Making Sense of Romans 14

by Steve Dewhirst
via Sentry Magazine, Vol. 22 No. 3, September 1996

What honest Bible student has not wrestled with this passage? I’m confident that the original recipients of Paul’s epistle didn’t have nearly the difficulty we do, for at least two reasons. First, they were well acquainted with all the circumstances surrounding this apostolic instruction and could immediately see its proper application, even if some may have been reluctant. Second, they had the benefit of divinely inspired teachers (see Romans 12:6). We have neither advantage.

Plus, a third problem besets our generation. We have become so fearful that one might abuse Romans 14, and not without some justification, that we’ve hamstrung ourselves in its study. We have erected presuppositions that govern our understanding, instead of letting the text govern us. And all the while, we’re encompassed by men railing against “Unity in Diversity” in any form, even though such is precisely the message of Romans 14. The question is not, “May we differ,” but, “To what extent may we differ and remain in fellowship?”

Like many others, I’ve studied this great passage for years, with varying degrees of dissatisfaction. My consistent puzzlement lay in failing to consider the context fully before jumping to conclusions. That’s a fatal flaw in any study. Unless we begin with some basic observations about the text itself, how can we ever hope to understand and apply it? I owe a debt of gratitude to a godly brother for helping me see my mistake.

Basic Observations

The Faith and One's Faith

Paul makes a distinction between the faith (Romans 14:1) and one’s personal faith (Romans 14:5, 23).

“The faith” is the sum total of all revealed truth given by God through the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. It is the standard by which we live and by which we will be judged. It is absolute, unchangeable, and eternal. Even if men refuse it, it remains the Truth nevertheless.

Personal faith, on the other hand, is fallible, weak, and needs constant growth. It comes only by hearing God’s word (Romans 10:17). But because one’s faith is based on his own understanding of The Faith, he is subject to error. That certainly doesn’t indict divine writ, but it does speak to man’s finite nature. We strive to have our personal faith square with The Faith in all points, but who can claim an absolute, perfect knowledge of everything? For this reason, even men of great faith will err in some points. Hence Paul needed to address unity in the face of disagreement.

The Weak and the Strong

In this controversy, as in most, one brother was weak and one strong. Nothing in the text indicates that the weak brother lacked personal conviction or commitment to the Lord. Indeed, the text demonstrates the opposite. The weak brother was weak only in the sense that his understanding was weak. His devotion and zeal for God were genuine, but he had not yet grown into a mature knowledge of the issue at hand (see also I Corinthians 8:7).

The strong brother, by contrast, had no greater conviction than the weak; he just happened to be right this time. He recognized his rightful liberties in Christ and exercised them without guilt.

In modern controversies, who is weak and who is strong? In every case, the correct brother is strong, and the incorrect brother is weak. But here’s the rub: no one ever thinks himself incorrect! If he did, he’d change his position. Disputes in Romans 14 had arisen because, as Paul states, these were questions “over doubtful things” (NKJV). As a result, we may not always know fully who is right and who is wrong.

Doubtful Things

“Doubtful things” are those matters of insufficient clarity in Scripture, about which we must make judgments. It is not heresy to aver that not every subject in the Bible is treated with equal clarity. One need only begin studying the gift of the Holy Spirit to realize the paucity of information. God has given us everything we need, but not necessarily everything we would like. I cannot help but wonder whether God has deliberately left many questions unanswered to see how we try to resolve them from the available principles He’s given. And also to see how we will treat each other in the process.

Decisions of Scruples

Because the Romans were struggling with these “decisions of scruples” (ASV), Paul ordered mutual tolerance on both the strong and the weak. This is a tough point for us. If we view ourselves as strong and correct on a given issue, it’s hard for us to tolerate a weak or incorrect brother -- especially when we believe his error causes him to sin. But such was the circumstance for those brethren with a scruple about eating meat sacrificed to idols. Paul says they were weak, but in their own minds they were trying to uphold what they believed was right. In their view, a brother who ate the meat was sinning, yet Paul tells them to accept him. How can we conscientiously do such a thing? By recognizing that in matters of limited revelation and unanswered questions, we might be wrong!

Of course that doesn’t sit well with us because we’ve continually boasted that “We have the Truth.” And while that’s true in a sense, some have taken it to mean “We have every answer to every question.” And that’s just nonsense. We need a dose of humility to remember our own intellectual limits.

There Are Right and Wrong Answers

In the disputes of Romans 14, some answers were right and others wrong. These were not “matters of indifference,” either to the men involved or to God.

