Chapter 3.2

The Bible Inside

The Moral Reasoning of Conscience

Table of Topics

A) An Introduction to Conscience: A very neglected topic

A.1) The Importance of the Conscience

A.2) The Nature of the Conscience

A.3) The Limitations of the Conscience

B) The Clear Conscience: From guilt to peace

C) The Weak & Strong Conscience: From legalism to freedom

C.1) The Conscience of the Romans & Corinthians

Table 3.2: Categories of Convictions

C.2) “Doctrinal” Convictions

C.3) “Debatable” Convictions

C.3.a) Women’s dress

C.3.b) Worship music

C.4) “Acceptable” Convictions

C.4.a) Acceptable convictions ignore biblical teaching but do not harm others

C.4.b) “Freedomists” and “legalists” must love each other

C.4.c) “Freedomists” must limit their freedom for the sake of the “legalists”

C.4.d) “Freedomists” must limit their freedom for the sake of unbelievers

Extras & Endnotes

Primary Points

• The conscience can be defined as the “inner moral referee that pronounces on the rightness or wrongness of one’s actions.”
• Scripture is clear on the vital importance of the conscience, making its neglect in Christian theology lamentable.
• The conscience is not infallible.
• A clear conscience is one of the most important guides God has given us.
• Dividing various issues into “doctrinal,” “debatable,” and “acceptable” helps us better understand how we are to deal with the conscience of others.
• “Doctrinal” issues are those that are clearly taught in the Scriptures and which would bring harm to others if not practiced.
• “Debatable” issues are those that are not clearly addressed in Scripture.
• “Acceptable” issues involve things that are clearly taught in Scripture, but are not something necessarily harmful to others.
• Paul strongly warns “freedomists” with a “strong” conscience not to “strengthen” or change the “weak” conscience of a “legalist.”
• It is not a sin to have a “weak” conscience, but it is sin for either the “freedomist” or the “legalist” to judge the other.
• It is sin for a person with a “weak” conscience to act against their conscience, even if their action is not supported by Scripture.
• God desires those with a “weak” conscience to mature, but such “rewriting” of a person’s conscience is only for God to do. Christian leaders need to be especially careful of this.
• Christians should not flaunt their freedom before unbelievers if they sense it might offend.
• As always, love is our guide.

A) Introduction to the Conscience

A.1) The Importance of the Conscience

Elsewhere in Knowing Our God (KOG) we have written:

Another helpful way to understand human reason is to distinguish between moral and logical reasoning. A part of the mind known as the conscience engages in moral reasoning in order to determine ethics and distinguish between right and wrong. . . . On the other hand, the mind also engages in what may be termed as logical reasoning determining facts and distinguishing between true and false.

To illustrate both their differences and interaction we could say logical reasoning will decide how much tax you owe. Moral reasoning conducted by the conscience will decide whether or not you will pay your taxes. . . .

The conscience is a very important concept in Scripture and an integral part of human life. ^[1]

Accordingly, we think it would be helpful to single out the conscience for further discussion because 1) It is such a vital God-given faculty, and 2) It is a very neglected topic in Christian theology in general. What James Stalker said c. 1915 would seem to be still true today: “There is abundance of room for a great monograph on the subject.” ^[2] This is despite the fact that the conscience is a very significant subject in the Scriptures.

On this, something from Bible teacher John MacArthur is worth the following rather lengthy quote:

The conscience may be the most underappreciated and least understood attribute of humanity. Psychology, as we have noted, is usually less concerned with understanding the conscience than with attempting to silence it. The influx of popular psychology into evangelicalism has had the disastrous effect of undermining a biblical appreciation of the role of the conscience. It is bad enough that secular society’s collective conscience has been vanishing for years. But now the don’t-blame-yourself philosophy is having a similar effect in the church.

The church as a whole seems to have forgotten the spiritual importance of a sound conscience. I am convinced that is one of the chief reasons so many Christians seem to live in sorrow and defeat. They are not taught to respond correctly to their consciences. They treat their consciences flippantly. They have not learned the importance of keeping the conscience clear and healthy.

Instead they dispute what their own conscience tells them. They treat any sense of guilt or self-blame as a liability or a threat. They expend too much of their spiritual energy in a vain attempt to deal with feelings spawned by an accusing conscience -without a corresponding willingness to deal with the sin that offended the conscience in the first place.

That is spiritual suicide. Paul wrote of those who by rejecting their consciences “suffered shipwreck in regard to their faith” (I Tim. 1:19). They are like a pilot who turns off his warning system.

We must pay attention to our consciences. The cost of switching them off is frightfully high. It will inevitably result in a devastating spiritual catastrophe. Of all people, we who are committed to the truth of Scripture cannot relinquish the importance of a sound conscience. We must recover and apply the biblical truth about the conscience, or we will be left with nothing whatsoever to say to a sinful world. ^[3]

It is particularly surprising how the conscience is neglected in discussions specifically regarding epistemological issues. Adding a chapter here on this topic is just another way in which we are attempting to make this a practical Christian epistemology instead of merely a philosophical one.

While below under section B we discuss the importance of the conscience for the Christian, here we will note some additional reasons.

Human beings are uniquely created with a conscience, which is one of our attributes that obviously reflects the image of God. Animals, for instance, do not have a conscience, neither in the sense of self awareness nor morality. Conscience is something God has uniquely given to humans.

There are many obvious reasons why God created us with a conscience. In the context of the Apostle’s discourse in Romans 2, it fulfills a similar function as Creation: leaving humanity with no excuse for not repenting of their sin. The Apostle makes it clear that the Gentiles are just as guilty as unrepentant Jews who have special divine revelation (the Law), and just as liable for judgment because “the requirements of the law [God’s moral standards] are written on their hearts, their consciences also bearing witness” (Rom 2:15). Therefore, like those who view Creation, those created with a conscience “are without excuse” (Rom 1:20).

Perhaps the most astonishing purpose of the conscience is its authority to monitor our morality. Not only does the Scripture tell us right from wrong, but we have essentially a “Bible inside” us performing the same function. So much so, that while there may be incorrect things currently written in our “personal Bible” that may not match what is written in God’s perfect Bible, God may allow, and even expect us to adhere to that “personal Bible. This amazing illustration of the authority of our conscience will be discussed further below in section C.

A third purpose of our conscience is for the preservation of society. Here we see one of the greatest blessings God has provided humanity with, and why many categorize the conscience as an aspect of “common grace,” or blessings from God that are provided to all of humanity. ^[4] Remarkably, because of the conscience, spiritually dead humanity has an innate sense that God’s ways are the right ways. The Apostle says that even those who have reached the depths of depravity, still, “know God’s righteous decree that those who do such things deserve death” (Rom 1:32). While different cultures have varying moral standards, it is astonishing to note a significant resemblance to the moral laws of Scripture in the laws of essentially every people group on earth. ^[5] This blessing is the basis for all the legislative bodies, judicial systems, and law enforcement that keeps sin in check throughout our planet.

Just imagine a world with no conscience. Human history has witnessed the horrors that occur when we squelch it. Although many reject that inner voice of morality, can we imagine living in a world where no one listened to that voice? It is the conscience that restrains the sinful nature of humans and keeps them from becoming their very worst, for without it we are no more civil than “brute beasts, creatures of instinct, born only to be caught and destroyed” (2 Pet 2:12). There are good men and women who don’t know God, and they are good because they hate the guilt that comes from their conscience when they are bad. While it is through Creation that God provides for us, it is through conscience that He does a great deal to protect us.

In addition to the conscience being another method for God making sin inexcusable and for society’s protection, the conscience also provides humanity with moral guidance. The conscience not only convicts of wrong, but encourages us to do right. For the unbeliever, the conscience is the only “Bible” they have. Accordingly, NT scholar James R. Edwards notes that in Romans 2:15, “Paul is contending for an innate moral sense in humanity, to whose voice Gentiles are as bound as are Jews to the Torah [OT Law].” ^[6] For the Apostle, the conscience was equal to the OT Scriptures in terms of communicating morality. It truly was “a Bible within.”

