Romans 14

[Mathew Ward]

I personally think the bible version issue falls within the guidelines on Romans 14, just as music and dress would and it is an individual soul liberty, Christian freedom or Christian liberty issue. Romans 14 is about how to get along with those with who you disagree with in a Christ-like manner. May God open our eyes and heart to the truth of the Word of God and in our treatment of those we disagree with on this matter.

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

Who is the weak in the faith?

The weaker brother here does not understand the doctrine of grace.

The weaker brother here lacks faith in the freedom that we have in Christ.

The weaker brother is weak in the assurance that his faith permits him to do certain things, such as eating meat or reading different bible versions.

The problem for the weaker brother is doctrinal. He does not understand truth. This weakness in the weaker brother is a condition into which he has been brought into by outward influence not from the Word of God.

John 8:31-32 Then said Jesus to those Jews which believed on him, If ye continue in my word, then are ye my disciples indeed; And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.

The true mark of understanding truth is freedom. It is Christian liberty.

Those who do not understand truth are clearly weak in the faith. They do not understand truth and how it delivers us and gives us freedom or liberty.

William Barclay: says it this way

“Such a man is weak in the faith for two reasons:

(1) He has not yet discovered the meaning of Christian freedom. He is at heart still a legalist. He sees Christianity as a thing of rules and regulations. His whole aim is to govern his life by a series of laws and observances. He is indeed frightened of Christian freedom and Christian liberty.

(2) He has not yet liberated himself from a belief in the efficacy of works. In his heart he believes that he can gain God's favor by doing certain things and abstaining from doing others. Basically he is still trying to earn a right relationship with God & has not yet accepted the way of grace. He is still thinking of what he can do for God more than of what God has done for him."

Doubtful Disputations are arguing and debating about your own ideas as it relates to Christian Liberty.

 

[Tim]

I personally think the bible version issue falls within the guidelines on Romans 14, just as music and dress would and it is an individual soul liberty, Christian freedom or Christian liberty issue. Romans 14 is about how to get along with those with who you disagree with in a Christ-like manner. May God open our eyes and heart to the truth of the Word of God and in our treatment of those we disagree with on this matter.

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

Who is the weak in the faith?

The weaker brother here does not understand the doctrine of grace.

The weaker brother here lacks faith in the freedom that we have in Christ.

The weaker brother is weak in the assurance that his faith permits him to do certain things, such as eating meat or reading different bible versions.

The problem for the weaker brother is doctrinal. He does not understand truth. This weakness in the weaker brother is a condition into which he has been brought into by outward influence not from the Word of God.

John 8:31-32 Then said Jesus to those Jews which believed on him, If ye continue in my word, then are ye my disciples indeed; And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.

The true mark of understanding truth is freedom. It is Christian liberty.

Those who do not understand truth are clearly weak in the faith. They do not understand truth and how it delivers us and gives us freedom or liberty.

William Barclay: says it this way

“Such a man is weak in the faith for two reasons:

(1) He has not yet discovered the meaning of Christian freedom. He is at heart still a legalist. He sees Christianity as a thing of rules and regulations. His whole aim is to govern his life by a series of laws and observances. He is indeed frightened of Christian freedom and Christian liberty.

(2) He has not yet liberated himself from a belief in the efficacy of works. In his heart he believes that he can gain God's favor by doing certain things and abstaining from doing others. Basically he is still trying to earn a right relationship with God & has not yet accepted the way of grace. He is still thinking of what he can do for God more than of what God has done for him."

Doubtful Disputations are arguing and debating about your own ideas as it relates to Christian Liberty.

I have been listening to a great series of messages titled Galatians: The Battle Cry Of Freedom from a local Church. I mention this because some of his points regarding the true freedom grace gives agree with your post (so, what I am really saying is your post has been an encouragement for these eyes to read).