To the Romans, the question of meats was a matter of faith. The brother with a scruple against eating could not exercise his faith and eat at the same time. It violated his conscience. Likewise, the brother of more mature understanding could appreciate the liberty of eating. He exercised his faith by taking advantage of his freedom and thanking God for the privilege.
And how can we say these were matters of indifference to God? He had seen fit to address these questions, however briefly. Is it a matter of indifference to God that we reject what He has created for our benefit? (see I Timothy 4:3-4).

We have been so resolute in assuming Romans 14 refers only to “matters of indifference,” that we’ve robbed ourselves of one of the few passages that truly addresses how we may tolerate each other when we differ doctrinally. Anything addressed in God’s word is a matter of doc-trine/teaching. Genuine “matters of indifference” deal with issues of which God’s word says nothing at all, like what color carpet to put in the church building, etc.

Because of our presupposition that Romans 14 cannot possibly be dealing with doctrinal questions, brethren have emphatically denied that the text has any bearing on matters
like the head covering for women in worship, the war question, and so forth. But if Romans 14 doesn’t tell us how to cooperate when we differ on these issues, what passage does?

God Accepts Both

Even though brethren differ, even though one was weak and the other strong, even though one was correct and the other incorrect, God accepted both. This is what blows our minds. Our natural assumption is that if one is wrong, he must be in sin. But this point is critical in using the context to make proper applications today. The questions of eating meats and keeping days, while not matters of total indifference to God, were matters of moral neutrality. Although God wanted men to eat what He had created for them, it was no sin to eat only vegetables. There were no moral rights and wrongs at stake, unless one ate to honor a pagan deity (see I Corinthians 10:14-21), or ate in violation of his conscience (Romans 14:23).

This leads us to two considerations in applying the passage. First, in matters of uncertainty, Paul’s “doubtful disputations,” what men perceive as sin may not be perceived as sinful by God. The weak brother with a scruple against meats thought his imbibing brother to be a sinner - but God didn’t. This is yet more evidence that we don’t know everything. Case in point: the brother who believes in the covering may consider an uncovered woman a sinner. But because this is a subject of limited revelation and much dispute, he must recognize the possibility that what he considers sin may not be sin at all to God.

Second, this point limits the applications we can make. When Scripture emphatically condemns an act as sin, it can never again be considered a matter of “doubtful disputation.” Romans 14 gives no license to those who wish to call good evil and evil good! It is limited to matters of genuine doubt.

Individual Faith

Each disciple must have his own faith. It’s not that each of us is entitled to his own standard of truth, but that each of us must develop convictions based on his own understanding. What else can we do, short of signing on to a creedal system that removes the need for individual study? It is interesting that God could simply have told the Romans what’s what and demanded conformity. Instead, He was willing to allow saints to grow and mature in understanding. “Let each be fully convinced in his own mind” is a timeless charge. We can only walk by faith when that faith is genuinely born of our own examination of God’s word.

A Proper Heart

Each man, both weak and strong, had a proper heart for God. This is essential to our study. The man who ate meat ate and gave God thanks. He who abstained for the sake of conscience did so out of devotion to his God. Romans 14 does not take into consideration the brother who’s desperately grasping for “loopholes” in the faith. Paul is not discussing fellowship with one who lacks fundamental respect for the authority of God’s word. With that person, no basis for fellowship exists anyway.

Many brethren are fearful that to admit matters of faith, doctrine, and personal conviction into the purview of Romans 14 will open the floodgates to error. I adamantly deny it! The fact that some men have sinfully co-opted this text for their own purposes cannot alter what the text says. “Let God be true but every man a liar” (Romans 3:4). Truth isn’t negated by the fact that some abuse it, any more than the Corinthians’ corruption of the Supper negated the Lord’s true instructions. Romans 14 cannot be cited to justify a “Unity in Diversity” that approves what God has clearly condemned. And yet, a “Unity in Diversity” that fits the parameters of the text is exactly what Paul is teaching.

Each Is Accountable

Each man will stand accountable before his God. This fact alone necessitates individual, personal conviction based on one’s own understanding of God’s word. And it is this fact, among others, that makes it impossible for us to seek “group justification” by establishing “accepted truths” on a brotherhood basis. “To his own master he stands or falls. Indeed, he will be made to stand, for God is able to make him stand ... so then each of us shall give account of himself to God.”

He who is strong or correct must not exercise his liberties to the destruction of his weaker brother. Paul is loud and clear in his instructions to the strong brother: “Do not destroy with your food the one for whom Christ died.” This is a warning against spiritual arrogance, that condescending spirit that looks with reproach at one who is still grappling with questions we’ve long since “solved.”