But even for the Christian who has the Scriptures, the conscience is an invaluable guide in areas to which the Bible does not specifically speak. While we may not have a specific verse for all the “right” decisions we make, our conscience provides the confidence that we are indeed doing the right thing. Accordingly, the Apostle writes: “I speak the truth in Christ—I am not lying, my conscience confirms it in the Holy Spirit” (Rom 9:1). And also: “Now this is our boast: Our conscience testifies that we have conducted ourselves in the world, and especially in our relations with you, in the holiness and sincerity that are from God” (2 Cor 1:12). The Apostle relied on his conscience as a witness of his morality.

It is interesting to note that the conscience became a much more important concept in the New Covenant as compared with the Old. This is because under the Old, God minutely dictated in writing virtually everything the Israelites were to do. They hardly needed another “witness” as to whether they were doing right or wrong. However, in the NT the specificity of commands is greatly reduced. God no longer tells us what to eat, what to wear, or a myriad of other things He specified for the Old Covenant people. This is because He has indwelled us with the Holy Spirit and a New Nature which, along with our understanding of Scripture, retrains our conscience to guide us in specific ways. ^[7]

Along these lines, theologian W. D. Stacey wrote:

While the idea of conscience was obviously present in the Old Testament, Hebrew had no special word to describe it. Greek supplied the word syneidēsis and in the inter-testamental period it occurs where previously only the general term lēb [“heart”] could have been used. The term is therefore an innovation, but the idea was implicit in lēb. The use of syneidēsis was not common in Judaism. Paul, who uses the word twenty times, probably understood it better than any of his race. It is very likely that he introduced the term to Christianity.

It has been suggested that, after the eclipse of the Law in Christianity, conscience became more important than ever, and there is more than a grain of truth in the idea. One of the most important passages for syneidēsis is I Cor. 10, concerning the eating of idol meat. The Christian has to be guided by his conscience. The Jew, however, had a tradition, attributed to Moses, which gave precise details on how food was to be slaughtered, and who should slaughter it. For the pious Jew, the problem of I Cor. 10 was no problem at all. It may well be that the replacement of the Law by a religion of personal relationship made it necessary for Paul to enlarge on a word that previously had little currency in Judaism. ^[8]

One of the reasons that the issue of our conscience is neglected today is the current emphasis by modern mystics and “charismatics” on the supposed need and availability of direct revelation from God. When we notice in the Scriptures, as discussed below in section B, how often and how much the Apostle relied on his conscience to guide him, rather than “voices,” visions, impulses, signs, “words of knowledge” and dreams, it becomes evident that these modern movements regarding divine guidance are out of whack. ^[9] Like the Scriptures, God gave us a conscience to guide us more specifically than the modern mystics want to admit, and this source of revelation should be relied upon and valued more, and modern mystical practices relied on and valued less.

A.2) The Nature of the Conscience

The most descriptive passage in Scripture on the human conscience is Romans 2:14-15 where the Apostle writes:

Indeed, when Gentiles, who do not have the law, do by nature things required by the law, they are a law for themselves, even though they do not have the law, since they show that the requirements of the law are written on their hearts, their consciences [syneidēsis] ^[10] bearing witness, and their thoughts now accusing, now even defending them. (Rom 2:14-15)

Several things about the conscience become apparent in the Apostle’s words. First of all, the Apostle clearly indicates that a conscience is a universal possession of all adult humans when he says that it is part of human “nature” and “written on their hearts.” It is not only those who experience spiritual conversion that possess a conscience, even the spiritually dead possess one as well. ^[11] Secondly, the fact that even the conscience of the spiritually dead can both accuse or defend, counters the common notion that the conscience only condemns and never commends us. ^[12]

How would we define the conscience then? In the NIV, the word “conscience” appears six times in the OT and twenty-five times in the NT. The OT simply uses the general Hebrew word lēb (“heart”) to indicate the faculty of conscience, while the Greeks used the specific term syneidēsis. This term literally means: “the self that knows with itself” and Raymond Opperwall adds:

Syneidēsis is not merely another action performed by the self; it is an agent within the self . . . an alter ego, another self within the self that observes the self and then testifies as to what it sees. ^[13]

Along the same lines, NT scholar C. K. Barrett writes:

By the Stoics, and Philo, the conscience is often described as an accuser, or convictor; in Romans it is a witness (so here, also ix. 1; cf. 2 Cor. i. 12). This is in accord with the etymology of the word, which in ancient use is a backward-looking and judging agent rather than forward-looking and directing. It implies man’s ability to detach himself from himself and to view his character and actions independently. He is thus able to act as a witness for or against himself. His conscience is not so much the bar at which his conduct is tried, as a major witness, who can be called on either side as the case may be. ^[14]

Likewise, NT scholar John Murray (1898-1975) wrote regarding Romans 2:15:

This expression should not be understood in the sense of popular current use when we say that a man is a law to himself. It means almost the opposite, that they themselves, by reason of what is implanted in their nature, confront themselves with the law of God. They themselves reveal the law of God to themselves-their persons is the medium of revelation. ^[15]

In defining syneidēsis as “the self that knows itself” it is obvious that the conscience is involved in reasoning. In fact, the Apostle Paul often uses the word “mind” (nous) to refer to the conscience as well. For example, he would seem to be describing his conscience when he writes that his flesh is “waging war against the [moral] law of my mind [nous]” (Rom 7:23; cf. Rom 11:34; 12:2; 14:5; 1 Cor 1:10; 2:16; 14:14, 15, 19; Eph 4:17-19, 23; Phil 4:7; Col 2:18; 2 Thess 2:2; 1 Tim 6:5; 2 Tim 3:8; Tit. 1:15).

While the operation of the conscience could certainly be referred to as reasoning, it is specifically moral reasoning. Accordingly, we have written elsewhere:

A part of the mind known as the conscience engages in moral reasoning in order to determine ethics and distinguish between right and wrong. The Apostle uses the word syneidesis to refer to the moral reasoning of the conscience when he refers to the “consciences” of the “Gentiles” in Romans 2:14-15 (cf. Rom 13:5; 1 Cor 8:7). Accordingly, the NT scholar Gordon Fee defines syneidesis as: “a kind of inner moral referee that pronounces on the rightness or wrongness of one’s actions (as in, “Let your conscience be your guide”).” ^[16]

A.3) Limitations of Conscience

While the God-given authority of conscience is considerable, it must be pointed out that it is neither all-sufficient nor infallible. Its insufficiency is demonstrated by the fact that, while the conscience convicts us of sin, it does not reveal the solution to sin in the Gospel.

The fallibility of the conscience is particularly demonstrated below in our discussion of what the Apostle called a “weak” conscience. In this case, a person’s conscience is not fully or rightly informed and therefore does not reflect God’s perspective on an issue. For example, the Apostle writes:

So then, about eating food sacrificed to idols: We know that an idol is nothing at all in the world and that there is no God but one. . . . But not everyone knows this. Some people are still so accustomed to idols that when they eat such food they think of it as having been sacrificed to an idol, and since their conscience is weak, it is defiled.  ⁸But food does not bring us near to God; we are no worse if we do not eat, and no better if we do (1 Cor 8:4, 7-8).

Accordingly, someone’s conscience can be “wrong” due to incorrect training. This limitation of conscience is due to the fact that its contents are a matter of human experience rather than direct divine revelation. We have discussed this further elsewhere and written:

What God gives us in our conscience is the capacity to recognize and reason what is morally right from what is morally wrong. We gain a knowledge of these things through our exposure to the moral authorities we accept in our lives including parents, governments, Scripture, and the Church. Because God uses various means to write moral laws on individual consciences, not everyone’s internal “law” is the same. . . .

Accordingly, we read in the International Standard Bible Encyclopedia:

Conscience is the internalized voice of those whose judgment of a person counts with him. It is the inner voice that testifies for the moral authorities that we recognize. Some voice of conscience speaks to all (Rom 2:15), but the content of that voice varies according to the authorities and values that we consciously or unconsciously recognize. ^[17] . . .

[W]hile all humans are born with a conscience, it would seem they differ, not because of a different, innate, divine revelation granted to them, but rather because of differences in their life experiences, or human reasoning. The sense of right and wrong is only intrinsic (and perfect) with God. Humans need to be trained (even wrongly) in moral knowledge. Different experiences, including punishment and reward, provide data to our conscience which is then trained regarding what is morally right and wrong. ^[18]

The fact that the contents of our conscience is not a matter of divine revelation means that even the Christian must admit that their conscience is not perfect (cf. 1 Cor 8:7, 10, 12; 1 Tim 4:2; Tit 1:15). Such a perspective helps us understand the Apostle’s rather enigmatic statement:

I care very little if I am judged by you or by any human court; indeed, I do not even judge myself. My conscience is clear, but that does not make me innocent. It is the Lord Who judges me. Therefore judge nothing before the appointed time; wait till the Lord comes. He will bring to light what is hidden in darkness and will expose the motives of men’s hearts. (1 Cor 4:3-5).

