As noted in the previous lesson, there are movements in every generation which attempt to place divisions over matters of faith under the umbrella of Romans 14: Points to Note: 1. Unfortunately even a number of brethren have accepted the idea that honest and good hearts can never unite on Bible teaching regarding certain issues (John 8:32; 7:17 'If any man is willing to do His will, he shall know of the teaching, whether it is of God, or whether I speak from Myself'; Ephesians 3:3-4; 2 Timothy 2:15 '..accurately handling the word of truth'; 1 Timothy 2:4; Galatians 1:8 'a gospel contrary to that which we have preached..') How can we know if someone is preaching a different gospel, if we can't all agree on the original? 2. Who believes and preaches a doctrine becomes more important that what the Bible says about it. The argument is made, 'great men of knowledge, conscientious and sincere' hold this view. But people forget that men are not the standard of truth. Any learned man can depart from the Scriptures and any sincere man can find himself in the wrong (Galatians 2:11-13; John 3:10; Acts 5:38-39). 3. The words 'wrong' or 'error' lose their forcefulness. What are new converts and our children to think when they hear someone saying, 'I believe he teaches error but it won't affect our fellowship'. What are they to think when the same individual says concerning the denominations, 'they are in error'. 4. The Bible does teach patience and longsuffering when trying to maintain unity and dealing with those in error (Ephesians 4:1-3; 1Thess 5:14 'admonish the unruly'; Matthew 18:15-17; even the factious man is to be given a first and second admonition (Titus 3:10). Thus we are never justified in severing our fellowship with others at the drop of a hat. But this longsuffering doesn't mean that we overlook the problem, justify the other position, rather it means that we work on bringing that person to an understanding of the truth. 5. There will be people who are always trying to find a way to fellowship people whom they love, without confronting the sin that the person is involved in. Recently I heard that someone was contending that 1 Corinthians chapter 5 limits our withdrawing to only cases where the world recognized the practice of a brother or sister as sinful. The problem with this: a. Paul commands us to withdraw from greedy members and members involved in false religions (5:11). The world of the First Century didn't view idolatry as a sin! b. Secondly, this interpretation would prevent the Church from withdrawing from anyone teaching false doctrine, i.e. false doctrine about baptism, God, Christ, inspiration of the Scriptures, the virgin birth, worship, Lord's Supper, salvation, the second coming, the Creation, etc…..

1. The Text:

14:6 'observes it for the Lord'-The phrase "for the Lord" demands that we are not dealing with sinful practices or those that hold false doctrines. Clearly, Paul would not have made the statements 'for the Lord', 'and gives thanks to God', if these had been sinful practices. In contrast, the behavior of both men glorifies God. Note: God hears the prayers of both men ('give thanks to God'). But God doesn't hear the prayers of the sinner (Proverbs 28:9).

14:7 'For no one of us lives for himself'-Each man in this section was motivated by what would please God. Neither man wanted to live for himself. The men in both groups have sincere motives. One man ate men because God allowed it (1 Tim. 4:4). The other man didn't because of his conscience, and he respected God's will regarding not violating a tender conscience (Romans 14:23).

14:8 'we are the Lord's'-Both men in Romans 14 belonged to God. And both men were living in a relationship with God. Christ died upon the cross and was resurrected for the very purpose of establishing a relationship in which people could 'live for the Lord'. Even after death, the Christian still has a relationship with God (14:9).

14:10 'why do you judge your brother?'-Points to Note: 1. Some take this section as teaching, in matters where brethren cannot seem to agree on right and wrong and which at least one of the parties is in sin or error, we are to refrain from judging and are simply to wait until judgment day, when God will sort it out. 2. But neither man in this section is in the wrong (14:3). 3. Church Discipline does apply to doctrinal error (2 Thess. 3:6-15). 4. Can we only withdraw from someone when that person agrees that they are in the wrong? 5. If this section applies to situations where a brother is in sin or teaching error, then we must conclude that no Christian can be sure of their own salvation. Is Paul saying, 'We will just all have to wait until judgment day to find out who was wrong and who was right.'? Paul was an inspired writer! If one of these men in Romans 14 was in the wrong, then why didn't God take this opportunity to correct them? 6. Throwing vital issues into the 'we can't be sure category' places everyone of us with a question mark over our eternal destiny. Is an inspired man saying. 'Well, there are just some issues, which will cost people their souls, which good and honest men can't see alike.'? That would mean that people with good and honest hearts will be lost! (Luke 8:15) Paul wrote that we can be sure about our own salvation (Romans 5:2; Colossians 3:4; 2 Peter 1:10-11). 7. There are just too many passages in which sin is always to be judged (Acts 8:20-23; 13:10,46; Romans 16:17-18; The whole Corinthian letter; 2 Cor. 11:13-15).

