Revealing Exchanges on Romans 14 An essential part of being a Christian and, moreover, a preacher is controversy and the challenge and exposure of error.

Revealing Exchanges on Romans 14

An essential part of being a Christian and, moreover, a preacher is controversy and the challenge and exposure of error (Jude 3, Phili. 1: 7, 17). I have observed views relative to Romans 14 to be very revealing as to doctrinal stances in general. During 2000, I had several written exchanges on various Internet lists pertaining to Romans 14.


I challenged the view that Romans 14 offers sanction for doctrinal and moral deviation and demands that such deviation be protected. I have consistently insisted that Romans 14 while offering some relevant general principles, pertains to a special set of circumstances.


“5. May the ‘weak brother’ practice in private worship any or all of the following acts: religious Sabbath day observance; animal sacrifice; doing the rosary; speaking in tongues; performing mixed dancing (unmarried male and female); praying to Mary; the religious ceremonial drinking of blood; attempting to contact the dead; using mind altering drugs; and religiously committing fornication, as the pagans of the First Century?”


"If a brother is practicing something which they honestly believe is authorized by God, then Romans 14 teaches we cannot condemn them in that practice. If it is not based on faith in God, then it is sin (vs.22,23). I'm really not certain what more you want from me. The same answer applies to each of the specific actions that you asked meconcerning."


Rather than change his view, John affirmed that the weak brother may in faith offer animal sacrifice and even commit religious fornication (two of the ten acts John accepted, above question). Of course, John had to say this to hold to his position that Romans 14 allows and accepts matters of sin and false doctrine.


“…I would say that #'s 7, 9, and 10 are absolutely outside the scope of Rom 14.”

1. Religious Sabbath day observance.2. Animal sacrifice.3. Doing the rosary.4. Speaking in tongues.5. Performing mixed dancing (unmarried male and female).6. Praying to Mary.7. The religious ceremonial drinking of blood.8. Attempting to contact the dead.9. Using mind altering drugs.10.And religiously committing fornication, as the pagans of the First Century.


“Where I would end up disputing with Don, I suppose, is whether or not things like items #3, 4, 5, 6 and #8 are ‘clearly condemned’ in scripture. I'm sure Don's view is based on a ‘law of silence’ I would challenge. Maybe John accepts that ‘law of silence’ as well.”


It is interesting that "Jim" allows: 1. religious Sabbath day observance, 2. animal sacrifice, 3. doing the rosary, 4. speaking in tongues, 5. performing mixed dancing (unmarried male and female), 6. praying to Mary, and 8, attempting to contact the dead. In "Jim's“ picking and selecting, he excludes 7. The religious ceremonial drinking of blood, 9. using mind altering drugs, and 10, religiously committing fornication, as the pagans of the First Century.


I have had two primary goals in this discussion on Romans 14: (1) Attempt to show John wherein he errs in his views and teaching on Romans 14; (2) and clearly show others who read this exchange the folly of allowing sin and false doctrine into the climate of Romans 14. As I stated, one simple way to illustrate the fallacy of a position is to show the inevitable consequences of the held position. The view that Romans 14 allows sin and false doctrine must consistently allow such matters as:


1. Religious Sabbath day observance.2. Animal sacrifice.3. Doing the rosary.4. Speaking in tongues.5. Performing mixed dancing (unmarried male and female).6. Praying to Mary.7. The religious ceremonial drinking of blood.8. Attempting to contact the dead.9. Using mind altering drugs.10.And religiously committing fornication, as the pagans of the First Century.


I have had other exchanges or debates, if you prefer, on Romans 14 that have illustrated some brethren's inconsistent positions. Inconsistency is often the result of wanting to take both sides of an issue; thus, they end up appearing foolish.


On one hand, they want to be known for saying that they do not believe doctrinal or moral matters belong in Romans 14; yet, when it comes to application and party loyalty, they end up placing doctrinal and moral matters in Romans 14 or, at least, defending those who teach blatant error by claiming that their doctrinal error must not be placed in Romans 14, but that we must tolerate the men's application of doctrinal error, placing this in Romans 14.


During the fall of 2004, when I was exposing the doctrinal error of one known preacher's teaching relative to multiple causes for divorce instead of the one cause, fornication, that Jesus provided (Matt. 5: 32, 19: 9), one insisted that we must allow for different applications of Matthew 5: 32 and 19: 9.


This was during the time that Ron Halbrook and others were heard saying, "We believe the same truth, but we must allow for different applications of that same truth." Contradiction often characterize these preachers. Notice the following excerpt taken from this debate:

"Romans 14 does not sanction unity in doctrinal and moral diversity (2 Jno. 9-11; Gal. 1:6-10; 1 Cor. 4:6, 17 and other verses expose this error). It is wrong to conclude that all areas of application fall into the realm of judgment."


"The past several years has seen interest heightened to the point of debate and division over the subject of divorce and remarriage. Brethren are once again challenged to distinguish the differencebetween binding truth and allowable differences (cf. Phil. 1:9-11)."


"Is it possible to be united in the truth of the gospel on marriage, divorce and remarriage, and yet differ over some specific points of application? Yes, just as surely as it was for the meat-eater and the herb-eater to differ in their application of food consumption while not having fellowship with the idol."


"Still, it must be acknowledged that brethren who are united on the aforementioned principle of truth (one man and one woman for life with one exception) conscientiously differ on some of the applications of that God-given pattern. Differences in application that do not violate the God-given pattern for marriage, divorce and remarriage should not be made tests of fellowship.


My disputant introduced another preacher, quoting his material and listing particularly two interesting items:

"Brother (name withheld, dm) reminded us of some applications of the Bible's teaching on MDR over which brethren disagree even while they maintain agreement on the divine pattern of one man and one woman for life, with one exception (Matt. 19:4-6, 9). The differences in application he noted were:


“...3. Can an adulterous mate execute a civil divorce against a faithful mate, and the faithful mate be prohibited from remarrying because he/she is the 'put-away' mate?

7. Can a Christian put away his mate for the 'kingdom's sake' and remain unmarried or be reconciled?"


After mentioning the above as illustrative of his point of allowing "different applications" of the "same truth," he immediately follows with:

"When conscience compels a brother or sister to hold fast to one application over another, and truth is not violated by doing so, we are to respect their conscience and not press our different (though equally sound) application to the point of division. That is the ‘side’ of Romans 14 we must not forget.”


I challenged this brother's article and statements and an exchange between him and me resulted. To this day, though, he claims he has been misrepresented. He asserts that after all he said he did not believe doctrinal and/or moral deviation can be placed in Romans 14.


Some directly allow false doctrine, abusing Romans 14. Others among us are indirectly allowing false doctrine by claiming differing applications of the same “agreed on basic truth” must be allowed placement in the protective environs of Romans 14.


Romans 14 contains many applicable truths (vs. 7-9, 11, 12, 16, 23). However, Romans 14 also contains a time related circumstance that cannot in its entirety be duplicated today. All three of the particulars in Romans were doctrinally and morally indifferent, immediately viewed (vs. 2: 5, 6; 21).

Revealing Exchanges on Romans 14 An essential part of being a Christian and, moreover, a preacher is controversy and the challenge and exposure of error.

Documents