Romans 14: Faith vs. Opinion
To sort out the difference between faith and opinion as it relates to
the Bible, one must first define terms. By “faith” we mean those actions
that are directed by God, arising from the Word of God (Romans 10:17).
For example, partaking of the Lord’s Supper on Sunday is a matter of
“faith,” in that it is stipulated by God (Matthew 26:26-29; 1
Corinthians 11:23-26). It is an action that God requires us to perform.
When we speak of “opinion,” we are referring to a viewpoint or action
that God has placed within the realm of personal preference. For
example, whether we have two songs before the sermon vs. three; or
whether we partake of the Lord’s Supper near the beginning of the
worship period, or near the end. God has left as optional a great amount
of viewpoints and actions—allowing people to exercise their own
personal discretion.
God did this very thing at the beginning of human history. On the one
hand, Adam and Eve were placed under very specific articles of “faith.”
For one, they were not to eat of the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and
Evil. That stipulation was a matter of “faith,” i.e., God had legislated
the matter. But the original pair was also given considerable latitude
in exercising their own opinions. They could eat the fruit of any other
tree on Monday, select another tree from which to eat on Tuesday, and
still another on Wednesday. Eating from the Tree of Knowledge was a
matter of “faith,” while eating any other tree was a matter of
“opinion.”
Romans 14
Having defined our terms, let us turn our attention to two chapters in
the New Testament that provide us with valuable information in sorting
out the application of these principles in everyday life. Romans 14 has
been a passage that has been used frequently in recent years to foster
fellowship with denominationalism. They have contended that those
denominational beliefs and practices with which churches of Christ
disagree are not to be allowed to affect fellowship. For example, they
have insisted that instrumental music in worship is strictly a matter of
personal preference and tradition, and should be decided individually
based on conscience. An appeal is made to Romans 14 to equate the use of
the instrument with the eating of meat. It is then argued that those
who are more spiritually mature may use the instrument in their worship
to God. Those whose consciences prevent them from using the instrument
are free to refrain from doing so. But they are the “weaker brother” and
must not withhold fellowship from those who do use the instrument.
The first observation that is critical in making sense of this chapter is the fact that this context applies only to matters of opinion and indifference—not to matters of faith or doctrine.
In his commentary on Romans, Moses Lard recognized this point when he
wrote, “In matters of indifference, each man is a law to himself” (p.
412). He further stated, “it shows what liberty we have in the absence
of divine command” (p. 412). In his commentary on Romans, David Lipscomb
understood Romans chapter fourteen in the same fashion (1943, pp.
242ff.).
But what are “matters of indifference”? Matters of indifference refer to those practices that are indifferent to God—not
to the individual. Obviously, the individual who believes he should not
eat meat views his position as a serious “doctrinal” matter and,
therefore, hardly “indifferent.” But we must understand that Romans 14
is speaking of those matters that are, in actuality, indifferent in the sight of God.
For example, God has commanded Christians to spread the Gospel. The how
of this action, whether by Internet, television, or automobile, is a
matter of indifference to God. He authorizes us to use various means
based upon our own good sense—our own consciences.
It is a misuse of Romans 14 to apply its teaching to any matter that is
not indifferent to God. For example, God has specified that in order
for a person to become a Christian, he/she must be immersed in water.
Suppose a man believes that baptism can be by immersion, sprinkling, or
pouring. To him, the “mode” of baptism is a matter of opinion—not faith.
So he thinks that the person who limits the “mode” of baptism to
strictly immersion is “narrow” and “weak in faith.” He would maintain
that it is fine for his critic to be immersed if he so chooses, but this
“weaker brother” should not bind his opinion on those who are
“stronger” by insisting that only those who are immersed may be
fellowshipped. This “stronger” fellow might even appeal to Romans 14 as
support for his stance.
Yet, what this fellow would be failing to realize is that Romans 14 applies to matters of option that are indifferent to God.
Where God has given His guidelines, all must conform to those
specifications. Baptism, in God’s sight, is strictly immersion. Those
who insist upon obeying God in this regard are not “weaker brethren.”
Rather, they are faithful brethren; and those who differ are unfaithful
to God.
Just as God has specified the action and design of baptism, He has been
very specific with regard to the action of music in worship. If the use
of the mechanical instrument in worship to God was optional, that is,
if God left people free to offer musical worship in any form they so
chose, then Romans 14 would be one passage that would be germane to such
a discussion. But God has not left music in worship unaddressed.
