What Does Romans 14 Teach about Foods, Days, and Worship Music?

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.

First, you started this response by saying you didn’t know anyone who did this and then seem continue to do the thing you claim no one is doing. Another thread, I believe, mentioned Piper and Jewett doing the same thing.

I am not “pushing for” a Romans 14 approach to this disagreement. Paul, by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit that you talk about so often, specifically identified this as one of the named issues in Romans 14. And we, as you say very often, must profit from what the Holy Spirit inspired. What you are rejecting is not or my attempt. You are to profit from the instruction of the Spirit in these verses. You cannot simply claim it doesn’t apply when the issue is specifically mentioned. We might debate whether music or some such is a Romans 14 issue. There is no debate that days are a Romans 14 issue. The Holy Spirit said they were.

You have taken one side of Romans 14:5—that one day is to be esteemed above other days. It’s completely fine to do that. I have no issue with it.. You should be persuaded in your own mind.

But I can’t see how you can deny that esteeming one day above another isn’t a Romans 14 issue when Romans 14:5 specifically says it is.

Rajesh believes two things:

1. Christians are obligated to respect the Lords Day.
2. A correct position cannot be “weak.” [contra me]

Larry, your approach is to see “weak” as negative (wrong), but still a possibility for even relatively mature Christians. I have recently said that with that traditional view, R14 becomes unusable. Larry responded that R14 still calls us to treat one another with respect. Rajesh responded:

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.

This is my experience. While Paul obviously intended meat as an example, the traditional view of weakness precludes applying it to other things.

Why? Because assurance of one’s conviction correlates with inclination to judge and refusal to accept that one is “weak.”

One more time: Paul, through the Holy Spirit, said the topic is, in part, about days—

1. regarding one above another or regarding them all alike (v. 5).
2. that each must be convinced in his own mind (v. 5).
3. while not judging or holding in contempt those who differ (vv. 2-4, 10-12).

All three planks are the Holy Spirit’s revelation which you must accept and profit from.

You have taken the first position Paul identifies—regard one above another—and made a fairly lengthy (for a discussion forum) post arguing for it. By so doing, you have admitted the point that you are doing exactly what I said you were doing. (You want me to link to a place you have done this. Just look at your posts. A good many of them make this argument.) You can’t regard one day above another and then claim that Paul wasn’t talking about regarding one day above another. You have begged the question.

And if you are convinced in your own mind, it is fine. There is no sin in regarding one day above another in this context.

It seems to me this is exactly the kind of situation Romans 14 envisions. I imagine this scenario is why Romans 14 exists—because there were people demanding that their way was the biblical way and everyone else was wrong, even though there were clear biblical reasons and support to hold another position.

You regard one day above another and outlined your biblical reasons for it. You are convinced in your own mind. So you have met two of the planks of the argument.

Here’s the third plank: Two believers differ about something that is acceptable to God. I am no longer convinced of your position.

How should we respond to one another? I cannot judge you or hold you in contempt because you don’t answer to me. And you cannot judge me or hold me in contempt because I don’t answer to you. We both have Master to whom we will answer. And since you think I am weak in faith (apparently), you have a duty to accept me (v. 1).

Larry: You regard one day above another and outlined your biblical reasons for it. You are convinced in your own mind. So you have met two of the planks of the argument.

Here’s the third plank: Two believers differ about something that is acceptable to God. I am no longer convinced of your position.

Larry, aren’t you asking Rajesh to understand that days-alike is acceptable to God even when he believes that the Word teaches Lord’s-Day-honoring?

The difficulty we are facing over days illustrates the difficulty Romans 14 faces.

When a Christian believes his position is biblical & logical, he will not accept that he’s weak. Even days, which is explicit in Rom 14 (“another esteems all days alike”), can’t survive this tendency.

Rajesh will find a way that all doesn’t mean all, rather than that he might be weak.

Do you believe that all means all in Rom 14:5?

Rajesh: You have not proven that Paul teaches that those who esteem one day above another are weak.