While the Apostle affirms that his conscience is the filter through which he interprets criticism, he also recognizes that like anything human, his conscience is not infallible. The first reason for this is that our conscience is only aware of what we are conscious of. The Apostle’s conscience was clear because according to everything he was conscious of, he had done nothing wrong. However, he may have done wrong that he was not conscious of. Accordingly, the Apostle distinguishes the verdict of his human conscience from God’s own judgment.

The conscience is also limited by the fact that it operates only on the basis of learned norms, and those norms may not match the standard of divine judgment. ^[19] Indeed, they can be wrong (e.g., because of lack of knowledge, or because of social pressure or custom, cf. 1 Cor 8:7). The judgments of the conscience tell whether behavior is truly right in God’s eyes only insofar as they are based on norms corresponding to God’s will as communicated in Scripture.

There may be another important point to make here. It would seem that the Apostle recognizes the same limitation that the Psalmist did when he said, “Who can discern his errors? Forgive my hidden faults” (Ps 19:12). The fact of the matter is that we might sin fairly frequently without knowing it, and without affecting our conscience. This is not necessarily because of a hardened conscience, but rather, because of an uninformed conscience. Training the conscience to perfectly align with Scripture and the New Nature takes time, and God is patient in the process. The Apostle recognized this same aspect of God’s grace in his life, and therefore knew, that even though his conscience was clear, that did not mean that he was sinless, or that even God did not know of some need in his life.

B) The Clear Conscience of the Christian: From Guilt to Peace

A very important theme concerning the conscience in the NT is the contrast between a conscience that is guilty and one that is clear. Such a contrast does not only involve believers, as the Apostle points out that even the spiritually dead, “demonstrate that God’s law is written within them, for their own consciences either accuse them or tell them they are doing what is right” (Rom 2:15 NLT). In one sense, then, even unbelievers may enjoy a clear conscience, but it will not be based on truth, but rather an acceptance of substandard morals.

However, the epistle to the Hebrews emphasizes that one of the many blessings that comes with salvation is a clear conscience:

How much more, then, will the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered Himself unblemished to God, cleanse our consciences from acts that lead to death, so that we may serve the living God!” (9:14; cf. 1 Pet 3:21).

While an essential part of our salvation is initially providing us with a clear conscience, an equally essential part of our sanctification is maintaining a clear conscience. The Apostle could have hardly stressed this anymore when he writes of his own life: “I strive always to keep my conscience clear before God and man” (Acts 24:16; cp. Job 27:6). The Apostle was constantly sensitive to his conscience, and did whatever was necessary to gain peace with man or God when his conscience alerted him to a need.

The importance of a clear conscience is also demonstrated in the Apostle’s requirement that a deacon, “must keep hold of the deep truths of the faith with a clear conscience” (1 Tim 3:9). Maintaining a clear conscience was so critical to first-century Christian leadership, that the writer of Hebrews and his companions had obviously monitored it such that they could say, “We are sure that we have a clear conscience” (Heb 13:18).

The Bible gives us several good reasons to monitor the condition of our conscience. First of all, while it is obviously a moral guide for unbelievers, it is an even more important one for believers. Our conscience is the instrument through which the Holy Spirit speaks to us, as the Apostle says, “I speak the truth in Christ–I am not lying, my conscience confirms it in [en: through] the Holy Spirit” (Rom 9:1; cf. Acts 23:1; 2 Tim 1:3).

The Apostle’s reliance on his conscience is evident when he says:

Now this is our boast: Our conscience testifies that we have conducted ourselves in the world, and especially in our relations with you, in the holiness and sincerity that are from God.” (2 Cor 1:12).

The context here was the Corinthian’s criticism of the Apostle. For the Apostle, his conscience served as a filter for such criticism, separating the false from the true. The Apostle was confident that if correction was needed in his life, God would communicate such a need by the Holy Spirit through his conscience. While correction and reproof from others is often valuable, it is only through our conscience that we ultimately know whether such reproof is legitimate. In spite of all the potentially paralyzing criticism that the Apostle incurred throughout his ministry, it was God, through his conscience, Who comforted him, and shielded him from the mental and emotional harm that groundless criticism is intended for.

The Apostle Peter had experienced the same protection from harmful and unwarranted criticism and encouraged his readers:

Keep your conscience clear. Then if people speak evil against you, they will be ashamed when they see what a good life you live because you belong to Christ (1 Pet 3:16 NLT).

There may be times that a clear conscience from God will be our only defense against such criticism.

Similarly, Job trusted his own clear conscience in the face of condemning circumstances and counselors and proclaimed:

I will never admit you are in the right; till I die, I will not deny my integrity. I will maintain my righteousness and never let go of it; my conscience will not reproach me as long as I live. (Job 27:5-6).

As Raymond Opperwall puts it so well: “Battles without can be handled if there is no battle within.” ^[20]

All of this, of course, relates to the crippling effects of guilt in the Christian’s life. The Apostle John says that, “if our hearts [including consciences] do not condemn us, we have confidence before God” (1 John 3:21), a confidence that creates an intimacy with Him that is essential in truly serving Him. No doubt Solomon was talking about the same kind of confidence before God that a good conscience can provide when he remarked: “The wicked man [with a guilty conscience] flees though no one pursues, but the righteous [with a clear conscience] are as bold as a lion” (Prov 28:1). Guilty people are constantly and anxiously looking over their shoulder, wondering when their sin will catch up to them. Those with a clear conscience have no such worries.

Although sin no longer separates us positionally from God, it can practically, and our conscience lets us know when we need to get something right with God and our fellow man. This is the reason the King said:

If you are offering your gift at the altar and there remember [through your conscience] that your brother has something against you, leave your gift there in front of the altar. First go and be reconciled to your brother; then come and offer your gift. (Matt 5:23-24).

God knows that we cannot properly worship or serve Him with a guilty conscience and we must do whatever it takes to gain a clear conscience, including reconciliation with someone.

Reconciliation of offenses is not only essential to our relationship with God, but to maintaining peace of mind and a clear conscience. Therefore, the King likewise instructed us:

If your brother sins against you, go and show him his fault, just between the two of you. If he listens to you, you have won your brother over. (Matt 18:15)

Often times we can simply overlook an offense against us and quickly forget about it. However, there are other times that an offense “sticks” in our mind and we cannot “shake” it. Immediately we begin to notice a certain coldness that enters into our relationship with the one who offended us. We may ask at this point why someone sinning against us would bear on our conscience? It is because sin separates, and even if the separation is the fault of someone else, God wants us to “live in harmony with one another” (1 Pet 3:8) and to “Make every effort to keep the unity of the Spirit through the bond of peace” (Eph 4:31; cp. Rom 12:18; 14:19; Heb 12:14).

When we are offended beyond the point of simply forgetting about it, the Spirit yearns for the relationship to be reconciled and works on our conscience to encourage us to “make every effort” to do what is necessary. If we don’t, the Spirit through our conscience will not give us peace. While it may be difficult to humble ourselves and risk receiving a prideful response from the offender, the King knew that we will never gain a clear conscience in the matter unless we love that person enough to, “go and show him his fault, just between the two of you.” While Christ’s instruction may not be easy, it is less painful than just continuing to “stew” on the offense, and less destructive than gossiping to others about it. In these instances we must obey our conscience and trust that God is guiding us through it.

Not only is a clear conscience critical in our relationship with God and others, it is obviously important to our service for God. Hebrews tells us that a cleansed conscience is essential if we are to “serve the living God!” (Heb 9:14). Guilty people don’t do much for God. One reason for this is that both our love for God and people is dependent on a clear conscience because, “love . . . comes from a pure heart and a good conscience and a sincere faith” (1 Tim 1:5). If we do not have a good conscience toward God, believing that He has something against us, we can only serve Him out of fear and guilt, not love. This is why “a good conscience” which is experiencing God’s love and forgiveness is necessary for us to love others. People who are not experiencing grace are not able to give it to others.