Neither has He left the question of the legitimacy of the denominations
unaddressed. Denominationalism represents a departure from God’s simple
will for His church. Romans 14 is of no help in assessing the legitimacy
of either instrumental music or denominationalism.
Observe, then, that the one who is “weak in faith” in this chapter
refers to the Christian whose knowledge, and therefore faith, has been
insufficient in sorting out a particular issue that, in God’s sight, is a
matter of opinion. Where the brother is “weak” is in the fact that he
thinks that the issue under consideration is not a matter of opinion,
but is, in fact, a matter of faith. The specific issues that Paul
discusses pertain to the eating of certain foods and the observing of
certain days. Regarding the former, one brother thinks that all foods
may be eaten by Christians, while another brother thinks that Christians
should be vegetarians. Regarding the latter, one brother thinks that
certain days must be set aside and observed in special ways, while
another brother recognizes no such requirements.
What is God’s view on this matter? Clearly, God’s view is that
Christians are free to eat all foods. Jews had not been free in this
regard. The Law of Moses contained numerous dietary regulations. But
with the coming of Christianity, no such dietary regulations have been
enjoined. Imposing such regulations on others constitutes “doctrines of
demons,” as Paul explained in referring to those who were “commanding to
abstain from foods which God created to be received with thanksgiving
by those who believe and know the truth. For every creature of God is
good, and nothing is to be refused if it is received with thanksgiving;
for it is sanctified by the word of God and prayer” (1 Timothy 4:3-5).
You remember the vision that Peter had in which he was commanded to kill
and eat certain animals, to which he responded that he had never eaten
anything that was “common or unclean.” The voice responded: “What God
has cleansed you must not call common” (Acts 10:15). Paul states this
point very emphatically in Romans 14:14—“I know and am convinced by the
Lord Jesus that there is nothing unclean of itself.”
So the Christian who understands that no restrictions apply to food
under Christianity is the one who has grasped God’s view correctly. The
Christian who thinks he should not eat certain foods is “weak in faith,”
that is, his faith/belief on that particular point remains immature and uninformed by the Word of God (from whence faith arises).
Due to previous beliefs and/or actions, likely learned while a
non-Christian, his conscience was trained by his belief that he should
not eat that particular food. A specific example would be a Jew who
lived his whole life abstaining from pork which was deemed “unclean.”
When he became a Christian, he might not immediately sort out the
change. And even when he became aware of the correct viewpoint, it would
be very difficult for him to start eating pork without his conscience
bothering him. That is precisely why Paul insists that neither the
stronger nor the weaker should “dispute” (vs. 1), “despise” (vs. 3),
“judge” (vs. 4), or “show contempt” (vs. 10) for each other. Instead,
both should want to show proper regard for each other’s consciences and
spiritual well-being, and strive to encourage each other to be right
with God and prepared for judgment (vss. 11-12).
The same may be said for the observance of a particular day. The
context shows that the days under consideration are those that have no
religious significance, i.e., they are days that are indifferent to
God—like a birthday. The only day that has been legislated by God under
Christianity is Sunday, the first day of the week. Christians are to
assemble for worship on that day and approach God through the five
avenues of worship that He, Himself, has stipulated (e.g., Acts 20:7; 1
Corinthians 16:2). Sunday worship, therefore, is a matter of faith—not
opinion. But other days, like birthdays, or national holidays like July
4, are matters of option that the Christian is free to observe. For the
Jew who had lived his life observing the Sabbath, to suddenly not be
required to abstain from labor on that day, he likely would have felt
both a sense of release, but also a sense of fright and uncertainty. He
would have to go through a period of struggling with and re-educating
his conscience to bring his “head knowledge” into harmony with his
feelings and long-term, deeply ingrained habit, before his conscience
would not condemn him for Sabbath activity.
