Solomon said, 'Is there anything of which one might say, "See
this, it is new?" Already it has existed for ages which were
before us.' (Ecclesiastes 1:10) Brethren have noted that the
various doctrinal errors that have arisen among brethren in the
last 200 years have appealed to Romans 14 in order to pave
the way for compromise and open the door of fellowship and acceptance.
This was true with those advocating instrumental music in worship,
the Missionary Society, and various forms of liberalism. When
Premillennialism was infiltrating congregations in the 30's and
40's, many pleas for tolerance were based on Romans 14. In fact
it was argued that fellowship could be maintained with those who
taught this error: "In conclusion, my proposal for a ground
of unity and fellowship to our challenging brethren is as follows:
On the basis of Romans 14, although we feel that you misinterpret
many of the prophetic passages, we will receive you as brethren;
and on the basis of Romans 14, though you think we are unwarranted
in giving these prophetic passages their literal import, we request
that you receive us.' (Unity And Debates. Word and Work. pp. 57-59.
J.R. Clark.) The same thing is happening in our own generation
with the Marriage, Divorce and Remarriage Issue. Points to Note:
1. Unfortunately, some see Romans 14 as a quick fix to solving
problems between brethren. But the MDR issue won't be the last
issue that people try to get into Romans 14. If we allow this
chapter to become a doctrinal dumping ground, then what will be
on the next truckload? Women elders? Women preachers? Homosexuality?
Abortion? Situation Ethics? Theistic Evolution? Calvinism? 2.
Brethren, what would the Church look like today, if brethren in
the past had allowed Romans 14 to be used as a way to a fellowship
those in doctrinal error? 3. And if one error can be placed into
Romans 14, then aren't we being hypocritical by not allowing other
errors into the same chapter? For if we can fellowship a brother
whom is spreading error, then why can't we fellowship those in
the denominational world who are spreading error which is just
as dangerous? 4. Many congregations are definitely at a crossroads.
When we use Romans 14 to cover those in doctrinal error, I believe
we have taken a huge step towards becoming just like the denominations
which surround us. For each denomination has its own categories
of acceptable error and unacceptable error. Does Romans chapter
14 describe or include a situation in which one brother is doctrinally
and morally right and another brother is doctrinally and morally
wrong? Does Romans 14 include and cover doctrinal error and sinful
practices in the differences under discussion?
14:1 'Now accept the one who is weak in faith'-1.
The first argument I would offer to prove that this chapter is
not discussing matters in which one brother is in sin/doctrinal
error, is that God commands us to accept him. The word 'accept'
means to admit to friendship, suggesting a welcome: 'Receive into
your fellowship' (Con). Other passages plainly teach that one
spreading error is not to be received. Notice the difference in
the pattern between Romans 14 and 2 John 9: It is clear that 2
John 9 is dealing with doctrinal error.
Romans 14: 2 John 9-11:
"Receive" (14:1) "receive him not" (10)
"God hath received him" (14:3) "hath not God"
(9)
14:1 'but not for the purpose of passing judgment on his
opinions'-1. Paul plainly states that the difference between
brethren in this chapter is opinions, and opinion which
you are not to pass judgment upon. 2. But those who want their
'doctrines' put under the umbrella of this chapter, don't practice
what the chapter teaches. They do pass judgment upon those who
disagree with them. 3. We are to pass judgment upon views that
contradict the Bible (Titus 1:9-11; 2 Tim. 4:2; 2:18; 1 Tim. 6:3-4;
1:3; Galatians 1:6-9; 2 Thess. 3:6; 1 Cor. 15:12; Romans 3:8).
4. But if, as some say, this chapter includes doctrinal error,
then they must accept the following conclusions: a. Every brother
engaged in sin and error is to be accepted. b. Sin and error is
a matter of personal opinion. Hence no absolute right and wrong.
c. We cannot preach against anything, except intolerance.
Romans 14:2 'One man has faith that he may eat all things,
but he who is weak eats vegetables only'-1. The 'weakness'
of this chapter isn't a moral weakness. The stronger brother realizes
that all foods are clean (Mark 7:19; 1 Tim. 4:3-4). 2. The man
who is weak has heard those truths, but at this time his conscience
would still bother him if he went ahead and ate (14:23).
Romans 14:3 'Let not him who eats regard with contempt him
who does not eat'-1. This is the subject matter of the
chapter. We are dealing with matters of indifference, things which
are morally neutral within themselves. You can do it or not do
it. 2. The same truth is found in 1 Corinthians 8:8 'But food
will not commend us to God; we are neither the worse if we do
not eat, nor the better if we do eat.' 'Commend'-'God's approval
of us is not based on the food we take' (Bas). 3. This is
why, two brothers engaged in two different practices are commanded
to accept each other. Because neither of them is in the wrong.
4. But can this same principle be applied to: Instrumental music
in worship, premillennialism, institutionalism, and every view
of the Marriage issue? What about those who claim that divorce
is never allowed, even in cases which involve fornication? (Matthew
19:9) Are we to sit by and silently allow (don't pass judgment
on their opinions) someone to teach that people who divorce their
mates for fornication have sinned? 4. If Romans 14 applies to
doctrinal matters, then I would be forced to conclude that whatever
position I took on any issue would be a 'safe' position.
14:3 'judge'-i.e. condemn. In this chapter no judging
is allowed! No judging, no arguing, no debating!!!, no disputing,
and NO CENSORING. 1. But sin and false doctrine is to be
condemned (Romans 16:17; 1 Cor. 5:3; Eph. 5:11; 1 Cor. 6:9-10;
Gal. 5:19-21). 2. People argue that the MDR issue fits into Romans
14, but then they violate what the chapter says. If the MDR issue
really fits into this chapter, then all sides fit into the chapter,
which means that you aren't allowed to attack the other side,
speak against another side, etc…People have tried to place
Homer Hailey's views under Romans 14, but obviously he doesn't
believe this chapter applies to that subject. Concerning the other
side, he wrote, 'Because of misconceptions of what I believe,
and what I consider to be a dangerous error of the generally accepted
view of the subject, I hereby set forth the grounds of my position.'