This charge fits every disputant in every controversy of “doubtful things” because, again, we always consider ourselves the “strong” ones! Because we assume we’re right, we must accept the burden of bearing with those who differ. They are not to be cowed or intimidated; they are not to be made to feel stupid or “out of step” with the mainstream. They deserve the same consideration as we. But remember our context. Paul is not addressing men who persist in taking wild liberties that violate divine revelation. Indeed, he speaks of men who are loath to accept liberties freely granted by the Lord. This text cannot properly be used to justify the acceptance of brethren who flaunt ungodliness in the face of scripture. But in the case of questionable matters where answers aren’t so obvious, tolerance is the order of the day.

Be Fully Convinced

To pursue an action in violation of one’s own personal faith or conviction is sin. It’s for this reason that each brother must “be fully convinced in his own mind.” And it’s also for this cause that each disciple must read and study the word for himself, rather than blindly accept the conclusions of others.

Walking by faith is the most fundamental element of discipleship. By faith we’re justified, and by faith we order our lives according to God’s word.

Making Applications From Romans 14

I believe the proper application of Romans 14, which had always seemed so complex, is greatly facilitated by our reconsideration of the text itself. Perhaps many questions have already been answered in the preceding remarks.

What remains are two important issues, however: with whom may we enjoy fellowship, and what doctrinal differences can be legitimately tolerated?

Fellowship

This is likely the hottest topic among brethren today. Yet many seem to misunderstand it. Our English term fellowship is translated from two word families in the Koine Greek. Others are better qualified to speak of the technical aspects of these words than I, but the fundamental meaning is as follows: joint participation, a sharing together, an active association.

Fellowship of men with men implies an active involvement in something together. But many have clouded the definition to mean assent or agreement. Occasionally someone will ask, “Are you in fellowship with Bro. So-and-so?” even though he knows the brother lives two thousand miles away and that I haven’t seen him in years. In what biblical sense could I be in fellowship with him? What the querist really wants to know is, “Do you agree with him?” Why not just ask what we want to know in the first place?

Such speech betrays a spirit of sectarianism. Individuals and local churches alone can rightly determine decisions of fellowship. I must determine with whom I can jointly participate in good conscience, and local churches must decide to whom they will extend the right hand of fellowship. But any effort to define lines of fellowship on a brotherhood or universal basis, whatever the reason, is sin.

Save for the matter of benevolence for needy saints, Scripture knows nothing of intercongregational fellowship. Local churches have no official affiliation with others, nor are they in a position to “withdraw fellowship” from each other. This view of local churches lined up on the basis of commonly accepted doctrines, invariably determined by a few zealous -- if misguided -- men, is presumptuous, sectarian, and sinful.

The Lord’s church, in its universal sense, has no human organization or hierarchy to determine “who’s in” and “who’s out.” Any man who takes such a task to himself is usurping the authority of Jesus Christ.

When determining to whom I may extend fellowship, I must ask the question, “Can I share in what this man or church is doing in good conscience?” It is not incumbent upon me to necessarily agree with every belief a man holds, but, “Can we work together in such a way that my conscience is not violated?” If the answer is affirmative, we have a basis for fellowship. But if that working relationship pressures me to embrace practices contrary to my faith, I must end it.

This is illustrated by Jesus’ letter to Thyatira in Revelation 2:18-29. In the midst of great wickedness, false doctrine, and immorality, there were some saints found acceptable (Revelation 2:24-25). They could participate in the things ordained of God, but refused any share in the errors of “Jezebel.” They were told to “hold fast,” not “move out.”

Clearly there is a way to serve God properly, even in the company of wayward brethren. Not by embracing their error, but by resolutely walking by faith in spite of their error. But some would argue that to remain in the midst of wickedness is to “endorse” it. I suggest we argue that point with the Lord Jesus Christ. He taught otherwise.

Justification is by faith (Romans 5:1), and my spiritual condition is based on my “vertical” relationship with the God of heaven. It is not dependent on the perfection of those with whom I worship. (Thankfully, it isn’t based on my own perfection, either.)

Fellowship cannot be extended to all men (see I Timothy 6:3-5). But no mortal has the authority to dictate my “fellows” for me. Individuals must assume the responsibility on the basis of their faith in God’s word. And local churches must make such determinations if brethren are to work together constructively.