Notice, then, that the context refers to the observance of days that
are religiously neutral and indifferent to God. They do not involve the
observer in any unscriptural religious practice. Placing in
juxtaposition this admonition in Romans 14 with a similar one in
Galatians 4 will help us to see the distinction:
Again, Paul is not endorsing those who create their own “holy days”
which they practice religiously. Christendom has generated an entire
“Christian calendar” with numerous observances linked to events that
occurred in the life of Christ (e.g., Ash Wednesday, Good Friday, Lent,
etc.). All such observances are unscriptural since they presume to
impose human thinking onto biblical precept, and dictate to God how to
practice Christianity. Has God clearly indicated what event, if any, in
the life of Christ He wants observed or commemorated? Absolutely—even
stipulating the precise procedures to be enacted. He authorizes
Christians to observe the death of Christ, every first day of the week,
using bread and grape juice to symbolize the body and blood, and to
think about His sacrifice while also taking an introspective look at
one’s self (1 Corinthians 11:20-34). Beyond that, if God had wanted
other events in Christ’s life to be commemorated, He would have said so.
But could a Jewish Christian continue to observe the Sabbath? Yes, if
he did so without linking its observance to religious obligation. Since
he could no longer be justified by the Old Law (Galatians 5:4), he must
not observe it as if it is binding upon himself to be pleasing to God,
and he must not bind it on others.
Paul issued another directive to be followed by the more mature
Christians toward those Christians who had not yet assimilated proper
teaching on the subject of food and days. The brother who recognizes
that God permits the eating of a particular food must refrain from
eating that food item under the following condition: if his eating would
tempt or encourage or incite the brother who thinks it is wrong to eat
it, to go ahead and eat it. The brother who thinks eating a particular
food is wrong (even if, in God’s sight, it is not wrong) sins if he eats it. He has committed the sin of damaging or defiling his conscience.
1 Corinthians 8
This sin is clarified more vividly in the similar discussion that Paul
directed to the Corinthian Christians regarding the eating of food that
had been previously used in a pagan offering to an idol: 1 Corinthians
8. Paul insisted that no pagan gods exist (vs. 4) and, as long as a
person does not intend to honor or worship a fake god, eating food that
had been offered to them was optional. However, “there is not in
everyone that knowledge; for some, with consciousness of the idol, until
now eat it as a thing offered to an idol; and their conscience, being weak, is defiled” (vs. 7). The term “conscience” in verses 7, 10, and 12 of 1 Corinthians 8 is suneidasis
and refers to that inward faculty of moral/spiritual awareness that was
created by God. We must not act in ways that damage (or “sear”—1
Timothy 4:2) our consciences. To do so is sin. The Christian who thinks a
particular practice is wrong, when it is not wrong in God’s sight,
should be about the business of re-educating his conscience, getting his
thinking straight as informed by the Word of God. By that process, in
time he will be able to rise above his immature assessment and feel
fully “at home” with God’s view of the matter.
Furthermore, returning to Romans 14, the more mature Christian sins if
his eating an authorized food prods the immature Christian to go against
his conscience and consume a food that he thinks is wrong (“evil”—vs.
20) for the Christian to consume. The mature Christian is guilty of
“grieving” (vs. 15), “destroying” (vss. 15,20), “offending” (vs. 21),
“making weak” (vs. 21), and causing the weaker brother to “stumble” (vs.
21). In Paul’s treatment of this matter in 1 Corinthians 8, the
stronger brother that so conducts himself is guilty of causing the weak
brother to “perish” (vs. 11) by “wounding his weak conscience” (vs. 12).
Some Applications
Many churches have undergone internal disruption over an infinite
variety of disagreements. These disagreements might be over what color
of drapes ought to hang in front of the baptistery or what carpet should
be on the floor. Dissension might occur over whether to build a new
auditorium or multipurpose room, how to equip the kitchen, which
songbooks or Bibles to buy for the pews, or whether a preacher ought to
be hired or fired. Some attempt to derail the majority’s decision and
get their own way by appealing to Romans 14. They insist that
implementing the decision of the elders or the majority of the men would
“offend” them. This tactic has been used far and wide to stymie the
work of the church and prevent many positive actions from going forward.
In such instances, Romans 14 is misapplied in at least two ways: (1)
Paul did not use the term “offend” merely to mean that a brother
disagrees with or feels hurt by the decision. “Offend” is not defined as
“ruffled feathers.” He used the term to refer to the weaker brother
being led into sin. Specifically, Paul said the mature
Christian ought to forego committing an action (like eating a particular
food), if doing so would cause the immature Christian to engage in the same behavior
in direct violation of his conscience. Placing red rather than beige
curtains in front of the baptistery would hardly cause the dissenting
brother to sin! (2) Those who use this tact would never cast themselves
in the role of the weaker brother. They consider themselves the stronger
brothers.
