John...the one weak believed he could only eat HERBS...the other one believed he could eat ALL things...ALL is conclusive of ALL when used in context.....and the context CONTINUES....
vs. 14 For I know and am persuaded by the LORD JESUS, that there is NOTHING UNCLEAN of ITSELF, but to him that esteemeth something to be UNCLEAN, to him it is UNCLEAN.
vs. 15 But if thy brother be grieved with thy MEAT, now walkest not charitably. Destroy him not with thy meat, for whom Christ died.
vs. 16 Let not then your GOOD be evil spoken of...
vs. 17 For the kingdom of God is NOT MEAT and DRINK, but righteousness, and peace, and joy in the Holy Spirit
Yes I understand the word meat = food
Dcon, brother, we've all been round and round this topic of Rom. 14 many times over. I don't think any new information or perspective is being brought to light here. We each understand the context of the chapter to be dictating different understandings.
To summarize:
1A. Some believe "all things" literally means anything one could put into one's mouth.
1B. Some others believe "all things" must exclude certain things, or else that would mean that human flesh, goblets of blood, and more are permitted to be consumed. (And by quickly reviewing this thread, there are indeed some who believe consuming blood is permitted. I'm hesitant to ask them what they think about cannibalism.)
2A. Some believe "all things" includes unclean meats.
2B. Some others believe "all things" is in contrast to the specific items not eaten by the restrainer and does not necessarily or automatically imply unclean meats. In this case, the restrained person eats only vegetables, so "all things" would be the meat or food-items not eaten, but again this doesn't include unclean meats. For example, if I bring two friends to a dinner party and say to the chef that friend A cannot eat nuts but friend B eats anything, I do not mean literally anything. The specific context could dictate a number a things meant by "anything." In fact, in most of my personal circumstances, that would almost never mean unclean meats, but an outside observer who is not aware of the things of which I am aware could easily mistake that expression to include unclean meats. The view here is that "All things" in this case of Rom. 14 does not include unclean meats or food-items, but instead only that thing which God has declared as permissible to even consider eating in the first place.
3A. Some believe that "nothing is unclean of itself" means that there are no unclean meats or un-permitted food-items.
3B. Some others believe that this understanding is simply untrue because God has declared from early on that there are indeed clean and unclean animals. "Nothing" in this case refers to clean meats or food-items that would otherwise be considered polluted for one reason or another. Paul says that, in fact, he believes the items in question are not intrinsically unclean.
4A. Some believe that the Messiah's sacrifice made unclean animals into clean ones.
4B. Some believe this is not the case at all and have provided rebuttals to the verses used to support this theory, particularly Peter's vision in Acts, which I think is the primary verse that explicitly uses a phrase about something being made clean which was formerly unclean or common. The view with regards to Acts is that the subject under consideration is people only and not food-items.
As I've very recently said in a sabbath post, the difference is the assumptions we bring to the table. Each side of this debate is filled with different assumptions. And we all bring them, so let's not be foolishly arrogant to say that we are understanding these verses perfectly in context without assumptions. I know I have my assumptions, which I believe are valid, and I employ them when interpreting.