Guilt can be so debilitating that the Apostle said, “it is necessary to submit to the authorities, not only because of possible punishment but also because of conscience” (Rom 13:5). Guilt can be a spiritual jail that is just as confining, painful, and gloomy as a physical jail.

In fact, a carelessness with our conscience can allow it to harden, resulting in spiritual devastation. Accordingly, NT scholar Colin Kruse writes, “to reject the voice of conscience is to court spiritual disaster.” ^[21] Such a potential danger prompted the Apostle to tell young Timothy:

Timothy, my son, I give you this instruction . . . so that by following them you may fight the good fight, holding on to faith and a good conscience. Some have rejected these and so have shipwrecked their faith.” (1 Tim 1:18-19).

Guilt is one of the most destructive forces to the human psyche, as demonstrated by Judas Iscariot:

When Judas, who had betrayed Him, saw that Jesus was condemned, he was seized with remorse and returned the thirty silver coins to the chief priests and the elders. “I have sinned,” he said, “for I have betrayed innocent blood.” “What is that to us?” they replied. “That’s your responsibility.” So Judas threw the money into the temple and left. Then he went away and hanged himself. (Matt 27:3-5)

Both the burden of a guilty conscience and the release that comes from confession are expressed by David when he writes:

When I kept silent, my bones wasted away through my groaning all day long. For day and night Your hand was heavy upon me; my strength was sapped as in the heat of summer. Then I acknowledged my sin to You and did not cover up my iniquity. I said, “I will confess my transgressions to the LORD”– and You forgave the guilt of my sin. (Ps 32:3-5).

Obviously personal righteousness allows us to maintain a clear conscience, but when we stumble, it is confession and repentance that help us to regain it.

David’s example, however, also illustrates what divine discipline normally looks like for God’s children. Here it would seem to be an internal and painful struggle with his conscience. ^[22] Contrary to many, it is not usually through punishing circumstances that our Father disciplines His already forgiven children, but rather, the painful “voice” of our conscience. Accordingly, we read in Proverbs:

My son, do not despise the Lord’s discipline [musar: “instruction”; from yasar: “admonish”] or be weary of His reproof, for the Lord reproves him whom He loves, as a father the son in whom He delights (Prov 3:11-12 ESV)

Notice there is no hint of physical discipline here, but merely verbal “reproof.” ^[23] How does this occur? Through our conscience. So many think that divine discipline comes in the form of God-manipulated difficulties that make our life painful, and therefore, gets our attention. Such a perspective forgets the place and power of merely a guilty conscience for bringing us to confession and repentance. For a great many Christians and situations, the pain of conscience is sufficient for divine discipline and we get into a great deal of trouble when we start interpreting difficult circumstances as divine discipline for our sins.

This is precisely the error that Job’s friends made about his difficulties, and God Himself reproved them for their misinterpretation when He said to Eliphaz, “I am angry with you and your two friends, because you have not spoken of Me what is right, as My servant Job has” (Job 42:7). And what had Job said, particularly when he was being accused of sin?:

I will never admit you are in the right; till I die, I will not deny my integrity. I will maintain my righteousness and never let go of it; my conscience will not reproach me as long as I live (Job 27:5-6).

And Job was able to say such things precisely because his “conscience” did “not reproach” him then either.

However, while a “reactive” perspective to our conscience that prompts confession is important, a proactive approach to our conscience is important as well. David also demonstrates this when he prays:

Search me, O God, and know my heart [and conscience]; test me and know my anxious thoughts. See if there is any offensive way in me, and lead me in the way everlasting.” (Ps 139:23-24).

David was not only sensitive to convictions of his conscience if and when they occurred, but he at times allowed God to reveal things in his conscience that he may not even know are there.

Thus, for the Christian, the moral reasoning of our conscience is a “Bible inside.”

Pastoral Practices

• The Apostle Paul was obviously very concerned about maintaining a clear conscience (see Rom 9:1; 2 Cor 1:12; Acts 23:1; 24:16; 2 Tim 1:3). Commit yourself to the same, and make it a habit to seek God on this, giving Him opportunity to reveal your “hidden” sins and offenses to you. David’s prayer in Psalm 139 is a good start.

C) The Weak & Strong Conscience of the Christian: From Legalism to Freedom

C.1) The Conscience of the Romans & Corinthians

The issue of the conscience is a major one in Scripture, illustrated by the great deal of ink the Apostle spent writing about it in both Romans and 1 Corinthians:

Accept him whose faith is weak, without passing judgment on disputable matters. ² One man’s faith allows him to eat everything, but another man, whose faith is weak, eats only vegetables. ³ The man who eats everything must not look down on him who does not, and the man who does not eat everything must not condemn the man who does, for God has accepted him. ⁴ Who are you to judge someone else’s servant? To his own master he stands or falls. And he will stand, for the Lord is able to make him stand.

One man considers one day more sacred than another; another man considers every day alike. Each one should be fully convinced in his own mind. ⁶ He who regards one day as special, does so to the Lord. He who eats meat, eats to the Lord, for he gives thanks to God; and he who abstains, does so to the Lord and gives thanks to God. ⁷

¹⁰ You, then, why do you judge your brother? Or why do you look down on your brother? For we will all stand before God’s judgment seat. . . . Therefore let us stop passing judgment on one another. Instead, make up your mind not to put any stumbling block or obstacle in your brother’s way. ¹⁴ As one who is in the Lord Jesus, I am fully convinced that no food is unclean in itself. But if anyone regards something as unclean, then for him it is unclean.

¹⁵ If your brother is distressed because of what you eat, you are no longer acting in love. Do not by your eating destroy your brother for whom Christ died. . . .

²⁰ Do not destroy the work of God for the sake of food. All food is clean, but it is wrong for a man to eat anything that causes someone else to stumble. ²¹ It is better not to eat meat or drink wine or to do anything else that will cause your brother to fall.

So whatever you believe about these things keep between yourself and God. Blessed is the man who does not condemn himself by what he approves. ²³ But the man who has doubts is condemned if he eats, because his eating is not from faith; and everything that does not come from faith is sin. We who are strong ought to bear with the failings of the weak and not to please ourselves. ² Each of us should please his neighbor for his good, to build him up. (Rom 14:1-15:2)

So then, about eating food sacrificed to idols: We know that an idol is nothing at all in the world and that there is no God but one. . . . But not everyone knows this. Some people are still so accustomed to idols that when they eat such food they think of it as having been sacrificed to an idol, and since their conscience is weak, it is defiled. ⁸ But food does not bring us near to God; we are no worse if we do not eat, and no better if we do.

Be careful, however, that the exercise of your freedom does not become a stumbling block to the weak. ¹⁰ For if anyone with a weak conscience sees you who have this knowledge eating in an idol’s temple, won’t he be emboldened to eat what has been sacrificed to idols? ¹¹ So this weak brother, for whom Christ died, is destroyed by your knowledge. ¹² When you sin against your brothers in this way and wound their weak conscience, you sin against Christ. ¹³ Therefore, if what I eat causes my brother to fall into sin, I will never eat meat again, so that I will not cause him to fall. (1 Cor 8:4-13)

Eat anything sold in the meat market without raising questions of conscience, ²⁶ for, “The Earth is the Lord’s, and everything in it.” If some unbeliever invites you to a meal and you want to go, eat whatever is put before you without raising questions of conscience.

²⁸ But if anyone says to you, “This has been offered in sacrifice,” then do not eat it, both for the sake of the man who told you and for conscience’ sake— ²⁹ the other man’s conscience, I mean, not yours.

For why should my freedom be judged by another’s conscience? ³⁰ If I take part in the meal with thankfulness, why am I denounced because of something I thank God for? So whether you eat or drink or whatever you do, do it all for the glory of God. (1 Cor 10:25-31)

The Apostle begins his discussion of this issue in the Roman church by writing: “Accept him whose faith is weak, without passing judgment on disputable matters [dialogismos: opinions]” (Rom 14:1). The reason that the Apostle writes at length to both the Roman and Corinthian churches concerning this issue is that it was causing considerable strife. The Apostle’s audience in Romans is no doubt both Gentile and Jewish Christians. ^[24] Considering the significant cultural differences that existed between these two groups, it should not surprise us that there was friction. In fact, American Christians can readily testify that even being from the same culture does not eliminate the myriad of differences that exist between us!