(The Divorced and Remarried Who Would Come to God. p. 9)
14:3 'for God has accepted him'-1. Some have argued
that Romans 14 covers those that hold "privately held views".
But this chapter deals with more than just private convictions.
These convictions are being practiced! (14:2,3) God accepts both
men in their practices! 2. 'has accepted him'-past tense.
God had already accepted the eater and the non-eater in their
practices. This is the reason that neither brother is allowed
to judge the other, because God didn't condemn either practice.
3. 'Some brethren today believe the point emphasized in this
chapter is the individual nature of the practices discussed as
opposed to collective action which involves the whole church in
the practice. They believe Paul's admonitions here would apply
to matters which may be inherently wrong or sinful, but would
not involve others in those actions. However, Paul makes his appeal
to receive the meat-eater based on the fact that 'God hath received
him', received him in a sinful individual practice????' (Sin,
Doctrinal Error, and Romans 14. Harry Osborne. p. 6) 4. First
of all the MDR issue is never an individual matter. Fellowshipping
one in adultery is wrong (1 Cor. 5:1-13). 5. Secondly, this isn't
the attitude of another side in this issue. 'God has accepted
him'-God has fully accepted you and you don't have anything to
worry about no matter what position you take on this issue? Even
if you contend that fornication isn't a cause for divorce? (Matthew
19:9)
14:3 'him'/14:4 'he'-Some are under the mistaken
impression that Paul is defending the non-eater. Note: 'received
him' (14:3), refers to the meat-eater. The antecedent is obviously
'him that eateth'. And the 'he' of 14:4 also must refer to the
meat-eater, for 'him that eateth' is the last person mentioned.
14:4 'for the Lord is able to make him stand'-Some
are under the impression that the person who will 'stand' is a
person involved in sin. Sounds like once-saved-always-saved. Clearly
this isn't the case. The eater shall stand justified in the final
judgment because he was doing nothing wrong. The person in
14:4 is not in a fallen spiritual condition! He shall stand
then, because he stands now (14:3 'God has accepted him'). In
Ephesians 6:11 we have an example of people standing in the future,
who also are standing in the present.
14:4 'Lord is able to make him stand'-No one has
the authority to reverse the Lord's acceptance of this man. The
non-eater's unjust criticism against the eater would not cause
the eater to be lost. ***Does anyone see the serious consequences
of saying that this chapter is dealing with people in sin, private
sin or doctrinal error? Will God cause all fallen Christians to
stand? Am I not accountable for what I believe and practice? Will
God override my freewill? No matter what I do or believe, God
will make me stand?
14:5 'One man regards one day above another'-This
practice falls into the same category as eating or not eating
(14:6). From other passages we already know that this falls into
a category of moral neutrality (1 Cor. 8:8). 1. Carefully note
we are dealing with observing or not observing days which doesn't
violate other passages. Continuing to observe the Sabbath Day
or the feast days of the Old Testament as a means of gaining favor
with God would be wrong (Galatians 4:10-11; 5:4). Failing to see
the importance of the First Day of the Week would also be wrong
(Acts 20:7; Hebrews 10:25). 2. Rather, I can set aside a certain
day for myself to study, pray, etc…Or I can take time out
of every day.
14:5 'Let each man be fully convinced in his own mind'-1.
Another proof that Paul is dealing with matters of moral and doctrinal
neutrality. 2. To open up this chapter to privately held sinful
views or sinful practices, then we have Paul teaching, 'It's all
right to be involved in sin and error….just as long as you
are fully persuaded.' Now why would the sinner be better off if
he was mistakenly sure in his own mind? Do your own feelings make
what is wrong into what is right? Right becomes what is right
for me? (Proverbs 16:25; Acts 23:1) And if we say that this chapter
either does include or can include matters of sin and doctrinal
error, then Paul is encouraging people to continue to sin
and error, as long as they can do it in good conscience. 3. And
some are coming very close to putting those words into Paul's
mouth. Some are contending that a person isn't a false teacher,
if they are sincere in their beliefs. 'Now can a person can keep
on teaching their doctrine…just as long as they are fully
persuaded in their own mind?' Sounds a lot like the denominational
expression, 'If doesn't matter what you believe, just as long
as you are sincere.' 4. And how do we limit the application? Is
the sincere Jehovah Witness, a false teacher? The sincere Mormon?
The sincere Calvinist? The sincere Modernist? The sincere advocate
of homosexuality being accepted by the Church? What makes teaching
one error with sincere motives right and teaching other errors
with sincere motives wrong? Teaching what is wrong, teaching what
undermines the faith of others makes you dangerous, regardless
of what your motives might be (2 Tim. 2:17-18; Galatians 1:8).
5. In order for the Christian to be fully convinced, he
or she must know that this belief or practice is a matter in harmony
with the Word of God. Can I engage in this and know for sure that
God isn't offended? Hence instead of saying that this chapter
includes sin or error. The complete opposite is true. Even in
matters of moral neutrality, we are not to engage in them unless
we can participate with a good conscience and walk by faith in
that practice (2 Corinthians 5:7-9; Romans 10:17). Being fully
convinced means, 'I know that this practice or belief is authorized,
I do have the right to participate, I can participate without
any qualms! Notice! If something is right, then you don't hide
it, sneak around or try to keep it from everyone. This includes
a marriage.