What Does Romans 14 Teach about Foods, Days, and Worship Music?
I have been studying Romans 14 a lot lately. In this thread, I am interested in intensively exegetical and theological discussion about what Romans 14 teaches about foods, days, and worship music.
Paul begins his teaching by saying the following:
Romans 14:1 Him that is weak in the faith receive ye, but not to doubtful disputations. 2 For one believeth that he may eat all things: another, who is weak, eateth herbs.
Paul speaks of some who believe that they may "eat all things," but others who are "weak in the faith" eat herbs. A sound handling of this teaching requires careful, thorough, biblical probing of this teaching.
When Paul says that some believe that they may eat all things, what is Paul actually teaching? To begin to answer this question properly, it is necessary to point out what Paul is not teaching.
When Paul says that some believe that may eat all things, he is not teaching that those who are not weak in the faith believe that they may eat all plant and animal substances whatever they may be, including even things that are known to be poisonous or otherwise unfit for human consumption as foods.
The teaching of Romans 14:1-2 does not show that Christians who do not eat plant and animal substances that are poisonous, etc. for human consumption are weak in the faith. Being strong "in the faith" does not entail that you believe that you may partake even of poisonous berries, mushrooms, etc.
- 2487 views
In Rome, “meat” was generally acceptable (in itself). Even though it might be tainted meat.
In Corinth, meat was generally acceptable, even though it might be “ἱερόθυτόν” hierothuton.
In Rome, some were objecting, saying that “might be tainted”=off limits.
In Corinth, the big argument was whether one could enter the temple, sit at a feast, and eat. Paul called them to stop that. But did his warning apply to offered-meat outside the temple?
10:25-30
If you don’t know go ahead.
If you are told, YOU, in your conscience, can actually still eat it.
But since you were told, don’t eat it for the sake of the conscience of the one who told you.
In Rome, some were objecting, saying that “might be tainted”=off limits.
In Corinth, the big argument was whether one could enter the temple, sit at a feast, and eat. Paul called them to stop that. But did his warning apply to offered-meat outside the temple?
10:25-30
If you don’t know go ahead.
If you are told, YOU, in your conscience, can actually still eat it.
But since you were told, don’t eat it for the sake of the conscience of the one who told you.
1 Corinthians was written before Romans was. Given what the Spirit inspired Paul to write in 1 Corinthians, according to your understanding of Romans 14 all Paul would have had to have done in Rome was to inform the weak of 1 Cor. 10:25-30 to show that they were obligated to change their views.
That's not what we see in Romans 14.
Paul explicitly did not want the weak in Rome to "change their views." Well, I should be careful.
In Romans:
- Both weak and strong were told to be fully persuaded in their minds.
- Both weak and strong were told that they honor the Lord by living out their conviction.
- Both weak and strong were told that the active Lordship of Jesus was the reason for these differing convictions.
So, he didn't want the weak to change their position on meat. He DID want them to understand that that position was NOT universal. (Stop judging. Stop calling what God gave other people evil.)
-------
Now, as to a "difference" between how Paul treats the issue of market meat in Romans vs 1 Corinthians, I'm not sure I see a real difference.
Clearly, there was a difference in the audiences.
In Rome, the big question was, "Is market meat permissible? Or is it maybe idol-tainted and therefore idolatrous?"
In Corinth, the big question was, "Is it ok to go into the temple and eat what was just offered?" It doesn't seem like market meat was controversial in Corinth, so little needed to be said.
Now, as to a "difference" between how Paul treats the issue of market meat in Romans vs 1 Corinthians, I'm not sure I see a real difference.
Clearly, there was a difference in the audiences.
In Rome, the big question was, "Is market meat permissible? Or is it maybe idol-tainted and therefore idolatrous?"
In Corinth, the big question was, "Is it ok to go into the temple and eat what was just offered?" It doesn't seem like market meat was controversial in Corinth, so little needed to be said.
I think that we may have reached an impasse. To me, it is unthinkable that the Spirit inspired what He had Paul write in 1 Cor. 10 about eating whatever was sold in the marketplace only for the profit of the Christians in Corinth.
