Do you accidently contradict Rom 14 with Gal 4??

Question for the group:

Do you use Gal 4 to condemn observance of OT days (for example Passover - or pick any other day you like from the OT) AND ALSO use Romans 14 as defending observance to those same Bible approved days?


Do you agree that Gal 4 is actually condemning observance of something?


Do you agree that Romans 14 is defending it?


Here is a topic where I would certainly expect all on this board to differ with my POV so it will be helpful for me to have the group point to where the "details" are not in favor with my POV.


Let's select a very easy example like "observing Passover" and read Romans 14: 5-6

Rom 14
5 One person regards one day above another, another regards every day alike Each person must be fully convinced in his own mind.
6 He who observes the day, observes it for the Lord, and he who eats, does so for the Lord, for he gives thanks to God; and he who eats not, for the Lord he does not eat, and gives thanks to God.


Now let's contrast that with Gal 4:8-10


Gal 4
8 however at that time, when you did not know God, you were slaves to those which by nature are no Gods.
9 but now that you have come to know God, or rather to be known by God, how is it that you turn back again to the weak and worthless elemental things, to which you desire to be enslaved all over again?[/i]
10 you observe days and months and seasons and years.


------------
SOLUTION:

Do you agree with the following outline of Gal 4 and that it demonstrates the harmony between Gal 4 and Romans 14?

Outline for Gal 4.

Vs 1-7 “The general sin problem – applicable to ALL mankind”

Vs 8-11 “the specific problem of gentile Christians in Galatia: returning to paganism”

in Christ,

Bob

 

Jews ate meat - in fact they were required to do so as part of their ceremonial law. The Romans 14 issue is specifically about the issue of "eating Meat" vs "eating vegetables only". There is only one place where we see even more detail on this "Meat vs vegetables" discussion and that is in 1Cor 8.

It is not about eating "Meat of type A vs Meat of type B".

Agreed?


Paul identifies this more clearly in Romans chapter 14

14 I know and am convinced in the Lord Jesus that nothing is unclean in itself; but to him who thinks anything to be unclean, to him it is unclean.
15 For if because of food your brother is hurt, you are no longer walking according to love. Do not destroy with your food him for whom Christ died.


Still in that case the FIRST example is that of the strong in faith - one who eats the meat (as 1 Cor 8 says - knowing that idols are nothing).

1Cor 10
18 Look at the nation Israel; are not those who eat thesacrifices sharers in the altar?
19 What do I mean then? That a thing sacrificed to idols is anything, or that an idol is anything?
20 No, but I say that the things which the Gentiles sacrifice, they sacrifice to demons and not to God; and I do not want you to become sharers in demons.[/b]
21 You cannot drink the cup of the Lord and the cup of demons; you cannot partake of the table of the Lord and the table of demons.



1 Cor 8
7 However not all men have this knowledge; but some, being accustomed to the idol until now, eat food as if it were sacrificed to an idol; and their conscience being weak is defiled.


8 But food will not commend us to God; we are neither the worse if we do not eat, nor the better if we do eat.
9 But take care that this liberty of yours does not somehow become a stumbling block to the weak.
10 For if someone sees you, who have knowledge, dining in an idol's temple, will not his conscience, if he is weak, be strengthened to eat things sacrificed to idols?
11 For through your knowledge he who is weak is ruined, the brother for whose sake Christ died.
12 And so, by sinning against the brethren and wounding their conscience when it is weak, you sin[/b] against Christ.
13 Therefore, if food causes my brother to stumble, I will never eat meat again,[/b] so that I will not cause my brother to stumble


So clearly in the case of meat-vs-vegetarian the strong-in-faith example is the "Jew" who knows that idols are nothing at all - for the Gentile pagan has been raised to view eating meat offerred to idols as having meaning and that the idols themselves are false gods - but gods none-the-less.




in Christ,

Bob

 

If we equate obedience to scripture (in the case of Passover for an easy example) with " a return to paganism" where both of them are to be condemned in Gal 4 -- then we must also condemn it in Romans 14.

you can not have Romans 14 defending what Gal 4 condemns. In fact Romans 14 goes farther than that in the observance of the days - it condemns anyone who would condemn the observerances one way or the other.

in Christ,

Bob

 

The point is that the "meat offerred to idols" context is the only one we have for a "meat vs vegetables-only" debate in the NT.

