The Scranton tribune. [volume] (Scranton, Pa.) 1891-1910, 1897-06-19
Rom. xiv, 1921.
nouncing sentence upon his fellow. Matt.

nouncing sentence upon his fellow. Matt.
vii, 1-2.
AUTERNATIVE-W an improper
scti on is condemned 1t is we'll to point out
a proper action. If one has been aroused
to undertake some measure and the meth.
cd adopted will defeat that measure ne
does a kindly service who offers as an
alternative, method that is likely to Sc
cure the desired result. Now, suppose a
man has erred either in opinion or con.
duct, harsh condemnation hurts him and
ought not To be allowed. But they who
witness the error may safely do for him,
and ought to do for him, what will be
helpful. Let each be sure not to put any
stumbling block" in the mans way. This
| is what Paul urges, a brotherly Christian
| course (Verse l3). 1t Is here recognized as
a fact that men are dependent very larg-
II upon their surroundings. Il Cor. viii,
| 81. This inhibition is, however, intended
mainly for the person who might be
judged restraint upon men who might
otherwise conclude that they were at
| Liberty 20 act independently of others
| opinions. Whereas, all must refrain from
| those things which may call for criticism.
DiDFILEMENr.-Pau now comes to
| the very matter in dispute, tho eating of
things offered to idols. He does not take
sides with either party affirming or de-
| light OF the new and essential doctrines of
Christianity. He makes the Romans know
| that sin does not consist In mere action.
| but in the motive that promps the ac-
| ton. Hence there is nothing unclean in
| piece of meat because 1t has been used in
| the sacrifice Of the heather Werse lD.
| The meat is precisely the same as though
| 1t had been previously offered in Jewish
| worship. But II a man esteemeth ii to
| he uncleal 1t is unclean. because in eat
| ing 1t he has violated his conscience
| q Cor. viii, y. In another letter he ad-
Vises against such conscientious scruples
| Q &C. X, 25), but here he admits that II
the coincidence condemn. the man must
not Eat. He makes this assertion in
very positive manner, declaring that II
was not merely a matter of personal
| judgment, but a persuasion of the Lord
Jesus meaning either that it was a de-
J ductlon from general Christian principle
| or revelation
| CHARITY. This last statement seemed
| I" furnish a ground for settlement The
man who saw - wrong in 1t might eat,
| and the man Who did see wrong might
| refrain-oach eating according to HIS COM
| Vicition On that basis great freedom was
! possible without criticism. But the case
| could not be adjusted I'm that way without
| danger to the church. He whose con-
| science forbade the eating would be
| gfleYed when no saw his brother eating
meat ohered to idols. The higher senti-
ments OF religion will not permit one to
| overlook what he believes to be wrong
| simply because another does not believe
| II to be wrong. II the two are in the same
| church the former must suffer intensely
IN being obliged TO fellowship another
whose practices he does not approve
| Under such circumstances, the latter r.
| obligated to refrain for his brothers
| sake Here IL enunciated that noble law
OF Christian love which makes one live
not for himself but for others. This law
the apostle applied to- himself I'm very
rOreeful words q Cor 'th' lS. when dis