It is not surprising then to find in the NT, considerable instruction on how we as Christians are to get along with one another. The King said that what will really convince the world that we believe in Him is not our words, but our supernatural, uncommon, spectacular love, respect, and acceptance of one another (cf. John 13:35). Thus, there is a multitude of biblical mandates to accept, forgive, bear with, and be patient with one another. Not only are these the most consistent commands in the Bible, they are the most challenging as well, and the issue of varying consciences among Christians presents a particular challenge to love.

In order to best understand what kinds of issues may cause unnecessary divisions among Christians, it will be helpful to make some distinctions between various categories of convictions that may divide Christians and to define what the Apostle means by “disputable matters.” For our purposes, we will divide such convictions into three: 1) doctrinal, 2) debatable, and 3) acceptable. The following table summarizes these convictions.

Table 3.2: Categories of Convictions

Convictions & Issues	Relationship to specific teaching of the Bible	Has automatic potential to harm people if practiced	Example
Doctrinal	Violates specific and clear direction in Scripture	Probable	Murder
Debatable	Possibly some general, biblical principles	Possible	Music style for worship
Acceptable	Violates specific and clear direction in Scripture	Improbable	Jewish dietary laws

C.2) “Doctrinal” Convictions

First of all, it is necessary to define what we mean by “doctrinal” convictions. These involve issues in which 1) God has made His opinion clear, and 2) result in automatic harm if God’s opinion is not heeded. Some may suggest this latter point is too pragmatic and human-centered. Perhaps, but there is not a single doctrine or command in Scripture, that was not given to benefit God’s people in some way. We suffer in some way if we disbelieve or disobey any of them.

For example, “You shall not murder” (Exod 20:13) is divine instruction that is both clear and automatically harmful to people if not strictly obeyed. While categorizing a conviction on murder as doctrinal is rather easy and uncontroversial, other issues are not. For example, some wish to make homosexual lifestyles acceptable in the Church. While categorizing its prohibition as doctrinal may be controversial, the Bible makes God’s conviction clear on this issue (cf. Lev 18:22; Rom 1:18, 22, 24, 26-27; 1 Cor 6:9-11), and its allowance is harmful to not only its practitioners, but society in general.

Dealing with differing doctrinal convictions has been one of the most painful and difficult struggles of the Church throughout its history. Unity over precisely what the Bible teaches simply will not happen until we all get to sit at the feet of the Teacher. How then are we to know where to draw the line in allowing doctrinal differences to affect our working relationships?

First of all, humility needs to be exercised in recognizing that there is some heresy in all of us, and not just in those we would label heretics. If there is one thing that a person should learn from studying the history of Christian theology, it is that there has never been a theologian who did not have a blind spot, no matter how intelligent, devoted, or gifted they may have been, nor how accurate they may have interpreted all other aspects of theology. Anyone who has seriously studied the Scriptures to determine their own doctrinal convictions will soon find that there are few, if any others, presently or of the past, that they completely agree with. Somebody is wrong, and no doubt on some points it is us.

The King no doubt had this very thing in mind when He said:

Do not judge, or you too will be judged. For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you [by the Bible and its true interpretation]. Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother’s eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye? How can you say to your brother, ‘Let me take the speck out of your eye,’ when all the time there is a plank in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother’s eye. (Matt 7:1-5)

The issue of whether or not a person’s doctrinal conviction will automatically harm others gives us at least one guideline for determining our relationship with those whom we do not agree with doctrinally. Do we think the potential harm that we or others could incur from what we perceive as their “false” doctrine, outweighs the potential benefits that we or others would enjoy by our fellowshipping or ministering together? Make no mistake about it, God does not want anyone harmed by false teaching no matter what the potential benefit may be. That’s where God Himself draws the line.

This is particularly important to remember in efforts to team up with others to more effectively evangelize a community. God does not expect us to allow some harm to come to Christians in order to reach the lost and He is big enough to get the job done without doing so. Still, if the doctrinal issue is more of a theoretical one [i.e. whether or not God created the Universe in six literal 24 hour days], rather than a practical one [i.e. what must a person do to be saved] then there may be more opportunity for a relationship, in spite of important doctrinal differences.

Obviously, the best thing would be if the doctrinal issue could be discussed and the two parties would come to agreement on what the Scriptures teach. And indeed, such an effort should be made. But if an agreement cannot be reached and our conscience tells us that this doctrinal difference poses a spiritual threat to them or others, then it is legitimate to keep our distance even if they are fellow Christians. While we are expected by God to respect all Christians, He does not expect us to pursue an equal level of relationships with all Christians, and in terms of doctrinal differences, he allows our conscience to be our guide. ^[25]

An additional principle is that there needs to be some effort to not offend others regarding their doctrinal convictions. If there is an agreement between two parties that certain potentially offensive doctrinal convictions will neither be discussed nor practiced, then there can be a considerable amount of interaction between the parties without fear of harm, or the need to raise questions of conscience. To “agree to disagree” and to not promote or practice particularly divisive doctrinal positions in the presence of others may be one of the most helpful principles in assisting even those with a “weak” conscience in such matters, to be more united with others.

Pastoral Practices

• It may be important for your church leadership team to discuss what popular false teachings they consider to be harmful to the faith and growth of a Christian. Some controversial issues in which such convictions may come from include the Charismaticism, women’s roles in church teaching/leadership, and the substance and sequence of End Time events. First, determine your united convictions on these areas, and secondly, decide what differences in these doctrines would be harmful. If there are some, then “careful instruction” to the church on these areas would be called for. Also, it might be honest and helpful to add them to your statement of faith.

C.3) “Debatable” Convictions

What we will label here as “debatable” convictions, differ from doctrinal convictions in that: there is no clear or specific teaching on the issue in the Scriptures. Of course, we must be extremely careful in concluding that Scripture is not clear on an issue. Elsewhere, we have pointed out the fact that far too many Scriptures are being put in this “trash can” labeled “not intended to be clear” by too many people as an excuse to not study, understand, teach, or obey them.

Nonetheless, there are several legitimate topics in this category of “debatable” convictions which include: the best style of teaching the Bible (expositorally or topically), the best method of educating our children (home, private, public schools), political affiliations (Republican or Democratic), and a number of others. While the Scriptures may provide helpful principles to apply to these positions, it does not dictate that a Christian consistently adhere to any one of them. Contrary to the conviction of some, a Christian can be in the center of God’s will and teach topically through the Bible, send their kids to public school, and vote for a Democrat.

C.3.a) Women’s dress

Other issues are more difficult to label “debatable.” For example, when the Apostle commands women to “dress modestly, with decency and propriety” (1 Tim 2:9), the specific application of this instruction is not clear, as different Christians may have a different interpretation of what these terms mean. For some, a woman wearing a full length dress is the only acceptable application of this instruction. For others, a woman can wear pants, and even shorts, and still meet the biblical requirements. Therefore, it is difficult to make any particular dress code or style a “doctrinal” issue.

In the above instruction God specifies the result of a Christian’s dress code (e. g. decent and modest), therefore making the effect of our dress code on others a doctrinal issue, and one that needs to be seriously considered. However, the verse does not specify the mode of dress (e. g. legs covered completely, etc.), therefore making a conviction in this area a “debatable” one, and suggesting that God desires some freedom in this area.

At the same time, it should be admitted that too many Christian women in America do not take this instruction seriously enough. Many are more concerned with what is attractive, fashionable, and comfortable, rather than what is modest, discreet, and biblical. As we will have ample opportunity later to discuss, having a concern for ourselves, rather than for others is the real problem behind these issues, and our dress code is no exception. We need to be sensitive to other’s definition of “modest” and “decent” if we desire to truly act in love.

Obviously one of the reasons God demands that women dress modestly is to avoid unnecessarily tempting men to lust. While lust may be a temptation for women as well, the fact that men are particularly vulnerable to this sin explains why the Scripture’s focus is on the dress code of women (cf. 1 Pet 3:3-4). The bottom line is that Christian women should be more concerned with the consciences of men, than the fashions of the world; with protecting men, rather than attracting them.

