weak faith

[herev]

I have been insulted more than once on this forum from someone telling me I have weak faith because I am a TE. I have also seen my TE brothers and sisters look down their noses on the creationists here. Face it, we're just not very nice sometimes.
For my NT class, we are studying Romans for this week. I came across an interesting passage:
From Romans 14 (NIV)
1Accept him whose faith is weak, without passing judgment on disputable matters. 2One man's faith allows him to eat everything, but another man, whose faith is weak, eats only vegetables. 3The man who eats everything must not look down on him who does not, and the man who does not eat everything must not condemn the man who does, for God has accepted him. 4Who are you to judge someone else's servant? To his own master he stands or falls. And he will stand, for the Lord is able to make him stand.
5One man considers one day more sacred than another; another man considers every day alike. Each one should be fully convinced in his own mind. 6He 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. 7For none of us lives to himself alone and none of us dies to himself alone. 8If we live, we live to the Lord; and if we die, we die to the Lord. So, whether we live or die, we belong to the Lord.
9For this very reason, Christ died and returned to life so that he might be the Lord of both the dead and the living. 10You, then, why do you judge your brother? Or why do you look down on your brother? For we will all stand before God's judgment seat. 11It is written:
" 'As surely as I live,' says the Lord,
'every knee will bow before me;
every tongue will confess to God.' "[1] 12So then, each of us will give an account of himself to God.
13Therefore let us stop passing judgment on one another.

We could learn a thing or two--but will we?
Peace
Tommy

 

[GodSaves]

Good post, thank you herev!
God Bless

 

[Dracil]

Romans 14 is one of my favorite passages!

However, it is interesting to note that the "weak faith" in Romans 14 is actually a reversal of how it's usually applied here. As the one with the "weak faith" is more like the Creationist (only vegetables and condemns the one with "strong faith") while the one with the "strong faith" is more like the TE (will eat meat [like accepting evolution], and looks down on the Creationists)

 

[pressingon]

Romans 14 is one of my favorite passages!

However, it is interesting to note that the "weak faith" in Romans 14 is actually a reversal of how it's usually applied here. As the one with the "weak faith" is more like the Creationist (only vegetables and condemns the one with "strong faith") while the one with the "strong faith" is more like the TE (will eat meat [like accepting evolution], and looks down on the Creationists)

Um, Dracil? Did you read that passage, friend? By categorizing one's as "weak faith" and the other's as "strong faith", are you not passing judgment?

Okay, everyone... Let's finish the passage herev started:

Romans 14:13-23 (NIV)
"[sup]13[/sup]Therefore let us stop passing judgment on one another. Instead, make up your mind not to put any stumbling block or obstacle in your brother's way. [sup]14[/sup]As one who is in the Lord Jesus, I am fully convinced that no food is unclean in itself. But if anyone regards something as unclean, then for him it is unclean. [sup]15[/sup]If your brother is distressed because of what you eat, you are no longer acting in love. Do not by your eating destroy your brother for whom Christ died. [sup]16[/sup]Do not allow what you consider good to be spoken of as evil. [sup]17[/sup]For the kingdom of God is not a matter of eating and drinking, but of righteousness, peace and joy in the Holy Spirit, [sup]18[/sup]because anyone who serves Christ in this way is pleasing to God and approved by men.

[sup]19[/sup]Let us therefore make every effort to do what leads to peace and to mutual edification. [sup]20[/sup]Do not destroy the work of God for the sake of food. All food is clean, but it is wrong for a man to eat anything that causes someone else to stumble. [sup]21[/sup]It is better not to eat meat or drink wine or to do anything else that will cause your brother to fall.

[sup]22[/sup]So whatever you believe about these things keep between yourself and God. Blessed is the man who does not condemn himself by what he approves. [sup]23[/sup]But the man who has doubts is condemned if he eats, because his eating is not from faith; and everything that does not come from faith is sin."

As herev stated, we can all learn a good lesson from this passage.

 

[Dracil]

Not really.

The "weak faith" in that passage is not a judgemental thing, unlike the way "weak faith" is used by posters here to insult people here.

