| Author | Message | ||
| U2bsda Registered user Username: U2bsda Post Number: 208 Registered: 11-2004 |
What is your take on Romans 14? It seems to suggest that if the people we are around have problems with what we eat then we shouldn't eat it. Romans 14 is quoted below: The Law of Liberty 1 Receive one who is weak in the faith, but not to disputes over doubtful things. 2 For one believes he may eat all things, but he who is weak eats only vegetables. 3 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. 4 Who are you to judge anotherís servant? To his own master he stands or falls. Indeed, he will be made to stand, for God is able to make him stand. 5 One person esteems one day above another; another esteems every day alike. Let each be fully convinced in his own mind. 6 He who observes the day, observes it to the Lord;[a] and he who does not observe the day, to the Lord he does not observe it. He who eats, eats to the Lord, for he gives God thanks; and he who does not eat, to the Lord he does not eat, and gives God thanks. 7 For none of us lives to himself, and no one dies to himself. 8 For if we live, we live to the Lord; and if we die, we die to the Lord. Therefore, whether we live or die, we are the Lordís. 9 For to this end Christ died and rose[b] and lived again, that He might be Lord of both the dead and the living. 10 But why do you judge your brother? Or why do you show contempt for your brother? For we shall all stand before the judgment seat of Christ.[c] 11 For it is written: ì As I live, says the LORD, Every knee shall bow to Me, And every tongue shall confess to God.î[d] 12 So then each of us shall give account of himself to God. 13 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 brotherís way. The Law of Love 14 I know and am convinced by the Lord Jesus that there is nothing unclean of itself; but to him who considers anything to be unclean, to him it is unclean. 15 Yet if your brother is grieved because of your food, you are no longer walking in love. Do not destroy with your food the one for whom Christ died. 16 Therefore do not let your good be spoken of as evil; 17 for the kingdom of God is not eating and drinking, but righteousness and peace and joy in the Holy Spirit. 18 For he who serves Christ in these things[e]is acceptable to God and approved by men. 19 Therefore let us pursue the things which make for peace and the things by which one may edify another. 20 Do not destroy the work of God for the sake of food. All things indeed are pure, but it is evil for the man who eats with offense. 21 It is good neither to eat meat nor drink wine nor do anything by which your brother stumbles or is offended or is made weak.[f] 22 Do you have faith?[g] Have it to yourself before God. Happy is he who does not condemn himself in what he approves. 23 But he who doubts is condemned if he eats, because he does not eat from faith; for whatever is not from faith is sin.[h] | ||
| Mwh Registered user Username: Mwh Post Number: 169 Registered: 4-2006  |
It can probably be applied in many ways this text of truth. If I know that my brother is adicted to alcohol for example, I should probably not place it on the table or ask for any when eating and drinking with him. | ||
| Melissa Registered user Username: Melissa Post Number: 1485 Registered: 7-2003 |
There are a couple of things in context that I see. First begins closer to the top. We are talking about 'weak' brothers. The assumption has to be that some day they won't be weak. All Christians need to mature. If for a time being, during their ignorance and immaturity, eating something is offensive, it seems it would be more loving not to serve it in their presence. But it doesn't seem appropriate to allow this text to be used to somehow 'manipulate' strong people who know the truth about 'nothing unclean of itself' into submitting to the preferred 'version' of truth that some want to hold to in direct contradiction to the teaching of scripture or to somehow enable 'weak brothers' to stay weak. I say this in the knowledge we are talking about the adventist teachings. This passage seems to be addressing Jews who have been taught one thing in their faith who do not understand the freedoms in Christ. Adventist teaching seems to be they have 'new light' in 'advance,' so to say, of Scripture and I'm not sure that's the same circumstance. When I was still involved with an SDA, I tried to be very conscienscious of what I put on the table in his presence....and I began to realize I was teaching my children to be duplicitous ... two-faced....almost deceptive as though we didn't eat those things when he wasn't around. That doesn't seem to be the accurate teaching of scripture either. If someone wants to know the basis on why I 'can' eat what I 'can' eat, I have this text to say God doesn't really care what we eat. I know from experience, the hearer will say 'that text cannot possibly mean what you say it means because it contradicts the old testament teaching about unclean meats'. I can only say they are looking at scripture pre-cross, and I am looking post-cross. I also know that will not be 'valid' to the hearer who doesn't want to hear or be challenged in their established position. Alcohol, on the other hand, is an addictive substance, and I think there are circumstances refraining would be prudent. But meat, or even 'unclean' meat is not an addictive property that over-consumption can cause someone to be clearly in sin, "do not be drunk". I think we are to encourage our Christian brothers to maturity, not to remain immature. Whether they ever start to eat what we eat, it should eventually not be 'offensive' if someone else eats it in their presence. IMHO. | ||