C.3.b) Worship music

Another example of a “debatable” issue would include the centuries-long debate concerning the best style of music for Sunday worship. ^[26] Many Christians assume this is only a modern issue, but actually, ever since the Reformation when Martin Luther (1483-1556) promoted hymns with instruments, while John Calvin (1509-1564) insisted on only psalms without instruments, the Church has been at considerable odds on this issue.

The clearest Scripture on the topic is Ephesians 5:19 and Colossians 3:16 which state respectively:

Speak to one another with psalms [psalmos], hymns [humnos] and spiritual songs [pneumatikos oide]. Sing and make music in your heart to the Lord. (Eph 5:19)

Let the word of Christ dwell in you richly as you teach and admonish one another with all wisdom, and as you sing psalms, hymns and spiritual songs with gratitude in your hearts to God. (Col 3:16)

Two things become clear in these verses. First, it is the attitude of the heart that is most important, not the style of music. Secondly, the Apostle recognized a wide variety of legitimate music styles when he suggests that “psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs” be sung in a Christian assembly. Beyond the obvious need for solidly Christian lyrics, the Bible simply says nothing about the beat, tempo or style of the music to be used. No one has biblical authority to assert that their preferred music style is spiritually or biblically superior to another. Music style is a “debatable” issue; something on which God did not want to dictate specifics on and neither should we. Whatever style of music helps you worship God is a a legitimate one.

However, the issue goes beyond preferences and can become a matter of offense. Someone, for instance, that was saved out of an addiction to satanic, “hard rock” music, may understandably be uncomfortable with some styles of Christian music that have a similar beat, even though much different lyrics. Likewise, why would it surprise us that four hundred year old hymns are not the most helpful style of worship music for a twenty year old Christian in the 21^st century? Then again, why would those who are younger snicker at an eighty-year old Christian for whom the hymns are synonymous with “spiritual songs” that elicit “gratitude in your hearts to God?” Nonetheless, it is typical today to see the “hymn people” judging the “rock & rollers” for being unspiritual and for the “rock & rollers” to charge the “hymn people” with being culturally out to lunch.

It becomes readily apparent that differing convictions on “debatable” issues can cause a considerable amount of strife among Christians. Such issues have, in fact, split whole families, churches, and denominations. While the Apostle’s instruction concerning “acceptable” convictions, as discussed further below, is not completely applicable here, his overriding purpose and themes in these passages are: 1) love and unity among Christians (cf. Rom 14:1,13,15;15:5,7; 1 Cor 8:1; 10:23-24), and 2) that God be glorified (cf. Rom 15:6-7; 1 Cor 10:31).

He ties both together when he sums up his exhortation to the “weak” and “strong” in the Roman church by simply saying, “Accept one another then, just as Christ has accepted you, in order to bring praise to God” (15:7). To the factions in Corinth he says, “So whether you eat or drink or whatever you do [including worship], do it all for the glory of God” (1 Cor 10:31).

These two instructions are sufficient in themselves to give us ample direction in living with legitimate differences between God’s people. Humility is again a key. First, we must humbly and carefully study the Scriptures to determine whether or not the issue is, in fact, “doctrinal” or “debatable.” If we can find no clear teaching of Scripture that would elevate our opinion in a matter to the level of doctrine, then we must humbly admit that it is merely a preference for which you may or may not have some biblical principles for. Finally, we must not knowingly or unnecessarily offend another in practicing our preferences on “debatable” issues. On this point, much more will be said in the following discussion regarding “acceptable” convictions.

C.4) “Acceptable” Convictions

C.4.a) Acceptable convictions ignore biblical teaching but do not harm others

In order to accurately interpret the Apostle in Romans 14 and 1 Corinthians 8 and 10, it is important to define what we have called “acceptable” convictions, and to distinguish them from “doctrinal” and “debatable” convictions. Simply put, an “acceptable” conviction is one that 1) ignores clear biblical teaching, but 2) does not involve an issue that is automatically harmful to people.

The key characteristic of “acceptable” convictions is that, while they may not reflect a full understanding of biblical truth, in and of themselves, their practice will not bring automatic harm to someone. Such are the specific issues addressed in Romans 14 and 1 Corinthians 8 and 10. These include the belief among the “weak” that eating meat that was sacrificed to idols, drinking wine, and disregarding the Sabbath and other Jewish holidays are sins against God.

First of all, such convictions ignore clear biblical teaching. Regarding the eating of meat in general, the Apostle confidently replied: “As one who is in the Lord Jesus, I am fully convinced that no food is unclean in itself” (Rom 14:14), no doubt reflecting Christ’s teaching in Mark 7:18-19. Concerning the eating of meat sacrificed to idols in particular, the Apostle writes: “Eat anything sold in the meat market without raising questions of conscience” (1 Cor 10:25).

As for drinking wine, while we are not to get drunk (cf. Eph 5:18), the Apostle had actually told Timothy to, “Stop drinking only water, and use a little wine because of your stomach and your frequent illnesses” (1 Tim 5:23). Finally, the Apostle clearly abolished any obligation to any of the Jewish holidays, including the Sabbath, when he wrote: “One man considers one day more sacred than another; another man considers every day alike. Each one should be fully convinced in his own mind” (Rom 14:5).

The Apostle sums up a lot of the freedom in the New Covenant when he writes the Colossians:

He forgave us all our sins, having canceled the written code, with its regulations, that was against us and that stood opposed to us; He took it away, nailing it to the cross. . . .

Therefore do not let anyone judge you by what you eat or drink, or with regard to a religious festival, a New Moon celebration or a Sabbath day. These are a shadow of the things that were to come; the reality, however, is found in Christ. . . .

Since you died with Christ to the basic principles of this world, why, as though you still belonged to it, do you submit to its rules: “Do not handle! Do not taste! Do not touch!”? ²² These are all destined to perish with use, because they are based on human commands and teachings. ²³ Such regulations indeed have an appearance of wisdom, with their self-imposed worship, their false humility and their harsh treatment of the body, but they lack any value in restraining sensual indulgence. (Col 2:13-14, 16-17, 20-23)

Therefore, placing restrictions on Christians concerning what they eat, drink, or how they approach the Sabbath do not reflect a full understanding of the “grace in which we now stand” (Rom 5:2).

However, if a Christian were to place such restrictions on themselves, it would not be automatically harmful to anyone. Therefore when the Apostle says in Romans 14:1: “Accept him whose faith is weak, without passing judgment on disputable matters,” he is not condoning a variety of “doctrinal” convictions and thereby any and all sinful behavior that a person may simply feel comfortable with. Rather, there are issues of conscience that, while they may not reflect a full understanding of the truth, are acceptable because they are not automatically harmful to anyone. In the context of Romans 14 then, it is acceptable to abstain from eating vegetables (v. 2) because of cultural factors effecting a person’s convictions (and conscience) in that area, and because the issue is rather harmless in and of itself.

However, the Apostle did not grant the same freedom for other areas of conduct that are automatically harmful to people such as sexual perversion, greed, idolatry, slander, drunkenness, and swindling. We are not even to eat with such people, let alone accept what is apparently acceptable to their own conscience (cf. 1 Cor 5:11).

In addition, it should be said that if any “harmless” practice were to be promoted as necessary for salvation, it would cease to be an “acceptable” conviction. It is conceivable, for example, that if the Jews in Rome wanted to practice circumcision simply because they thought it was part of being a good Jew, the Apostle would have allowed it (one is reminded of his circumcision of Timothy in Acts 16:3). However, because circumcision was being taught as a requirement for salvation in the Galatian church, the Apostle vehemently condemned it (Gal 5:2-4), and an “acceptable” practice became a doctrinal issue.

The difference then between those with a “weak” conscience and those with a “strong” conscience is how much their convictions are in line with biblical truth. The “strength” of a person’s conscience, from the Apostle’s perspective, depended on their real knowledge of the truth. Those with a “strong” faith or conscience are those who, like the Apostle, are “fully convinced” (Rom 14:14) of and “know” (1 Cor 8:4, 7) both the truths and freedom taught in the Bible. Those with a “weaker” conscience do not yet fully understand such things. More specifically, the issue is a person’s level of understanding and application of the grace of God now given us in the New Covenant. Because grace is the real issue here, we might label those with a strong conscience as “freedomists” and those with a “weak” conscience as “legalists.”

While the latter term may seem too derogatory to some, the Apostle makes it clear that while having a “weak” conscience is acceptable, it is not commendable. Although the Apostle writes that “each one should be fully convinced in his own mind” (Rom 14:5) regarding such issues, surely God would have our convictions ultimately based squarely on the word of God.