And that's what I was getting at. The passage talks of the different faith as merely being different, rather than a derogatory thing as people have associated it here. "Weak faith" is not worse than "strong faith." It's just different.

However, I can see why you thought I was passing judgment, and that's the problem with the forum and how people have come to see the terms "weak" and "strong" here.

On a related note, most atheists (I think) would prefer to say they are "weak atheists" rather than "strong atheists." And similar in that case, "weak" does not necessarily mean it's worse than "strong"

 

[gluadys]

Not really.

The "weak faith" in that passage is not a judgemental thing, unlike the way "weak faith" is used by posters here to insult people here.

And that's what I was getting at. The passage talks of the different faith as merely being different, rather than a derogatory thing as people have associated it here. "Weak faith" is not worse than "strong faith." It's just different.

I think you're right both in this post and the earlier one. It has often struck me that Paul calls those who engage most fully with the world of their day (including eating meat which may have been offered to idols) and place the fewest restrictions on themselves the ones with strong faith. While the ones who differentiate themselves from the rest of the world through special rules, whether of food or sabbath observance or anything else are those of weak faith.

We often reverse that, revering the "strong" faith of those who impose the most disciplines on themselves and querying the "weak" faith of those who don't practice them.

Yet this is not a condemnation of those of weak faith. I think what Paul is recognizing here is that it takes a stronger faith to be fully engaged in the world and still hold on to one's faith without compromise. It is the one who is weaker in faith who needs to be reminded by special times, special rules, how important it is to keep oneself unspotted by the world. For that Christian, the visible disciplines of not eating meat, observing special days, etc. keep them grounded in the faith, and so they are important for building up and strengthening the faith of one who needs their support.

The freedom to walk by faith without toeing a visible line of discipline is a wonderful freedom. If one's faith is strong, one can do this.

But it would be an error for one whose faith is not that strong to cast aside the disciplines that keep away temptation.

Just as it would be an error for the one who is strong to look down on the one of weaker faith, rather than being solicitous, and even, as Paul suggests later, restraining one's own freedom in order not to draw the weaker brother or sister into situations they are not yet ready to cope with.

But, in the long run, as Paul says to the Galations, it is for freedom Christ has made us free. So we should build up each other's faith until we all walk in the grace and freedom Christ intends for us.

 

[pressingon]

Not really.

The "weak faith" in that passage is not a judgemental thing, unlike the way "weak faith" is used by posters here to insult people here.

And that's what I was getting at. The passage talks of the different faith as merely being different, rather than a derogatory thing as people have associated it here. "Weak faith" is not worse than "strong faith." It's just different.

However, I can see why you thought I was passing judgment, and that's the problem with the forum and how people have come to see the terms "weak" and "strong" here.

On a related note, most atheists (I think) would prefer to say they are "weak atheists" rather than "strong atheists." And similar in that case, "weak" does not necessarily mean it's worse than "strong"

In Paul's example, both sides believed they were right. Both sides believed they were strong in faith. Both sides looked down on the other for their "lack" of faith. The cost? Division amongst the body of believers.

That's what Paul was addressing, in my view. It wasn't a matter of which side was truly stronger in faith (neither the "weak" or "strong" are condemned for their faith-based practices, both hold equal standing with Christ in their faith-based relationship with Him), but a matter of addressing the split in the fellowship over a trivial matter. I see the identification of the sides as "weak" and "strong" as simply a way to identify the sides consistent with the beliefs of those he wrote to... he could have just as easily called them Jewish Christians and Gentile Christians... party A and party B... etc.

That's why I (as herev does, if I read his original post correctly) take issue with either side of this debate, creationists or theistic evolutionists, identifying with the "strong" faith. The natural implication (even if unintended) of such self-identification is that the other side's faith is "weak". I think we've all seen the division that results from this far too clearly.