You say that the big question in Rome concerned that very matter. If that were true, unquestionably God would have wanted Paul to profit the Romans with the same teaching that He gave earlier to Paul to profit the Corinthians.
Paul explicitly did not want the weak in Rome to "change their views." Well, I should be careful.
In Romans:
- Both weak and strong were told to be fully persuaded in their minds.
- Both weak and strong were told that they honor the Lord by living out their conviction.
- Both weak and strong were told that the active Lordship of Jesus was the reason for these differing convictions.
So, he didn't want the weak to change their position on meat. He DID want them to understand that that position was NOT universal. (Stop judging. Stop calling what God gave other people evil.)
God wanted the strong to stop despising the weak concerning whatever the nature of their weakness was. God says much more to the strong in Romans 14-15 than He does to the weak.
God wanted the strong to stop despising the weak concerning whatever the nature of their weakness was.
Yes.
God says much more to the strong in Romans 14-15 than He does to the weak.
I haven’t counted it up. But you might be right. Regardless, He gives commands to both.
Impasse…To me, it is unthinkable that the Spirit inspired what He had Paul write in 1 Cor. 10 about eating whatever was sold in the marketplace only for the profit of the Christians in Corinth.
You say that the big question in Rome concerned that very matter. If that were true, unquestionably God would have wanted Paul to profit the Romans with the same teaching that He gave earlier to Paul to profit the Corinthians.
Re: a perceived difference (Rom vs 1Cor), you object to contradiction.
Re: non-difference, you object to redundancy.
Paul ways of dealing with market meat in Rom and 1Cor were consistent regarding the issue, but differed because the churches were different.
Consistent: market meat was permissible in itself. But for someone who reasoned it was sinful, it was sinful.
Different: In Rome, Paul knew a good number believed market meat was sinful. So he was addressing THAT as a point of ongoing conflict. In Corinth, the conflict was over eating in the temple. Market meat was treated as a minor issue.
Even if you’re right that 1 Cor preceded Rom, 1Cor wasn’t sufficient to cover what the Romans needed.
Regardless, whether Paul's instruction to the Corinthians was permission or demand, it clearly differs in a very important way from what he said to the Christians in Rome. For me, that difference makes the meat-offered-to-idols view of the weakness of the Roman believers to be untenable.
Rajesh, if the meat-offered-to-idols view is untenable, then what do you consider to be the reason for the weakness of the Romans believers? Why were they refusing ALL meat? If certain believers were trying to insist that God was still displeased with unclean animal meat, they would not have been eating only vegetables. They would have felt free to eat beef and lamb, since God approved of beef and lamb.
Rajesh, if the meat-offered-to-idols view is untenable, then what do you consider to be the reason for the weakness of the Romans believers? Why were they refusing ALL meat? If certain believers were trying to insist that God was still displeased with unclean animal meat, they would not have been eating only vegetables. They would have felt free to eat beef and lamb, since God approved of beef and lamb.
Good question. I do not know the answer.
More importantly, whether the meat-offered-to-idols understanding of the issue in Romans 14:1-2 is correct or not, Romans 14:1-2 does not provide any support for using the teaching of that passage to argue for the acceptability of using all "genres" of instrumental music in corporate worship.
Good question. I do not know the answer.
Well, if you can't think of some other logical reason for their weakness, then how can you consider the meat-offered-to-idols position to be untenable?
If you don't understand the weakness in Romans 14, then how can you say that an opposition to a musical genre is NOT a weakness?
Well, if you can't think of some other logical reason for their weakness, then how can you consider the meat-offered-to-idols position to be untenable?
I am continuing to study the subject and exploring other possibilities biblically. I am not at the point where I am ready to propose other explanations.
If you don't understand the weakness in Romans 14, then how can you say that an opposition to a musical genre is NOT a weakness?
Regardless of whatever Paul is addressing in Romans 14:1-2 concerning foodstuffs, his teaching pertains only to the use of foodstuffs as foodstuffs. That teaching is not any way about any kind of acceptability of the universal use of foodstuffs in corporate worship.
