useful - and it is the historical term for such things. But it puts the emphasis in the wrong place. Paul is interested in two things:

1. Using the principles of God’s Word to approve what is excellent as individuals.
2. Learning to treat one another with love and respect and to refrain from judging one another when we come to different conclusions about what we approve as excellent.

[Ron Bean]

Steve Davis’ post included the following:

We lived in Romania for 5 years and I took the wine with Lord’s Supper. We would warn visiting American pastors of the custom and many of them chose to abstain from observing the Lord’s Supper.

I find it interesting that some would not obey the Lord’s clear command to participate in the Lord’s Supper over this.

It also seems that the practice of abstinence is relatively new in church history and is mainly in North America.

Ron. I should’ve used “informed” rather than “warned.” I simply wanted visiting pastors to know that if they observed the Lord’s Supper with us that they would be drinking a thimble full of wine. Some abstained because they and their churches were teetotalers or prohibitionists. Some pretended they took it in order not to stand out since visiting pastors often sat up front in a place of honor. At times it was comical. In conversations with pastors and missionaries over the years I found some who abstain because they are expected to or signed a statement to that effect. It doesn’t mean that many don’t have real convictions. But sometimes it’s hard to rethink convictions/preferences if it will cost you.

Steve Davis

[Dan Miller]

Don Johnson wrote:

(I don’t concede that, BTW, I think alcohol is in some measure covered [by application] by 1 Cor 8-10, but also by many other passages. I don’t see it as a matter of indifference…

…

Ok. Here and in another post you made, we get uncomfortable with “indifferent” and “adiaphora.” And I think we should. In Philippians 1:10 and in Rom 2:18, we find the notion of approving what is excellent - “δοκιμάζεις τὰ διαφέροντα” - “testing what is excellent.”

I think the lesson is that Paul is interested in diaphora. He never mentions adiaphora. When a Roman sees market meat as unclean, he should think of it as diaphora. In a grand sense, it might be adiaphora, so the term might be useful - and it is the historical term for such things. But it puts the emphasis in the wrong place. Paul is interested in two things:

1. Using the principles of God’s Word to approve what is excellent as individuals.
2. Learning to treat one another with love and respect and to refrain from judging one another when we come to different conclusions about what we approve as excellent.

That’s interesting and helpful. Now to get to the topic of the thread, do you then see the passage being applicable to alcohol? That is, that a scruple about alcohol should be something where we can come to different conclusions and leave it at that? I ask because I would have trouble seeing how that would work, but I’ll leave the question there and perhaps say more later.

[Don Johnson]

Bert Perry wrote:

Actually, that is exactly where I want to bring the discussion—well said. Romans 14 tolerance ought to be limited to things that are disputable and Biblically based. There are other provisions in Scripture for cases where two sides both agree that they, and the other, see the matter as indisputable—it is cause for hearty, but cordial, debate between the sides, and at a certain point might also be a cause for separation. I for one would not attend a church where it was preached that Jesus made unfermented grape juice at Cana, and I would guess that David would edge away from a church that preached that Christ most likely made ordinary wine with alcohol.

That is as it should be—what is at risk with the “common” view of Romans 14 is that all too often, it is used to (ironically) set a mood where Christians are almost compelled to hold to a specific cultural view that is not significantly supported in Scripture—I view this as an abuse of Christian liberty. So more and more, I would suggest that instead of simply acquiescing in the abridgement of freedom in Christ, believers ought to ask the supposed “weaker brother” what real, Biblical reasons they have for their position. It would be a lot more productive than what we have today.

Quite frankly, this is a complete misunderstanding of Romans 14. Apart from the differences between Rm14 and 1 Cor, the whole thrust of Romans 14 is not to give the strong-conscience believer to do as he pleases. In fact there are two instructions. The first is mutual toleration of each others views, the second is voluntary limitation by the strong (hold their views in private) with a view to being a blessing to the weak. They are not to try to convince the weak conscience believer of the rightness or wrongness of his views. They are simply to set the differences aside and the strong are to do everything in their power not to put a stumbling block or an enticement before the weak conscience believer while also seeking their edification.

The chapter is not about Christian liberty at all. It’s about Christian love and ministry to one another.

Don, the passage is certainly about love and ministry in the case of liberty. How else can we account for the fact that Paul clearly notes that it’s OK to observe the (presumably Jewish) holy days, or not? How else can we account for the fact that Paul clearly notes it’s OK to eat meat and drink wine, or not? Love is involved; so is liberty.

It is also crucial to remember that the passage is about disputable things related to faith—in other words, I would argue that you’ve got to have a Biblical case that the actions involved are disputable, and that the consequence of failing to love one’s brother in this disputable matter is some crisis of faith. It’s not just a way that we can point to a behavior we don’t like (drinking, dancing, wearing halter tops, going to the movie theater), use a guilt by association fallacy “argument”, and then proceed to tell the church’s kids they cannot watch “Bambi” because some things coming out of Hollyweird feature nudity and fornication.

It’s a passage where the clear requirements—disputable matters affecting faith for starters—have been horribly ignored in modern fundagelicalism. So I dare suggest that we need to start asking ourselves, when someone suggests we ought to abridge our liberties in such and such a case, to examine their logic (throw out any genetic fallacies/guilt by association) and determine whether it is truly a Romans 14 case. My gut is that in general it is not.