It is interesting that Paul says the weak position is to abstain from meat offerred to idols -- yet this is the very command given to gentiles in the Acts 15 Jerusalem council.

in Christ,

Bob

 

In the case of Romans 14 it can not be that Paul is defending the observance of pagan days.

In the case of Gal 4 it can not be that Paul is condemning obedience to scripture (even if he thought that obediece was optional) since he just defended it in Rom 14 and condemned all who would look down in the least upon those who were choosing to observe them.

By contrast - we have severe criticism of those who dare to even practice the observance that is the target of Gal 4


Gal 4
8 however at that time, when you did not know God, you were slaves to those which by nature are no Gods.
9 but now that you have come to know God, or rather to be known by God, how is it that you turn back again to the weak and worthless elemental things, to which you desire to be enslaved all over again?[/i]
10 you observe days and months and seasons and years.

in Christ,

Bob

 

That is true. Not because obedience to scripture is a "bad thing" (certainly it is not and Paul defends it in Rom 14) but obedience for the purpose of "earning salvation" is wrong and as Acts 15 points out -- the argument being made in the first century is that the gentiles could not be saved without first becoming Jews as in joining the Jewish nation.

In Eph 2 it is divided as "the circumcision vs the uncircumcision" to show that this was to indicate complete national identity.

Paul argued that gentiles did not need to become Jews.

But in Acts 21 and 22 we see Paul engaged in ceremonial services as "proof" that he was not teaching that Jewish Christians should not continue to be Jews or that the Gospel was somehow opposed to scripture as given in the OT.

 

A couple of things to note. The exercise was intended to PROVE that there was nothing to the false claims being made against Paul.

1. What cliams -- according to the text what was the false accusation?
2. What was to be "proof" that this was false? Why would it "prove it"?
3. WHO was it according to vs 25 that authorized the instruction given to the gentile Christians in Acts 15?

For now answering the questions is left as an exercise for the reader.

But consider this when you evaluate Gal 4 -- Paul can not be condemning Jewish Christians in Gal 4 for doing the very thing HE is so diligently doing!

Neither can he be condemning Christians in Gal 4 (Christians of any stripe) for doing what he has defended in Romans 14.

True - and he can not be condemning Gentile Christians in Gal 4 for doing what he allows Jewish Christians to do. It would be wrong to argue that Gentiles would lose their salvation for doing the very thing that Jewish Christians were allowed to do -

Very true. And it is also true (as Paul points out in Gal 3) that no law had ever been given during any dispensation in the fall of mankind where Law brought salvation.

So that which is being condemned in Gal 4:8-11 as a "return" to the paganism of the past -can not possibly be these observances of scriptures EVEN if those observances were now "optional" since they were based on animal sacrifices that had ceased to have value.

Think about that statement for a second. Every time "Scripture" is quoted in the NT it is NEVER the NT that is quoted - always the OT.

There is no statement at all in the NT saying "And with this letter I now replace scripture".

The term "scripture" in the NT always had primary reference to the OT text.

This was especially true at the time of the Acts 15 council and the Acts 21 advice to Paul. They did not have the full NT yet and no comments are ever made in all of scripture that considered "scripture" to have been abolished while waiting on "more letters from Paul".

Yes that is true. Clearly that was an error in their teaching -- but it would have been error in any age - not just the NT period.

In Acts 15 - Paul is there so also are the other apostles and the entire Christian churh is looking to the Christians in Jerusalem to settle the matter. IT can hardly be argued that Jerusalem was the tail and Turkey or Asia the head -- rather those fledging church were appealing to headquarters -- the source of the missionary evangelist movement to decide the issue.