I agree with your point regarding the weaker brother not understand the doctrine of grace. I am one of those weaker brothers who hardly understands grace. It wasn't until I started listening to these messages that my mind has been given some information I was starving for. I am finding so much of my life is built on fear of my performance before God ... like He doesn't know my darkest moment and my better moments will make him and I better buddies. But Christ paid it all on the Cross! Grace covers all my sin! I can't do anything more! Too much freedom ....

Here is a link for anyone interested:
http://www.christfc.org/sermons#series_16

 

[christundivided]

There are some instances in which you're correct Matthew.... and there others that you are not.

When a KJVOist makes the issue into whether a person is in right standing with God.... then its not a Romans 14 scenerio. When they demand that everyone change. Its not. When they claim those who reject the translation of the KJV will face the judgement of God. Its not. I have very little issue with KJV preferred. KJVO gets pretty close into the category of "another Gospel."

 

[Mitex]

I personally think the bible version issue falls within the guidelines on Romans 14, just as music and dress would and it is an individual soul liberty, Christian freedom or Christian liberty issue. Romans 14 is about how to get along with those with who you disagree with in a Christ-like manner. May God open our eyes and heart to the truth of the Word of God and in our treatment of those we disagree with on this matter.
...

A few comments:

A young born again believer, newly converted from Roman Catholicism, may be granted some leeway (your point) if he personally still believes the apocrypha to be the "very word of God".  However, if such a man were to begin insisting and teaching others in the church that the apocrypha is indeed the very word of God because it is found in the oldest and best manuscripts (apocrypha books are indeed found in the "oldest and best manuscripts", but they are not the word of God) then he must be rebuked. His liberty has a boundary called the Canon - the word of God recognized by a consensus of born again Spirit filled Christians.

Again, a young born again believer, newly converted from the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society, may be granted some leeway (your point, which I acknowledge) if he still misunderstands an eternal Hell. However, if such a man were to begin insisting and teaching others in the church that the word "hell" is not found in the Bible and that all the early translators mistakenly translated the word as h-e-l-l instead of transliterating the word as h-a-d-e-s. He then begins to insist that he is correct because the Greek says, "hades", and his preferred version, the New World Translation, was translated directly from the Wescott and Hort original Greek text using all the latest axioms of modern textual criticism, then he must be rebuked. His liberty has a boundary - the word of God as found in the extant Scriptures.

In much the same way, a young born again believer, newly converted from 7th Day Adventist Church, may be granted some leeway (your point) if he personally sanctifies the Sabbath. However, if such a man were to begin insisting and teaching others in the church that the Sabbath must be kept and anyone worshiping on Sunday is anti-Christ, then he must be rebuked. His liberty has a boundary - sound Scriptural doctrine that has its basis in the Scriptures, given by inspiration of God.

And lastly, a seminary student, recently graduated with a MDiv from the finest Fundamental Seminary in the world, may be granted some leeway (your point) if he is found to be over exuberant in the use of Greek and Hebrew. However, if such a man were to begin insisting and teaching others in the church that the Bible of their fathers is in error, filled with mistakes, boo-boos and could not be trusted in ever word, phrase and verse, then he must be rebuked. His liberty has a boundary - the word of God as found in the extant Scriptures.

Surely you understand these things. Attitude and Christian liberty are vitally important to which we both agree. However, liberty is not an excuse for unbelief, false doctrine, etc. Belief of the Scriptures - extant Scriptures - is a fundamental doctrine in the Church of God.

 

[christundivided]

I personally think the bible version issue falls within the guidelines on Romans 14, just as music and dress would and it is an individual soul liberty, Christian freedom or Christian liberty issue. Romans 14 is about how to get along with those with who you disagree with in a Christ-like manner. May God open our eyes and heart to the truth of the Word of God and in our treatment of those we disagree with on this matter.
...

