I had never heard the discussion of \u201cdisputable matters\u201d and \u201cmatters of indifference\u201d presented in the way Jay does below.\u00a0 It hangs together for me.\u00a0 What about you?<\/p>\n
In Him,<\/p>\n
Mark<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
Falling from Grace: The Paradox of Romans 14 and Galatians<\/strong><\/a><\/p>\n Posted: 17 Aug 2009 05:02 AM PDT\u00a0 (Jay Guin)<\/p>\n <\/p>\n Of course, I don\u2019t really think that Romans and Galatians contradict each other. But we in the Churches of Christ often argue and act as though they do. You see, we\u2019ve never really wrestled with the paradox of Romans 14 and Galatians. Let me explain.<\/p>\n In Romans 14, Paul deals with Christians who insist that Christians must celebrate certain holy days.<\/p>\n (Rom 14:5) One man considers one day more sacred than another; another man considers every day alike. Each one should be fully convinced in his own mind.<\/em><\/p>\n Paul declines to take sides in the controversy, concluding that neither side should judge nor look down on the other.<\/p>\n (Rom 14:4-13a) One man considers one day more sacred than another; another man considers every day alike. 5 Each one should be fully convinced in his own mind. 6 He who regards one day as special, does so to the Lord. He who eats meat, eats to the Lord, for he gives thanks to God; and he who abstains, does so to the Lord and gives thanks to God. 7 For none of us lives to himself alone and none of us dies to himself alone. \u2026 10 You, then, why do you judge your brother? Or why do you look down on your brother? For we will all stand before God\u2019s judgment seat. \u2026 13 Therefore let us stop passing judgment on one another.<\/em><\/p>\n In Galatians, the Christians were struggling with a very similar issue \u2014<\/p>\n (Gal 4:10) You are observing special days and months and seasons and years!<\/em><\/p>\n However, in Galatians, Paul makes a dramatically different argument.<\/p>\n (Gal 4:9-11) But now that you know God\u2013or rather are known by God\u2013how is it that you are turning back to those weak and miserable principles? Do you wish to be enslaved by them all over again? 10 You are observing special days and months and seasons and years! 11 I fear for you, that somehow I have wasted my efforts on you.<\/em><\/p>\n (Gal 5:1, 4) It is for freedom that Christ has set us free. Stand firm, then, and do not let yourselves be burdened again by a yoke of slavery. \u2026 4 You who are trying to be justified by law have been alienated from Christ; you have fallen away from grace.<\/em><\/p>\n In Galatians, observing holy days is a salvation issue. In Romans, it\u2019s a \u201cdon\u2019t judge\u201d issue. In Galatians, Paul fears for the salvation of his readers. In Romans, he tells them not to judge each other over such things. Why the difference?<\/p>\n Is Romans 14 about matters of indifference? <\/strong><\/p>\n Before we can answer that question, we need to dispense with some arguments routinely made in this context. It\u2019s routinely argued within the conservative Churches of Christ that Romans 14 deals with matters of indifference.<\/p>\n Roy C. Deaver argues in \u201dWho Is the \u2018Weak Brother\u2019?\u201d The Spiritual Sword<\/em> (Oct. 1986, vol. 18, no. 1, p. 28),<\/p>\n It must be stressed that this section deals with matters of opinion and matters of indifference\u2014things which are right if done, and right if they are not done.<\/em><\/p>\n Is Paul really speaking only of matters of indifference? Well, he addresses both the question of eating meat and the question of holy days. He definitively concludes that there is no sin in eating meat. However, he gives no answer as to holy days. Indeed, he doesn\u2019t address the merits of the argument at all \u2014 only insisting that both sides should not judge or look down on the other side.<\/p>\n Can we just presume<\/em> that Paul reached his conclusion by finding the holy day question one of indifference? Surely not! After all, in Galatians, he referred to celebrating holy days as enslaving and even threatening to cause the church to fall from grace.<\/p>\n And there\u2019s another serious problem with Deaver\u2019s analysis. Consider every issue that the Churches of Christ have split over during the last 120 years \u2014 going back to Daniel Sommer\u2019s 1889 \u201cSand Creek Address and Declaration.\u201d Nearly all have been over issues where one side said the question is a matter of indifference and the other said it\u2019s not! Daniel Sommer considered located preachers a sin that damned. The rest of the Churches concluded that located preachers are a matter of indifference. Just so, those who split over one cup, support for orphans homes, and the Sunday school all divided over whether the issue is a matter of indifference or a matter of doctrine.<\/p>\n As a result, Romans 14, which was written for us to help us maintain the unity Jesus died to bring us, has not worked to bring unity to the Churches of Christ at all. Those who see the Sunday school as a matter of indifference are glad to extend fellowship to those who disagree, but those who see the Sunday school as sin see the question as doctrinal, not indifference, and therefore find nothing in Romans 14 to require them to be united with those they disagree with.<\/p>\n In short, under this interpretation of Romans 14, nearly every disagreement among us is over whether a teaching is a matter of indifference and so nearly every disagreement becomes a salvation issue to at least one side of the dispute.<\/p>\n And so, we really need to get past the clich\u00e9 level of analysis. What\u2019s really going on here?<\/p>\n Well, for the it\u2019s-wrong-to-eat-meat camp, abstention from meat eating was not a matter of indifference. It was doctrinally required? Why?