(there are other reasons to abstain from exercising one’s liberties, but there are also some times where we simply need to tell people to grow up and read what Scripture actually says about the matter)

[Bert Perry]…

So I dare suggest that we need to start asking ourselves, when someone suggests we ought to abridge our liberties in such and such a case, to examine their logic (throw out any genetic fallacies/guilt by association) and determine whether it is truly a Romans 14 case. My gut is that in general it is not. …

Bert, am I understanding you right? You seem to be saying that if you determine that it was faulty logic that your brother used to arrive at his conviction, that makes him ineligible for the protections of Romans 14?

[Dan Miller]

Bert Perry wrote:

…

So I dare suggest that we need to start asking ourselves, when someone suggests we ought to abridge our liberties in such and such a case, to examine their logic (throw out any genetic fallacies/guilt by association) and determine whether it is truly a Romans 14 case. My gut is that in general it is not. …

Bert, am I understanding you right? You seem to be saying that if you determine that it was faulty logic that your brother used to arrive at his conviction, that makes him ineligible for the protections of Romans 14?

Dan, the standard I’d appeal to is not “Bert Perry”, but rather the view of an ordinary person who has learned some of the basic rules of informal logic. Sort of a theological parallel to the legal standard of the “reasonable person would believe”. Reality is that genetic fallacies (guilt by association, personal attacks, etc..) are not subtle errors. If you are saying that behavior X is wrong because it is often seen among those who practice sin Y, you are using a fallacious argument.

We need to start calling people on this for a very simple reason; any thinking person who has learned a touch of logic will instantly recognize our use of the genetic fallacy, and from that point forward, we will have nothing to say to him. It’s a huge reason that we have so many fights in our “camp”—we have learned the use of personal attacks and guilt by association with our “mother’s milk” in church. Hence instead of appealing to Scripture, we say “Dr. Wagner has nothing to say to us because he’s on staff at Duke and is a Methodist” and the like.

Ok, Bert, I just want to express some caution because you’ll want protection from Romans 14 when they want to judge you, and I think you need to correspondingly not despise and to some degree refrain from the exersize of your freedom in order to promote fellowship.

I do think that discussion of logic and Biblical application is ok, but even that isn’t the purpose of our fellowship (Romans 14:1).

–-===–-

[Don Johnson]…

Now to get to the topic of the thread, do you then see the passage being applicable to alcohol? That is, that a scruple about alcohol should be something where we can come to different conclusions and leave it at that? I ask because I would have trouble seeing how that would work, but I’ll leave the question there and perhaps say more later.

Don, I know this is an alcohol thread, so you’re within your rights to ask. However, I believe that answering the alcohol question now pointlessly adds emotion to the debate.

The real solution, as I see it, goes back to what you said 49 posts up: “the misinterpretation of Romans 14 has perpetuated a huge misunderstanding of Christian liberty amongst many believers. It hasn’t improved the life of the church at all.”

If we can arrive at a common understanding of [Rom-14, 1Cor-7-10, etc.), then we will have the tools God intended us to have to apply to such things. BUT if we cannot agree on what Romans 14 says (including what ought to be a Romans 14 issue), then how to apply it is moot.

We have nothing to call one another to except God’s Word.

Dan, I’m going to disagree with your characterization for a very simple reason; all who have learned basic tools of logic ought to be able to agree that genetic fallacies are out of bounds, rhetorically speaking, and ought to be able to recognize some of the variants easily—even when the offender is “on our own side”. If we are to be people of the logos, we need to learn some logic, and informal logic is a great place to start.

My view of desiring Romans 14 protection is about the same; there are at least two preconditions, that it must be disputable and a matter of faith, for the protection to strictly speaking qualify. Otherwise, no, I don’t want to be protected by something that does not apply, and for a very simple reason; such cases are opportunities for discussion, growth, and the like, for both the person being objected to and the objector.

[Bert Perry]

So new wine is not completely fermented—that’s why it’s also called “sweet wine”—but it definitely contained alcohol. And which was better? Well, look at Luke 5:39. The ancients preferred fully fermented (“drier”) wines, according to our Savior. Part of the attraction for old wines was also that it was pretty completely fermented and would not become vinegar if exposed to air.

Hi Bert,

While generally agreeing with you, this particular point, I don’t. Again, generally, new wine was fully alcoholic. The microorganisms take about 3-5 days to completely convert the juices’ sugars to alcohol. Yes, some might even say as long as 3 weeks, but that is not my main point of contention with your statement.

The Luke passage has Jesus speaking about the New Covenant as opposed to the Old Covenant. He is not really commenting on the drinking habits of Jews. Notice the reference to old and new garments also. Jesus is cryptically speaking of the New Covenant here. He does so in a parable.

Alex, let’s do a word picture here. Let us imagine that Christ had come to Minnesota instead of to Israel, and questioned about why His disciples did not fast, He closed with “And no one, having eaten lutefisk, immediately desires fried walleye, for he says ‘the lutefisk is better.’” Those of us who know both walleye and lutefisk would say He was nuts—the point would be completely lost.

So to convey the point Christ is trying to make, the ancients must have preferred fully fermented and somewhat aged wines. This shouldn’t surprise us, because this is exactly the same preference most wine lovers have today. So while it is not the central point of the verse, it is an inescapable conclusion from the passage. If old wine was not judged to be better by the ancients, Jesus’ main point is completely lost.

[Dan Miller]

If we can arrive at a common understanding of [Rom-14, 1Cor-7-10, etc.), then we will have the tools God intended us to have to apply to such things. BUT if we cannot agree on what Romans 14 says (including what ought to be a Romans 14 issue), then how to apply it is moot.

We have nothing to call one another to except God’s Word.

Hi Dan,

The quote I listed is not the one I really wanted to address from you, but it should suffice. You mentioned earlier how Daniel was blessed by not eating food offered to idols (but made no mention of the wine-that was offered to idols too). This is why Daniel didn’t drink the wine since there was no prohibition against any wine per se- just whatever was offered to idols.