In fact, indisputable explicit biblical revelation shows that there was no universal divine acceptance of the use of all foodstuffs in corporate worship.
At most, therefore, those who try to use Romans 14:1-2 as justification for holding to universal divine acceptance of all "genres" of instrumental music could only do so concerning a supposed divine acceptance for their use in ordinary life--not in corporate worship.
Furthermore, many direct biblical teachings show that there is no validity in applying what the Bible teaches about foods--whether they are used as foods or in corporate worship--to a right understanding of what the Bible teaches about "genres" of instrumental music--whether they are used in ordinary life or in corporate worship.
At most, therefore, those who try to use Romans 14:1-2 as justification for holding to universal divine acceptance of all "genres" of instrumental music could only do so concerning a supposed divine acceptance for their use in ordinary life--not in corporate worship.
Since this thread is about Romans 14, then we should stick to the focus mentioned in the chapter, which verses 7-8 make clear is every part of our lives. "For none of us liveth to himself, and no man dieth to himself. For whether we live, we live unto the Lord; and whether we die, we die unto the Lord: whether we live therefore, or die, we are the Lord's."
So this shows that the principles of Romans 14 would apply throughout life, which would include both "ordinary life" and "corporate worship." I don't really get the sense that the New Testament makes huge distinctions between ordinary life and daily worship and corporate worship.
Furthermore, many direct biblical teachings show that there is no validity in applying what the Bible teaches about foods--whether they are used as foods or in corporate worship--to a right understanding of what the Bible teaches about "genres" of instrumental music--whether they are used in ordinary life or in corporate worship.
This paragraph here makes me wonder why you wanted to use this thread to talk about those who "eat all things" in anticipation of making a point about musical genres.
This paragraph here makes me wonder why you wanted to use this thread to talk about those who "eat all things" in anticipation of making a point about musical genres.
Because many misuse that phrase in Romans 14 as part of their basis to make false claims about God's accepting the use of all "genres" of instrumental music in corporate worship.
Since this thread is about Romans 14, then we should stick to the focus mentioned in the chapter,
This strikes me as funny, considering the history of what has been directed toward me on SI. Romans 14 says exactly zero things about meat offered to idols, yet you and others want to make that the understanding and focus of Paul's teaching about ordinary eating and drinking. If I were to do what has been done to me, I would be screaming about "eisegesis" . . .
So this shows that the principles of Romans 14 would apply throughout life, which would include both "ordinary life" and "corporate worship." I don't really get the sense that the New Testament makes huge distinctions between ordinary life and daily worship and corporate worship.
Wow. This is quite the striking assertion, and it is an assertion that is not supported even by Romans 14 itself. Paul says that the kingdom of God is not meat and drink--he plainly thereby distinguishes in some vital manner between things that pertain directly to the kingdom of God and matters concerning ordinary eating and drinking.
There is not even a hint in Romans 14 that Paul intended what he taught about eating and drinking things as foodstuffs to be directly paralleled to things pertaining to the kingdom of God, which especially would concern corporate worship.
This thread is about “Romans 14” and “Foods, Days, and Worship Music.”
Rom14 says nothing explicit about music.
I would suggest holding off on even bringing up music until the situational meaning and then the principle of the passage is understood.
This thread is about “Romans 14” and “Foods, Days, and Worship Music.”
Rom14 says nothing explicit about music.
I would suggest holding off on even bringing up music until the situational meaning and then the principle of the passage is understood.
Romans 14 also does not say anything explicitly about many other subjects to which believers seek to apply it. I am all for rightly understanding "principles" from the passage that are legitimately applicable; precisely identifying the exact nature of the differences is not necessary to do so.
In order to rightly handle the passage, what the rest of the passage says has to be treated.