14:13 'Therefore let us not judge one another anymore'-Points to Note: 1. Some naively think that the Church would be better off if all controversy stopped. If all views and controversial practices were tolerated. 2. But every Biblical doctrine is controversial to someone. 3. And who decides which issues get placed in the 'good and sincere brethren disagree about this'? You see a "judgment" is always made. 4. Do a study of issues in the past and see what 'good and sincere' brethren have disagreed over, including the subject of baptism. Some 'good and sincere' brethren in the past thought that it was wrong for the Christian to vote or hold any sort of political office. Some embraced premillennialism, others argued for the acceptance of those immersed in the denominations. 5. People think that placing controversial issues into Romans 14 will generate greater unity, but this is actually what Paul would be saying, if such were true: 'Your brother over here is in sin, but accept him, you believe he is going to hell and that's right, but accept him while on earth.' Is that a good foundation for unity in the Church? 6. This has held me to conclude that when people try to place doctrinal issues into this chapter, that they have inwardly accepted the idea that doctrinal conformity isn't needed to make it to heaven or have fellowship with God. Somewhere along the line they have inwardly accepted the premise, 'I guess you don't have to believe everything the Bible says, I guess you don't have to hold the right view concerning what Jesus taught, I guess a certain amount of straying from the truth or perverting the text is allowed.

14:14 'Nothing is unclean in itself; but to him who thinks anything to be unclean, to him it is unclean'-1. The chapter is dealing with things which are pure within themselves. Paul isn't discussing fornication, murder, adultery, homosexuality, stealing, lying, etc…This chapter is dealing with the same subject matter as 1 Corinthians 6:12 and 10:23-33. Sin and false doctrine are always stumbling blocks, this section is dealing with morally neutral things which could become a stumbling block (14:13-15). 2. The above statement reveals that only "lawful" things can be placed into Romans 14, just like only "lawful" things can be placed into the category of an "expedient" (1 Corinthians 6:12). 3. This chapter is dealing with the wise and loving use of Christian liberties (Compare 14:15-16=1 Corinthians 8:9 'this liberty of yours'; 11-12). Man is never given the liberty to sin or teach error. 4. But when we place sin and error into this chapter, we have Paul teaching that everything (even sin) is inherently pure. This makes Paul sound like some New Age guru or old hippie, 'There is no such thing as evil, if you think it is evil, then it is evil for you, what might be truth for you isn't truth for me, we are all gods and we determine what is right and wrong in our own world.' 5. Far from teaching toleration of sinful practices, Paul actually teaches a much stricter code of conduct in the opposite direction. Violating your conscience, even while engaging in a practice which isn't inherently sinful-is a sin. A tender conscience is a valuable thing, avoid all temptations to violate it for it is often the only thing or the last thing which stands behind you and eternal destruction (Ephesians 4:19).

14:15 'you are not longer walking according to love'-What a demanding thing 'love' is. Love isn't doing what-I-want-to-do. Some ignorantly assert, 'Love makes no demands, love doesn't hurt.' Well love hurt Christ! Love made demands of the Father! 1. I can't harmonize this statement with what people want to do to this chapter. Are we to stand by while people go into error? Are we to overlook what they are teaching? Are we to remain silent? (Galatians 6:1-2) 2. If love won't push a liberty upon a brother or sister who isn't prepared as yet to engage in it with a pure conscience (14:23); if love will forego a right so as not to cause a brother to be tripped up; if love will rearrange it's life for a brother (14:21), then will love justify a brother in sin and error? 3. I know people think they are trying to help the Church by coming up with a way in which we can avoid confrontation and maintain unity by placing controversial issues between brethren in this chapter. But actually they are only causing others to stumble. In essence they are teaching that we can't understand the Bible alike, the Bible is confusing, doctrinal agreement isn't essential for unity (which undermines the whole premise of the restoration movement), any doctrine taught by a man of some renown or status among brethren needs to be accepted or tolerated, etc…..

14:16 'do not let what is for you a good thing'-The practices under consideration in this chapter are 'good' things. Sin and error can never be labeled as 'good'. And how could sin and error not be spoken of as evil.

14:17 'the kingdom of God is not….'-The things in this chapter are matters of indifference. Engaging in them or not engaging in them isn't a requirement for being in the Kingdom of God. And yet, sin does exclude one from the Kingdom of God (1 Cor. 6:9-10). To apply this chapter to the Marriage/Divorce/Remarriage Issue would be saying: 'It doesn't matter what you do or don't teach on this subject, all views are acceptable in the Kingdom of God.'

14:20 'but they are evil…'-Paul does bring up 'sin' in this chapter and it is always soundly condemned. The sin of condemning those whom God doesn't condemn (14:3). The sin of abusing your rights and causing others to stumble (14:20). The sin of violating your conscience (14:23).

14:22 'The faith which you have, have as your own conviction before God'-Another proof that Paul isn't dealing with matters of right or wrong. Paul is discussing the 'faith' of the meat-eater, his or her personal conviction. The conviction was right (Paul sides with it), but the man isn't to broadcast it, he doesn't have to place his convictions in this area on display, so as to offend the non-eater. But the opposite is true in what people commonly call 'matters of faith'. In this realm we are to preach our convictions to the whole world (Mark 16:15; 2 Cor. 10:5; 2 Tim. 4:2; Titus 2:15). To make this chapter apply to doctrinal matters, would have Paul saying, 'believe what you want to believe, just as long as you hold it as a private opinion.'

14:22 'Happy is he who does not condemn himself in what he approves'-This is not a subjective judgment of a practice or oneself. The eater didn't condemn himself because he knew (from an objective standard) that God had already declared this practice to be acceptable. There was an objective standard of truth which allowed this man to eat in a good conscience. Happy is the man who can bring his conscience fully in line with the truth revealed in the Word of God. And once again, these verses cannot apply to matters of sin or error, for far from lending any tolerance to sin, Paul condemns the man who simply violates his conscience in a morally neutral activity (14:23).