An Exchange on Romans 14    

 

     The following exchange took place during the summer of 2000 between mainly one preacher and me regarding Romans 14.   There were a number on the Internet discussion list, including about seventy-five preachers.  The following material is from that Internet discussion (a few posts out of about 25).  I have changed the real names to "John" and "Jim."   John maintained that Romans 14 admits matters of sin and false doctrine and that brethren and churches must accept the practitioners of these acts without fellowship becoming an issue (same basic teaching as Ed Harrell has advocated).  I maintained that the particulars of Romans 14 are free of moral and doctrinal considerations.  I include this material in the hope that it might cause some to re-examine the common view that John advocates below (I continue to hope that "John" will renounce what he taught in the exchange).  The following "posts" took place toward the end of the discussion (I first answered 10 questions John submitted to me).  (Be sure to read, "Romans 14, an Overview.")

 

Don Martin to John Doe, "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:

"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.

"Jim," on the other hand, is not as consistent as John. "Jim" wrote ("Jim" is another advocate of the same view as John, 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 #'s 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 #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. 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 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.

Cordially,

Don Martin

 

Don responds to another of John's posts:

 

I did not mean to badger John by repeatedly asking question 5, I just wanted to be sure we were correctly understanding his answer. While I believe John's view of Romans 14 is flawed, John is being consistent. This is more than we can say about a number who hold the similar view that sin and false doctrine may be placed in Romans 14. Notice again what John has affirmed:

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.

Regarding each of the foregoing specific ten matters, John wrote: "The same answer applies to each of the specific actions that you asked me concerning."

Again, John has been consistent with his basic premise that Romans 14 contains matters of sin and false doctrine. Before any of you condemn John, what is the essential difference in John's teaching and Ed Harrell's? Remember that brother Harrell has said that Homer Hailey is teaching false doctrine on divorce and remarriage but Homer must be fellowshipped. Brother Harrell based his teaching on Romans 14. John is actually more conservative than Harrell. John does stress the "weak brother" aspect but, as I have understood him, does not believe there is a time limit. Hence, I suppose John may even be able to use Romans 14 to force Christians into fellowshipping Homer Hailey and men who teach damnable error but do so "sincerely."

John and the list, I want you to seriously reflect on this post before you read my next and final post for the day (Romans 14 Discussion, question 5, # 6).

 

Don Martin to John and the List:

 

I have been impressed with John's part in his and my discussion on Romans 14. John has contended clearly and has been consistent to his original premise that Romans 14 allows and accepts matters of moral and doctrinal deviation. John has been far more consistent than many brethren who hold a similar view to the view John has taught. However, a number of these same brethren would now want to distance themselves from John. Why is this? I am not sure why they will do this. Perhaps they do not have the courage that John has. Nonetheless, to be consistent as John has been, they must also answer question five as John did and maintain that the ten specified matters being practiced out of "faith" by the weak brother must not stand in the way of him being received or fellowshipped. Notice the items 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.

Regarding each of the foregoing specific ten matters, John wrote: "The same answer applies to each of the specific actions that you asked me concerning."

One way of showing the fallacy of a premise is by making consistent application. If Romans 14 allows and accepts moral and doctrinal deviation and if there are no important peculiar and endemic circumstances involved in the situation of Romans 14, then the local church must accept one who practices religious Sabbath day observance, does animal sacrifice, does the rosary, speaks in tongues, performs mixed religious dancing (unmarried male and female), prays to Mary, engages in the religious ceremonial drinking of blood, attempts to contact the dead, uses mind altering drugs, and religiously commits fornication, as the pagans of the First Century.

Beloved, perhaps you believe Romans 14 accepts matters of moral and doctrinal deviation, but you are not willing to accept the ten specifics John has accepted. Allow me to kindly say again, John is being consistent! You can not pick and select the items you want to be allowed. In like manner, we can not pick and select the teachers of damnable error we want included or excluded.

The only answer and tenable position regarding Romans 14 is that the text is only addressing and allowing matters that are morally and doctrinally indifferent. Again, it mattered not if one only ate herbs (Rom. 14: 2, etc., 14). However, it does matter if one religiously offers animal sacrifices, prays to Mary, or religiously and out of subjective faith commits fornication!

Again, thank you, John, for your admirable conduct in this discussion and for being honest and consistent. It has been a pleasure working with you in this effort. While I do not agree with you on Romans 14 (I am hoping and praying you will change your position), I do appreciate you not doing as so many brethren are by their partiality and inconsistency of application.