| Grace_alone Registered user Username: Grace_alone Post Number: 217 Registered: 6-2006  |
That's a great point Mwh. U2, I've looked at it like Mwh, but also I remember those verses when I'm with my SDA relatives. Out of respect, if we go to a restaurant, I won't order my favorite - shrimp. I know it would bother my in-laws, and although they won't say anything (at least to my face) I still do it out of respect and love for them. Last year we all went to a very nice restaurant and as much as I wanted the shrimp cocktail, I wanted to be careful not to offend or hurt my m.i.l. So what does my rebel SDA brother-in-law order? The shrimp cocktail. Let me tell you - those shrimp were the size of my hand, HUGE! The parents didn't make an issue of it, but my sweet husband made sure to announce that I wanted to show respect. I got a nice smile from his mom for that. I can eat shrimp any time. It just isn't necessary that I eat it in front of my in-laws. Plus, keeping the peace in this way honors God as well.  Leigh Anne | ||
| Randyg Registered user Username: Randyg Post Number: 268 Registered: 12-2004 |
Romans 14... this chapter more than any other allowed me the freedom to lay aside the bondage of Adventist doctrine, and live my live in the fullness that God intended a Christian to live. However with freedom come responsibility. I have studied many commentaries on this chapter, and will try and provide a little more insight later when time permits. Randy | ||
| Jeremy Registered user Username: Jeremy Post Number: 1530 Registered: 10-2004  |
First of all, this chapter is talking about brothers in Christ. It is addressing those who are "weak in the faith"--NOT those who are strong in a false faith! It is not discussing those who are under the hold of doctrines of demons or a false gospel. This chapter does not apply to Adventists. I'm not saying that those who want to abstain out of love, respect, etc., for their SDA friends/family are necessarily wrong--I'm just saying that this chapter cannot be used to tell people what they need to do when dealing with Adventists. Also, I don't believe this chapter can be used to apply to those (even believers) who are committing spiritual adultery by insisting on being married to the Law as well as to Christ (Romans 7). Paul certainly "judged" the Gentile believers for keeping "days" in Galatians 4! Also, Paul confronted Peter in Galatians 2 for abstaining from eating with the Gentiles for fear of "the party of the circumcision" (Jewish believers). He even called it hypocrisy, and he also said, "I opposed him to his face, because he stood condemned." Jeremy (Message edited by jeremy on October 04, 2006) | ||
| Colleentinker Registered user Username: Colleentinker Post Number: 4710 Registered: 12-2003  |
You are totally right, Jeremy. A few months ago in his sermon on this passage, Gary Inrig said that if the Romans to whom Paul preached had been living in the bondage of legalism, he wouldn't have commented about the "weaker brother". He would have confronted their legalism and called them to Christ. This passage was not meant to accommodate the manipulation of someone deceived by a false gospel who wants another to make him or her "comfortable". You're right, Jeremy. Colleen | ||
| Jeremy Registered user Username: Jeremy Post Number: 1532 Registered: 10-2004 |
Right, Colleen. And they want to be comfortable in their sin--in their false gospel and doctrines of demons. I think that sometimes it may be necessary to show them that you can eat unclean meats or drink wine and still love Jesus! Jeremy | ||
| Nicole Registered user Username: Nicole Post Number: 27 Registered: 4-2006 |
jeremy and colleen, what you wrote above is good to hear. i have been confused by romans 14 ever since i got to know my husband's family. should i eat pork, shellfish, have a glass of wine, etc. while with them? i guess it wouldn't be wrong then. | ||
| Grace_alone Registered user Username: Grace_alone Post Number: 221 Registered: 6-2006 |
Jeremy, I do agree with you about the text, and I see where you're coming from. I am curious though Jeremy, how you say they want to be "comfortable in their sin". Is the "sin" the evil thoughts they have about unclean meat eaters? Also, can I have a background on the "weak" brothers that Paul wrote about? I know you think it's silly, but in dealing with my in-laws I'd rather them know me for what's in my heart rather than be distracted by all the shrimp I'm shovelling into my mouth. They know I eat pretty much everything - except broccoli. Just as I wouldn't purposely order a glass of whisky, (which I don't drink anyway) I believe I can win them over better with tenderness and respect. THAT'S JUST ME. Call me a marshmello! Leigh Anne | ||
| Jeremy Registered user Username: Jeremy Post Number: 1534 Registered: 10-2004 |
Leigh Anne, The "sin" I was referring to is the sin of believing in doctrines of demons (1 Timothy 4:1-5) and a false gospel and refusing to trust Christ alone for salvation. Jeremy (Message edited by jeremy on October 04, 2006) | ||
| Grace_alone Registered user Username: Grace_alone Post Number: 222 Registered: 6-2006 |
Jeremy, Can I have a background on the "weak" brothers that Paul wrote about? I was hoping you'd answer that one too. | ||
| Colleentinker Registered user Username: Colleentinker Post Number: 4713 Registered: 12-2003 |