A few comments:

A young born again believer, newly converted from Roman Catholicism, may be granted some leeway (your point) if he personally still believes the apocrypha to be the "very word of God".  However, if such a man were to begin insisting and teaching others in the church that the apocrypha is indeed the very word of God because it is found in the oldest and best manuscripts (apocrypha books are indeed found in the "oldest and best manuscripts", but they are not the word of God) then he must be rebuked. His liberty has a boundary called the Canon - the word of God recognized by a consensus of born again Spirit filled Christians.

What a childish response. You're a hack. A charlatan. The 1611 contained works from the "apocrypha" without ANY indication said words are not the very words of God. NONE. So your claims are down right lies. Its also very deceptive to use the term "apocrypha" in referenceing such works. The Early church used these works. They are quoted and referenced throughout many many writings from that time period. The Gospel of John even records a Jewish festival celebration that is only referenced in what you call the "apocrypha". There is nothing "HIDDEN" about such things. The idiotic fundamentalist embrace of the MT has ruined common sense in most any every area of dealing with "deuterocanonical" texts.

Again, a young born again believer, newly converted from the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society, may be granted some leeway (your point, which I acknowledge) may be granted some leeway if he still misunderstands an eternal Hell. However, if such a man were to begin insisting and teaching others in the church that the word "hell" is not found in the Bible and that all the early translators mistakenly translated the word has h-e-l-l instead of transliterating the word as h-a-d-e-s. He then begins to insist that he is correct because the Greek says, "hades", and his preferred version, the New World Translation, was translated directly from the Wescott and Hort original Greek text using all the latest axioms of modern textual criticism, then he must be rebuked. His liberty has a boundary - the word of God as found in the extant Scriptures.

LIES.... and more LIES. Don't let you're misunderstanding of the Greek language destroy the true choice in referencing "hell".

In much the same way, a young born again believer, newly converted from 7th Day Adventist Church, may be granted some leeway (your point) if he personally sanctifies the Sabbath. However, if such a man were to begin insisting and teaching others in the church that the Sabbath must be kept and anyone worshiping on Sunday is anti-Christ, then he must be rebuked. His liberty has a boundary - sound Scriptural doctrine that has its basis in the Scriptures, given by inspiration of God.

Its ironic you would use such a reference. It has been my observation that most you KJVOist are so dumb as to still think the Sabbath is actually on Sunday. That is what the vast majority of you teach and its hysterically ignorant. So. Don't throw rocks at the 7th day Adventist. You  really only disagree with what day its celebrated on. You're the idiots that believe the first day of the week is actually the 7th. You get in your pulpits time and time again and berate anyone that would dare mow their yard or water their lawn on the "Lords Day". Pitiful.

And lastly, a seminary student, recently graduated with a MDiv from the finest Fundamental Seminary in the world, may be granted some leeway (your point) if he is found to be over exuberant in the use of Greek and Hebrew. However, if such a man were to begin insisting and teaching others in the church that the Bible of their fathers is in error, filled with mistakes, boo-boos and could not be trusted in ever word, phrase and verse, then he must be rebuked. His liberty has a boundary - the word of God as found in the extant Scriptures.

The Bible of their fathers? Sorry buddy. Your KJV wasn't the bible of Paul nor any apostle and most importantly it wasn't the Bible of our Master.

Surely you understand these things. Attitude and Christian liberty are vitally important. However, liberty is not an excuse for unbelief, false doctrine, etc. Belief of the Scriptures - extant Scriptures - is a fundamental doctrine in the Church of God.

Yes. 100 percent YES. Yet, you can't expect a child to understand the Scriptures. You remind of a small boy that's for the first recognized the beauty of the celestial heavens. He stares for a few moments and turns to his father to explain to him why everything "is what it is". Its kinda of cute to start with.... but sooner or later that little boy needs to understand he has no idea of what he's talking about.

 

[biscuit1953]

I personally think the bible version issue falls within the guidelines on Romans 14, just as music and dress would and it is an individual soul liberty, Christian freedom or Christian liberty issue. Romans 14 is about how to get along with those with who you disagree with in a Christ-like manner. May God open our eyes and heart to the truth of the Word of God and in our treatment of those we disagree with on this matter.
...

