Romans 14: A Presuppositional approach - “When you need it, you can’t use it.”
In another thread (Christ Anderson’s book), Romans 14 came up. That passage commands unity. It’s meaning is important in the schism-vs-fellowship question.
In the other thread, Larry said:
It seems to me to be pretty clear Romans 14 is addressing things that are acceptable to God but things which some Christian’s conscience forbids them because they wrongly believe it is sin.
…
Romans 14 makes it a command to accept and not to judge. I don’t think that is a maybe. It is a duty.
…
[The weak brother], for example, had a duty to accept in love those who differ, to be kind and gentle (2 Tim 2:24). And everyone else has a duty to accept [him] in love and to be kind. Because no one here is the Master that we answer to [clearly a Rom14 ref]. We can debate the specifics and allow for Christians to differ with us.
This is, I think, the most common view of Romans 14. There is evidence in Romans 14 that contradicts it, but let’s look at from a presuppositional standpoint. Let’s assume those statements above are true and then see how it does or doesn’t make sense when we try to use Romans 14.
It feels rude to talk about an SI member, so let’s consider an editorial from the 1860s. This man’s issue is about whether an organ (a “kist o' whistles”) should be used in church worship.
We must not judge of the number of the rioters from the noise they make, especially when their sweet voices are assisted by barrel-organs and by trumpets of titanic dimensions. Even the opponents of the innovations in worship, notwithstanding their zeal, have arrived at a solution of the difficulty which is timid, and not likely to be pacific. Had they condemned the innovations, they might have crushed a perilous movement in the bud, for the champions of such things rarely have courage to defend them at much risk of purse or person. They have declared that a congregation may innovate to any extent within we know not what bounds, provided the presbytery do not interpose its veto. Have they not thus thrown the torch of discord into every presbytery and synod of the Church of Scotland? There is something exceedingly plausible in the policy of toleration, and it imposes on many persons not deficient in intelligence. If a congregation wishes to employ instrumental music in the worship of God, why should it not be permitted?' There is another question: Suppose that I am a weak brother; having somehow failed to be carried along with the progress of the age, I have a conscientious objection to the 'kist o' whistles,' like the benighted men from whom I trace my ecclesiastical pedigree; in short, that I consider the use of instrumental music in the worship of God to be a sin, because it is not commanded in His word? You must see, then, that although I may have neither the will nor the power to hinder the congregation of which I am a member from using an organ, I am by its introduction virtually expelled from the membership of the congregation, since I cannot join in its worship. Do the innovators mean this? Do they mean, for example, to drive out from the communion of the Church of Scotland all who are conscientiously opposed to the use of the organ?
“Sinclair” (I googled common 1860 names in Scotland)
The United Presbyterian Magazine, Vol IX, William Oliphant and Co., 1865, p. 334.
Note that he says, “[Maybe] I am a weak brother; having somehow failed…”
In this thread, please assume that Sinclair is indeed a “weak brother” in the area of the organ. That means Sinclair genuinely, but mistakenly, believes an organ is evil. He sees this as the biblical and logical conclusion, but he is wrong.
Most likely, Sinclair does not agree he is weak.
He does not believe that he is wrong. He believes his views on music are Biblical and logical. He does not agree that the organ is a Romans 14 issue. To agree with that would be to admit that God accepts the organ. Instead, he sees it as something God has condemned.
As Sinclair’s pastor, maybe you can’t convince him he’s wrong. Can you call him to obey the Romans 14 commands for the weak? As Larry said, “I don’t think that is a maybe. It is a duty.” The point of the Romans 14 commands is to help unity and mutual edification. Can it deliver that? It presumes to accomplish that partly through commands given to, and obeyed by, the weak brother. So the ability of Romans 14 to do its work depends on weak brothers knowing they are weak.
As Fee said, in spite of 1 Corinthians 8-10, the battles rage on, usually over what constitutes adiaphora. He will argue that the organ is NOT a Romans 14 issue. It’s clear sin and others are failing.
To the extent that Sinclair has influence, he will persuade others to his ideas. If his influence is small, he will just grumble. If large, if he’s a baptist pastor, perhaps schism. I say schism Because we have agreed that he’s weak and that his duty is to accept others.
What if Sinclair knows that he is weak?
Is this really possible?
Sinclair genuinely, but mistakenly believes an organ is evil. He believes he’s right.