Because Paul directly ties what he says about days to what he says about foods, the two must be treated together, even as Paul deals with them together:
Romans 14:5 One man esteemeth one day above another: another esteemeth every day alike. Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind. 6 He that regardeth the day, regardeth it unto the Lord; and he that regardeth not the day, to the Lord he doth not regard it. He that eateth, eateth to the Lord, for he giveth God thanks; and he that eateth not, to the Lord he eateth not, and giveth God thanks.
Romans 14:5 differs from 14:1-2 in important ways that need to be examined carefully.
Romans 14 also does not say anything explicitly about many other subjects to which believers seek to apply it. I am all for rightly understanding "principles" from the passage that are legitimately applicable; precisely identifying the exact nature of the differences is not necessary to do so.
Yes, I agree. The weak (No meat) felt they should judge their brothers. And should call meat generally sinful. Paul told them not to do those because he knew they wanted to. And he actually gave reassurance to the weak as to WHY they shouldn't judge: The Lord is able to make him stand. From there, Paul launches into vv5-9, which explain that the active Lordship of Jesus is the basis of their differences.
Some may hold that Paul in Romans 14:5 contrasts those who esteem one day above another as being weak believers with those who esteem all days (alike) as being strong believers. If this is the right understanding of that Pauline teaching, and if that teaching is intended to be all-encompassing applicable, then it would seemingly follow that esteeming the Lord's Day above the other days of the week and regarding it as special to the Lord would be marks of being "weak in the faith."
To be consistent with this interpretation, strong believers would be those who do not esteem and regard the Lord's Day any more than they esteem and regard all other days. It should be patently clear that this entire approach to interpreting and applying Romans 14:5 to the Lord's Day is a faulty handling of Scripture.
The Sabbath was commanded “forever.” (Exodus 31:12-16) “And the LORD said to Moses, “You are to speak to the people of Israel and say, ‘Above all you shall keep my Sabbaths, for this is a sign between me and you throughout your generations, that you may know that I, the LORD, sanctify you. . . Whoever does any work on the Sabbath day shall be put to death. Therefore the people of Israel shall keep the Sabbath, observing the Sabbath throughout their generations, as a covenant forever.”
Consider John Piper’s conclusion to his Oct 2, 2005 sermon, Is There a “Lord’s Day”?
So, does Romans 14:5 refer to the Lord’s Day when it says, “One person esteems one day as better than another, while another esteems all days alike. Each one should be fully convinced in his own mind”? I answer with Paul Jewett: “It is unconvincing . . . to press Paul’s statement in Romans 14:5 so absolutely as to have considered John [the apostle] a Judaizer for having called one day in the week the Lord’s Day (Rev. 1:10), thus giving it the preeminence.” (The Lord’s Day, p. 78). Jewett takes John’s conviction as having apostolic authority and assumes he is not a “Judaizer,” that is, among the “weak” of Romans 14:2.
Piper and Jewett conclude that Romans 14:5 does not refer to the weekly Sabbath day because the Apostle John would be a “Judaizer” if it did. They equate “weak” with “Judaizer” because they believe that to be weak means to be mistaken in demanding outdated scruples.
To be consistent with this interpretation, strong believers would be those who do not esteem and regard the Lord's Day any more than they esteem and regard all other days. It should be patently clear that this entire approach to interpreting and applying Romans 14:5 to the Lord's Day is a faulty handling of Scripture.
Well, where is the command to esteem "the Lord's Day"? The Lord's Day is Sunday, isn't it? I know the commands to esteem the Sabbath, but the sabbath is Saturday, not Sunday. Shouldn't Saturday be more esteemed than Sunday, since the command to esteem Saturday goes all the way back to creation?
And what does it mean to "esteem"? My wife has an aunt who refused to allow us to pick berries in her berry patch on a Sunday. We honored her wishes, but my wife and I felt her refusal was an overly strict interpretation of esteeming. We didn't tell the aunt that, of course, because based on Romans 14, that would have been an act of judging "the weak." Of course the aunt would not have considered herself weak in the faith, but her "weakness" was simply her inability to "work" or allow what she considered to be work on the Lord's Day. Should that aunt's perspective be the one that applies to all believers everywhere, or can believers legitimately have differences about what is considered esteeming the Lord's day?
