Romans 14 and the LCD

Post Reply New Topic

I have long felt a ambiguity in Romans 14. Paul, while not without enlightenment, is of course an ennea-1 with whom my ennea-5 circuits do not always resonate. Most of Chapter 14 flows fine by me, and verse 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," is admirable. In fact, if enough people could be persuaded to listen to and act on it the world would be a lot easier to live in.

But further along in the last sections, sort of summed up in verse 21, "It is good neither to eat flesh, nor to drink wine, nor any thing whereby thy brother stumbleth, or is offended, or is made weak," our brother Paul is moving, seems to me, closer to ennea-1 authority.

I am not set to say with certainty, but some days it sounds to me as if Saul is prescribing that the belief of the church has to walk at the pace of the slowest common denominator. The one with faith /.knowledge not to be scruple filled is to keep quiet, not to work to enlighten the other.

Of course it is a dilemma - are we to preach to the brethren or for that matter to the unbeliever so as to strengthen their faith or save them, or stand by and trust God to do the enlightening?

What is "ennea-1" and "ennea-5"??????????????????

Enneagram. It's a personality typology system. I'd advise you look it up yourself, as there are numerous self-appointed guides, and I am not really the one to be able to say which one is the best.

I did look it up and I didn't find anything.

Umm.... http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=c ... +enneagram Just click on some of the links.

For the immediate issue, recklessly generalizing, the enneagram's Type 1 [ennea-1 is my personal shorthand, not commonly used in the field, though handy] encompasses people who tend to act from and appeal to authority in their thought and interactions. They are prone to teach and often seek to socialize others and pull them into consensus.

The Type 5 [where I sit] tends to gather data and base knowledge structure and lifestyle on a more or less reasoned basis supported by the data at hand. They are inclined to question accepted stances simply because they are accepted, and if in the teaching trade - me - will tend to toss all available data before the student and let him form his own conclusions. Anarchy rather than uniformity is characteristic - though they may camouflage themselves to LOOK like good citizens.

As to the matter of "the unbeliever": I think the challenge is to simply be available with some personal experience -- to hell with any dogma -- to share whenever s/he might ever come to a point of immediate need and have nothing else to ponder. Along with that, however, is also the matter of simply living an example of something that might in even any other way somehow come to be desired and asked about.

As to "among the brethren": What does/could it ultimately profit me or anyone to do something that might "stumble, offend or make weak" anyone else?

So then, I do not think any matter of "authority" is even present here ... and yet how can I say that without possibly offending you?

Answer: By just answering any actual question actually asked rather than merely presenting my own "authoritative dogma"!

And there lies the nub / rub.

The base principle is clear enough. I am entitled - getting off food - to believe and to say that Paul while a great man and not too bad a guy is often all wet and at least as likely to be wrong as Moses. I think I am entitled, and perhaps even required, to point out to Paul or a Pauline loyalist where I think he is wrong. At the same time, it is not appropriate for me to start laughing "how could you possibly take anything an idiot like Paul says seriously? You must be even dumber than you look."

But Paul is not here to be challenged and explain exactly where he stands on uniformity and the lowest common denominator. We are stuck with the not fuly effective way he expressed himself, which leaves me a tich prustrated.

Paul was a screwed up neurotic and probably a self repressed homosexual. If you ever shake hands with Paul of Tarsus be sure to count your fingers afterward.

ruveyn

1) Where did Paul (and while simply referring to him as an example here) ever say someone else was "all wet and at least as likely to be wrong as ..." without at least first having been asked?

2) Where in Scripture -- yes, likely too broad a scope there -- is anyone among the brethren ever shown to be either entitled or required to go tell any "loyalist" where s/he (the allegedly-entitled or -required among the brethren) happens to think either s/he (the loyalist) or the object of his or her seeming "worship" is wrong without first having been asked?

It is impossible to ever go wrong while just answering questions!

There are times and places where one DOES need to point out the error of another's ways - or to listen to the one who points out the error of one's own ways. Both of which I have done.