<\/p>\n Paul doesn\u2019t give us a final answer, but it\u2019s surely the same issue we see elsewhere in the New Testament: meat sacrificed to idols. If not that, it\u2019s about keeping kosher, as in many cities a Jew could not find meat prepared in accordance with Mosaic food laws and so couldn\u2019t eat meat. In either case, the anti-meat brother was arguing from doctrine. He would have argued that it\u2019s sin to worship an idol by eating meat dedicated to an idol, or else that it\u2019s sin to violate God\u2019s will for our diet revealed in the Law of Moses.<\/p>\n Just so, the holy day question appears to be an effort to keep the holy days prescribed by the Law of Moses. But Paul does not give the answer on this question! Rather, he jumps directly to the conclusion: don\u2019t look down or judge your brother!<\/p>\n Paul\u2019s logic is that both<\/em> issues are \u201cdisputable\u201d \u2014 even though he gives the answer on the meat question. Both questions remained disputable even though Paul had given the answer!<\/p>\n Now, let\u2019s bring the questions up to current times. Suppose an eldership gets up and announces that they\u2019ve concluded all Christians must eat only vegetables. Would we consider their decision a matter of indifference?<\/p>\n More realistically, we dispute even today over whether to celebrate Christmas or Easter. Some argue that every day is equally holy. Some disagree. Some of our members see Sunday as the Christian Sabbath and consider it wrong to work on Sundays. Others see every day as equally holy. Are these doctrinal questions? Or matters of indifference? If your elders told you not to work on Sunday would you consider that a matter of indifference, like what color to paint the foyer? If they insisted that you honor the Mosaic Sabbath regulations \u2014 no food preparation, no travel beyond one mile, no lifting of burdens, no healing \u2014 would that be a matter of indifference or a matter of doctrine?<\/p>\n Therefore, you see, the distinction between indifference and doctrine is no difference at all when one or the other of us believes it\u2019s a doctrinal issue. A matter is truly indifferent only when both<\/em> parties consider it indifferent, which is certainly not what Paul was talking about.<\/p>\n What\u2019s a \u201cdisputable matter\u201d?<\/strong><\/p>\n Another approach taken by many is to focus on \u201cdisputable matters\u201d (NIV) or \u201cdoubtful disputations\u201d (KJV) in 14:1. The idea is that I should not judge you on a matter that seems doubtful to me. However, if it\u2019s doubtful to you but I\u2019m certain, I may certainly judge and condemn you.<\/p>\n I have a friend who was unsure about instrumental music before he went to college. At that point, he didn\u2019t see the instrument as a salvation issue. To him, it was a disputable matter. After taking some classes, he found the arguments of Justin Martyr and Thomas Aquinas convincing, and so concluded that it is a salvation issue. One year, those using the instrument were going to heaven. The next year, they were going to hell, their eternal fate being determined by the level of my friend\u2019s education.<\/p>\n You see, we tend to judge the doubtfulness of the issue subjectively \u2014 whether it\u2019s doubtful to me<\/em>. And that means that the lines of fellowship depend entirely on how certain we are of our convictions. And we can be very, very certain of some very, very doubtful things.<\/p>\n Obviously, God never intended for the lines of fellowship to depend on our level of certitude.<\/p>\n \u201cAccept one another\u201d<\/strong><\/p>\n What very few among us will do is allow the text to answer the question. You see, Paul\u2019s discussion doesn\u2019t end at the last verse of chapter 14. The discussion continues into chapter 15, where Paul writes,<\/p>\n (Rom 15:5-6) May the God who gives endurance and encouragement give you a spirit of unity among yourselves as you follow Christ Jesus, 6 so that with one heart and mouth you may glorify the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ.<\/em><\/p>\n What\u2019s the cure for our lack of unity? It\u2019s a gift from God \u2014 an attitude from God himself: \u201cthe spirit of unity.\u201d It\u2019s all about having the right heart. Paul continues,<\/p>\n (Rom 15:7) Accept one another, then, just as Christ accepted you, in order to bring praise to God.<\/em><\/p>\n We considered this verse in an earlier post<\/strong><\/a>, where we demonstrated that the verse can be properly translated,<\/p>\n (Rom. 15:7) Continually accept one another, then, [in the same way] Christ accepted you [when you were first saved], in order to bring praise to God.<\/em><\/p>\n We concluded,<\/p>\n The standard by which we stay saved today is the same standard by which we are first saved! (Other passages that teach this include Romans 11:20; Galatians 3:2-3; 1 Peter 1:5.)<\/em><\/p>\n Now, that means that \u201cdisputable matter\u201d means anything that we dispute over \u2014 other than the things we have to agree on to first be saved: particularly faith in Jesus and repentance.<\/p>\n Or let\u2019s look at this way. If you and I are disputing over a matter, it\u2019s disputable<\/em>. We may both be 100% certain as to what we think the answer is, but we are disputing, and so it\u2019s disputable.<\/p>\n However, we can\u2019t still both be Christians and dispute over whether Jesus is the Messiah or whether we must submit to him as Lord. We have to believe those things to be baptized. Those are not disputable among Christians<\/em>.<\/p>\n That\u2019s, of course, an extremely broad definition of \u201cdisputable matter,\u201d but it does have limits. Not just everything qualifies.<\/p>\n Now, imagine that the Churches of Christ had understood this in 1889. How many divisions would we have suffered?<\/p>\n \u00a0<\/strong><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" I had never heard the discussion of \u201cdisputable matters\u201d and \u201cmatters of indifference\u201d presented in the way Jay does below.\u00a0 It hangs together for me.\u00a0 What about you? In Him, Mark Falling from Grace: The Paradox of Romans 14 … Continue reading