The Controversy Over Romans 14
An uncertain sound is coming forth from brethren in the Lord's church today. Some are appealing to Romans 14 as being the solution to all differences and all divisions which might arise among brethren. Many preachers are teaching that
brethren can differ over scripturally established doctrine and remain in fellowship with God and one another; that Romans 14 authorizes this practice; and there exists no difference between those things that are Divinely revealed and those things of
personal conscience and liberties.
These brethren are turning to Romans 15:7 and teaching that we can "receive one another." Thus they dump every divisive issue that arises into this text. This is presently
occuring, particularly with the issue of divorce and remarriage. Brethren, this is not a new issue that we face, it is simply the old unity-in-diversity doctrine in a new dress. We must continue to study Romans 14 and the subject of fellowship to
understand the differences between doctrine (2 John 9) and liberties (Romans 14).
What many brethren do not realize is as they advocate Romans 14 covering divorce and remarriage, they are also laying the
groundwork for every sinful matter to be covered by Romans 14. This doctrine is dangerous. It perverts the Scriptures. It allows brethren to compromise the truth and provide fellowship for those in adulterous relationships. That is why we must
"continue in the faith grounded and settled" (Col. 1:23) so we will not compromise the truth and open the door to many other false theories.
Paul said in Romans 14 that Christians could "receive...one another" in
fellowship even if they disagreed over the eating of meats offered to idols or the observance of certain days over others. Those who kept such days or didn't eat meats were considered "weak" because they lacked knowledge and understanding but they did
not commit sin (14:2-6). Thus God said, "Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind" (14:5). The things dealt with fall into the realm of liberty, expediency, or personal conscience. Paul did not lead these brethren to conclude that if they
disagreed in areas of opinion that they could also disagree over doctrinal issues and still have fellowship with God and one another.
Sin could be committed if the strong brother casts a stumbling block before
the weak brother, thus offending him (14:13-15). The weak brother could commit sin by doubting when he ate meat that had blood in it because he did it without faith (14:23). We clearly see that the strong brother, including the weak, cannot bind his
opinions on everyone. The text tells us that in the realm where God gives us liberty or freedom of conscience "all things are indeed pure" (14:20), but a man may commit sin against his own conscience by eating meats, "it is evil for the man who eateth
with offense" (14:20).
The Bible makes a distinction between those things we must follow from Divine law and those things that we don't necessarily have to follow because they are matters of opinion. The doctrine
of Christ is not a matter of opinion (2 John 9-11). However, in personal conscience, we don't have to follow the teaching of a brother, even if he insists that his position is right. What we are to do in such cases is follow the instructions of Romans
14. Romans 14 has been pulled into the controversy over divorce and remarriage as a basis for ongoing fellowship with those who are teaching false doctrine and with those living in adultery. This is a perversion of the
text!
Romans 14 clearly limits the chapter to the realm where nothing is unclean and where everything is pure (Romans 14:14, 20). Adultery cannot be placed in this realm because it is a practice that is unclean
and impure before God (Hebrews 13:4). Yet brethren want to have fellowship with other brethren who live in adultery or teach false theories on divorce and remarriage because in their view Romans 14 allows everyone to be
received.
Brother Ed Harrel, one of the five editors of Christianity Magazine, has defended brother Homer Hailey, not on the position he takes with divorce and remarrage, but has defended the right to continue
fellowship with him, even though brother Hailey's teaching is wrong. Brother Harrell's defense was based in thought on Romans 14 that, as he said, includes matters of faith as well as matters of personal conscience. Brother Harrell had no problem in
fellowshiping brother Hailey on his teaching, just as long as he was "sincere" and did not become "schismatic" with his doctrine. Instead of "trying the spirits to see whether they are of God" and "reproving them" (1 John 4:1; Ephesians 5:11), some
want to determine a false teacher based on the idea of sincerity or lack of it. Then why not go ahead and include every denominational teacher in the world into our fellowship, there are many of them who are sincere in their teachings? Brethren, we
must stick with what the Bible says in determining who is a false teac
her (2 John 9-11; 2 Peter 2; Jude 10-16).
Brother Bob Owen has used Romans 14 on the divorce and remarriage issue in sermons
around the country the last five years. He said in a sermon in 1993 that Romans 14 was not limited to matters of indifference or opinions. He said in a question-answer session at Concord, NC in 1995 that he did not consider brother Hailey a false
teacher, though he is wrong on his interpretation of the laws of God. Again, this is an appeal to have fellowship with those in error on a doctrinal issue.
What we are seeing is a broadening of fellowship among
brethren, including in local congregations. The Positive Mental Attitude philosophy has affected many brethren so much that we are seeing the results of it. Brethren want to hear the smooth words and fair speeches so that their ears are tickled (2
Timothy 4:3-4). These same ones refuse to stand up against doctrinal and moral error. They refuse to stand up against those who teach that people can live in adulterous relationships and have fellowship with God. They attack those who expose this
doctrine, labeling them "watchdogs" over the brethren. They would prefer that we be like ole Collie dog, just lick and love on everyone and not bark at sin.
I wonder whether we could throw homosexuality or
abortion or instrumental music or orphan homes into Romans 14 and still have fellowship with God? It is obvious we cannot do that and neither can we attempt to lower divorce and remarriage into the status of opinion, when it is a part of the doctrine of
Christ (2 John 9-11). It is interesting that these same brethren have fellowship with brother Hailey, but will not have fellowship with anyone who lives by his teaching. That seems to be a contradiction in their arguments and yet, these brethren
continue to espouse their false views. Brethren, we need to stand firm on the faith God has revealed to us (Jude 3, 1 Tim. 6:12; 1 Cor. 15:58; Col. 2:7-8; 1 Thess. 5:21). We must let God's word be the final standard to follow (Acts 17:11; 2 Tim.
3:16-17; Phil. 4:9). It is only then that we can truly have the kind of fellowship God has revealed.
Eric Norford
July, 1997 Volume 3 Issue 3
Return To Voice Of The Valley
Main Page