Romans 14 and Pretended Holy Days

Status
Not open for further replies.

Reformed Catholic

Puritan Board Freshman
I am having a hard time reconciling Romans 14:5-6, 13...
("One person considers one day more sacred than another; another considers every day alike. Each of them should be fully convinced in their own mind. Whoever regards one day as special does so to the Lord... 13: Therefore let us stop passing judgment on one another. Instead, make up your mind not to put any stumbling block or obstacle in the way of a brother or sister.")
with a view that regards celebrating days like Christmas or Easter a sin. I tried to find something else here that talks about it, but most of those discussions are on the Sabbath, not on pretended holy days. If a person views those days as sacred and wants to celebrate them, it seems like Paul is saying to let that be, but I get the impression from some of the hardline RPW folks here that they would condemn that sort of behavior. How would you reconcile the RPW with this passage, especially condemning people's celebrations of holy days.
 
Paul has the old abrogated Jewish days in view; otherwise he's condoning hanging on to pagan observances or man on his own volition declaring days holy, which is only God's prerogative. Viewing a day as sacred (sanctified, set apart by God), which God has not so set apart, is will worship. If you do something on such days without that belief they are sacred, that's maybe a different discussion.
 
I am having a hard time reconciling Romans 14:5-6, 13...

with a view that regards celebrating days like Christmas or Easter a sin. I tried to find something else here that talks about it, but most of those discussions are on the Sabbath, not on pretended holy days. If a person views those days as sacred and wants to celebrate them, it seems like Paul is saying to let that be, but I get the impression from some of the hardline RPW folks here that they would condemn that sort of behavior. How would you reconcile the RPW with this passage, especially condemning people's celebrations of holy days.
Here is George Gillespie's partial response to an argument from Rom. 14:

whereas it might bee thought, that the Apostle doth not condemn all Holy-days, because both he permitteth others to observe days, Rom. 14. 5. And he himself also did observe one of the Jewish Feasts, Act. 18. 21. It is easily answered, that our Holy-days have no warrant from these places, except our Opposites will say, that they esteem their Festival days holier then other days, and that they observe the Jewish Festivities. Neither of which they doe acknowledge; and if they did, yet they must consider, that that which the Apostle either said or did hereanent, is to be expounded and understood of bearing with the weak Jews, whom he permitted to esteem one day above another, and for whose cause he did in his own practice, thus far apply himself to their infirmity at that time, when they could not possibly be, as yet, fully and throughly instructed, concerning Christian Liberty, and the abrogation of the Ceremonial Law, because the Gospel was as yet not fully propagated: and when the Mosaical Rites were like a dead man not yet buried, as Augustine's simile runs. So that all this can make nothing for Holy-days, after the full promulgation of the Gospel, and after that the Jewish Ceremonies are not onely dead, but also buried, and so, deadly to be used by us. Hence it is, that the Apostle will not bear with the observation days in Christian Churches, who have known God as he speaks.
 
Viewing a day as sacred (sanctified, set apart by God), which God has not so set apart, is will worship
Considering, then, Romans 14.5: "One person considers one day more sacred than another; another considers every day alike. Each of them should be fully convinced in their own mind" why does Paul not condemn this "will worship," but rather instruct toleration of it (seemingly)? Even if he is talking about the old Jewish days, the issue still stands. Why is Paul not condemning them for holding sacred days that God no longer has set apart?

Here is George Gillespie's partial response to an argument from Rom. 14:
From my reading here, Gillespie seems to suggest that it is a temporary compromise Paul is making. I'd like to ask anyone here who agrees with him: what application would you take from this passage, then, if any? You don't seem to think it is saying to tolerate believers who view, in their own mind, certain days as sacred. So, what is the passage instructing us to do? It has to mean something for us, surely.
 
I am having a hard time reconciling Romans 14:5-6, 13...

with a view that regards celebrating days like Christmas or Easter a sin. I tried to find something else here that talks about it, but most of those discussions are on the Sabbath, not on pretended holy days. If a person views those days as sacred and wants to celebrate them, it seems like Paul is saying to let that be, but I get the impression from some of the hardline RPW folks here that they would condemn that sort of behavior. How would you reconcile the RPW with this passage, especially condemning people's celebrations of holy days.
It is a significant leap to move from observation of God instituted holy days that were passing away to the conclusion that men may determine their own sacred days. Nothing in that text implies that the days some consider sacred were of their own devising.
 
Considering, then, Romans 14.5: "One person considers one day more sacred than another; another considers every day alike. Each of them should be fully convinced in their own mind" why does Paul not condemn this "will worship," but rather instruct toleration of it (seemingly)? Even if he is talking about the old Jewish days, the issue still stands. Why is Paul not condemning them for holding sacred days that God no longer has set apart?


From my reading here, Gillespie seems to suggest that it is a temporary compromise Paul is making. I'd like to ask anyone here who agrees with him: what application would you take from this passage, then, if any? You don't seem to think it is saying to tolerate believers who view, in their own mind, certain days as sacred. So, what is the passage instructing us to do? It has to mean something for us, surely.
Paul is not talking about days regarded as sacred not appointed by God, but those that were at one time appointed by God, as Gillespie argues that Alex cited. The passage is used by Presbyterian theologians on how to handle things supposedly indifferent, and not sinning against conscience.
 
From my reading here, Gillespie seems to suggest that it is a temporary compromise Paul is making. I'd like to ask anyone here who agrees with him: what application would you take from this passage, then, if any? You don't seem to think it is saying to tolerate believers who view, in their own mind, certain days as sacred. So, what is the passage instructing us to do? It has to mean something for us, surely.
I commend John Brown of Wamphray's comments (along with his practical "Observations" in the linked commentary):

1739306321029.png
1739306328850.png
 
Considering, then, Romans 14.5: "One person considers one day more sacred than another; another considers every day alike. Each of them should be fully convinced in their own mind" why does Paul not condemn this "will worship," but rather instruct toleration of it (seemingly)? Even if he is talking about the old Jewish days, the issue still stands. Why is Paul not condemning them for holding sacred days that God no longer has set apart?

First, Paul condemns the practice in outright terms in Gal. 4. Secondly, in Rom. 14 the main issue is with the application of food laws. He brings in the observation of days as supplementary to the issue over food. The kingdom of God is not meat and drink; therefore to condemn a brother over these things is to make an issue over a non-issue, to destroy the work of God for meat. His arguments can be understood as bringing down the temperature in the room. Thirdly, he classes the brother who maintains food laws in the category of one who is weak. To borrow a phrase from elsewhere, the brother was clinging to the weak and beggarly elements of the world. He required teaching to convince his conscience so he could come to a better judgment. This was during the interim period where the practices of the old covenant were still in process of fading away, as taught in Heb. 8. They have now well and truly passed away. Lastly, the reason why the brother required teaching was due to the fact that these laws were revealed by God and binding on the conscience. This is clear from the final verse, What is not of faith is sin. They could only engage in such practices by faith because they were expecting God's blessing on what they did, and they could only expect that blessing because it was a commanded part of worship. Note: commanded; not optional. Hence they must be taught that these things were no longer binding by showing them the liberty wherewith Christ has made them free.

Paul's instructions on how to deal with the weak brother reinforces the regulative principle throughout. What is not commanded is forbidden. The weak brother was conscience-bound to observe the commandment of God. He was not free to pick and choose what pleased him.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top