Wine was central to both Jews, Greeks, and Romans as a beverage. It was so central that in some cities (such as Pergammon whose ruins have both the Greek and Roman versions of wine temples [Dionysus/Bacchus] ). The ‘Symposium’ was what Paul objected to when he said “abominable drinking parties”. Any study of the pagan rites of Dionysus should repulse a Christian.

The issue in Rom. 14 is idolatry and not about Jewish vows of abstaining from the ‘fruit of the wine’. Just as meat was offered to idols, so was wine offered to idols. The Jews historically (and scripturally) avoided any meat (even if it was lamb, beef, or goat) that was offered to an idol as well as wine offered in temples. The issue was not about alcohol at all in Rom. 14 but what was distinct. The OT Jews (in following scripture) rightly took a stand against idols and claimed correctly no gods but the One.

edit: What I mean by OT Jews (in the last sentence) were observant Jews living in Greek places (not OT Jews in Israel).

[Bert Perry]

Alex, let’s do a word picture here. Let us imagine that Christ had come to Minnesota instead of to Israel, and questioned about why His disciples did not fast, He closed with “And no one, having eaten lutefisk, immediately desires fried walleye, for he says ‘the lutefisk is better.’” Those of us who know both walleye and lutefisk would say He was nuts—the point would be completely lost.

So to convey the point Christ is trying to make, the ancients must have preferred fully fermented and somewhat aged wines. This shouldn’t surprise us, because this is exactly the same preference most wine lovers have today. So while it is not the central point of the verse, it is an inescapable conclusion from the passage. If old wine was not judged to be better by the ancients, Jesus’ main point is completely lost.

Yes, the old is preferred generally. I was mostly reacting to your characterization that Jesus expounded the Jewish wine preferences. But what if this old wine was not as good? An older wine may be worse than a new. Once the new has developed properly it may be if fact better than an older one.

Jesus is now our Passover. Shavuot was fulfilled when the Spirit was given. The OT tells use that God will do away with the fasts of the 4th, 5th, and 7th months. Jesus was not narrowly just talking about fasts from the immediate context but referencing the promised New Covenant.

After the NT scripture was fully developed (especially Hebrews), the ‘new wine’ is in fact better than the ‘old’.

[alex o.]

…

The issue in Rom. 14 is idolatry and not about Jewish vows of abstaining from the ‘fruit of the wine’. Just as meat was offered to idols, so was wine offered to idols. The Jews historically (and scripturally) avoided any meat (even if it was lamb, beef, or goat) that was offered to an idol as well as wine offered in temples. The issue was not about alcohol at all in Rom. 14 but what was distinct. The OT Jews (in following scripture) rightly took a stand against idols and claimed correctly no gods but the One.

edit: What I mean by OT Jews (in the last sentence) were observant Jews living in Greek places (not OT Jews in Israel).

I think you err when you attribute the issue with meat/beverage offered to idols as a Jewish issue. Acts 15 makes it clear that the prohibition against “pollutions of idols” was for all believers and was not just a “Law bone” being thrown to a bunch of whiny believing Jews to make them happy when circumcision was struck down as a necessity for salvation. The crux of Acts 15 is something akin to Jewish law is not necessary for salvation, but you Gentiles can’t syncretize pagan practice (idolatry; immorality; inhumanity [i.e., barbarity] into the Gospel either.

Rom. 14 is referencing objects of biblical mandate (meat—holy days) that have undergone a change of status initially communicated to the apostles/elders by the Holy Spirit for the good of the church. That some are having a hard time believing that that status has actually changed after 1500 years of inspired law and rabbinical interpretation/application s not only likely, but expected.

At best pollutions of idols are peripheral. At best.

Where I think we are with the matter of modern alcoholic beverage as per this discussion is to answer this question: is modern beverage alcohol a pollution of the defining idolatry of the western culture, particularly American culture? If the answer is yes then I Cor. 8-10 has definitively given the conclusion—“…eat not!”

Hi Dan

I agree with what you say in this post, quoted below. You are quite aware, I am sure, that your non-answer to my question could be taken as a dodge. If we can’t make a specific application at some point, we are just talking theories.

[Dan Miller]

Don Johnson wrote:

…

Now to get to the topic of the thread, do you then see the passage being applicable to alcohol? That is, that a scruple about alcohol should be something where we can come to different conclusions and leave it at that? I ask because I would have trouble seeing how that would work, but I’ll leave the question there and perhaps say more later.

Don, I know this is an alcohol thread, so you’re within your rights to ask. However, I believe that answering the alcohol question now pointlessly adds emotion to the debate.

The real solution, as I see it, goes back to what you said 49 posts up: “the misinterpretation of Romans 14 has perpetuated a huge misunderstanding of Christian liberty amongst many believers. It hasn’t improved the life of the church at all.”

If we can arrive at a common understanding of [Rom-14, 1Cor-7-10, etc.), then we will have the tools God intended us to have to apply to such things. BUT if we cannot agree on what Romans 14 says (including what ought to be a Romans 14 issue), then how to apply it is moot.

We have nothing to call one another to except God’s Word.

As I see it, the key distinction between Romans and Corinthians in terms of what is under discussion is this: Romans is talking about religious scruples, conscientious attempts to please God by avoidance of things or actions in order to promote holiness (meat in general or inappropriate activity on a holy day), whereas Corinthians is talking about conscientious horror at betraying God by dalliance with idolatry (meat clearly connected with idol worship).