I fear “proving” this to you might be a Sisyphean task. Here are reasons why you should accept it’s true:

1. The whole of Romans 14 is about weak and strong Christians. Bookends of 14:1 and 15:1ff denote the theme.
2. R14:6 uses parallelism to show that Days and meat both fit into the same evaluative framework.
3. You “reject the notion that Romans 14:5 applies to the Lord's Day.” Noting the non-proximity of “all days” is not enough for you.

Rajesh, v2 says the strong ate “all things” (literally just πάντα, all).V6 says that someone esteemed “all days.”

Paul was linguistically vague in v2. No doubt he meant that some ate all food things, including those typically objected to.

But he wasn’t as vague in v6. He said “all days.” Clearly, he meant, all days of the type typically treated specially.

When a Christian believes his position is biblical & logical, he will not accept that he’s weak. Even days, which is explicit in Rom 14 (“another esteems all days alike”), can’t survive this tendency.

I continue to believe that identifying who is “strong” and who is “weak” is irrelevant to the overall point.

Rajesh will find a way that all doesn’t mean all, rather than that he might be weak.

I think this is a case where Rajesh simply does not accept the authority of Scripture in this matters, despite all his protestations to the contrary. He is clearly in Romans 14 by regarding one day above another. He is clearly outside of Romans 14 by refusing to accept those who differ, even if they are weak or strong.

Larry: I continue to believe that identifying who is “strong” and who is “weak” is irrelevant to the overall point.

Yes, I know. And I think addressing this is more likely a good use of time than the rest of this discussion.

Yes, I know. And I think addressing this is more likely a good use of time than the rest of this discussion.

Probably just about anything is.

If I were a pastor of a church and you were to come to my church and tell me that God regards all days alike so we should worship Him corporately whenever we see fit to or whatever is convenient for us, I would tell you that you are wrong and that you are not welcome to teach that in my church.

First, your disagreement with me isn’t over whether Christians should gather on Sunday. I believe they should because of the resurrection of our Lord and because of the historic practice of the church. But that isn’t the issue of regarding one day above another or every day alike.

Second, it is interesting that your “apostolic example, command, and teaching [that] establish that the first day of the week is singularly to be regarded as belonging to the Lord” is based on two NT passages, neither of which are commands or precepts regarding meeting.

1. Acts 20:7 simply says they were meeting in the evening; it has no command and no reference to any other practice; it was also in the evening though I don’t imagine you object to gathering in the morning, plus there are other factors that you seem to leave out.
2. 1 Cor 16:2 is a command to give money; it has no command to gather on the first day (though it might be implied as a practice, and I think it was the practice). You must also note that Paul tells them to do this so that there is no collection when he comes. Would that also lead to no gathering? Or are you again being selective with the data?

Your appeal to Revelation 1 and “the Lord’s day” falls short of identifying which day that was. The argument that it was the first day of the week is not an exegetical argument; the text doesn’t say that. I believe it was Sunday, but that is not the result of exegesis. The phrase “the Lord’s day” as a clear reference to Sunday is post-biblical.

Third, when your church gathers on Wednesday for corporate worship, they are unbiblical? Of course not. Would you object to a church that also gathers on Monday evening? Or Thursday afternoon for corporate worship? Probably not.

I agree that the church should meet on Sunday. That isn’t the issue here, IMO.

You claim that esteeming all days alike is biblical. The only support that you can provide for that position is what you believe Romans 14:5 is saying.

So you believe that God allows believers to “be persuaded in their own minds” about something that he declares to be sin?

Furthermore Col 2 certainly says something about days, as do other passages and principles.

Furthermore, your position makes Paul contradict himself in what he says in Romans 14:5 and what he commands in 1 Cor. 16:2. According to your view, the apostolic command in 1 Cor. 16:2 carried no weight in establishing in the minds of the Corinthians (and all other Christians) that they had (and have) a unique obligation on the first day of the week that they did not (and do not) have on any of the other days of the week. I reject that understanding.

