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).  Such, however, is often a very sad experience, especially when brethren whom you have loved and respected embrace error. Nonetheless, love of truth and the salvation of others force one to persevere in presenting the truth, both offensively and defensively.

     In over forty years of full time preaching, 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 with preachers in the church 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.  From a young man, I have watched all manner of false teaching and immoral conduct be placed into the protective environs of Romans 14. 

     One exchange during the year 2000 with two well known preachers in the church was especially interesting.  I have published parts of this exchange to the Polemic Exchange section in Bible Truths.  Allow me to share some excerpts to illustrate how far some have gone in their attempt to find justification in Romans 14 (I have named the first two preachers "John and "Jim" in order to avoid a rallying around the preacher reaction).

     I trust the exchange format will not pose serious problems as to intelligibility. Noticing the quotation marks, both direct and indirect, may help you to determine the writer. Another matter that may present you with more effort in following the exchanges is that the following went through three adaptations or format changes. I shall, though, present these excerpts in the hope of causing all to see how too often Romans 14 is badly abused, even among some preachers non-institutional churches of Christ.

"Don Martin to John and the list:

     I asked John the following question relative to his (a number of brethren) view and application of Roman 14:

     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?

     John answered:

     ‘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 me concerning.’

     Don comments:

     I have given John time to think about his position. By extracting from John the consistent application of his views on Romans 14, I was hoping John would clearly see where his position has taken him. 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."

     Please be sure to read the excerpts from the following exchanges on Romans 14, which follow.  These three views pretty well cover the gamut of possible aberrant positions on Romans 14.

Cordially,
Don Martin 

     The below are excerpts from a second written exchange that I had on Romans 14 during the year 2000. This one with "Jim" presents a more common position than that one held by "John," albeit, an inconsistent view.

"Don Martin to Jim and the list:

     I asked John the following question relative to his (a number of brethren) view and application of Roman 14:

     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?

     John answered that if a brother really believed all ten of the above and practiced such, even religious fornication, one could not condemn him, but based on Romans 14, had to at least tolerate him in his beliefs and practices.

     'Jim,' on the other hand, is not as consistent as John. 'Jim' wrote ('Jim' is another advocate of the same view as John, also a preacher in the church, dm):

     'But I would also say the following about Rom 14: 2. It provides a basis for having fellowship with brethren who practice at least 'some' of the following:   If a prospective member practices out of 'faith' (he believes God wants him do believe and practice certain acts) the specified ten acts of question five, he must be fellowshipped or 'received.' Notice the acts again:

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 would say that numbers 7, 9, and 10 are absolutely outside the scope of Rom 14. If John is saying that one can be received in fellowship merely because they do these things out of (personal) 'faith' then I'd have to disagree with him. Personal 'faith' does come into play in what is acceptable to God under the principles of Roman 14, but it cannot be used to rationalize that which is clearly condemned or forbidden in scripture. Where I would end up disputing with Don, I suppose, is whether or not things like items numbers 3, 4, 5, 6 and number 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. Anyone who followed my recent discussion with Doug will see this as central to my view of what we can, and cannot do, with Rom 14. Item's 1 and 2 are certainly covered by Romans 14.

     Don comments:

     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 damnable false doctrine, any sin and damnable false doctrine, I might insert, 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."

     In our next referenced exchange, we shall take a look at some excerpts from an exchange I had with a preacher whom many view as very sound.  This exchange occurred during the fall of 2004.  These three exchanges not only reveal error and inconsistency of application in the way Romans 14 is viewed, but also a gradation of deceit.  "John" was consistent in accepting and introducing all error into Romans 14. "Jim" was inconsistent, wanting to allow only what he desired.  In this third exchange, my disputant was the most inconsistent and deceitful of all.  In his claim that doctrinal and/or moral deviation are not allowed, he seemed to the simple correct and sound.  However, his twist was that a different application of the "same" accepted biblical principle must be placed into the protective cover of Romans 14, notwithstanding the error advocated in the different application.  Hence, this preacher is the most deceitful of all with whom I have dealt.  To top of this
deceive, he even continues to this very day in saying that he and I hold the same view on Romans 14!

     Introduction and excerpts from exchange number 3:

     I have had many 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.  I know and agree, such mumbo jumbo does not make any sense, but this is too often the way it is.

     Case in point:  An exchange on Romans 14 during the fall of 2004. In one circumstance, 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 characterizes 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."

     My disputant went on to say, again, having my agreement:

     "At the same time, there are some areas in the application of truth that the Lord has left to personal judgment."

     Going more to the point, he then added:

     "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 difference between binding truth and allowable differences (cf. Phil. 1:9-11)."

    Still becoming more revealing, he states:

     "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."

     Further laying ground work:

     "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. That is the 'forgotten side' of Romans 14. Will we have the abundant 'love', 'knowledge and all discernment' necessary to 'approve the things that are excellent' and to remain 'sincere and without offense till the day of Christ' as we address this subject (Phil. 1: 9-10)? Or, will we disrupt unity with the stumbling block of binding personal conscience upon others? Romans 14 still has application today."

     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). Two of the multiple positions in the list of 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. We must remember to receive one another when there is dispute over 'doubtful things' instead of pressing personal scruples to the point of forcing the violation of conscience and rupturing unity in the body of Christ."

     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. Knowing the background is of some help in trying to figure out this obvious contradiction.  This brother accepted a staff writer position for Truth Magazine and I called him, asking him how he could be a part of such an arrangement, involving the editor who advocates multiple causes for divorce. Hence, his article titled, "The 'Forgotten Side' of Romans 14."  This preacher never refuted or presented as doctrinal error multiple causes for putting away; yet, borrowed it from another as an example of different applications, all the whole pleading for tolerance and allowance based on Romans 14. I have repeatedly asked him very simply (after his claim of misrepresentation):  "Do you believe the doctrine of multiple causes for divorce, 'divorce for the Kingdom's sake,' can be placed in Romans 14 and fellowship extended to those who preach multiple causes?"  He has refused to answer this simple question, but continues to say that I have misrepresented him. Such is going to be the recurrent result of men among us who align themselves with unscriptural arrangements that place them in a unity-in-diversity fellowship circumstance and then forces them to look to Romans 14 for help to appear to be justified in their actions.

     These mentioned exchanges on Romans 14 as well as many others can be visited in the Polemic Exchange section of Bible Truths.  When on the home page, scroll down and enter through the door and click on "Polemic Exchanges" in the directory on the Site Map page.  Be sure to also consider, "Romans 14, An Overview."  When on the Archives page, click on the letter "R."