Paul says that the kingdom of God is not meat and drink--he plainly thereby distinguishes in some vital manner between things that pertain directly to the kingdom of God and matters concerning ordinary eating and drinking.
1 Cor 10:31 says "Whether therefore ye eat, or drink, or whatsoever ye do, do all to the glory of God." Wouldn't glorifying God be a "kingdom of God" issue, and wouldn't this verse apply to all of life and not just part of it?
I don’t agree with Rajesh (or PIper and Jewett).
Rajesh, your logic, if I understand it correctly, goes like this:
- R14-day-respecting (whatever that is) is the position of the weak.
- Lord’s Day respecting is the good and right position.
- The good position cannot be the weak one.
- Therefore, R14-day-respecting is not Lord’s Day respecting.
Well, where is the command to esteem "the Lord's Day"? The Lord's Day is Sunday, isn't it? I know the commands to esteem the Sabbath, but the sabbath is Saturday, not Sunday. Shouldn't Saturday be more esteemed than Sunday, since the command to esteem Saturday goes all the way back to creation?
The following post from my blog answers these questions:
Why Christians Must Esteem the Lord’s Day above All Other Days
Divine Consecration of One Day above the Others
Divine Mandate to Esteem One Day above the Others
Exo 20:8 Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy.
9 Six days shalt thou labour, and do all thy work:
Divine Possession of One Day above the Others
Rev 1:10 I was in the Spirit on the Lord’s day, and heard behind me a great voice, as of a trumpet,
Rev 1:10 ἐγενόμην ἐν Πνεύματι ἐν τῇ Κυριακῇ ἡμέρᾳ· καὶ ἤκουσα ὀπίσω μου φωνὴν μεγάλην ὡς σάλπιγγος,
Copyright © 2011-2025 by Rajesh Gandhi. All rights reserved.
I don’t agree with Rajesh (or PIper and Jewett).
Rajesh, your logic, if I understand it correctly, goes like this:
- R14-day-respecting (whatever that is) is the position of the weak.
- Lord’s Day respecting is the good and right position.
- The good position cannot be the weak one.
- Therefore, R14-day-respecting is not Lord’s Day respecting.
As I understand Romans 14:5, Paul sets forth two differing positions: (1) esteem & regard one day above another; and (2) esteem all days and not regard any of them as above any other. The biblical data that I have treated in my preceding reply to Kevin shows that the Lord's Day must be esteemed and regarded above all other days of the week. Whatever Paul is teaching in Romans 14:5, he is not teaching that believers who regard the Lord's Day above all other days are "weak in the faith."
The following post from my blog answers these questions:
But it didn't really answer my question. I asked you for the command to esteem the Lord's day. You presented commands to esteem the sabbath, which is Saturday. You didn't give me any actual commands to esteem Sunday.
I see you making a connection to Psalm 118:22, but I'm not so sure that is commanding something specific about every Sunday. If anything it refers to directly only to the resurrection Sunday 2000 years ago, since that is the Sunday in which salvation was provided. That salvation day is the day to rejoice and be glad in. Verses regarding salvation bracket the verses about the stone and the day. Psalm 118:21 says, " I will praise thee: for thou hast heard me, and art become my salvation." Verse 25 says, "Save now, I beseech thee, O Lord." Then in Acts 4, right after verse 11 which mentions the stone, we have verse 12. "Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved."
So we can rejoice in the day 2000 years ago when Jesus rose from the dead and provided our salvation, but that is not a command to be esteeming every single Sunday.
Ex 31:16 Israel shall keep the Sabbath, observing the Sabbath throughout their generations, as a covenant forever.
I don’t think that Rajesh included the above. Covenantalists and Dispensationalist, of course, will argue over whether the church must obey a command beginning “Israeli shall.”
Rajesh: Whatever Paul is teaching in Romans 14:5, he is not teaching that believers who regard the Lord's Day above all other days are "weak in the faith."
OR you can make biblical logical conclusions about what you should do and when you do you become unable (weak) (not free) to do the opposite.