To my mind, a Christian conscience against alcohol is not held as a means of promoting holiness, but as a means of avoiding unholiness. Thus if either passage applies to alcohol, it would be the Corinthian passage.

I wonder if that is clear enough. One thing I find with posts like these is that we are writing and thinking quickly and don’t take the time to craft our words as carefully as we probably should in order to make ourselves clear. I’ve tried to take extra time with this one, but who knows? Communication is a frightful beast.

[Lee]

I think you err when you attribute the issue with meat/beverage offered to idols as a Jewish issue. Acts 15 makes it clear that the prohibition against “pollutions of idols” was for all believers and was not just a “Law bone” being thrown to a bunch of whiny believing Jews to make them happy when circumcision was struck down as a necessity for salvation. The crux of Acts 15 is something akin to Jewish law is not necessary for salvation, but you Gentiles can’t syncretize pagan practice (idolatry; immorality; inhumanity [i.e., barbarity] into the Gospel either.

Rom. 14 is referencing objects of biblical mandate (meat—holy days) that have undergone a change of status initially communicated to the apostles/elders by the Holy Spirit for the good of the church. That some are having a hard time believing that that status has actually changed after 1500 years of inspired law and rabbinical interpretation/application s not only likely, but expected.

At best pollutions of idols are peripheral. At best.

Where I think we are with the matter of modern alcoholic beverage as per this discussion is to answer this question: is modern beverage alcohol a pollution of the defining idolatry of the western culture, particularly American culture? If the answer is yes then I Cor. 8-10 has definitively given the conclusion—“…eat not!”

Your analysis is hardly convincing.

Take note of these issues in Rom. 14:

1. In 13.13 Paul commands not to carouse and and be drunken. He does not command total abstinence there so why does he say in Rom. 14 it is good not to drink wine because of a weaker believer? You have to have consistency between these two references. It would only make sense that the wine to abstain from is ‘idol wine’.

2. In the huge city of Rome other meats were available that Jews could eat, therefore the vegetable eater had other issues with the meats and wines.

3. The whole of the book and especially this section is about Jewish/Gentile Christian relations. Yes, Sabbath keeping and type of food (such as pork) are also included. However, another issue besides the type of foods was food offered to idols which observant Jews clearly knew was wrong. The observant Jews living in Rome had historically avoided idol food. Now mostly Gentiles (it seems) were continuing to eat their regular fare which included meat and wine offered to idols. One almost has to include this category or parts of the chapter make no sense.

Paul says that it was o.k. to eat them and that they were not to be judged for eating those foods. The Jewish Christians had to realize God accepted the eater or non-Sabbath keeper. It would be wrong for Jewish Christians to abrogate grace to the Gentile and continue traditions that were designed only for a time. Yet the mutual building up and deference should rule. Also, one had to be fully convinced and eat in faith.

As for Acts 15, only one of these prohibitions is enduring: abstinence from immorality. In 1Cor. 10 Paul says to eat unless someone else is conscience stricken. So, eating idol food is not absolutely prohibited. Should Christians avoid blood sausages and road kill?

Am I dodging? Are you using a preferred conclusion to select meaning in the Text?

I know that sounds accusatory. Sorry about that.

I owe responses to Alex, Bert, and Lee…

[alex o.] Hi Dan,

The quote I listed is not the one I really wanted to address from you, but it should suffice. You mentioned earlier how Daniel was blessed by not eating food offered to idols (but made no mention of the wine-that was offered to idols too). This is why Daniel didn’t drink the wine since there was no prohibition against any wine per se- just whatever was offered to idols.

Wine was central to both Jews, Greeks, and Romans as a beverage. It was so central that in some cities (such as Pergammon whose ruins have both the Greek and Roman versions of wine temples [Dionysus/Bacchus] ). The ‘Symposium’ was what Paul objected to when he said “abominable drinking parties”. Any study of the pagan rites of Dionysus should repulse a Christian.

The issue in Rom. 14 is idolatry and not about Jewish vows of abstaining from the ‘fruit of the wine’. …

I would say Jewish objection to market-level-idol-tainted meat is the OBVIOUS understanding of Romans 14. Now, I have to be fair to Don and Lee, who have been reluctant to agree with that. We interpret Scripture by Scripture. That means that we will sometimes discard an obvious understanding of a passage if another passage forces us to.

Acts 15 prohibits idol-meat. Some say that was a temporary command and is no longer in effect by the time Romans and 1 Cor are written. (An attempt to understand Scripture by Scripture). But then what of Rev 2, which also condemns idol-meat?

The answer is that either there are two levels of idol-meat:
1. eidolothuton - Temple-Idol-Meat (referred to in Acts, 1 Cor 8-10a, and Rev 2)
2. hierothuton - Market-Idol?-Meat (referred to in Romans 14 and 1 Cor 10b)
( - or - Romans 14 isn’t about idol-meat at all - but that’s a last resort position

Bert,
You call for logic and while I agree with teaching logic, I don’t agree with excluding illogical convictions from Romans 14. I understand that desire. I think the fallacy of the undistributed middle is incredibly common in conviction-making. And it makes it just that much tougher to tolerate the convictions of others when it seems that their own reasons don’t make sense.

I still caution against it. (Though, again, there’s nothing wrong with teaching logic.)

There are times when people apply principles differently, even though they are both being logical. And the central issue of these passages is how to deal with differences. NOT how to use logic to solve them. In fact, Paul clearly assumes that Romans 14 will not solve the differences, but help people live in fellowship with them.
—> “Help them be more logical” is just not in Romans 14.

