Romans 14 is considered to be one of the primary chapters on the topic of Christian Liberty. The doctrine of Christian Liberty is essentially this: That which is not specifically forbidden or commanded is up to the individual to decide. One of the key statements in this chapter on that topic is the last line of the last verse: "Whatever is not of faith is sin" (Rom. 14:23).
I have to be honest. I don't really get that. Most people read it this way: "If you think something is sin, it is sin for you." Fine. I suppose you could get that out of this verse. However, that's not all it says. "Whatever is not of faith is sin." There is the aspect most people see, but there is more to it than "if you think something is sin." The concept is "faith as the motive", not "what you think."
I've talked to more than a few people who have taken that as a literal standard. One guy I knew was out of work. "How is the job hunt going?" I asked him. "Oh, I'm not hunting. I'm waiting for God to give me a job." You see, if he looked for a job, he was relying on his efforts to find employment, and everyone knows, "Whatever is not of faith is sin." On Easter Sunday, Madeline Neumann of Wisconsin, an 11-year old girl, died of diabetic ketoacidosis. Her parents hadn't taken her to a doctor because that wouldn't have been of faith. Their lack of faith, they believed, killed their daughter. Maybe God will resurrect her if they have enough faith, but medical treatment was out of the question. "Whatever is not of faith is sin", and going to the doctor would have been putting your trust in doctors, not God. Clearly ... sin. At the conference I attended last month, I sat and talked for a short time with a guy who was doing contract work for Ligonier Ministries. He was helping them find fundraising sources. Now, wait ... is that faith, or is that worldly means? And if a church changes its structure, format, appearance, or any such thing to try to attract more people, is that faith or is that method? Is it sin?
This line of thinking has all sorts of ramifications. Is it wrong to lock your doors at night because you are supposed to have faith that God will protect your home from intruders? Is it wrong to get regular check ups from the doctor or dentist because you're trusting in them, not God? Is it wrong to own a gun or take martial arts for self-defense rather than trusting in God alone? Is it a sin to have a 401K because you're setting aside for your retirement rather than putting your faith in God to provide? Now, most of us would say "No" to all of these questions because we think it's a given, but how do we answer the charge that it is "not of faith" when we act on our own rather than simply leaning on God? What would you say to the Neumanns who are quite sure that "Whatever is not of faith is sin?" How do you answer the counter argument?
Do you see? Sometimes, for me, what seems to be the easiest passages in Scripture become confusing to me, while some of those that trip up a lot of people seem crystal clear to me. Maybe I am out of sync with reality.
10 comments:
There is no doubt that you are out of sync with reality, but that is a good thing.
I think the key to this discussion is Jesus' call to love God with all our mind as well a everything else. If your daughter is sick and you don't take her to a specialist, a doctor, you're not using your mind. Same as not making your house easier to break into. God gives these folks a mind and they abdicate the repsonsibility that that commands. Simply, they are not loving God with all their mind as they are not using that mind much at all.
I have never seen Romans 14 as a bastion of 'liberty'. Paul starts the chapter by laying out rules for both the weaker and stronger brother, and ends the chapter adding greatly to the burden on the stronger brother. The stronger brother is not only to abstain from what he himself sees as wrong but whatever would offend his weaker brother.
I am a bit lost on your interpretation here.
The question is the definition of "not of faith." It would appear, however, that you disagree with the Principle of Christian Liberty. As contrasted with Regulative Worship, Christian Liberty says, "That which is not forbidden is allowed (if it is of faith)." Do you disagree?
Yes, I disagree... it is very badly put, IMHO. We should always do what God wishes us to do. Sometimes he expresses that will through what he disallows (ie don't do that), sometimes via what is commanded (ie Do that); and at other times by the Pattern and Precept of Scripture (we imitate the holy pattern of men of old, we use the case laws in new applications (remember Pauls application of 'don't muzzle the ox that treads the grain')).
The whole question of 'allowed' does not really enter in; except as a reverse way of saying 'not forbidden'. But regardless, how does anyone get this from Romans 14??
I'm still waiting for the definition (explanation) of "not of faith."
From Rom. 14, the idea is expressed "Some people will tell you it's wrong to eat meat. I'm telling you that it's not. However, don't eat meat if it will offend a weaker brother." In other words, "That which is not expressly forbidden is alright for you. However, you need to 1) make sure you do it out of faith (as opposed to violating your own conscience) and 2) make sure you don't cause a weaker brother to stumble." That's how Rom. 14 is often viewed.
It would appear, from what you said, that you don't see Rom. 14 this way. Instead, you see it something like this. "Sure, it may appear that there aren't as many restrictions as some might think. However, due to the weakness of some, your options are severely limited by their weakness."
One view seems to take a "freedom" view (thus the term "Christian Liberty) while the other takes a severely restrictive view. My problem is that if I mold my life by "the appearance of evil" and "what makes a weaker brother stumble" ... I become mostly incapacitated to do anything at all.
"Some people will tell you it's wrong to eat meat. I'm telling you that it's not. However, don't eat meat if it will offend a weaker brother."
You are confusing passages. This does not come from Romans 14.
Romans 14 says, 'if you don't believe you can eat meat (offered to idols) then don't eat it; it would be sin for you to do. On the other hand if you do believe you can, then you may (and you are the stronger brother). But the stronger brother may not if it causes offense to the weaker brother. It is better not to eat meat at all ever then cause offense.'
What is 'not of faith' is doing something that you are convinced is wrong just because someone else does it.
Ummm, von, I think you're confusing passages. Rom. 14 starts with " One person believes he may eat anything, while the weak person eats only vegetables" (Rom. 14:2). The idea is that there are "opinions" ("disputations" in the KJV) that we shouldn't be arguing about. Do what you do to the glory of God, and don't do things that cause the weaker brother to stumble. (The "meat sacrificed to idols" thing is 1 Cor. 10.)
You offered the same basic definition I've seen for "not of faith." "Don't do things you believe to be wrong." But that seems a bit off to me (the original question of my post). It seems the reverse. "Do the things on the basis of faith," seems to fit better. But that's problematic to me, so ...
The part of the confusing passages in your post was 'I am telling you it is not'. Paul says 'I am convinced' not 'it is not', which he says elsewhere. But off the point.
The 'meat' here is considered by most commentators to be the same meat as in I Cor 10.
Your sentence would read better, 'do what you do to the glory of God, which includes not doing things that cause the weaker brother to stumble.
I guess I am not understanding your take on 'not of faith'. Faith causes us to do what is to the Glory of God, and to not do what is NOT to the Glory of God. Resisting evil (such as locking ones doors) or healing the sick (by going to the doctor) are both part of a God glorifying lifestyle. See Romans 12 for example.
Eating all things (as a way of expressing our faith that an idol is nothing) and not eating meat (as a way of avoiding the association with the idol) are both ways of glorifying God. Paul here adds, and emphasizes, that NOT eating meat even tho you know the idol is nothing... in order to help your weaker brother is ALSO glorifying God. This last point is much ignored in the modern church.
My take on "not of faith" is that I'm not sure what it means, so I suppose that would be confusing. In the post I mentioned folks that believe that we must "live by faith" and assume that means that we do nothing that isn't "faith." One of these folks wouldn't hunt for a job because that would be "not of faith." One of these folks suggested that "worldly means" of raising money for ministries is "not of faith" and, therefore, sin.
My take, therefore, on "not of faith" is to ask the question "What does it mean?" "Don't do things that you believe to be sin" seems to me to be a very small aspect of "not of faith." Your more comprehensive "Do what glorifies God" seems like a better answer.
Post a Comment