Doubtful Disputations are exactly the “diversities” that people conjur out of their own mind and the DIET and DAYS they showed up for would get the attention of those once in conflict. Paul speaks of DIET and DAYS and if you want to extend that then all of the sects were noted for their musical frenzies which would and does drive the infirm into the “spiritual anxiety” or laded burden Jesus died to remove. Medical science proves what the most ancients understood: music disables the rational or spiritual mind and lets false teachers slip in dogma without being noticed. It was well known that “people set their lies to melodies to deceive the simple.”

All of the sects would have at one time conducted rituals in and around the Agora or marketplace: you will remember that Jesus consigned the pipers, singers (lamenters) and dancers to the marketplace. In Athens, the ekklesia was far removed from the marketplace and was for information only: neither the ekklesia or Greek synagogue or Jewish synagogue permitted the members to make up their own material for discussion.

In chapter 15 Paul defines the functions of what he often calls “synagogue” which was devoted to “that which is written.”

I have reviewed Royce Ogle’s take on Romans 14 here:

Only that which contributes to edification which in the synagogue context means education was allowed. The ARESKOS or self-pleasure also forbids people from taking a vote to decide whether they would like to add something for their own pleasure. It clearly means just the opposite of those who use Romans 14 to give them the authority to IMPOSE their doubtful opinions on the whole body.

Jay Guin proposes his doubtful disputations suggesting the Lord’s Supper be a PERFORMANCE thing and done quarterly or monthly. At the same time the SHOWING FORTH of the death of Christ has the same meaning as EVANGELISM: you begin to teach the death of Christ. Now, why one would try to put off teaching about Christ to a quarterly performance and give himself the right to preach his own “doubtful disputations” is something to worry about.

In another look at Ronnie Norman’s use of Romans to let him squeeze music out of silence.

My understanding is that Romans 14:1 sets the context for this section: “Receive one who is weak in the faith, but not to disputes over doubtful things.” Then in verse 2 and 3, we see the specific thing to which Paul is referring: “For one believes he may eat all things, but he who is weak eats only vegetables. Let not him who eats despise him who does not eat, and let not him who does not eat judge him who eats; for God has received him.”

The context of the discussion in chapter 14 is avoiding disputes over doubtful things. Paul says in verse 4, “Who are you to judge another’s servant?” Then in verse 12 he writes, “Therefore let us not judge one another anymore, but rather resolve this, not to put a stumbling block or a cause to fall in our brother’s way.”

Now, this cannot be referring to commandments of God about holiness or worship. Why? Because Paul specifically told the Corinthians that they were to judge the behavior of their fellow Christians (1 Cor. 6), and to act accordingly if fellowship needed to be withheld (1 Cor. 5). Since Paul taught the same things in all the churches (1 Cor. 4:17), the Romans certainly would have the same guidelines as the Corinthians.

With this understanding, and remaining with the context, it seems clear that Paul’s use of “nothing unclean” is referring certainly to food, but also to other doubtful things that may come up in our personal lives. There is no mention of sinful behavior being a doubtful thing, nor about worship practices. Instead, Paul is talking harmless matters of preference that happen outside the assembly. Harmless, of course, unless they cause others to stumble.

In a sentence, “nothing is unclean in itself” is a doctrinal statement about a matter of opinion.

You wrote that “Romans 14 must be about matters of opinion and doubtful things.” Is Paul’s statement “nothing is unclean in itself” (Romans 14:14) a “matter of opinion” or a “doubtful thing” or a “doctrinal matter?”

Zach

Thanks. I’ve never seen too much value in labels, especially when the purpose of the label is to distract from the actual issue at hand.

God bless you.

Matt

Just curious what “false teaching” caused this brother to lose his fellowship with the church.

Matt,

I want to commend you for refusing to “sling mud” and use offensive words to describe those with whom you disagree. It doesn’t seem to help much.

Zach

I picked up the pdf version of Jay’s book, and so far I’ve just glanced through it. The introductory material pretty much tells the story. When I get time, I’ll scan through it.

Thanks, Weylan!

Matt

Sure, he was dealing with rank sin. That is why he was writing openly about the issue. But there were other problems that caused the same sort of disfellowship, remember? Paul mentioned for them to also not to keep company with extortioners, idolaters, drunkards, revilers, etc. (1 Cor. 5:11). These were probably more “normal” cases, but Paul also said for them to separate from these as well.

Thanks!

Matt

Having read Jay Guin’s work on the Holy Spirit back in 2001, I wrote on the last page, “This is a dangerous book.” Todd’s also is a dangerous book, and it does not tell the half of what he now believes.

God bless your work, Matt.

I’ll talk more about this in a later section of the study, but Romans 14 must be about matters of opinion and doubtful things. If it is not, then Paul’s admonition to the Corinthians to separate from the immoral brother would make absolutely no sense. If Paul’s writing in Romans 14 addresses worship practices and moral issues (things which have been directly and plainly revealed in the NT), then we would be in the position of not being able to speak against sin of any type at all, and we certainly would have no business separating ourselves from an immoral brother, or even a false teacher of Hymenaeus’ ilk. Instead, Paul tells the Corinthians that there are matters that they must judge within the church (1 Cor. 6). Anyway, more on that when I get to that passage.

God bless you,

Matt