He also believes that to be weak is to be wrong. How can he believe he’s wrong and right?
As his pastor, there is no path to applying Romans 14 that doesn’t include convincing Sinclair that God approves of the organ.
------
The conclusion, as I see it, is this. If we presuppose that "weak"="wrong" Romans 14 becomes unusable. One of these will be true:
- The weak admits he's weak (wrong) and doesn't even want to judge or cause schism.
- The weak doesn't admit he's weak and refuses to let Romans 14 apply to his case.
In other words, whenever you need Romans 14, you can't use it.
- 471 views
Part of the issue, in my view, is that since both Greeks and Jews were enthusiastic meat eaters (within cultural constraints) when they could afford it, what seems to be at hand is differing views about how one approaches kosher regulations, and whether someone who grew up Jewish ought to patronize gentile butchers. In the same way, the "days" spoken of in the chapter can not be Greek feast days and the like, because they would be devoted to pagan "gods". They are therefore things like Jewish holidays and the Shabbat.
So the first thing we need to note here is that in this context, it appears that the weaker brother is appealing to very real and unmistakeable provisions in the Torah. We might argue it ought to go further, but at its core, it's about how much a believer ought to follow the law of Moses if he grew up in it.
There is a slight expansion in 1 Corinthians 8 to encompass reluctance to eat foods that had been sacrificed to idols, but overall, it seems to me that many take these passages far beyond their actual Biblical context to improperly bound the freedom of fellow believers.
Aspiring to be a stick in the mud.
I think that it's obvious that the Bible says that followers of Jesus should strive for unity with other believers and view separation from other believers as a last resort and practiced with the goal and and effort of resoration.
"Some things are of that nature as to make one's fancy chuckle, while his heart doth ache." John Bunyan
>>In other words, whenever you need Romans 14, you can’t use it.<<
Well, clearly many believe (whether they would admit it or not) that Romans 14 isn’t generalizable beyond the actual issues mentioned there. I’ve run into plenty of believers who claim that for me to consider “issue X” as covered by Romans 14, I have to prove that it is. That usually ends the discussion, because the other side is also unwilling (or unable?) to prove that it isn’t.
So yes, while I might consider Romans 14 to be the arbiter of issues not either directly covered in scripture or a “good and necessary consequence” of other scriptures, I agree it won’t work on any believer who considers “issue X” to be a moral issue, akin to your example of the organ above.
Dave Barnhart
I have also encountered pastors who say that Romans 14 is ONLY about OT Law issues and the transition from OT to NT. So, they say, unless you're struggling with bacon or shrimp or wearing a cotton-wool blend shirt, you are NOT a weak brother.
I wonder if that's a reaction to the "when you need R14, you can't use it" theme of this thread. IOW, since it is obviously unusable for real modern moral disagreements (especially when R14 would make the pastor 'weak'), perhaps it's best (they think) to conclude that it was never intended for them.
On one hand, we are not to cause distress by what we eat. On another hand, we are not to allow others to malign that which we know to be good. The latter half of the passage mentions food and drink, but not the days. I wonder why.
It almost seems as if the key things are there. We aren't to knowingly cause distress to someone who is holding to scruples like kosher slaughter or Jewish holidays, but at the same time, we are to remind those with those scruples of what the Bible says about these things; "Take, Peter, kill and eat", and so on.
So we would assume that many of these scruples would be temporary, as believers learned what Scripture actually says. To me, that's a far cry from a lot of what goes on today, where many seem to insist that their particular scruples be honored in perpetuity. It also is a far cry from a lot of the knock down drag out arguments we see here. There is the privilege of the "strong" (?) to say "no, that's not what Scripture says here...."
Aspiring to be a stick in the mud.
Since I was invoked above … I am not sure how “presuppositional” is being used here but, as for the identity of the weak vs. strong, I don’t really think it is that controversial but I don’t think it matters. Of course the weak don’t think they are weak. That’s not a part of the point. The point is to be convinced in your own mind and accept those who differ because you are not their master.
We know that Romans 14 addresses things that are pleasing to God because he tells people to be convinced in their own mind about it. He does not say that about adultery, theft, lust, etc.
Bringing corporate worship gathering into it clouds the matter somewhat because I don’t think this passage is about corporate worship gathering and the RPW. This is about personal conduct and relationships.