On the subject of logic and convictions, I wrote a paper a long time ago that might help with what I mean by people coming to different convictions, even though they both are Biblical and logical: Paul and Logic: Grace-Gifts

[Dan Miller]

Am I dodging? Are you using a preferred conclusion to select meaning in the Text?

Touche!

Well, I am interested in fully understanding the text. I am also a strong opponent of drinking alcohol in almost every context. Can’t think of a modern context where it really is a legit option. But I don’t want to read my opinions into the text either. I would be interested in further discussion as you have time.

WEAKNESS OR WISDOM? FUNDAMENTALISTS AND ROMANS 14.1–15.13

Detroit Seminary Journal, Mark Snoeberger

I haven’t read it yet, but it’s high on the list.

[Dan Miller]

…

Acts 15 prohibits idol-meat. Some say that was a temporary command and is no longer in effect by the time Romans and 1 Cor are written. (An attempt to understand Scripture by Scripture). But then what of Rev 2, which also condemns idol-meat?

…

Emphasis note: Impossible. Acts 21, where Paul and James are clearly in agreement with the imperative of Acts 15, chronologically follows the writing of both I Cor. and Romans. Rev. 2, given by a post-incarnate Christ somewhere around AD 90 in the context of correction to actual churches, only confirms that abstinence from pollutions of idols continues to be the biblical expectation. There is no countermanding to be found.

But, Lee, don’t you find that you have to dispel this a lot?

Do you find it to be a common understanding of Acts 15 and Rom 14?

[Don Johnson]

WEAKNESS OR WISDOM? FUNDAMENTALISTS AND ROMANS 14.1–15.13

Detroit Seminary Journal, Mark Snoeberger

I haven’t read it yet, but it’s high on the list.

[Dan Miller]

But, Lee, don’t you find that you have to dispel this a lot?

Do you find it to be a common understanding of Acts 15 and Rom 14?

Yes, as a matter of fact, I do, and no, I don’t (in that order). And, quite frankly, I came to this position quite by surprise because I had been taught (and firmly believed) all my life that Acts 15, etc., was a bone being thrown by the church fathers to a bunch of whiny Jewish believers to burden Gentile converts with something since the sacred cow of circumcision had been discarded as necessary to salvation. IOW, the conclusions of Acts 15 were meant to unify the Jewish and Gentile church under a common burden. In actuality, the provisions of Acts 15 were to protect the church from the ravages of legalism (rightly defined) and from idolatry (the primary external enemy of the church in every generation). Both emphases were/are necessary.

Here is the synopsis of how I got there: In the providence of God He led me on a random reading schedule that included, practically simultaneously, readings in the mid-portion of the Book of Acts (15-21) the mid-portion of I Cor. (6-10), and the church chapters of Rev. (1-3). Somewhere it clicked that these might all be referencing the same thing, so I undertook a study determined to let the Bible speak for itself.

And what the Bible spoke to is that:

a) idolatry is the issue of at hand (immorality and barbarity [the complete disrespect for life and animalization of humanity represented in eating blood/things alive] being the conjoined siblings of that idolatry)

b) the parameters are not burdens but protections, steps to effectively “flee[ing] fornication” and “flee[ing] from idolatry” (I Cor. 6 & 10)

c) the narrative of Balaam and the matter of Peor is very closely associated with the parameters laid out in Acts 15 not only by Paul (I Cor. 10) but also by Peter, Jude, and Jesus Christ Himself via the Apostle John (IOW, all the major players of the New Testament—Luke, John, Peter, James, Jude, and the Savior—weighed in on “these necessary things…[Acts 15:28] ”.)

d) idolatry, immorality, and inhumanity (for those who like alliterations) are still issues that face the believing church today and are to be resisted at the very periphery in order to flee, very aptly illustrated through the progression in the matter of Peor—“While Israel lived in Shittim, the people began to whore with the daughters of Moab. These invited the people to the sacrifices of their gods, and the people ate and bowed down to their gods. So Israel yoked himself to Baal of Peor (Num. 25:1-3 ESV).”

e) idolatry, immorality, and inhumanity, even at the periphery (i.e., a conscientious effort to “flee”) are not liberty issues but absolutes

At the end of the day, when Scripture was allowed to speak for itself, regardless of the reasoning the conclusion was always the same—with knowledge don’t eat. Don’t eat in the temple; don’t eat from the market; don’t eat at your neighbors.

Which again, brings us back to the topic at hand—modern beverage alcohol. Is it a “pollution” of a predominant American/western idolatry? If we need a follow-up question, does the use of modern beverage alcohol accommodate the command to “flee fornication”, the conjoined sibling of idolatry in every culture?

[Lee]…

Here is the synopsis of how I got there: In the providence of God He led me on a random reading schedule that included, practically simultaneously, readings in the mid-portion of the Book of Acts (15-21) the mid-portion of I Cor. (6-10), and the church chapters of Rev. (1-3). Somewhere it clicked that these might all be referencing the same thing, so I undertook a study determined to let the Bible speak for itself.

…

At the end of the day, when Scripture was allowed to speak for itself, regardless of the reasoning the conclusion was always the same—with knowledge don’t eat. Don’t eat in the temple; don’t eat from the market; don’t eat at your neighbors.

I do agree that the conventional understanding of these passages makes it tough to incorporate Acts 15, 21, and Rev 2. Therefore, some solution is necessary. Because of this, there are almost as many ways to understand these passages as there are commentators. Reimers thinks that Paul used “Days” and “Meat” differently, with different ethical schemes for each one. There’s another guy (can’t remember his name, who holds that there are actually four groups (two different weak brothers and two different strong brothers). Then there’s Nanos, who holds that the weak are Jews who have not yet excepted the Gospel.