Now, don't get me wrong... this issue (creation vs. theistic evolution) is no different than any other issue we disagree about (the dietary customs Paul addressed, for instance) in one aspect... diametrically opposed sides cannot be equally correct (although they can be equally incorrect!). I firmly believe that God's truth is absolute, and that there is a right and wrong in each situation and circumstance. That being said, given that many of these rights and wrongs will never be known until we can ask our heavenly Father, I firmly believe Paul's guidance is best on matters not central to salvation -- agree to disagree now in order to preserve the fellowship, and God will correct the errant believer when we stand before Him in judgment. (Again, this applies to matters not central to salvation... some things ARE worth making waves about!)

Anyway, I may not get the same out of this passage as others, but that's the beauty of God's word... many truths can be communicated by the same Scripture passage.

 

[Dracil]

I'll say this again. I'm not disagreeing with you. We're pretty much saying the same thing.

Although you seem to be pretty hung up with the words "strong" and "weak"

Tell you what. I'll replace the terms. There's "Type A faith" and there's "Type 1 faith"

What Paul calls Type A and Type 1 faith tends to get reversed in these forums and used as an insult, but the only thing is, they're not necessarily superior to each other. They're just different. Type "A" and Type "1"

 

[herev]

actually, let me speak up
Pressingon is correct in that I was addressing both sides in how we address each other
But Dracil is correct that there is some irony in the passage--I think that is all he is really saying.
In Paul's passage it is those who are the literalists whom HE is identifying as weak faith (though I agree, I don't think he means to pass judgement, it is simply an identifyer) and the non-literalist who are identified with the strong faith. In this forum, it seems to be those who are literalists who say the others have weak faith.
Having said all of that to clairfy what I meant...
What I was saying is that according to Paul
NO MATTER WHAT YOU THINK OF THIER BELIEFS, we aren't to look down on the other and we aren't to judge their salvation. we belong to the Master--it is the Master's place to judge--
that was the intent--that we stop judging the others, regardless of which side they are on, they belong to God

Hope that at least clarifies my post. (That we would even argue about that is telling!)

 

[TwinCrier]

Being nice is no easy feat though. http://christianforums.com/t872522

 

[Vance]

I really do think that if YEC's, and fundamentalists in general, came to accept the fact that those who accept evolution, non-literal reading, etc, were NOT weaker in their faith, but instead were:

- just as spiritually-minded
- find the Scripture just as true
- are just as led by the Spirit
- are not "worldly" Christians

then much of this would change. Those of us who follow the TE viewpoint come to discuss and debate the various issues involved. While we may get some substantive evidence at first, what it ultimately reverts to in the end is "well, if you just accepted Scripture" or "you obviously place a higher value on the science of men than the Word of God", or some similar nonsense that is both insulting and entirely incorrect.

Yes, I do believe that it takes more faith to search for how God created based on what we know from His Creation than to simply say "this is what the literal text says, so I am going to believe that." That's easy. But the issue should not be stronger and weaker faith, it should be debating the scientific and theological supports for the competing theories.

 

[TwinCrier]

Likewise, if those who accept evolution would realize that YEC's are not immature, uneducated dolts much of this would change as well. I think how we each "think" the other side views us is more detrimental then what is actually thought.

 

[Vance]

No, I would not think that any non-YEC starts off with an assumption that YEC's are immature (that has to be shown by pot shot "goo to you" type comments), and I never assume someone is a dolt (again, unless they make it painfullly obvious).

But on the uneducated issue, the simple fact does come up over and over that those who support a strong YEC belief *tend* to be less knowledgeable about what evolution really says, what evidence is out there, etc. After long experience on these boards, I can say with some confidence that those who hold to YEC'ism have most often gotten the vast majority of their information about evolution and an old earth from YEC sources alone (which is like attempting to get a good handle on what Christianity says from an atheistic source). On the other hand, most who accept theistic evolution have investigated *both* the YEC sources and the non-YEC sources and are familiar with both.

While there are some exceptions, theistic evolutionists do tend to be more educated about these issues than YEC's. The frustration comes in when trying to discuss the science or even the theological issues of literal v. non-literal interpretation and being faced with the types of comments I listed above.