The question about Romans 14 is how far it extends. Does it go past meat and drink and days? If it extends, how far does it extend? Those are arguments that have to be made, not assumed.
It seems there comes a point where practicalities take over. If someone’s conscience believes that a particular instrument is sinful, they cannot expect the whole church to bow to that. And if they believe they are sinning by being there or using music with that instrument, then they must not do that because whatever is not of faith is sin.
What I mean by Presuppositional is:
Larry, you said, "It seems to me to be pretty clear Romans 14 is addressing things that are acceptable to God but things which some Christian’s conscience forbids them because they wrongly believe it is sin."
(I'm sure you know that I do NOT agree with that.)
Two ways to refute it:
1. Evidence in Romans 14 and 1 Cor 8-10 to refute the assertion that "weak" = wrong.
2. Presuppose "weak"=wrong and examine what that does to the passage.
Bringing corporate worship gathering into it clouds the matter
Yes. Let's make this thread about organs in homes. I do think that Romans 14 is robust enough to deal with the church, but let's start with a less cloudy example.
------=------
Assume that "weak"=wrong.
Either:
Sinclair is "knowingly unbiblical" - he has no Biblical foundation for his organ-hatred. Include those who doubt their biblical foundation enough to not expect others to follow.
Or:
Sinclair believes he has a biblical foundation for his organ-hatred.
IF he's knowingly unbiblical, he won't condemn others or call it "sin."
This is when people say, "I know the Bible doesn't condemn this. I'm not judging anyone. I just don't feel right about it." or "I just don't."
For this, you don't need Romans 14. They're not causing problems by judging.
IF he believes he's biblical, then he's going to condemn others and call it sin.
You believe he's wrong, but he doesn't. So now you need Romans 14 to call him to stop judging.
But that means convincing Sinclair that the organ is a Romans 14 issue (he's weak&wrong), which he denies. The question of the scope of R14 is unanswerable.
-----Conclusion-----
With the presupposition (weak=wrong), when you really need Romans 14, you can't use it. Ever. Have you EVER successfully used it when the strict person was convinced they were biblically right?
Either:
Sinclair is "knowingly unbiblical" - he has no Biblical foundation for his organ-hatred. Include those who doubt their biblical foundation enough to not expect others to follow.
Or:
Sinclair believes he has a biblical foundation for his organ-hatred.
Wouldn't the next logical step in the conversation be to examine his biblical foundation for organ-hatred, rather than going directly to Romans 14. What if I can show him that I have developed a biblical foundation for organ-love, or show him that the verses he thinks support organ-hatred have other, less extreme possible meanings? Then if we still disagree about the interpretations, we can go to Romans 14, and it doesn't matter which one of us is weak/wrong. Either one of us could be weak/wrong, but if we judge the other person when they are convinced in their own mind of their own biblical foundation for their belief, then we are breaking the commands of Romans 14.
Yes, but really you’re just moving Sinclair from “believes he has a biblical foundation” to "knowingly unbiblical."
It remains that either he’s sure he’s biblical (you need R14, but can’t use it) or he’s aware that [maybe] he’s not (you don’t need R14).
Yes, but really you’re just moving Sinclair from “believes he has a biblical foundation” to "knowingly unbiblical."
I don't see how I moved him from "believes he has a biblical foundation." He still believes that, so he believes he is the "strong." He thus has a Romans 14 obligation to the one who is disagreeing with him.
What if I can show him that I have developed a biblical foundation for organ-love, or show him that the verses he thinks support organ-hatred have other, less extreme possible meanings?
Note that “knowingly unbiblical” :
Include those who doubt their biblical foundation enough to not expect others to follow.
You’re leading a small group. You have two couples with kids. Both considered the biblical commands to raise their children and to be in the world but not of it. Couple #1 concluded that they should homeschool. Couple #2 concluded they should use public school. Couples #1 and #2 consider their conclusion biblical, but they know there are biblical reasons for the opposite. They don’t judge or belittle.
Then couple #3 joins the small group. They are adamant homeschoolers. They believe it’s the only biblical method of education. They call public school sinful and judge couple #2 as failing to biblically raise their kids.
When it was just #1 & #2, you didn’t need R14.
When #3 joins, and you actually need R14, they will not accept it. “What? You think I’m weak? I’m the biblical one here.”
When #3 joins, and you actually need R14, they will not accept it. “What? You think I’m weak? I’m the biblical one here.”