No contradiction at all. I think you don’t understand the argument. The “unique obligation” in 1 Cor 16:2 is to set aside money so that no collections would be made when Paul arrive. It is a command about giving, not about gathering per se and for a limited period of time. Was the first day offering supposed to cease with Paul’s arrival? That’s what the text says.

Again, I reject the notion that Romans 14:5 applies to the Lord’s Day. God has always had one day of the seven that He has established as being above the other six days of the week. That is the correct understanding of the mind and will of God.

And yet for those of us who believe that every day belongs to God equally and regard them all that way, you would consider us in sin even though the Holy Spirit inspired Paul to instruct us to be persuaded in our own minds to instruct you not to judge those who see it differently. So the question becomes, what authority do you have to command us to be persuaded by your mind when the Holy Spirit says we are to be persuaded in our own minds.

I am being intentionally a bit pointed because that is typically the way you like to communicate. And on this, I think you are disregarding the statements and authority of Scripture. I heard Minnick make that case probably almost 40 years ago and have heard it through the years. It is no longer convincing to me as a matter of dogmatism. If it is convincing to you, then you should be persuaded in your own mind as the Spirit says, and you should refrain from judging those who see it differently, as the Spirit also says.

I will try to leave it there.

Larry: I continue to believe that identifying who is “strong” and who is “weak” is irrelevant to the overall point.

If you were using Rom14 to address a conflict in your church, would you discourage each side from calling the other “weak”? And would you replace that with “might be weak”?

(In disagreements, it is more polite to say, “I think you’re wrong,” than, “You are wrong.”)

I regard these statements to be clearly contradictory.

They are not contradictory in the least, much less “clearly.”

Corporate worship of God on the day of His choosing is the single most important activity that human beings engage in.

I am not sure how it is determined that this is the “most” important activity that humans engage in. (I would point out that “corporate worship” is not a biblical term for what the church does in its gatherings.)

Saying that the first day of the week is the day that we must worship God corporately is the most important indicator of holding one day to be specially regarded above another. If you hold that the teaching that all days are to be esteemed alike includes the issue of what day Christians are to worship God corporately, you must corporately worship God equally on all days; to do otherwise would be to esteem one day above another.

This is a logical fallacy, not to mention theological fallacy. But the question of days is not really “Must we worship corporately on a particularly day,” but rather more along the lines of must we only worship corporately on one particular day. Are other things allowed on that day than worship? Are other times permissible to fill the biblical mandates?

For some reason, you have apparently narrowed it down to corporate worship, but I think the issue is bigger than that. Remember, the text does not identify “corporate worship” as the controversy over days. So if we are going to be driven by what the text says, we must be driven by what the text actually says.

If you were using Rom14 to address a conflict in your church, would you discourage each side from calling the other “weak”? And would you replace that with “might be weak”?

I don’t think I would use “weak/strong” terminology at all, at least much. I don’t find it helpful. Even here, does it really matter if Rajesh is weak or strong? Or if he thinks he is one or the other? I am not convinced it helps to identify that. And I am not sure we can always tell.

Although “judge” or “hold with contempt” might be an indicator of who is who.

But in general, I think labeling someone weak or strong in a particular conversation might not help. It could contribute to defensiveness of the one labeled “weak” and pride on the part of the one labeled “strong.”

It seems better to me just to deal with the issues from the Bible and conscience and try to get the sides to see how the other side can believe what they do and how they should respond to that.

(In disagreements, it is more polite to say, “I think you’re wrong,” than, “You are wrong.”)

I agree.

I don’t think I would use “weak/strong” terminology at all, at least much. I don’t find it helpful. Even here, does it really matter if Rajesh is weak or strong? Or if he thinks he is one or the other? I am not convinced it helps to identify that. And I am not sure we can always tell.

Although “judge” or “hold with contempt” might be an indicator of who is who.