Doctrinal Differences

That brethren differ in doctrine, yet remain in fellowship is obvious. Doctrine is simply that which is taught in Scripture. We err when trying to classify Bible teaching into categories of “Doctrine” and “Opinion.” How can something taught in God’s word not be doctrinal in some sense? And inasmuch as we’re obligated to decide what the Bible means, how can something taught therein not be a matter of opinion, in some sense? Similarly, when we try to divide subjects into “Matters of Faith” and “Matters of Indifference,” we assume some aspects of life can be lived separate and apart from faith.

Traditionally, many men (myself included) have tried to apply Romans 14 by creating two lists of beliefs. On the one side are “Matters of Faith,” which must be embraced if I am to extend fellowship to another. On the other side are “Matters of Indifference,” in which we may differ with impunity. At least four problems are obvious here.

1. God Himself has made no such list! Isn’t it a bit presumptuous of us to do what He declined to do?
2. No two lists will ever agree. If doctrinal belief alone is the sole criterion of fellowship, no one can rightly fellowship anybody!
3. Such a list fails to consider all the parameters of Romans 14. Is this belief a “doubtful thing?” Is this brother operating from the basis of true devotion to God? Even one with whom we agree may not be a proper candidate for fellowship if his heart isn’t right.
4. To create such a list for public adoption and use is to determine fellowship in the universal church on the basis of a creed. Aren’t we supposed to decry such things and speak only where the Bible speaks?

Yet lines of fellowship must still be drawn on the basis of something, and certainly doctrine counts! Let it be restated that, as an individual, I am responsible to make these determinations the best I can, and cannot defer the task to anyone else.

First, what kind of doctrinal difference is under consideration? Some principles stated in scripture are so clear, so precise, so emphatic - in my view - that to deny them is to deny the Lord. Some beliefs are intrinsic to Christianity, and cannot be denied. But what are those doctrines? That’s the decision each must make for himself on the basis of his own knowledge of God’s word! To accept as a standard the opinions of other men is to resign one’s faith and walk by another’s. The traditional concept of making a list of “essential doctrines” is actually a necessity - on a personal level. Creating such lists to impose publicly is what’s wrong.

But even a private list, all by itself, isn’t the full answer. Romans 14 dictates I must consider the doctrine in question, as well as the spiritual maturity of the brother and the attitude of his heart, to the extent I can make such assessments. Even if one denies my conclusions of Romans 14, everyone I know deals with brethren in this very manner!

We generally extend great latitude to babes in Christ, and rightly so. A new convert who still retains some denominational language isn’t pounced upon and put out of the assembly; he’s taken aside and taught with gentleness and longsuffering. We’re careful not to drive him to discouragement with unreasonable criticisms. Why are we not so careful with those who have been disciples for many years?

Likewise, a brother who displays genuine zeal for the Lord and demonstrates great determination to learn and grow is gently nurtured, not browbeaten. If he errs in his understanding - as we see it - we don’t ignore the problem, but we exercise patience with him. Why do preachers have such difficulty exercising patience with each other?

On the other hand, a brother whose life, speech, and conduct are such that he seems only in search of a justification for his own willfulness requires rebuke. Those who long for “loopholes” in God’s word to allow all manner of evil are not the type of folks under consideration in Romans 14. But please note this point: determining fellowship is not just a question of doctrine; it must also include a consideration of a man’s heart and honesty with God’s word.

Of course we’re quick to say, “Well, if he were really honest, he’d have to see it this way.” I believe that’s true with many Bible principles. But remember, Romans 14 is addressing “doubtful questions” - things not fully clear. I’ve even heard brethren smugly ask, “What isn’t clear?” What arrogance! If it’s all so abundantly clear, will a brother step forward and provide us all with the definitive answers to the covering question, the war question, the Sunday night Lord’s Supper question, and a thousand other matters with which brethren wrestle?

And although it shouldn’t be necessary to say so, let me make this emphatic disclaimer: no, no, no, Romans 14 is not teaching that a man’s “good heart” and “sincerity” override his denial of plainly stated Bible doctrines. But each individual must determine the facts of a case for himself. No brotherhood board, school, paper, or preacher has the authority to dictate with whom I may enjoy fellowship. Yes, each may teach as he feels compelled to teach, but God’s word is the final authority, and the exercising of my faith must be based upon it, alone.

Some may be disappointed that I’ve not offered a suggested list to follow in determining what differences can and cannot be tolerated. Others may see it as cowardice or worse. But it’s my whole point! I stand accountable for myself before God, and so does every disciple. We must each consider the context of Romans 14, consider the issues in question in our day, and reach our own decisions on the basis of faith.