Based on your understanding of the word "weak," wouldn't you still need to convince couple #3 that they are weak, since they are "conscience-unable" to homeschool? Isn't that your definition of what "weak" means?
In my understanding, “weak” does not imply wrong. And it does not imply immaturity. I think weak-conscience Christians are probably more often right than wrong.
And that is how the “When you need it you can’t use it” problem is solved. If nobody presumes that weak=wrong, then you can use it.
At a certain point we cannot apply Romans 14 without also looking to Titus 3:10
Reject a factious man after a first and second warning,
There is a time to simply give a weaker brother room to grow. Imagine a Jew who grew up being repulsed by pork. I am not going to flaunt bacon in front of a new Jewish Christian. He needs time to grow in his faith and to understand the book of Hebrews and how Jews are no longer under the Levitical Law. I do not want to push him away until I have time to go through the solid argumentation that is presented in the first 10 chapters of Hebrews that lays out why Jesus replaced the old covenant. But once that has been taught, if he decides to bring division to the church and to become a Judaizer, then I would need to apply Titus 3:10.
While he is a new believer, I would not be inclined to immediately rebuke him, but would instead be gentle as I instruct him. If however, he started to push his unbiblical position in such a way as to cause strife and division within the church, then I would have to reject him and his teaching.
Such an approach has actually led to people worshipping in different churches on each Sunday morning as it has historically been applied to a variety of issues.
Larry, you said, “It seems to me to be pretty clear Romans 14 is addressing things that are acceptable to God but things which some Christian’s conscience forbids them because they wrongly believe it is sin.”
(I’m sure you know that I do NOT agree with that.)
No, I didn’t know you don’t agree with that. I have no idea what the basis for that belief would be. Again, the text seems rather obvious that the things in view are acceptable to God. Therefore, if someone thinks they are sin, they are wrong about that. Of course people are free to not do things that are acceptable, so it doesn’t cause a problem until they try to force that on someone else.
Assume that “weak”=wrong.
Again, I don’t think we need to assume that. It doesn’t matter for the overall point. Whether he is knowingly or unknowingly biblical, he is still to act in a certain way and Romans 14 is certainly useful for that. “Here is what the text says. Will you obey it or not?”
The point is that even if you are convinced you are right, you are not God. You are not the master or judge. Therefore, do not act like it. Rather accept the one who differs.
Again, remember the issues. This is not adultery or theft. No one can say, “I think my adulterous relationship is a Romans 14 issue.” Or “I think robbing the bank is totally fine.”
As I said earlier, the question is what fits in these categories.
Bringing homeschoolers into it clouds the issues somewhat, sort of like the organ. But in both cases, it isn’t that hard. If we assume that schooling is a Romans 14 issue, does the Bible command parents to be the sole teachers of their children? The obvious answer is no. Therefore, there is no biblical ground for “homeschool only.” It is a matter of wisdom and conscience. But even apart from that, Couple #3 is disobeying Scripture by judging someone even though they are not the master of that person. So they are clearly in disobedience to vv. 3-4. If they don’t accept this as a Romans 14 issue, it doesn’t change that. Remember, we don’t live in a world where peoples’ beliefs determine reality. It can guide their own choices but doesn’t give them authority demand someone else conform to those choices.
Have you EVER successfully used it when the strict person was convinced they were biblically right?
The answer is yes, but I think this turns the question on its head. To argue based on the outcome is, I think, the wrong argument. Even if using Romans 14 hasn’t been successful, it doesn’t mean that Romans 14 is somehow untrue or inapplicable. It means the person was disobeying Romans 14.
To be clear, I do agree that R14 issues are things that God approves of generally.
But I don’t agree that weak = wrong.
People reason that God-approved things are wrong for them a lot. And they should.
Dan: Have you EVER successfully used it when the strict person was convinced they were biblically right?
Larry: The answer is yes, but I think this turns the question on its head. To argue based on the outcome is, I think, the wrong argument.
Ok. I get that. And I don’t expect it to convince anyone. I do hope it makes people question the traditional view of weakness. That’s all.
Can you tell me about the occasion when you used R14?
Can you tell me about the occasion when you used R14?
Used it during COVID a lot with people on both sides who could not grasp the fact that Christians disagreed with them, both inside and outside the church.
I have used it on other cultural practices as well.