But in general, I think labeling someone weak or strong in a particular conversation might not help. It could contribute to defensiveness of the one labeled “weak” and pride on the part of the one labeled “strong.”

It seems better to me just to deal with the issues from the Bible and conscience and try to get the sides to see how the other side can believe what they do and how they should respond to that.

Yeah, I actually think that "not helpful" is an understatement.

I said in that other thread, "When you need Romans 14, you can't use it." The reason is that Christians who have studied the Word and confidently believe that X is wrong will refuse to accept that they are "weak."

So your "let everyone think they're strong" view is interesting. I started a new thread about it.

Corporate worship of God on the day of His choosing is the single most important activity that human beings engage in.

Worship, yes. But "on the day of His choosing"? If a church meets on Saturday, or Monday night, would they not be able to worship?

-----

Also, when Jews heard "treat one day above another" they would have been thinking Sabbath and a lot of methods of honoring it, especially related to work. Do you have work-related convictions regarding Sunday?

It does not matter that “corporate worship” is not a biblical term. What it signifies is very plain and very biblical.

I like to use biblical terms when we can, since they are the terms God used.

I am surprised that you would need it shown to you how corporate worship of God is the most important activity of all. Are you suggesting that you believe that there are other activities that are just as important or even more important than corporate worship of God?

As “people of the book” it should not be controversial to show something in the book. But yes, I think all of the things God commands are important and at any given time, one might be “more important” than another. Isaiah 1 addresses this very issue where people were doing “corporate worship” things but they were in rebellion. I think things like loving your wife like Christ loved the church, raising our children in the discipline and instruction of the Lord, being salt and light, pursuing personal holiness without which no one will see the Lord … all of these things are just as important. As one person once said, “These things you should have done and not left the other undone.”

I have not narrowed it down to corporate worship.

That’s the only thing you have talked about, if I recall correctly. And I said “apparently” to allow room that you might have broader view in some way.

I do agree that the issues of Romans 14 apply to every day. That’s why I am persuaded in my mind that every day belongs to the Lord.

If you hold that what is being differed about in Romans 14:5 does not apply to what day God is to be worshiped, then you admit that “all days” does not mean “all days” in every respect in Romans 14:5.

I don’t hold that. The conversation is different, as I suggested above. The issue isn’t really “Must we worship on a certain day” but rather “Must we only worship on a certain day? What else might we do?” As you know, believers have answered that differently over the years, and that is, at least part, because of how they regard the day.

I am surprised that you would need it shown to you how corporate worship of God is the most important activity of all. Are you suggesting that you believe that there are other activities that are just as important or even more important than corporate worship of God?

When Jesus ascended into heaven, did he tell his disciples "You shall be worshippers of me on Sundays" or did he tell them "You shall be witnesses of me"? Did James write in James 1:27 that "pure religion and undefiled" was meeting corporately on Sunday or did he write that pure religion was visiting the fatherless and widows in their affliction and keeping oneself unspotted from the world? Of course corporate worship is important, but it isn't explicitly stated to be "the most important" and neither are any of the other activities that believers are to engage in.

God's people absolutely must corporately worship Him on the day of His choosing, the first day of the week, the Lord's Day. If they choose to worship Him on additional days as well, fine, but none of those additional meetings can ever take the place of giving Him the glory that is due His name on His chosen day when His people must meet to worship Him corporately.

You said earlier that if a person truly esteemed all days alike, that person would desire to corporately worship on all days. What if the corporate worship takes place on Sundays and Wednesdays? Would that mean that Sundays and Wednesdays are being esteemed alike?

I asked much earlier in the thread what it means to "esteem." I presented the account of my wife's aunt, who refused to let us pick berries in her berry patch on Sunday. She felt we would not be esteeming Sunday if we picked berries. Am I wrong for thinking that, in regards to berry picking, I can esteem all days the same? Does the Bible indicate that believers today need to follow some special rules for Sunday that we wouldn't have for Wednesday, even though we corporately worship on both days.