Leigh Anne, Jeremy may have additional infoóbut the "weak brothers" Paul speaks of are basically new Christians. Both new Christians from the Jewish and the Gentile sides had "food issues". The new Jewish believers had habits concerning not eating unclean meats and keeping Sabbath. New Gentile believers had issues with meats offered to idols ( 1 Corinthians 8). Paul is saying that some people are so accustomed "to idols that when they eat such food [food purchased from markets where the meat had been part of offerings to pagan gods] they think of it as having been sacrificed to an idol, and since their conscience is weak, it is defiled. But food does not bring us near to God..." (1 Corinthians 8:7-8). Paul's meaning in these texts about "weak" brothers is that they are spiritually immature. They may know Jesus, but they are still babes in Him and not rooted in God's word. Their minds are not yet transformed by His word dwelling richly in them and by their own experinece of learning to live by the Spirit. The implication is that the weak brothers will ideally grow and become strong. Being "weak" is not an excuse for not eating meat. It is a condition, however, in which there may still be confusion about the rights and wrongs of ceremonial and ritualistic beliefs. The problem with Adventists in this context is that many of them are simply not believers. But they think they areóand they attach carnal rules to spiritual words and expect others to honor them. (Kind of like when Adventist hospitals, schools, etc. will not allow a Christian to work on Saturday, even if they wish to complete a job, but they will frequently enforce Christians to come to work on Sunday if there's extra work. They hold this double-standard because they believe they are cosmically RIGHT, and even though the mainstream Christian doesn't agree with them at all, they KNOW they are right and they're only enforcing truth on the unwilling Sunday-church-goer.) Leigh Anne, I understand you about not offending your inlaws. That's a personal courtesy that is really wonderful. In general, though, eating shrimp in front of an Adventist will not cause him to stumble. He will not be confused about you, a person he thought was a sincere Christian, doing something which he still believes, with his immature and weak conscience, to be wrong. The Adventist will already believe you to be lost. Your partaking of unclean food will not cause his own faith to stumble. On the other hand, if an Adventist is sincerely questioning, just beginning to respond to truth, flagrant indulgence in front of him might cause him to shudder and look back to his familiar Adventist "womb" for comfort. It is for this possible reason that we don't serve meat in our snacks at our Friday night FAF Bible study. Colleen | ||
| Grace_alone Registered user Username: Grace_alone Post Number: 223 Registered: 6-2006 |
Colleen, thank you so much! I had always wondered about "weak" because I guess I look at my in-laws and consider them as being weak in that sense. As often as they used to look down their noses at me and consider me lost, I guess I would see their fear and perceive it as a weakness. I haven't ever felt like they were not believers, at least not until now. The reason why I related to the text was that I really don't know what is in the hearts of each person - including my in-laws. When they're griping about what someone wore at church on Sabbath, then definitely I agree that is sinful, and is coming from false doctrines, or doctrines of demons. But when my mil is literally sobbing during her prayers about how unworthy she is for God's goodness and Jesus' sacrifice, I see someone who genuinely seeks God's face. Does any of this make sense? Thank you for your clear explaination! You are a wonderful sister in Christ. Leigh Anne | ||
| Colleentinker Registered user Username: Colleentinker Post Number: 4715 Registered: 12-2003 |
Yes, Leigh Anne, that does make sense. Richard has often said that the Adventists who are the most sincerely trying to be true, good Adventists are the ones most likely to respond when they actually hear the true gospel. Of course, there's no hard and fast "rule" for this, but in general, the honest-in-heart tend to be quicker to embrace the truth when they finally hear it. Colleen | ||
| U2bsda Registered user Username: U2bsda Post Number: 214 Registered: 11-2004 |
I think it is a pretty broad generalization to say that Adventists are not our Christian brothers. Not all Adventists have the same beliefs. I knew very few Adventists with some of the extreme EGWish beliefs that I have heard expressed here. Whether or not they are our Christian brothers 1 Corinthians 9 (quoted below) seems to suggest that we should respond to our SDA friends and family with kindness and consideration for their beliefs. " 19Though I am free and belong to no man, I make myself a slave to everyone, to win as many as possible. 20To the Jews I became like a Jew, to win the Jews. To those under the law I became like one under the law (though I myself am not under the law), so as to win those under the law. 21To those not having the law I became like one not having the law (though I am not free from God's law but am under Christ's law), so as to win those not having the law. 22To the weak I became weak, to win the weak. I have become all things to all men so that by all possible means I might save some. 23I do all this for the sake of the gospel, that I may share in its blessings." I've been thinking about this alot lately. In the past I wanted to be demonstrative about my freedom in Christ and do things around my family that they may not be totally comfortable with, but I am starting to think that may not be the best way to show the love of Christ. | ||
