Convictions and Complexities about Drinking
Image
Today I am going to take a stab at applying convictions and preferences to the subject of drinking. Let’s begin with convictions.
Convictions in General
A conviction is a belief or value we embrace as a crucial part of what we stand for and who we are. It is very different from a preference—or merely assenting to a belief or value.
For the believer, there are two levels of conviction. The first level—the deepest level—involves biblical conviction, although some deep convictions may extend beyond the Bible (e.g., a soldier surrendering his life for our country’s freedom). Our biblical convictions should be first and foremost. Where the Bible is emphatic, we must be clear and take a firm stand. This does not mean we must demand others to take that stand, but we certainly must urge fellow believers to follow what the Word actually says. This is not necessarily what we think it says, but what it actually says.
The difference between a biblical conviction and a preference is that we would suffer loss rather than disavow our biblical convictions. It may mean we lose a job, flunk a class, or be ostracized. In some nations, it means imprisonment or even death.
A preference, however, is something we prefer, but would not suffer for. For example, if we preferred to attend church Sunday mornings but lived in a culture where Friday was the national day off (as in a Muslim country), we could adjust and conduct church on Friday.
As our society becomes more aggressively anti-Christian, we are often disappointed to see supposed believers who (we thought had convictions) cave in. We discover that their “convictions” were actually preferences.
A lesser level of conviction involves beliefs that are not emphasized in the Bible; these are matters of conscience. Paul mandates we respect one another’s consciences in Romans 14:1-23 and I Corinthians 8:1-13.
Use of Alcohol, the Bible, and Evangelical/Fundamental History
Many Christians suggest that the Bible teaches moderation in drinking, while many others have concluded that the Bible teaches total abstinence. My suspicion is that the younger generations are more likely to embrace drinking, while the older generations oppose the idea.
Some of us choose to avoid alcohol—not because we believe it is wrong in moderation—but because it would be wrong for us. Take my case: I hail from a long line of alcoholics, including my father, uncles, and both grandfathers. I may have a genetic predisposition, so I am better off not getting into the habit.
How did abstinence and conservative evangelical/fundamental Christianity become paired together in the first place? In 1750, no Christians (to my knowledge) were against drinking in moderation. The Puritans, for example, would discuss theology while drinking ale. All churches used fermented wine for communion. How did things change?
Change began with the temperance movement. Evangelical Christians have a heritage of supporting the temperance movement of the early 20th century (that resulted in Prohibition). Because of the push against alcohol, a company named “Welch’s” began bottling unfermented grape juice—for communion use!
In addition, conservative evangelicals started rescue missions over 100 years ago—before the current secular “soup kitchens” caught on. People who have an alcoholic background are often brought down by just one drink, so our spiritual forefathers’ attempts at helping these people meant across-the-board abstinence for all church members. Some church covenants still require church members to totally abstain.
Today we battle all sorts of drug abuse, making substance abuse one of America’s premiere issues. Most people have concluded that Prohibition was a drastic mistake, and few of us are working with rehabilitated alcoholics. Like it or not, many Christians in America are now drinkers, at least on occasion. At the same time, we are completely free to abstain. We do not need to start drinking to prove with are with the times, free, or flexible!
When it comes to the Bible, alcohol use (in moderation) is the biblical example. The Greek word for unfermented wine (trux or trugia) is never used in the New Testament. Indeed, it is hard to imagine how someone could stumble over using grape juice (if that is what “wine” meant, as some claim) in Romans 14:21. A natural interpretation—and all Bible versions agree—tell us that Jesus turned the water to wine, not grape juice. We must pursue a biblical (rather than historical and agenda-driven) ethic.
Many Christians believe drinking alcohol is wrong, even in moderation. Others choose to abstain because of a logical argument (alcohol does more harm than good). Others take a moderation approach. But all of us need to be sensitive to others.
We do not allow alcohol at church events for good reason. Romans 14:21 (ESV) reads:
Do not, for the sake of food, destroy the work of God. Everything is indeed clean, but it is wrong for anyone to make another stumble by what he eats. It is good not to eat meat or drink wine or do anything that causes your brother to stumble.
Sometimes we need to adjust our habits based upon those around us, but only at the time. Otherwise we would all be abstainers and all vegetarians! Consideration for those who have sincere beliefs is a good thing; this is not the same as letting people with legalistic bents bully and impose their rules upon us.
Paul is talking about “weaker brothers” who would not be upset they didn’t get their way—but would be truly hurt—and perhaps emboldened to do things that bothered their consciences.
Moderation and Christian Alcoholics
Alcoholism within the Christian world is a genuine problem. Some people are typically driven toward excesses. Others (like Native American Indians) have a biological factor that makes alcohol highly addictive.
Drunkenness is a sin. Ephesians 5:18 says, “And do not get drunk with wine, for that is dissipation, but be filled with the Spirit” (NASB). The problem, though, is that most alcoholics (or occasional drunks) live in denial. One time, I knew a man who became so drunk he got in a fight with a fire hydrant. He lost. But he would talk about being able to “hold his liquor” and “not being drunk a day in his life.” The denial factor is strong.
Because we seem to have two polarized camps—drinking is always wrong or drinking is okay—we have failed to give real guidance to those who do drink.
So here is my attempt to do so. If you do drink, do you have to drink every single day? Or do you generally drink more than two or three drinks in a given day, or more than ten drinks a week? Are you safely within the boundaries of moderation? (For more information on defining moderation, see www.moderatedrinking.com.)
If you have a problem, you should elicit the prayer support of discreet members of our church family (like our elders, for example). There is no shame about enrolling in a treatment program or seeking Christian counseling.
All of us have our struggles; we all need the Holy Spirit to work within us through the Word, prayer, and relational involvement with our church family. Sometimes the best way to overcome sin is to focus upon loving God and loving others.
Ed Vasicek Bio
Ed Vasicek was raised as a Roman Catholic but, during high school, Cicero (IL) Bible Church reached out to him, and he received Jesus Christ as his Savior by faith alone. Ed earned his BA at Moody Bible Institute and served as pastor for many years at Highland Park Church, where he is now pastor emeritus. Ed and his wife, Marylu, have two adult children. Ed has published over 1,000 columns for the opinion page of the Kokomo Tribune, published articles in Pulpit Helps magazine, and posted many papers which are available at edvasicek.com. Ed has also published the The Midrash Key and The Amazing Doctrines of Paul As Midrash: The Jewish Roots and Old Testament Sources for Paul's Teachings.
- 653 views
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.
Maranatha!
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3
[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.
Lee
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]Ahhh… memories… I previously reviewed this paper. Mark joins a common understanding of these passages and strives masterfully to find sense in it.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
[Lee]…I appreciate your story, because it illustrates the need for re-examination of some conventional thoughts on these passages.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!)
Aspiring to be a stick in the mud.
[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.
"Our faith itself... is not our saviour. We have but one Saviour; and that one Saviour is Jesus Christ our Lord. B.B. Warfield
[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).”
Lee
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.
Maranatha!
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3
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.
Aspiring to be a stick in the mud.
[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.
Lee
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.
"Our faith itself... is not our saviour. We have but one Saviour; and that one Saviour is Jesus Christ our Lord. B.B. Warfield
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).
Maranatha!
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3
Discussion