Where does the Bible teach such a viewpoint?

When it says that with a new priest comes a new law. Your commands are all OT commands. The Bible says those commands are no longer in effect. Your only NT references are to what happened, not necessarily what should happen. It does not command such a view. Remember, the book of Acts says they were meeting together daily in the temple and from house to house. So perhaps they did esteem every day alike and you are not giving that enough weight by esteeming only one day distinctively different.

And remember that I agree with you that the church should gather on the first day of the week to fulfill the biblical commands for the assembly.

You say this, yet you keep using “Sunday” instead of “the first day of the week.”

The biblical authors didn’t say “First day of the week.” They said, “τῇ μιᾷ τῶν σαββάτων” (or something similar based on grammar). The τῇ μιᾷ τῶν σαββάτων is Sunday and “Sunday” is a proper translation of that.

While I anticipate you might object on the grounds of translation philosophy, I would point out passages such as Gen 37:2 where we all acknowledge that an exact “word for word” translation is not always the proper way to translate. In fact, there are often multiple faithful ways to translate.

The “issue” that you say is the “issue” is not the “issue” in Roman 14:5.

You say this but then seem in the very same paragraph to admit it is the issue when you talk about it being distinctively different. I don’t know the exegetical basis on which you exclude the things permissible on the “distinctively different day” from “the issue.” Perhaps you are not familiar with the conversation that has taken place over the years. As for me, I grew up with your teaching. I heard it from Minnick (probably before you did). I was persuaded by it for quite some time. The question still remains: What else is allowed on this distinctively different day?

As for me, I grew up with your teaching. I heard it from Minnick (probably before you did). I was persuaded by it for quite some time. The question still remains: What else is allowed on this distinctively different day?

I'm curious about what Dr. Minnck would say about "days" and Romans 14.

EDIT: I found a series at Mt Calvary. Downloading...

Either one day is made distinctively different from all other days in some manner that can be supported by what is revealed "in the faith" or all days are treated alike in some manner that can be supported by what is revealed "in the faith."

Rajesh, isn't the passage saying that people in the first group can get along with people in the second group without either group condemning the other, as long as each is convinced in their own mind?

Are you seeing the phrase "in the faith" as referring to a body of knowledge? Wouldn't faith be an attitude that both the strong and the weak would be having? Both groups are "in the faith" in that they are each trying to faithfully follow God but are coming to a different perspective about an issue. Neither group seems to be lacking in their determination to follow God faithfully. They are both fully convinced that their position about days is faithful obedience to God. Since the passage tells them not to condemn each other, then it must be accurate that either position is allowable to a person who wants to be faithfully obedience to God.

So let's look at the verse if we remove the Sabbath/Lord's Day from the dispute involved in "days." Let's say both the strong and the weak are considering the Lord's day to be special because that consideration is God's plan, but they have a dispute about some other "day" issue that Romans 14 needs to deal with. What would that dispute even be? Do we have any idea from the passage or is that particular dispute something unknown that we don't need to know the details of?

When we were talking about meat, you said that "The view that Romans 14 is talking about meat offered to idols has never commended itself to me." You later said it was "untenable." I then asked you the reason why some people were refusing ALL meat, since if the dispute had been about food cleanliness laws, the people could have eaten beef and lamb. You said, "Good question. I do not know the answer." You also said, "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." Is this "need for further study" also the answer you would give for the "days" question? If it is, it seems you'd be ignoring the most logical day dispute, just as you rejected the most logical meat dispute.

There is a key difference between "in the faith" in Rom. 14:1 and the later occurrences of "faith" in the passage. In Romans 14:1, "faith" has the definite article:

Romans 14:1 Him that is weak in the faith receive ye, but not to doubtful disputations.

If weak in the faith means "lacking in the body of knowledge," then strong in the faith must mean "having full and total understanding of the body of knowledge." But that wouldn't make sense because no one would then be strong. No one here on earth has full understanding of God's body of knowledge. We are all lacking in that.