Notice that from Acts 21 through to Acts 28 Paul continually argues the point that his teaching did not take away from scripture -- specifically the Word of God given through Moses in the least.

in Christ,

Bob

 

Nothing to appologize for -- I myself do that same thing almost without end.:laugh:

in Christ,

Bob

 

This Acts 21 event is related 2 or 3 more times in the book of Acts and Paul declares that he was successfull in carying out the purification and sacrifices.

Act 21:26 Then Paul took the men, and the next day purifying himself with them entered into the temple, to signify the accomplishment of the days of purification, until that an offering should be offered for every one of them.

 

Following the Acts 21 incident Paul says in his defence "I AM a Pharisee the son of a Pharisee".

In Acts Christians are accused of being "A SECT of Judaism".

In Acts we see Paul ASKED by Jews in the synagogues to offer a word of insight and teaching as he is well known to them and a respected Pharisee.

Paul never says "I USED to be a Jew".

In Romans 3:1-3 Paul asks "So what advantage has the Jew? A GREAT one in every respect -- for one thing the very WORD OF GOD belongs to them".

Christianity was not being offerred by Paul as a "new religion".

in Christ,

Bob

 

As stated in the OP -- let's take a "simple case" and test it.

This is incredibly simple since no one on this board can make the side-tracked argument that someone is arguing in favor of Passover. Hopefully as Christians we can actually work through "the simple cases".

If we take the "Specific example" of Passover in Rom 14 it is clearly a case of obedience to scripture (scripture defines it and specifies obedience) and is to be "allowed" as Paul allows it in Rom 14 -- in fact it is even defended to the point of condemning any judgment against it.

However we would probably all agree that the sacrifices upon which Passover services are to be observed ended just as Heb 10 states. So although optional in observance - still the Rom 14 statement above clearly apears to defend and even to condemn anyone who would make negative statements about it's observance or those who observe it.

Is that not obvious?

On the other hand -- the Gal 4 statement IF bent to the point of applying to that SAME "Passover observance" of scripture appears to not ONLY condemn any "present observance" post-cross BUT it also condemns the PRIOR observance as equal to worshiping in a pagan system "SERVICE to those authorities that are by nature NOT even gods at all".

Thus Gal 4:8-11 COULD be unwittingly bent back on Rom 14 to condemn the very thing that Rom 14 is defending AND condemning the God who authored the ceremonial days of scripture in the first place!!

in Christ,

Bob

 

You can not sustain your suggestion without actually answering the basic questions pertaining to the text. Feel free to address the question listed above.

Your suggestion is in error.

1. Paul specifically instructs the saints to "Follow my example" and to "observe those who do NOT follow my example".

The hollow suggestion that "we should not follow Paul's example" is lacking in compelling content.

2. The book of acts IS NOT simply a compilation of "Apostles eating breakfast" -- it contains both the WORDS and the ACTS of the Apostles. To ignore the words and teaching the Apostles give us in the book of Acts simply because the book ALSO contains actions is to take the RC objecting path against Acts 17:11 "Sola scriptura" proof where the saints are blessed by the author of the book of Acts for the ACTION of using the "sola scriptura" method.

Timothy was a Jew -- Titus was not. In Gal 1 Titus in applauded for not yielding to the pressure to "be a Jew". In Acts 16 (right after the gentile role was clarified) Paul insists that Timothy be circumcised.

Paul then argues in Acts 21 that there is "NO TRUTH AT ALL" to the accusations made (accusations that I believe you would also make regarding the TEACHING of Paul - do you not?)

It is left as an exercise for the reader to discover the fact that NO NT author EVER says "Scripture is merely a shadow of things to come and is now abolished".

It is left as an exercise for the reader to discover that there was NEVER a time when the saints were "NOT to worship in spirit and in truth" but rather the GIANTS of faith given in Heb 11 ARE Those who DID worship in "spirit and in truth".

in Christ,

Bob