In my understanding, “weak” does not imply wrong. And it does not imply immaturity. I think weak-conscience Christians are probably more often right than wrong.
And that is how the “When you need it you can’t use it” problem is solved. If nobody presumes that weak=wrong, then you can use it.
But I still don't see how you would use it in the homeschooling situation. In your scenario, you stated, When it was just #1 & #2, you didn’t need R14. When #3 joins, and you actually need R14, they will not accept it. “What? You think I’m weak? I’m the biblical one here.”
Wouldn't #3 still not accept Romans 14 with your definition of weak? Instead of saying "What? You think I'm weak," they would simply start with, "I acknowledge I'm conscience-unable, but I have the biblical position." How would you use Romans 14 to get them to stop judging someone that they are fully convinced is sinning?
Perhaps instead of trying to determine who is weak and who is strong, we should see that the intent of the Chapter 14 is to encourage (command?) followers of Jesus to live together in unity with others whose convictions/consciences see certain activities differently.
"Some things are of that nature as to make one's fancy chuckle, while his heart doth ache." John Bunyan
Wouldn't #3 still not accept Romans 14 with your definition of weak? Instead of saying "What? You think I'm weak," they would simply start with, "I acknowledge I'm conscience-unable, but I have the biblical position." How would you use Romans 14 to get them to stop judging someone that they are fully convinced is sinning?
I think this discussion would be a lot easier if there were not so many people in this world that were calling things sin, that the Bible did not clearly call sin. I am guessing we have all avoided doing things that we could not find a clear scripture passage forbidding it. Often it was simply applying the wisdom we have gained through experience or it has been applying other Biblical principles and expanding upon them. Sometimes it was just following peer pressure. In many of those cases I believe we made the right decision, but in many of those cases I also believe we would not have had to have been so strict. Having said that, I also believe it is sometimes wise to be more strict just out of prudence (careful caution). Romans 14 is valuable in reminding us that others may make different decisions and we should show grace. It is also valuable in reminding me that as I have grown in my understanding of scripture, I have a different view of things than I had earlier in life. Therefore, I should show grace to others as they grow in their understanding as well.
not trying to ignore JD.
Larry: This is not adultery... No one can say, “I think my adulterous relationship is a Romans 14 issue.”
As I said earlier, the question is what fits in these categories.
Bringing homeschoolers into it clouds ... But ... it isn’t that hard. If we assume that schooling is a Romans 14 issue, does the Bible command parents to be the sole teachers of their children? The obvious answer is no.
I agree with you. About homeschooling. BUT some do not agree with your obvious answer. Same with moderate alcohol. That is where we just divide--schism, per the other thread.
Larry, I'm sure you you have used R14 like you said, pointing out that someone who feels "liberty" to not wear a mask should show love to their brother by just wearing one. Easy enough. (You almost don't need R14, there.) Only one side can pick up and carry the inability of the other. If both sides can accept that the issue is "disputable" then love is all they need.
The point I'm making in this thread relates to the boundary line of Romans 14 and cases where the parties straddle that line. When one side believes something is clearly wrong and not a matter of conscience (or "weakness" or "R14") and the other believes it is a matter of conscience, R14 won't work.
Culturally, few of us think like modernists any more. We want to avoid judging one another. So we rarely have to deal with someone like couple #3. I think that's why Ron and JD just said what they said. Just stop judging. And the vast majority of people are happy to do that, which is why you successfully used R14 with COVID.
Curious: when you used R14 with COVID (let's say feeling unable to be without a mask) did you tell the mask wearers they were weak in faith?
BUT some do not agree with your obvious answer. Same with moderate alcohol. That is where we just divide—schism, per the other thread.
They may not agree but that doesn’t make it less obvious. If their children sit in church, then they allow others to teach their children. If they participate in a co-op, then they allow others to teach their children. If they use curriculum, then they allow others to teach their children. If they judge over this, they are the ones that Romans 14 is for it seems to me.
If both sides can accept that the issue is “disputable” then love is all they need.
In such a case, Romans 14 is unnecessary. They are already doing it. The reason Romans 14 was necessary is because they apparently could not accept that the “other side” had a legitimate view. They were not accepting the other and were instead sitting in judgment on them.
In other words, Romans 14 is precisely for “When one side believes something is clearly wrong and not a matter of conscience (or “weakness” or “R14”) and the other believes it is a matter of conscience.” Otherwise it is unnecessary.