I think you’ve come up with a pretty reasonable way of making it work better. But I don’t think it explains everything odd in these passages.

[Lee]

Dan Miller wrote:

But, Lee, don’t you find that you have to dispel this a lot?

Do you find it to be a common understanding of Acts 15 and Rom 14?

Yes, as a matter of fact, I do, and no, I don’t (in that order). And, quite frankly, I came to this position quite by surprise because I had been taught (and firmly believed) all my life that Acts 15, etc., was a bone being thrown by the church fathers to a bunch of whiny Jewish believers to burden Gentile converts with something since the sacred cow of circumcision had been discarded as necessary to salvation. IOW, the conclusions of Acts 15 were meant to unify the Jewish and Gentile church under a common burden. In actuality, the provisions of Acts 15 were to protect the church from the ravages of legalism (rightly defined) and from idolatry (the primary external enemy of the church in every generation). Both emphases were/are necessary.

Here is the synopsis of how I got there: In the providence of God He led me on a random reading schedule that included, practically simultaneously, readings in the mid-portion of the Book of Acts (15-21) the mid-portion of I Cor. (6-10), and the church chapters of Rev. (1-3). Somewhere it clicked that these might all be referencing the same thing, so I undertook a study determined to let the Bible speak for itself.

And what the Bible spoke to is that:

a) idolatry is the issue of at hand (immorality and barbarity [the complete disrespect for life and animalization of humanity represented in eating blood/things alive] being the conjoined siblings of that idolatry)

b) the parameters are not burdens but protections, steps to effectively “flee[ing] fornication” and “flee[ing] from idolatry” (I Cor. 6 & 10)

c) the narrative of Balaam and the matter of Peor is very closely associated with the parameters laid out in Acts 15 not only by Paul (I Cor. 10) but also by Peter, Jude, and Jesus Christ Himself via the Apostle John (IOW, all the major players of the New Testament—Luke, John, Peter, James, Jude, and the Savior—weighed in on “these necessary things…[Acts 15:28] ”.)

d) idolatry, immorality, and inhumanity (for those who like alliterations) are still issues that face the believing church today and are to be resisted at the very periphery in order to flee, very aptly illustrated through the progression in the matter of Peor—“While Israel lived in Shittim, the people began to whore with the daughters of Moab. These invited the people to the sacrifices of their gods, and the people ate and bowed down to their gods. So Israel yoked himself to Baal of Peor (Num. 25:1-3 ESV).”

e) idolatry, immorality, and inhumanity, even at the periphery (i.e., a conscientious effort to “flee”) are not liberty issues but absolutes

At the end of the day, when Scripture was allowed to speak for itself, regardless of the reasoning the conclusion was always the same—with knowledge don’t eat. Don’t eat in the temple; don’t eat from the market; don’t eat at your neighbors.

Which again, brings us back to the topic at hand—modern beverage alcohol. Is it a “pollution” of a predominant American/western idolatry? If we need a follow-up question, does the use of modern beverage alcohol accommodate the command to “flee fornication”, the conjoined sibling of idolatry in every culture?

Good question; my take is that sometimes it is, sometimes it is not. There is one pattern of singles and gay bars; there is another where fornication is as far from it as east is from west—like the Guinness commercials featuring able-bodied guys playing wheelchair basketball, or a corner pub where a glass is always waiting for the soldier. And we part ways from the sin, not the object used by the sinners. I do not think that any of us respond to the fornication that accompanies idolatry by reducing our affections to our wives!

And along the same lines, it would be interesting to see if we’re willing to consistently apply the hermeneutic. Will we part ways with advertisers, for example, that seem to draw more attention to decolletage than to the product? Mountain Dew used to be infamous for this, for example. What about the models in body paint advertising the Chrysler 300 a while back? (it may surprise some that yes, I have avoided Mountain Dew and Coors for this very reason, and I am praying that Caribou and Starbucks do not start to advertise their product with sex!)

[Lee] Which again, brings us back to the topic at hand—modern beverage alcohol. Is it a “pollution” of a predominant American/western idolatry? If we need a follow-up question, does the use of modern beverage alcohol accommodate the command to “flee fornication”, the conjoined sibling of idolatry in every culture?

You went totally allegorical here which is what you leaned toward in previous posts in this thread.

This sounds, oh so spiritual, but is deceptive.

I’m out.

[alex o.]

Lee wrote:

Which again, brings us back to the topic at hand—modern beverage alcohol. Is it a “pollution” of a predominant American/western idolatry? If we need a follow-up question, does the use of modern beverage alcohol accommodate the command to “flee fornication”, the conjoined sibling of idolatry in every culture?

You went totally allegorical here which is what you leaned toward in previous posts in this thread.

This sounds, oh so spiritual, but is deceptive.

I’m out.

OK, I’ll bite.

You say allegory; I say a specific precedent that applies a specific principle, not unlike that which influences modern jurisprudence to a significant degree.

Or Acts 15, I Cor. 8-10, etc. are moot now that the worship of Aphrodite, Diana, Zeus, etc., is no longer a dominant idolatry and the practice of eating meat offered to them or within their temples is no longer widely practiced.

You say you’re out, and that’s fine. Personally, I’ll fall on the side Paul takes, that idolatry gives meaning to objects and actions—“What do I mean then? That a thing sacrificed to idols is anything…? No, but I say that the things which the Gentiles sacrifice, they sacrifice to demons,…and I do not want you to become sharers in demons (I Cor. 10:19-20 NASB).”

