>>26198
>Why wouldn't celebrating Christmas fall under Christian liberty? Commemorating Christ's birth is not something wrong in itself.
Why wouldn't it fall under Christian liberty to offer a sacrifice which was outside the bounds of God's law (Lev. 10:1-3)? It was not wrong to offer sacrifice, but it is wrong to worship God in a manner of our own design rather than His. That which is not commanded is forbidden.
>Romans 14
This passage of scripture is often cited by many different people to prove many different things often without the caution of careful exegesis or considering how it is consistent with the rest of scripture or even the same author. Consequently, one of the fondest groups to use it is unbelievers who seek to make scripture contradict with shallow quotation. I do not mean to imply that's what's happening here, brother, I am just trying to emphasize the importance of interpreting it in light of the rest of scripture.
Now the proper place to begin the passage is verse 1. The portion about foods and the portion about holidays cannot be interpreted as distinct, since the sentiment and context between them is the same. Romans 14 is among the latter chapters of Romans, following the main body of discussion concerning the basis of Jews and Gentiles being united in one gracious covenant (chapters 1 through 8), and the nature of that covenant in light of the historical changes it suffered following the resurrection of Christ and the apostasy of the Jews (9-12). From chapter 13 on the passages of Romans seem to be more appendices, seeming to briefly spring into isolated topics unrelated to the rest of the book. The passage of Romans 14 continues into chapter 15, up to around the 12th verse. The megapassages of Romans offer us historical insight into the church of Rome, which appears to have been an entire synagogue the vast majority of which (both the Jews and the God-fearers) at least embraced the gospel. Hence, it became necessary as hostility emerged between them to clarify their common reconciliation to God through Christ.
This then enlightens us as to what Paul means when he writes "Now accept the one who is weak in faith, but not for the purpose of passing judgment on opinions". We first are expressly commanded to accept the individual and not his belief (as the Greek word for "passing judgement" literally refers to the act of making a decision between multiple options, and the Greek word for "opinions" literally means "reasoning" or "internal dialog"; thought process). The purpose of the whole passage is to encourage a spirit of charity, so that Christian unity is not undermined by overemphasis and inaccuracy on less significant things. Not that both parties really are correct, but that one party's being incorrect is not sufficient basis for breaking fellowship. I note that this charity is restricted to the adiaphora, or "things indifferent", and does not extend to essential matters like the gospel of Jesus Christ. As he makes clear in verse 4 this command is a privilege of Christian brothers only, and therefore applies in all matters between brothers, and applies to no matters which prove one to not be a brother.
It is crucial for our understanding that we understand Paul's meaning by "weak" (which generally means "frail" or "sickly" in Greek). This seems to give his opinion as to which of the two perspectives is actually correct, as he never uses the term to describe the other side, but only those who abstain from meats and observe holidays. We ought to consider why in the two topics given one side is both the abstainer (of food) and the observer (of holidays), and how this relates to their being weak? We have already established that the audience of the epistle is composed of Jews and God-fearers who would have been very intimately familiar with the old covenant, and for whom the new covenant was very novel. Unlike the New Testament, the Old Testament contains many specifications for the observation of many holidays which the covenant believer was bound to observe. These holidays often included requirements or restrictions on food, and while the old law in general did not mandate vegetarianism it was often practiced by those seeking to live particularly holy (probably due to it being the natural and intended state of the original creation).
In both of the topics Paul gives examples of behaviors which are free, but sin is not free even if the sinner insists he does not sin, the passage is not a license for licentiousness. It is unthinkable that Paul would grant permission to heathen worship. The pagans also had many holidays and festivals, which were dedicated to the worship of false gods, and often ate foods which were sacrifices to idols. It should be obvious then that while Paul holds some holidays and some foods to be free, not all of them are. Nobody is free to participate in the worship of false gods.
Then we seem to have arrived at the meaning; the weak man's faith is "weak" because he still believes himself bound to obsolete ceremonies of the old law. Those ceremonies were not willworship since they had been commanded by God, and the Jews of Jerusalem often continued to observe them; even Paul went up to the temple to worship when he visited Jerusalem. So while the Christians were free to abstain from that which they were previously bound, they were not bound to do so. We have a modern analog in this since many converts from Judaism are uncomfortable in abandoning the traditions of their ancestors. The weak man is guilty of sin if he violates his conscience even though objectively no law is violated since mentally there was an act of disobedience, as he may think to himself "I am violating the Lord's will", hence "he who doubts is condemned if he eats, because his eating is not from faith; and whatever is not from faith is sin."
So Paul's intention is not to grant permission for us to invent holidays as if worship was for our own pleasure, but simply to grandfather in those holidays which had been instituted by God. Paul elsewhere condemns "self-made religion", which in that instance happened to include the observation of holidays and dietary restrictions (Colossians 2:16-23). They were even based on the old covenant, though it was a new practice of a Gnostic sect.
>>26203
>Paul here is talking about Jewish spies to came into the company of Christians to collect evidence of their alleged lawlessness (e.g., not being circumcised), to accuse them and bring them back into "bondage" (observing the Old Covenant law again, or possibly literal bondage, like prison).
I don't think that's correct, I think Paul is speaking metaphorically and implying the master who sent them to spy out our freedom is the Enemy, in order to deceive the Christians to return to bondage (that is, bondage to the law, under which there is only condemnation). The spying out would be in the sense of a military infiltrator. Also note that in Romans 14 it is the abstention (NOT observation) of the holiday which is regarded as freedom.