The fact is that if such individuals have scriptural
grounds for objecting to a particular decision, rather than objecting
solely out of personal opinion or preference, they should stake their
case on scriptural grounds. Unfortunately, the church has always been
plagued by some brethren whose ego, pride, and perhaps lust for power
(like Diotrephes—3 John 9), drives them to attempt to control the
church. In stark contrast, mature Christians will be extremely flexible,
open-minded, and accommodative when it comes to matters of opinion in
the church.
Another consideration regarding Romans 14 that helps us to distinguish between faith and opinion is seen in verses 22-23—
Do you have faith? Have it to yourself before God. Happy is he who
does not condemn himself in what he approves. But he who doubts is
condemned if he eats, because he does not eat from faith; for whatever
is not from faith is sin.
To “have faith” in a viewpoint/doctrine means that we are familiar with
God’s view of the matter, knowing it to be optional and a matter of
opinion. To “doubt” is to lack complete awareness or knowledge of a
divine doctrine and/or to have hesitation to accept and enact it in
one’s life. Specifically in the context, if a brother was uncertain
about (doubted) whether he should eat a particular food, he would be
guilty of sin if he went ahead and ate the food, because he would not be
doing so “from faith,” i.e., he would be engaging in the action without
being fully informed (by God’s Word) or fully convinced that such an
action was acceptable to God. Since “faith comes by…hearing the word of
God” (Romans 10:17), any action that a person engages in that does not
have the authority/permission of God’s Word behind it, is a sinful
action.
But how may the average Christian distinguish between matters of faith
and matters of opinion? When a question or issue arises in the church,
how do we know whether it is optional or obligatory? The answer is that
we must study God’s Word carefully in order to apply its principles to
the matter at hand. Excellent books have been written by Christians over
the years detailing proper exegetical procedure for ascertaining God’s
will on matters that are not specifically alluded to in Scripture. These
include Thomas Warren’s When Is An “Example” Binding? and Logic and the Bible, Roy Deaver’s Ascertaining Bible Authority, D.R. Dungan’s Hermeneutics,
et al. Such books help the student of the Bible to think through the
principles involved in understanding God’s Word and applying that Word
to the multitude of circumstances that arise in our lives. God’s Word
was obviously written with a view toward the average human being capable
of understanding God’s will for his or her life. Of course, diligence
and effort must be brought to bear on the task (2 Timothy 2:15; Acts
17:11). But with adequate effort and interest in knowing God’s will, the
goal can be achieved. No one can stand before God at the end of time
and legitimately maintain that he was unable to recognize matters of
faith and opinion.
CONCLUSION
May God help us to “pursue the things which make for peace and the
things by which one may edify another” (Romans 14:19). May we never “do
anything by which our brother stumbles or is offended or is made weak”
(vs. 21). May God help us to grow spiritually every day, that we might
be people who are “strong in faith” (Romans 4:20), well able to
distinguish between matters of opinion vs. matters of faith.
REFERENCES
Lard, Moses (1875), Commentary on Paul’s Letter to the Romans (Delight, AR: Gospel Light Publishing).
Lipscomb, David (1943), Romans (Nashville, TN: Gospel Advocate).
Ruth
4:17 marks the first time in the English Bible that David, son of Jesse
and future King of Israel, is mentioned. The events in the book of Ruth
took place several decades prior to David’s birth (Ruth 1:1), but the
great-grandson of Ruth is mentioned twice at the end of the book
(4:17,22) in order to highlight the lineage of the Messiah—from Judah’s
son, Perez (Ruth 4:18; Genesis 38:29; cf. 49:10), to Obed (Ruth's son),
to David (to whom God promised an heir, Who would establish an eternal
kingdom—2 Samuel 7:12-13; Psalm 89:3-4; Luke 31-33).
For
several years, Rob Bell, the minister of the Mars Hill Bible Church has
been mulling over the idea of hell. In his latest book, Love Wins: A Book about Heaven, Hell, and the Fate of Every Person Who Ever Lived,
Bell contends that the “traditional” view of hell, in which those who
do not believe in Christ are lost, is ill-conceived and needs
re-working. Jon Meacham, column writer for TIME magazine, noted
that Rob Bell “suggests that the redemptive work of Jesus may be
universal—meaning that, as his book’s subtitle puts it, ‘every person
who ever lived’ could have a place in heaven, whatever that turns out to
be” (2011). In essence, Rob Bell is little more than a recent advocate
of a modified version of universalism.