As for when did Paul - check out Galatians 2 verse 11 through the end.

You need discernment - even when asked you need to test the spirit before talking.

Because of circumstances beyond my own control, and no, not because I have "forsaken the assembly" or whatever in order to avoid "persecution" of any kind , it has been quite a while since I have been actively involved "within the assembly", so to speak, in any most-typical manner. Nevertheless, yes, there certainly are "times and places where one DOES need to point out ... error ...", and yes, I also have done that ...

... and yes, I have truncated your statement there for a specific reason I hope will soon be evident and found acceptable.

As excerpted from (and as the perceived here-contextual essence of) the passage you have mentioned:

"... knowing a man is not declared righteous by works of Torah, but through belief in YahuShua Messiah,
"even we have believed in Messiah YahuShua, in order to be declared right by belief in Messiah and not by works of Torah,
"because by works of Torah no flesh shall be declared right.
“And if, while seeking to be declared right by Messiah, we ourselves also are found sinners,
"is Messiah then a servant of sin? Let it not be!" (Galatians 2:16-17)

I clearly understand your point there, but I do not know whether you might want to go into the discussion required to split all the issues out here within the context of the thoughts/questions behind your beginning of this thread ... and so, I would just say here are the split-out elements we have there:

1) "works of Torah" do not produce righteousness;
2) "belief in YahuShua Messiah" (having at least two possible meanings to people);
3) "Let it not be!" (can be heard in at least two different ways).

So then, and while yet all together "as one", so to speak, those five elements as a whole can only represent a given dogma and there are at least two possibilities as to what that set of doctrines might be ... and then all of that leaves us with a matter of sectarian differences and/or debate as opposed to pointing out error within any given assembly of like-minded (or actually single-minded) people ...

"I call upon you, therefore, brothers ... be transformed by the renewing of [yourselves into a single] mind,
"so that you prove what is that (single-minded) good and well-pleasing and perfect desire of Elohim."
(Romans 12:1-2)


No disagreement there. Within the small fellowship where I happen to find most of the fellowship I actually experience, we have all grown into being "willingly and openly accountable to each other", so to speak, in the kind of way I believe you have in mind here (even though you might word that differently") ...

... and yet, yes, there certainly is much discernment and checking to be done (as opposed to either "license" or "open season" in relation to each other) before just coming right on out with whatever might be on someone's mind ...

... and in years past, there is where one of my own greatest sets of shortcomings had been found.

Not so much forsaking the assembly as forsaken by the assembly. We have killed a few churches, or at least had them drop dead shortly after our arrival.

Fellowship is sparse - it is not easy when you think and need to mean what you say.

Anyhow, I suspect we are in general agreemebt, though we both might express things differently, and so far anyway I am comfortable enough in fellowship with you.

I once [being in a position of leadership in the particular assembly] took the young pastor my wife and I had worked hard to bring in to one side and whispered in his ear that he was, I believed, wrong [by the standards of his training as well as my discernment] on one of the points of his homily.

After that day he and his wife classed us as demonized. They left shortly after and the group disintegrated.

What is LCD?

Ah, now I fully understand your questions here.

Without implying you had done anything wrong ...

The very worst I think I ever did was to grab a man by the collar of his coat and pull him off his chair (in a very controlled way) and drag him out the door and "drop him" (stop dragging and leave him) in a snow bank ... and all of that with him saying "God bless you!" and "Thank you, Jesus!" -- he was Catholic -- all along the way! In any case, he had again just been disruptive in a way he and I and one of his personal friends had previously discussed and he had said he would not do that again, and then his friend would not speak up and "stop" him (verbal rebuke only) as we had all (including him) previously agreed would be done if/when he ever did that again. Immediately after doing that, I went back inside and went into "damage control" mode while all eyes were upon me ... and when that gathering was over, that man I had drug out very graciously cleaned the snow from my windshield while I was warming up my truck. We all were really "quite a crew" at that time!

Lowest common denominator - I THINK the abbrev. is in use, though more math-like types will doubtless correct me if need be.