Maybe there’s another way I can ask this or explain it so that it makes more sense. You’ve read about people who won’t eat food sacrificed to idols I’m sure, and Paul knows that the idol and the food has no power over him.
He knows that but he doesn’t try to bind up his brothers conscience on this matter when they are disturbed or won’t eat from a table where there’s idol food.
Paul says don’t even ask about it, an idol is nothing. Still if someone who does fear the idol eats, then that’s sin, because he’s not eating by faith.
That gets a little convoluted so I’m just going to try and walk it back to the meats idea.
Paul doesn’t try to condemn people who won’t eat, he just hopes that the people who abstain from eating won’t try and enforce themselves on the people who do eat.
The people who eat are eating with a clean conscience. They eat with liberty and joy, they aren’t sinning when they eat and for someone to bind up their spirits and cause them to fear the food, that person would be in the wrong.
So I’m trying to ask the same thing in a new way, maybe it’s helpful.
Do you feel the need to bind up and alter the views of a Christian who sincerely believes in universalism?
I don’t see any need to destroy that persons high view of Gods love and care for mankind in order to now burden them with such a difficult (albeit very popular) doctrine as eternal conscious torment.
I only write difficult because that’s what it would be for them, as difficult as trying to force the “pagan Christmas” camp to celebrate Christmas, or to pressure the no Halal food guy to eat a Halal chicken burger.
I eat those foods, I celebrate those holidays and I’m hopeful in the idea of a universal restoration. But that doesn’t mean I intend to wreck everyone and turn their heads into my way of thinking.