In other words, the weak position is often a good, biblical, logical position.
OR you can make biblical logical conclusions about what you should do and when you do you become unable (weak) (not free) to do the opposite.
In other words, the weak position is often a good, biblical, logical position.
I am not following what exactly you are claiming that Romans 14:5 teaches concerning what strong Christians are to believer concerning their esteeming of days.
Are you saying that strong Christians do not esteem the Lord's Day and do not regard it above the other days of the week?
The text of Romans 14 says that
- Some [strong] treated one day above another
- Some [weak] treated every day alike
Now, Sabbath (Lord’s Day) observance is a very respectable position, as you, Piper, and Jewett show. How can a respectable position be the weak one?
Additionally, as I said previously in this thread, vegetarian diet was based on stringent idol-avoidance. Daniel was honored for this position and Historical evidence is that Jews continued it up to Paul’s day. Nothing in the NT abrogates the laws against idolatry. So, vegetarian eating was a very respectable position. How can a respectable position be the weak one?
(1 Corinthians 8-10 is even more explicit in defining the weak position as a good and biblical.)
——
One of these is needed:
- “Every day” doesn’t mean every day (perhaps Paul meant feast days) and “only vegetables” actually means “vegetables, lamb, and beef.”
- Weak doesn’t indicate immaturity or wrongness. It was, for Paul, a respectful way of expressing inability to do something.
The text of Romans 14 says that
- Some [strong] treated one day above another
- Some [weak] treated every day alike
How does Romans 14 teach that the strong treated one day above another?
But it didn't really answer my question. I asked you for the command to esteem the Lord's day. You presented commands to esteem the sabbath, which is Saturday. You didn't give me any actual commands to esteem Sunday.
No, I did not just present commands to esteem the Sabbath.
My first point was not about a command--God consecrated one day above another, but the text does not say that He commanded anything when He did so (Gen. 2:3). When God did so, He instructed His people that He esteemed one day above another.
Whatever God esteems above other things is instruction for them to do likewise, whether He issues a command for them to do so or not. They are to regard that such things are to be regarded above whatever the other things were that God did not esteem equally with whatever He esteemed to be above them.
Now, Sabbath (Lord’s Day) observance is a very respectable position, as you, Piper, and Jewett show.
I do not believe that regarding the Lord's Day to be special above all the other days is observing the Sabbath.
What I do believe is that from the Creation, God has established the reality that He has wanted His creatures to esteem one day above all the others (Gen. 2:3). Through His work of raising His Son from the dead on the first day of the week (Matt. 28:1-8) and His taking possession of the first day of the week in a singular way (Rev. 1:10), God Himself has changed what day He wants His people to esteem and regard above all other days.
Moreover, apostolic example (Acts 20:7) and apostolic command (1 Cor. 16:2) make clear to us that it is the mind and will of God for His NT people to esteem and regard the first day of the week as special above all the other days.
How does Romans 14 teach that the strong treated one day above another?
Clearly “days” is another example in the same category as “meat.”
How does Romans 14 teach that the strong treated one day above another?
Clearly “days” is another example in the same category as “meat.”
I do not follow your thinking at all in this comment.
Romans 14:1-2 explicitly tells us who the weak are and who the strong are concerning foodstuffs. Romans 14:5 does not do so.
I have seen several people say that the strong are the ones who esteem all days alike, but you say that the strong are the ones who esteem one day above another. Perhaps, you misspoke in your earlier comment and actually do hold that the strong are the ones who esteem all days alike?
In any case, I do not believe that we who esteem the Lord's Day to be above all the other days of the week are in any way "weak in the faith."
In any case, I do not believe that we who esteem the Lord’s Day to be above all the other days of the week are in any way “weak in the faith.”
Two thoughts:
First, it is interesting to see some try to deny days are what Paul is talking about since days are specifically mentioned.
Second, I can’t help but wonder why the insistence that one is not weak; it has to be the other side. Might it perhaps be a bit of spiritual pride, that is to say, the insistence that we are right and the other side is wrong is the very point that Paul is warning against. No matter who is who, we are to accept, not condemn.