A few comments:

A young born again believer, newly converted from Roman Catholicism, may be granted some leeway (your point) if he personally still believes the apocrypha to be the "very word of God".  However, if such a man were to begin insisting and teaching others in the church that the apocrypha is indeed the very word of God because it is found in the oldest and best manuscripts (apocrypha books are indeed found in the "oldest and best manuscripts", but they are not the word of God) then he must be rebuked. His liberty has a boundary called the Canon - the word of God recognized by a consensus of born again Spirit filled Christians.  His liberty has a boundary called the Canon - the word of God recognized by a consensus of born again Spirit filled Christians.

A young born again believer, newly converted from Ruckmanism, may be granted some leeway (your point) if he personally still believes the commentaries of Peter Ruckman to be the "very word of God".  However, if such a man were to begin insisting and teaching others in the church that the commentaries of Peter Ruckman because he claims the King James Version is the only perfect translation (he can find quotes from Spurgeon and others in the past that seemingly support his nonsense, but they are always quoted out of context) then he must be rebuked. His liberty has a boundary called not putting doubt and fear in other new Christians who don't use his preferred translation.

Again, a young born again believer, newly converted from the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society, may be granted some leeway (your point, which I acknowledge) may be granted some leeway if he still misunderstands an eternal Hell. However, if such a man were to begin insisting and teaching others in the church that the word "hell" is not found in the Bible and that all the early translators mistakenly translated the word has h-e-l-l instead of transliterating the word as h-a-d-e-s. He then begins to insist that he is correct because the Greek says, "hades", and his preferred version, the New World Translation, was translated directly from the Wescott and Hort original Greek text using all the latest axioms of modern textual criticism, then he must be rebuked. His liberty has a boundary - the word of God as found in the extant Scriptures.

Again, a young born again believer, newly converted from the errors of King James Onlyism may be granted some leeway (your point, which I acknowledge) may be granted some leeway if he still misunderstands that people are saved differently in the Old Testament. However, if such a man were to begin insisting and teaching others in the church that Hebrews to Revelation are "Tribulation" books because they teach a faith and works salvation because that is the only way Peter Ruckman can explain it without going to the Greek and blowing all his hypothesis about not a single word should be changed in the King James Version, then he must be rebuked. His liberty has a boundary - the word of God as found in the extant Scriptures.

In much the same way, a young born again believer, newly converted from 7th Day Adventist Church, may be granted some leeway (your point) if he personally sanctifies the Sabbath. However, if such a man were to begin insisting and teaching others in the church that the Sabbath must be kept and anyone worshiping on Sunday is anti-Christ, then he must be rebuked. His liberty has a boundary - sound Scriptural doctrine that has its basis in the Scriptures, given by inspiration of God.

In much the same way, a young born again believer, newly converted from Ruckmanism, may be granted some leeway (your point) if he personally believes “If a 20th century, college educated American does not believe in UFO’s (and UFO occupants) he is MENTALLY SICK.” (Ruckman, Peter. Black is Beautiful. 1995, p. 341), then he must be rebuked. His liberty has a boundary - sound Scriptural doctrine that has its basis in the Scriptures, given by inspiration of God.


And lastly, a seminary student, recently graduated with a MDiv from the finest Fundamental Seminary in the world, may be granted some leeway (your point) if he is found to be over exuberant in the use of Greek and Hebrew. However, if such a man were to begin insisting and teaching others in the church that the Bible of their fathers is in error, filled with mistakes, boo-boos and could not be trusted in ever word, phrase and verse, then he must be rebuked. His liberty has a boundary - the word of God as found in the extant Scriptures.