Accordingly, we read in Hebrews:

Anyone who lives on milk, being still an infant, is not acquainted with the [true] teaching about [real] righteousness. But solid food is for the mature, who by constant use have trained themselves [and their conscience] to distinguish good from [real] evil. (Heb 5:13-14)

It is accurately distinguishing between what is actually good and actually evil that someone with a “weak” conscience or a “legalist” has difficulty with.

Accordingly, Douglas Moo, Professor of NT at Wheaton, writes the following concerning Romans 14:

Paul’s decision to use the pejorative phrase “weak in faith” makes clear where his sympathies lie. We cannot avoid the impression (though his pastoral concerns lead him to keep it implicit) that Paul would hope that a growth in Christ would help those who were “weak” become “strong.” ^[27]

Likewise, Erwin Lutzer, longtime teacher at Moody Church comments:

Those who had freedom in this matter were regarded by Paul as the strong; those who felt they had to obey the ancient rules were the weak. If we had been there, we might have seen this quite differently. We probably would have said that the person who adhered to the old Jewish standards was the strong person and that the one who had freedom to eat anything was the weak Christian. We tacitly assume that the Christian who has the liberty to enjoy certain activities is the weak one, whereas the strong one is the person who believes that such freedom is capitulation to the world.

Paul said that the opposite was true. A strong Christian will see that morally neutral activities should not be categorically forbidden. A weak Christian will multiply taboos, still thinking that spiritual living is conforming to the right set of ‘don’ts.’ ^[28]

This probably explains why the Apostle openly shared his own convictions on the matter of foods (Rom 14:14), even though he instructs later that, “whatever you believe about these things keep between yourself and God” (Rom 14:22). Some may accuse the Apostle of not following his own instruction here, but it was no doubt his special position of authority and his concern that the “weak” grow in grace, that prompted him to not keep his convictions to himself.

Nevertheless, it is clear that God would have us study the Scriptures in order to establish convictions and “train” our conscience to better “distinguish good from evil” (Heb 5:14). However, such “strengthening” of our conscience is a process, just as gaining convictions and growing in Christian maturity are processes. Opperwall writes:

[T]he conscience is not a static thing. It is capable of growth and is, in fact, in a continual process of being shaped by social influences. The consciences of all are shaped by the standards of the company they keep and the groups in which they share. The Christian conscience is in a lifelong process of being shaped by the Word of God in the fellowship of believers. One of the purposes of the communion of the saints and the admonition of the Church is the shaping of the moral discernment of the individual in order that he grow up into mature discernment (cf. Eph. 4:13). ^[29]

As we will discuss below, the Apostle urges patience on the part of the more mature for the sake of unity and the spiritual health of the less mature. However, it is clear as well that there is an expectation that over time, a Christian’s conscience will be strengthened as their convictions grow in the knowledge of the grace we have in Christ Jesus. At this point, the Apostle has some additional instruction regarding the relationship between those with a “strong” conscience, and those with a “weak” one.

C.4.b) “Freedomists” and “legalists” must love each other

In the context of food, the Apostle says:

The man who eats everything [the “freedomist”] must not look down on the man who does not [the “legalist”], and the man who does not eat everything [the “legalist”] must not condemn the man who does [the “freedomist”], for God has accepted him. (Rom 14:3)

In saying that “God has accepted him” we notice first of all that the Apostle is obviously not speaking about “doctrinal” matters here, or unbiblical and harmful convictions that God would not accept. His instruction is specifically applicable to the “acceptable” and “debatable” issues discussed above, and his instruction is crystal clear on such things: God alone is to judge. It is wrong for a “freedomist” to harbor any disrespect toward a “legalist,” because of an inaccurate, but “acceptable” conviction; and it is likewise wrong for a “legalist” to harbor contempt toward a “freedomist” for the same thing. Such attitudes of mutual disrespect are unacceptable because “God [the Master and Judge of both] has accepted” both of their convictions on these matters.

While it is not necessarily sin for someone to have a particular conviction on an “acceptable” or “debatable” matter, it is sin for someone to look down on another person for their conviction in such matters. In judging such convictions as sin, where God has judged them acceptable, we are the ones who sin. When we are faced with a fellow Christian who has a different, but acceptable conviction from our own, we need to recognize that we have just been thrust to the edge of a moral precipice, in grave danger of falling into sin. If we are not extremely careful, we will give in to the all too easy sin of judging or “looking down on” the other, and in the process abandon love which is the center of Christianity.

Concerning the “legalists” who may judge the “freedomists” C. S. Lewis (1898-1963) writes:

One of the marks of a certain type of bad man is that he cannot give up a thing himself without wanting every one else to give it up. That is not the Christian way. An individual Christian may see fit to give up all sorts of things for special reasons-marriage, or meat, or beer, or the cinema; but the moment he starts saying the things are bad in themselves, or looking down his nose at other people who do use them, he has taken the wrong turning. ^[30]

On the other hand, specifically speaking of the tendency of “freedomists” to judge those they think are “legalists,” Erwin Lutzer warns:

[L]et us not be critical of those who would keep rules; they might be legalistic, but not necessarily. Jesus did not mind the Pharisees’ keeping their rules (though some of them went beyond the bounds of Scripture), but He grieved over the fact that they stopped short of developing intimacy with God. . . .

Two people can keep the same rules; one can do so legalistically because he believes that the rules define his relationship with God. Another can keep the same rules, but do so knowing that the important thing is to cultivate his relationship with God. At root, legalism is a matter of heart and motive. ^[31]

C.3.c) “Freedomists” must limit their freedom for the sake of the “legalists”

While the Apostle encourages both “freedomists” and “legalists” to love one another and to refrain from judging, he places a special responsibility on the “freedomists” to respect the conscience of the “legalists”:

Accept him whose faith [conscience ^[32]] is weak, without passing judgment on disputable matters . . . We who are strong [in conscience] ought to bear with the failings of the weak [in conscience] and not to please ourselves. (Rom 14:1, 15:1)

One thing that becomes readily apparent in the Apostle’s instruction concerning differing convictions is how sacred he views the Christian’s conscience. It is nothing less than a “personal Bible,” and thus this chapter concerning the conscience is entitled “The Bible Inside.”

This is specifically applicable for “acceptable” convictions that actually ignore clear biblical teaching, but are harmless in and of themselves. In such issues, while there may be incorrect things currently written in our “personal Bible” that may not match what is written in God’s perfect Bible, God allows, and even expects us to adhere to that “personal Bible.” The Apostle makes this clear in Romans 14:23 when he says: “the man who has doubts [about what Scripture teaches on eating meat] is condemned if he eats, because his eating is not from faith [or a clear conscience]; and everything that does not come from faith [or a clear conscience] is sin.” ^[33]

Along these lines, Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274) wrote:

When erring reason [i.e. a “weak” conscience] proposes something as being commanded by God [even though it is not], then to scorn the dictate of reason is to scorn the commandment of God. . . .

If then reason or conscience err with an error that is voluntary, either directly, or through negligence, so that one errs about what one ought to know [goes against their conscience]; then such an error of reason or conscience does not excuse the will, that abides by that erring reason or conscience, from being evil.

But if the error arise from ignorance of some circumstance [i.e. “weak” conscience], and without any negligence, so that it cause the act to be involuntary, then that error of reason or [“weak”] conscience excuses the will, that abides by that erring reason, from being evil. ^[34]

Likewise, Dr. Moo is again helpful here:

Paul is not . . . claiming that any act that does not arise out of a basic trust and dependency on Christ is sinful, true as that may be. What he here labels “sin,” rather, is any act that does not match our sincerely held convictions about what our Christian faith allows us to do and prohibits us from doing. For a Christian not a single decision and action can be good which he does not think he can justify on the ground of his Christian conviction and his liberty before God in Christ. Violation of the dictates of the conscience, even when the conscience does not conform perfectly with God’s will, is sinful. ^[35]

There are several reasons for this. First, and this is again important, the issue is not automatically harmful to yourself or others. While believing that Christians are obligated to conform their lives to the Jewish Sabbath may not reflect an accurate understanding of the NT, such a conviction is not automatically harmful to anyone, until it is allowed to become a divisive issue.