| Colleentinker Registered user Username: Colleentinker Post Number: 4722 Registered: 12-2003 |
U2óI understandóand I do think that often your conviction is called for. I believe the decision to do or not to do non-SDA "things" around Adventists is affected by a lot of factors: length of time one has been non-SDA in their presence; the acceptance or love of the parties; the openness or "forgivingness" of the SDA; the presence or the lack of personal manipulation on the part of the Adventist...etc, etc. I think that if we do things designed to get a reaction, maybe we should rethink...! Colleen | ||
| Timmy Registered user Username: Timmy Post Number: 58 Registered: 8-2006  |
Colleen and U2, Excellent points. Something I have and am struggling with is resentment. I know this is not a "Christian" emotion but it is real and I am aware of it and I try to control it. But I don't think that pretending everything is O.K. is healthy either. I have pretended most of my life and can't do it any more. 10 years ago we decided to cut our family short (have no more kids after 1) because of the condition of the world and we didn't want our kids to go through the "time of tribulation" which was "just upon us." This decision has caused us a lot of grief that I will not go into. I feel like I am on a quest to keep other potential parents from making the same mistake due to the fanatical theologies in Adventism. But I have to constantly remind myself to do it in "love" "as a slave" etc. I sense resentment in other post on here. How do you deal with it? | ||
| U2bsda Registered user Username: U2bsda Post Number: 216 Registered: 11-2004 |
I think it would be wise for many formers to separate themselves from family and friends who manipulate or are abusive in how they relate. I have dealt with resentment too wondering how my family/teachers could not have seen the obvious incompatability with scripture. But then I remember that I was once convinced fully too. I was once like them and had the same beliefs as them and I'm sure I instructed many people in the same way I was instructed. When I think of it that way it is hard to hold on to resentment when I have done the exact same thing that they have done. I have been blessed with family who are kind and loving to me despite our differences. They are open and don't mind attending my church now, but in no way do I see them ever leaving the SDA church. Of course they are sad and extremely disappointed and the initial reaction was quite demonstrative. I agree Colleen. Some SDAs may not be offended if we do something non-SDA around them and others may be extremely hurt. I do believe that should factor into our actions. For the most part my family is fine with me doing non-SDA things around them, but there are some things that I know I should do to help make them more comfortable. I have to push down that urge that says "I'M NOT AN ADVENTIST ANYMORE" with my actions. | ||
| Colleentinker Registered user Username: Colleentinker Post Number: 4725 Registered: 12-2003 |
Resentment. New, there's a familiar emotion... Here's how I have begun to deal with it in the past very few years. First, when I feel resentful, I realize (now) that I also feel out-of-control and even a bit victimizedósort of like a child who is being punished unfairly and has no recourse. Sometimes the emotion gets pretty overpowering, and I just ride it out for a bit...but more and more, when I feel it rising, I pray for God to keep me rooted in truth and reality. When I am awash in resentment, I am actually unable to see that I have any options or power at all. Sometimes I have to consciously remind myself that even though what someone is doing hurts terribly, I actually don't have to be their victim. So I remind myself that in Christ, I am more than just ColleenóI am hidden in Him in the Father, and I do not have to accept the shame and guilt and condemnation coming my way. I can actually know I am in Him, and I can consciously deflect the shame and guilt and condemnation onto Him for Him to carry. Of course, if I really AM guilty of something, I can't deflect all the shameóI actually have to repent and apologize. But if I know I'm not sinning, I can take the arrows for Christ and allow Him to absorb the hurt, thus protecting my heart and mind in Him. And if I feel guilt over a sin in the past, I have to go back to Jesus and remember again that He has already forgiven and covered me, and I don't have to accept the accusations of guilt that might be handed to me. I also have to remember that it's not OK to hurt someone back when they're hurting me. I can disengage with them, not picking up the bait and getting embroiled in arguing or defensivenessóor in self-flagellation. In other words, I'm beginning to learn (BEGINNING to learn are the operative words!) that I can let Jesus stand between me and the person or the memory hurting me, and I take my identity from Him, not from anyone else. Colleen | ||
| Flyinglady Registered user Username: Flyinglady Post Number: 2870 Registered: 3-2004  |
I will not eat pork around 3 of my sisters. I have had an alcoholic drink around 2 of them. My oldest sister does not mind and the other one did not say anything, but she has liquor she keeps at home. But when it comes to food she will point out what has pork. This sister does not practice adventism in any way, but she still hangs on is some way. Go Figure!!! Diana |