And lastly, a seminary student, recently graduated with a MDiv from Pensacola Bible Institute or some other fine King James Only Seminary somewhere in the world, may be granted some leeway (your point) if he is found to be over exuberant in the use of Peter Ruckman arguments. However, if such a man were to begin insisting and teaching others in the church that the Bibles of other Christians are in error, filled with mistakes, boo-boos and could not be trusted in ever word, phrase and verse, then he must be rebuked.  His liberty has a boundary - the word of God as found in the extant Scriptures.

Surely you understand these things. Attitude and Christian liberty are vitally important to which we both agree. However, liberty is not an excuse for unbelief, false doctrine, etc. Belief of the Scriptures - extant Scriptures - is a fundamental doctrine in the Church of God.

Surely you understand these things. Attitude and Christian liberty are vitally important to which we both agree. However, liberty is not an excuse for teaching heresy, King James Onlyism, belief in the authority of Peter Ruckman commentaries - extant Scriptures - is a fundamental doctrine in the Church of God.

 

[Mathew Ward]

Romans 14:3  Let not him that eateth despise him that eateth not; and let not him which eateth not judge him that eateth: for God hath received him.

Seems like this very emotional issue of Romans 14 between Jewish and Gentile Christians was very divisive to the point of despising and judging each other. I think at times the KJVO and modern versionists act in like manner of despising and judging each other.

May we look to God to help us examine our hearts as we debate one another so that we are not despising or judging one another.

 

[christundivided]

Romans 14:3  Let not him that eateth despise him that eateth not; and let not him which eateth not judge him that eateth: for God hath received him.

Seems like this very emotional issue of Romans 14 between Jewish and Gentile Christians was very divisive to the point of despising and judging each other. I think at times the KJVO and modern versionists act in like manner of despising and judging each other.

May we look to God to help us examine our hearts as we debate one another so that we are not despising or judging one another.

The same man that wrote Romans 14 wrote...

1Co 15:36  You foolish person! What you sow does not come to life unless it dies.

 

[Mitex]

Romans 14:3  Let not him that eateth despise him that eateth not; and let not him which eateth not judge him that eateth: for God hath received him.

Seems like this very emotional issue of Romans 14 between Jewish and Gentile Christians was very divisive to the point of despising and judging each other. I think at times the KJVO and modern versionists act in like manner of despising and judging each other.

May we look to God to help us examine our hearts as we debate one another so that we are not despising or judging one another.

Thank you so much for the reminder. I will do my best to keep these words to heart as I continue to post in this forum.

 

[Ransom]

Did you know that Mitex's update has so many errors that they had to publish an errata?

Well, it can't be the Word of God then. It must be the word of Satan.

Fortunately, Biblebeliever has shown us the best way to burn it!

 

[Ransom]

Seems like this very emotional issue of Romans 14 between Jewish and Gentile Christians was very divisive to the point of despising and judging each other. I think at times the KJVO and modern versionists act in like manner of despising and judging each other.

Or, rather, "when Cephas came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he stood condemned," because "I saw that their conduct was not in step with the truth of the gospel" (Acts 2:11,14).

KJV-onlyism is not merely one believer preferring one Bible over another. It is a doctrinal and theological issue. Therefore, it stands in opposition to the Gospel and its proponents are false teachers:

[T]here are many who are insubordinate, empty talkers and deceivers. . . . They must be silenced, since they are upsetting whole families by teaching for shameful gain what they ought not to teach. (Titus 1:10-11)

 

[Mitex]

What a childish response. You're a hack. A charlatan...So your claims are down right lies. Its also very deceptive to use the term...The idiotic fundamentalist embrace of the MT has ruined common sense in most any every area of dealing with "deuterocanonical" texts...
LIES.... and more LIES. Don't let you're misunderstanding of the Greek language destroy the true choice in referencing "hell"...Its ironic you would use such a reference. It has been my observation that most you KJVOist are so dumb a...its hysterically ignorant... You're the idiots that believe the first day of the week is actually the 7th...Pitiful.

I believe you missed the point of Matthew's OP. May God richly bless you.