I found this in Sanday & Headlam as they come to the end of the section in their commentary on Rm 14.1-15.13:

“All these theories have this in common, that they suppose St. Paul to be dealing with a definite sect or body in the Roman Church. But as our examination of the Epistle has proceeded, it has become more and more clear that there is little or no special reference in the arguments. Both in the controversial portion and in the admonitory portion, we find constant reminiscences of earlier situations, but always with the sting of controversy gone. St. Paul writes throughout with the remembrance of his own former experience, and not with a view to special difficulties in the Roman community. He writes on all these vexed questions, not because they have arisen there, but because they may arise. The Church of Rome consists, as he knows, of both Jewish and heathen Christians. These discordant elements may, he fears, unless wise counsels prevail produce the same dissensions as have occurred in Galatia or Corinth. …

“If this theory be correct, then our interpretation of the passage is somewhat different from that which has usually been accepted, and is, we venture to think, more natural. When St. Paul says in ver. 2 ‘the weak man eateth vegetables,’ he does not mean that there is a special sect of vegetarians in Rome; but he takes a typical instance of excessive scrupulousness. When again he says one man considers one day better than another,’ he does not mean that this sect of vegetarians were also strict sabbatarians, but that the same scrupulousness may prevail in other matters. When he speaks of ο φρονων την ημεραν, ο μη εσθιων he is not thinking of any special body of people but rather of special types. When again in ver. 21 he says: ‘It is good not to eat flesh, or drink wine, or do anything in which thy brother is offended,’ he does not mean that these vegetarians and sabbatarians are also total abstainers; he merely means even the most extreme act of self-denial is better than injuring the conscience of a brother.’ He had spoken very similarly in writing to the Corinthians: Wherefore, if meat maketh my brother to stumble, I will eat no flesh for evermore, that I make not my brother to stumble’ (1 Cor. 8.13). It is not considered necessary to argue from these words that abstinence from flesh was one of the characteristics of the Corinthian sectaries; nor is it necessary to argue in a similar manner here. …

“And he lays down certain great principles. There is, first of all, the fundamental fact, that all these scruples are in matters quite indifferent in themselves. Man is justified by ‘faith’; that is sufficient. But then all have not strong, clear-sighted faith: they do not really think such actions indifferent, and if they act against their conscience their conscience is injured. Each man must act as he would do with the full consciousness that he is to appear before God’s judgement-seat. But there is another side to the question. By indifference to external observances we may injure another man’s conscience. To ourselves it is perfectly indifferent whether we conform to such an observance or not. Then we must conform for the sake of our weak brother. We are the strong. We are conscious of our strength. Therefore we must yield to others: not perhaps always, not in all circumstances, but certainly in many cases. Above all, the salvation of the individual soul and the peace and unity of the community must be preserved. Both alike, weak and strong, must lay aside differences on such unimportant matters for the sake of that church for which Christ died.”[1]

[1] Sanday and Headlam, Romans, 401–403.

Basically, they argue that Paul has no specific event in view but is using a hypothetical example (but not inconceivable) in order to teach the principles of active love and ministry of believers to one another. If you don’t find S&H, a pdf version is available somewhere online. It is a thought that occurred to me as I studied the passage. Paul does seem to use very generic language. To me, it seems at least that the specific situation is less important than the concept.

Lets see how consistent we can be. Can we imagine our spiritual ancestors saying this:

I pledge allegiance to the Emperor

of the united territories of Rome

and to the republic for which it stands

one nation under gods

indivisible, with peace and justice for all.

I’m thinking an emphatic “no” on this one. You want to point out examples of idolatry today, let’s take a look at our relationship with human government.

[Bert Perry]

Lets see how consistent we can be. Can we imagine our spiritual ancestors saying this:

I pledge allegiance to the Emperor

of the united territories of Rome

and to the republic for which it stands

one nation under gods

indivisible, with peace and justice for all.

I’m thinking an emphatic “no” on this one. You want to point out examples of idolatry today, let’s take a look at our relationship with human government.

Not sure how we got here from an article about beverage alcohol that took a strong turn down the Romans 14 road, but you’ve peaked my interest. Write an article tracing the biblical formula for legit patriotism as compared with idolatrous “emperor worship” and I promise I’ll read it.

When Rom. 14 says: “It is good not to drink wine” it refers to ‘idol wine’. Alcohol is not in view at all.

Never in church history did the responsible use of alcoholic beverages come into question until about 200 years ago. To try to prohibit alcohol by using passages in the bible is erroneous and anachronistic.

For some reason points get obscured in discussions on this board.

I don’t own it. I had to go to the Moody Library to read it a few years ago. I have photos of Romans 4, but not 14.

“… clear that there is little or no special reference in the arguments…”

Yes. Compare with the text of 1 Cor 7-10, where Paul is apparently quoting the arguments of the Corinthians as questions and then responding to them. And some think that all the questions to the Corinthians is evidence that Paul knows they are mixed in their respect for him as a teacher (Paul…Apollos…Cephus…). It is a more adversarial style.

“… not with a view to special difficulties in the Roman community. He writes on all these vexed questions, not because they have arisen there, but because they may arise. The Church of Rome consists, as he knows, of both Jewish and heathen Christians…”

Paul’s relationship with the Jews Priscilla and Aquilla during their exile from Rome (Acts 18) would have given him a pretty good idea of what had been going on in Rome. Paul would have anticipated certain things would happen when the Jews returned to Rome after Claudius died.

“If this theory be correct, then our interpretation of the passage is somewhat different from that which has usually been accepted, and is, we venture to think, more natural. When St. Paul says in ver. 2 ‘the weak man eateth vegetables,’ he does not mean that there is a special sect of vegetarians in Rome; but he takes a typical instance of excessive scrupulousness. …”

Now I can’t agree. I think Paul’s contact with Priscilla and Aquilla gave him enough to accurately depict the convictions of groups in Rome. Not enough, perhaps to quote the arguments of the Romans, though.