It would be like a non-Christian coming in and saying "You Christians believe in the trinity, so you believe in three gods." We would try to explain the complex nature of the doctrine of the trinity, and he responds "I don't care what type of "spin" you put on it, you are obviously polytheistic when it comes right down to it." So, then we go through and explain it from a different angle, and he just comes back with "listen, you obviously have convinced yourself that this polytheism is really OK, and have all your pat answers all ready, but it's still plain you are not mono-theistic."

You can see how that would be frustrating.

 

[Micaiah]

Romans 14 is one of my favorite passages!

However, it is interesting to note that the "weak faith" in Romans 14 is actually a reversal of how it's usually applied here. As the one with the "weak faith" is more like the Creationist (only vegetables and condemns the one with "strong faith") while the one with the "strong faith" is more like the TE (will eat meat [like accepting evolution], and looks down on the Creationists)

Only a TE could come up with this sort of nonsense.

 

[Micaiah]

TE's trust man's theories on origins and reject the plain truth taught in the word of God. Rejecting God's truth that forms the basis of Christian doctrines on sin, suffering, and salvation while at the same time claiming to be Christian is a serious matter.

 

[Amalthea]

TE's trust the plain truth in God's creation. Creationists dogmatically put their faith in their idol, the Bible, and on top of that do not understand science usually due to educational limitations or sometimes the need to lie for their interpretations.

 

[GodSaves]

If one is going to make the statement that YEC idolize the Bible because we believe it to be God's Word and have respect and fear for the testomies there in, then the same can said for TE's about scientific interpretations. Because we believe the Bible is the literal truth in the creation teachings, we are almost always accused of being idolizers of God's Word. It really isn't that bad of a thing to be accused of, holding God's Word above man's word.

But hey, it is all about the perception. We can make just about anything right or wrong depending on how you look at it. Pharisee's were great that. (no i am not calling anyone anything, just a statement of the past, way distant past)

God Bless

 

[Vance]

TE's trust man's theories on origins and reject the plain truth taught in the word of God. Rejecting God's truth that forms the basis of Christian doctrines on sin, suffering, and salvation while at the same time claiming to be Christian is a serious matter.

Thus proving my point. Thanks Micaiah, I could not have scripted that better for you.

Here is a YEC actually questioning the Christianity of those who do not follow his beliefs on the subject of origins.

 

[herev]

Only a TE could come up with this sort of nonsense.

Micaiah, for Goodness sake, it is only an analogy, not an insult--and if you read the passage, He is right--it was not a slam--it was simply noticing the irony
Read the passage for yourself, those that held to strict interpretation were the ones that Paul referred to as weak in faith, although AS IT HAS ALREADY been pointed out, even Paul didn't mean it as an insult--

 

[herev]

To repeat myself, since it seems we've already forgotten the issue in this thread!!!

I have been insulted more than once on this forum from someone telling me I have weak faith because I am a TE. I have also seen my TE brothers and sisters look down their noses on the creationists here. Face it, we're just not very nice sometimes.
For my NT class, we are studying Romans for this week. I came across an interesting passage:
From Romans 14 (NIV)
1Accept him whose faith is weak, without passing judgment on disputable matters. 2One man's faith allows him to eat everything, but another man, whose faith is weak, eats only vegetables. 3The man who eats everything must not look down on him who does not, and the man who does not eat everything must not condemn the man who does, for God has accepted him. 4Who are you to judge someone else's servant? To his own master he stands or falls. And he will stand, for the Lord is able to make him stand.
5One man considers one day more sacred than another; another man considers every day alike. Each one should be fully convinced in his own mind. 6He 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. 7For none of us lives to himself alone and none of us dies to himself alone. 8If we live, we live to the Lord; and if we die, we die to the Lord. So, whether we live or die, we belong to the Lord.
9For this very reason, Christ died and returned to life so that he might be the Lord of both the dead and the living. 10You, then, why do you judge your brother? Or why do you look down on your brother? For we will all stand before God's judgment seat. 11It is written:
" 'As surely as I live,' says the Lord,
'every knee will bow before me;
every tongue will confess to God.' "[1] 12So then, each of us will give an account of himself to God.
13Therefore let us stop passing judgment on one another.

We could learn a thing or two--but will we?
Peace
Tommy