And the vast majority of people are happy to do that, which is why you successfully used R14 with COVID.
In my experience, the vast majority are not happy to do that. R14 was not successful with all. I preached a message from Romans 14 on this issue and one guy said, “That was a great message. The only problem is that you acted like one side wasn’t the right side.”
Curious: when you used R14 with COVID (let’s say feeling unable to be without a mask) did you tell the mask wearers they were weak in faith?
Why would you assume I would tell the mask wearers they were weak in faith? Perhaps it was the non-mask wearers. Or those who wanted to shut the church down. Or those who wanted to keep it open. Or those who …
Again, I don’t think we need to identify the weak or the strong. Both sides have the same obligations.
You parry my example of adamant homeschooling because you see that conviction as biblical, but not so clearly biblical that everyone should believe it.
And yet you agree that the question of the boundary of R14 is still open.
You parry my example of adamant homeschooling because you see that conviction as biblical, but not so clearly biblical that everyone should believe it.
I don’t see it as a conviction at all, much less one that everyone should believe. If someone claims that homeschooling is the only biblical option for all Christians, they have to show that to be case. And they have to explain an awful of biblical teaching on teaching. But even if they think they are right, they are still bound by Romans 14 with those who differ. If they are willing to live in peace with those who differ, then Romans 14 is not needed. It is only needed when they are are judging Another’s servant. God has accepted that other person. You are not higher or better than God. You have no right to treat with contempt someone that God has accepted. And you have not right to judge one that God has accepted.
And yet you agree that the question of the boundary of R14 is still open.
I said that from the beginning. We can only be absolutely sure that two things fits in Romans 14.
I said that from the beginning. We can only be absolutely sure that two things fits in Romans 14.
Yeah, maybe. R14 names:
- v2 - Meat [offered to idols] (it's not ham because that would not make them vegetarians)
- v5 - Days
- v21 - Wine
- v21 - "or anything"
I'm relatively confident that some here would claim Paul didn't render "wine" as a R14 issue. Days, also, is disputed. Piper quotes Jewett to deny that this refers to Sabbath days. Why? Because that would render John as "weak" because Rev 1 shows he treated one day as "The Lord's Day."
Most importantly, the commands of Romans 14 extend to "or anything."
True, I forgot the end of the passage. I was thinking it was there and then I didn’t see it in scanning.
Some who denies “wine” as a R14 issue is denying the Bible. They might want to define wine differently which they are entitled to do. But it is plainly there. I have not read Piper or Jewett on this, but of course one can deny it refers to Sabbath days. But it clearly refers to some kind of days.
The question is, what does “anything” include?
We can be absolutely sure of three things, and some I think limit it to those things expressly mentioned. The extent of “anything” has to be argued for or against, which again, is what I said from the beginning. The issue is how we treat those who conclude differently than we do, including whether or not something is an R14 issue.
I had a longer post and I deleted it...
Bottom line, Larry, is I think you're too confident of the clarity of the status of wine and Sabbath days as R14 issues. People do contest those. Regardless, Paul's use of "anything" shows that he intended the passage to apply to more things than just the ones mentioned.
So no matter whether some issues are clearly R14, for others the question of whether R14 applies is disputed. And I deny your claim that R14 tells everyone to accept one another, regardless of whether the issue is a proper R14 issue. Why?
----====----
It's not as simple as "love one another."
If you're doing something that I see as wrong, but that IS a R14 issue, then I ought to accept you with love. But more than that, I also am commanded to accept your action, because that is how you honor the Lord. For me to rebuke your about this matter is sinful usurpation.
If you're doing something that IS just-plain-wrong (not a R14 issue), I still need to approach you lovingly. I accept you as a brother, forgiven and loved by God. But I do not accept your action. I have an obligation to confront, rebuke, disciple, etc.
The problem is those two "IS"s. Because we are limited to "I believe this is just-plain-wrong." Or "I believe this is a Romans 14 issue."
So, my conclusion (of this thread) still stands, in spite of your effort to use R14 to call everyone to love one another. You can't just say, "It doesn't matter who is weak or if anyone is weak." There is a boundary to the domain of R14. And that boundary matters when one believer locates the contentious issue inside R14 and the other outside. Those two Christians will have opposite views on what God calls each of them to do.
Discussion