“…
…There is, first of all, the fundamental fact, that all these scruples are in matters quite indifferent in themselves. Man is justified by ‘faith’; that is sufficient. But then all have not strong, clear-sighted faith: they do not really think such actions indifferent, and if they act against their conscience their conscience is injured. Each man must act as he would do with the full consciousness that he is to appear before God’s judgement-seat. But there is another side to the question. By indifference to external observances we may injure another man’s conscience. To ourselves it is perfectly indifferent whether we conform to such an observance or not. Then we must conform for the sake of our weak brother. We are the strong. We are conscious of our strength. Therefore we must yield to others: not perhaps always, not in all circumstances, but certainly in many cases. Above all, the salvation of the individual soul and the peace and unity of the community must be preserved. Both alike, weak and strong, must lay aside differences on such unimportant matters for the sake of that church for which Christ died.”[1] ” [1] Sanday and Headlam, Romans, 401–403.

This is classic Romans 14 interp:
1. R14 issues are “matters quite indifferent.” (“adiaphora,” to the Reformers)
2. Mature Christians are the strong ones.
3. The strong “must yield” so as to not injure their weak brothers.

I don’t agree. One-by-one:
1. No, I think these issues are ones of diaphero, not adiaphora (explained above).
2. No, I think that the “weak” should get more credit. I think they have as much claim to being right, knowledgeable, and faithful as the “strong.” That, I think, goes for R-14 and even more so for 1-C-8-10.
3. Yes, I agree him there.

[Dan Miller]

This is classic Romans 14 interp:
1. R14 issues are “matters quite indifferent.” (“adiaphora,” to the Reformers)
2. Mature Christians are the strong ones.
3. The strong “must yield” so as to not injure their weak brothers.

I don’t agree. One-by-one:
1. No, I think these issues are ones of diaphero, not adiaphora (explained above).
2. No, I think that the “weak” should get more credit. I think they have as much claim to being right, knowledgeable, and faithful as the “strong.” That, I think, goes for R-14 and even more so for 1-C-8-10.
3. Yes, I agree him there.

If anyone is interested in Sanday & Headlam commentary, it is available in various formats here.

I think I’ll have to think about this one point, diaphero vs. adiaphora, a bit more. This may be the point where we would have some disagreement. I agree that the weak are not spiritually weak, a more modern term might be “sensitive” in the sense of a sensitive conscience towards whatever the issue is. The strong conscience believer must yield to the sensitive conscience believer with a view to being a help to him spiritually (not to convince him to change, but to build him up in the faith).

Lee, I’ll see what I can do—where our “blind spots” are as a Christian culture ought to be of huge importance to us. And how do I get there logically? It’s simply that there will be disputable matters affecting faith that we might not have thought of. That is, after all, why Paul wrote Romans 14 and 1 Corinthians 8-10; because he wanted to alert believers to a need to honor the weaker brother and act in wisdom here.

And that’s why I’m with Dan on what Romans 14 is getting at; it is disputable matters, not little things, and they have to affect faith. If one carelessly yields to another believer under the impression that he has a “weak conscience”, one often consigns that person to a lack of growth in Christ because you’re “enabling” his weak skills at exegeting the Scripture.

[Bert Perry]…

And that’s why I’m with Dan on what Romans 14 is getting at; it is disputable matters, not little things, and they have to affect faith. If one carelessly yields to another believer under the impression that he has a “weak conscience”, one often consigns that person to a lack of growth in Christ because you’re “enabling” his weak skills at exegeting the Scripture.

Why would you say, “weak skills at exegeting the Scripture”? That’s not something I would say about the weak. Consider “Days.” Vote here. Read here. Piper. I think you can be in the category of treating days one above another (“weak”) and be doing it for very Scriptural reasons.

[Dan Miller]

Bert Perry wrote:

…

And that’s why I’m with Dan on what Romans 14 is getting at; it is disputable matters, not little things, and they have to affect faith. If one carelessly yields to another believer under the impression that he has a “weak conscience”, one often consigns that person to a lack of growth in Christ because you’re “enabling” his weak skills at exegeting the Scripture.

Why would you say, “weak skills at exegeting the Scripture”? That’s not something I would say about the weak. Consider “Days.” Vote here. Read here. Piper. I think you can be in the category of treating days one above another (“weak”) and be doing it for very Scriptural reasons.

Because I am not speaking about people who have a clear, Biblically based reason to, say, avoid meat and wine sacrificed to idols, or who persist in celebrating the Jewish Holidays despite Christ having completed the Law for us. I am rather talking about a fairly significant population of people who use “Romans 14” as a way to pressure the church to follow their own personal cultural biases.

Genuine weak conscience? No problem, but quite frankly, I don’t see a lot of that in today’s church. And in the meantime, I think we’re missing some very real cases of idolatry in our society—our blind spots as it were.

[Bert Perry]…

Genuine weak conscience? No problem, but quite frankly, I don’t see a lot of that in today’s church. …[/quote]

Now that is interesting. It’s my assertion that when Paul spoke of the “weak” or “weak consciences,” he was thinking of people who knew the Scriptures and were applying them. Perhaps that’s what you mean by “genuine.”

Now, in today’s church (throughout church history!), believers have been genuinely applying the Word. But we’ve never seen them make claims to be “weak,” not accept the commands given to the weak. Perhaps that’s what you don’t see a lot of?