Two thoughts:
First, it is interesting to see some try to deny days are what Paul is talking about since days are specifically mentioned.
I'm not sure what you are referring to here. I do not remember saying that there are people who "try to deny days are what Paul is talking about."
Second, I can’t help but wonder why the insistence that one is not weak; it has to be the other side. Might it perhaps be a bit of spiritual pride, that is to say, the insistence that we are right and the other side is wrong is the very point that Paul is warning against. No matter who is who, we are to accept, not condemn.
We disagree on what things Romans 14 applies to. Romans 14 does not apply to things that the Bible plainly teaches are true, including the singularly important nature of the Lord's Day above all other days.
I’m not sure what you are referring to here. I do not remember saying that there are people who “try to deny days are what Paul is talking about.”
That is your whole point here, it appears. That the Sabbath Day is not a day that Paul is talking about.
Romans 14 does not apply to things that the Bible plainly teaches are true, including the singularly important nature of the Lord’s Day above all other days.
I think you are proving the point. Quite clearly, the Bible does not plainly teach the singularly important nature of the Lord’s day above all other days.
Of course I say that a bit tongue in cheek (though I believe it is true). IMO, you are a living demonstration of Romans 14 in action. I am not exactly sure what your response to someone like me would be, someone who believes firmly that that we should attend church when our church meets and we should be there every time it meets unless providentially hindered, but I do not believe that the “Lord’s Day” (by which most mean Sunday) is somehow set apart as more important than other days. I am one who believes that every day belongs to the Lord.
You regard one day above another; I regard them all alike. Each of us is to be convinced in our own minds and neither is to sit in judgment on the other or regard the other with contempt.
I think you are proving the point. Quite clearly, the Bible does not plainly teach the singularly important nature of the Lord’s day above all other days.
Of course I say that a bit tongue in cheek (though I believe it is true). IMO, you are a living demonstration of Romans 14 in action. I am not exactly sure what your response to someone like me would be, someone who believes firmly that that we should attend church when our church meets and we should be there every time it meets unless providentially hindered, but I do not believe that the “Lord’s Day” (by which most mean Sunday) is somehow set apart as more important than other days. I am one who believes that every day belongs to the Lord.
You regard one day above another; I regard them all alike. Each of us is to be convinced in our own minds and neither is to sit in judgment on the other or regard the other with contempt.
Knowing that you are a seasoned believer who has studied his Bible for many years, I do not think that further discussion of this subject with you will be profitable. I believe that you are wrong about the Lord's Day and Romans 14. We will have to leave it there.
I believe that you are wrong about the Lord’s Day and Romans 14. We will have to leave it there.
And I believe you are wrong, which is fine. I am glad to leave it there because I think that is what we do when we differ.
My only question is this: How do you regard me? Do you sit in judgment on me or treat me with contempt? Will you allow someone to disagree with you as a brother without condemnation?
My only question is this: How do you regard me? Do you sit in judgment on me or treat me with contempt? Will you allow someone to disagree with you as a brother without condemnation?
Romans 14 does not apply to how a Christian should esteem the Lord's Day. You are pushing for a Romans 14 approach to this disagreement. I reject your attempt to do so. That is where I am going to leave it in my interactions with you in this discussion.
The next part of Romans 14 that I want to address in this discussion is Romans 14:14
Romans 14:14 I know, and am persuaded by the Lord Jesus, that there is nothing unclean of itself: but to him that esteemeth any thing to be unclean, to him it is unclean.
Some claim that this teaching by Paul proves that there are no "genres" of instrumental music that are inherently unacceptable to God. Such use of the passage is a blatant misuse of this teaching because Paul is teaching about foodstuffs (that were all made by God Himself), as seen by what he says next in the passage, and not about "genres" of instrumental music made by humans, which are not at all in view in his next statement:
Romans 14:15 But if thy brother be grieved with thy meat, now walkest thou not charitably. Destroy not him with thy meat, for whom Christ died.
Discussion