Secondly, God recognizes that there is a growth process involved in having all of our convictions match perfectly the truth of Scripture. God gives us grace to grow, and we must do the same for others. In fact, there may be a good reason that God may want a former alcoholic to feel guilty about having a sip of wine even though they are under grace and such a practice is allowed as a Christian. That “weaker” conscience may be for their own protection.

While God is certainly sovereign over what is written on the conscience of a person, it is important that fellow Christians, and especially Christian leaders, are extremely careful not to “tamper” with the conscience of another. “Freedomists” are vulnerable to the temptation of flaunting their freedom in order to “liberate” the “legalist,” and therefore causing them to act against their “personal Bible.” It is a prideful thing when a mere human takes it upon themselves to “strengthen” someone’s conscience on an “acceptable” issue. While all Christians are responsible to some degree to help one another adhere to “doctrinal” matters which are clear in God’s Bible and automatically affect people’s welfare, no Christian has the liberty to tamper with someone’s “personal Bible” regarding an “acceptable” conviction that is harmless. We notice that in the passages where the Apostle deals with such matters, he encourages mutual respect, not an effort to change the consciences of others.

Along these lines, the great Puritan theologian John Owens (1616-1683) wrote:

No power under heaven can cause conscience to think, act, or judge otherwise than it doth by its immediate respect unto God; for it is the mind’s self-judging with respect unto God, and what is not so is no act of conscience. Wherefore, to force an act of conscience implies a contradiction. However it may be defiled, bribed, seared, and at length utterly debauched, it cannot admit of a superior power, a power above or over itself, under God. ^[36]

In other words, the only way to move a conscience against itself is to destroy it. Not only is the conscience a sacred thing, but it is a rather mysterious thing, with vulnerabilities that we may not fully understand, but which, nonetheless, make it susceptible to serious injury. The Apostle warns us that such “tampering” will have devastating consequences in the life of a “weaker” Christian, consequences that he is particularly descriptive of in 1 Corinthians 8:

[S]ince their conscience is weak, it is defiled [moluno]. Be careful, however, that the exercise of your freedom does not become a stumbling block [proskomma: offense] to the weak. . . . So this weak brother, for whom Christ died, is destroyed [apollumi: ruined ^[37]] by your knowledge. When you sin against your brothers in this way and wound [tupto: lit. pummel repeatedly] their weak conscience, you sin against Christ. Therefore, if what I eat causes my brother to fall into sin, I will never eat meat again, so that I will not cause him to fall. (vs. 7, 9, 11-13)

His warning is similar in Romans:

If your brother is distressed [lupeitai: grieved] because of what you eat, you are no longer acting in love. Do not by your eating destroy [appollue: ruin] your brother for whom Christ died. . . . Do not destroy [katalue: undo] the work of God for the sake of food (Rom 14:15, 20).

When a “freedomist” entices a “legalist” to act in a “freer” way, the conscience of the “legalist” suffers severe damage because their conscience is not yet actually “free.” ^[38] The Apostle says the weaker Christian’s conscience is “defiled,” offended, ruined, pummeled, and distressed.

In reference to “ruining [apollumi]” someone’s conscience, it is helpful to look at another context in which the same Greek word is employed. The King said, “Neither do men pour new wine into old wineskins. If they do, the skins will burst, the wine will run out and the wineskins will be ruined [apollumi]” (Matt 9:17). The image is not of something that completely ceases to exist, but rather is irreversibly damaged such that it can no longer perform the function for which it was made. In itself, a horrifying thought in relation to one’s conscience, but the Apostle adds that such a thing is also a sin “against Christ.”

By “stumbling block” (1 Cor 8:9) the Apostle essentially means an “obstacle in your brother’s way” (Rom 14:13) that hinders their spiritual growth. Dr. Lutzer explains:

This does not mean that we should never do anything that another Christian doesn’t like! Christ frequently said and did things that caused offense-even to His own disciples. . . . For Paul, being a stumbling block meant to do something that would make a brother or sister fall back into his or her former way of life of sin. ^[39]

One aspect of the spiritual growth that can be stunted by a “stumbling block” is a strengthening of their conscience apart from better understanding Scripture. If a “legalist” is enticed to sin against their conscience, their spiritual growth is actually stunted, and possibly permanently.

Obviously, as pointed out earlier, to act against one’s conscience in such matters is to “fall into sin.” No doubt it is such sin that causes the guilt and “distress” (lupeo: sadness, sorrow) that the Apostle describes in the parallel passage in Romans 14:15. We can readily see why the Apostle instructed both the “legalists” and the “freedomists” that: “whatever you believe about these things [“acceptable” and “debatable” issues] keep between yourself and God” (Rom. 14:22).

All of this makes it especially important that Christian leaders do not find themselves unnecessarily “weakening” the conscience of others in an area in which God would allow a “stronger” conscience. If a pastor, for instance, were to teach that eating certain foods, drinking any alcohol, listening to Christian “rock,” or failing to practice the Jewish Sabbath, not wearing dresses and ties to church, not singing hymns in church, or not using the 1611 KJV Bible were all sins against God, such a pastor is severely harming his flock, and not helping them.

First of all, such “legalist” leaders are misrepresenting God in these matters. Secondly, they are imposing their own “stumbling blocks” of legalism on other believers, especially young ones, and such bondage is tragic, and unfortunately, far too common in the Church today. Thirdly, they are surely setting up their people to have a judgmental attitude toward the “freedomists” who live closer to the truth of the grace we enjoy in Christ Jesus regarding such matters.

Accordingly, we read in James: “Not many of you should presume to be teachers, my brothers, because you know that we who teach will be judged more strictly” (3:1). Likewise, the Apostle instructs all Christian leaders: “Watch your life and doctrine closely. Persevere in them, because if you do, you will save both yourself and your hearers” (1 Tim 4:16). While the Apostle’s words certainly include eternal salvation, the word “save” has a broader meaning than this in the NT, and also includes the quality of our Christian life on Earth. Legalism promoted by spiritual authorities will severely hinder both unbelievers getting saved, and believers enjoying the salvation they have.

The Apostle is not denying that it can be a difficult thing for a “freedomist,” such as he was, to endure the inconvenience that comes with what seems to be the unnecessary ignorance of a fellow Christian regarding the depth of the grace in which they stand. It is tempting to persuade such a person to not merely stand or wade in such a refreshing stream, but to plunge headlong into the grace we have been given. However, once again, God desires us to exercise patience in “debatable” and “acceptable” matters rather than our efforts to make people agree with us. Hopefully the above warnings regarding the injury that occurs when we attempt such lessons will serve to help, “We who are strong . . . to bear with the failings of the weak and not to please ourselves,” and to treat such people with the patience, humility, acceptance, love, and respect that they deserve as a fellow child of God.

In this, we see that while it is right and good for the “freedomist” to live according to their “strong” and biblically accurate conscience, there is something even more important. If the “freedomist” truly is more mature in their understanding of the Christian faith, and especially grace, they will limit the exercise of their freedom in order to exercise love toward the “legalist.”

Here we would offer one final exhortation concerning the state of our conscience. While we noted above that God would have those with a “weak” conscience, obtain a “stronger” one, He also wants those with a “strong” conscience to have a “clear” one. In other words, it is not enough to simply have a mature and accurate understanding of what is right and wrong, resulting in a “strong” conscience. God wants us to obey the truth as well so that we might have a “clear” conscience. That’s the goal Christian: a conscience that is both “strong” and clear, and if those with a “strong” conscience do not love those with a “weak” one, they will not, or at least should not, have a clear one.

C.4.d) “Freedomists” must limit their freedom for the sake of unbelievers

The Apostle’s instructions do not only apply to other Christians. In 1 Corinthians 10 he is also concerned that not only the actions of a “legalist” might hinder someone getting saved, but the insensitivity of a “freedomist” might as well. Previously in chapter 9 he had encouraged the Corinthians to follow his example in becoming “all things to all men so that by all possible means I might save some” (v. 22). With this perspective in mind, he addresses the issue of eating meat sacrificed to idols:

[The “freedomist” Corinthians were saying] “Everything is permissible”—[the Apostle replied] but not everything is beneficial. [The “freedomist” Corinthians were saying] “Everything is permissible”–[the Apostle replied] but not everything is constructive. . . .

If some unbeliever invites you to a meal and you want to go, eat whatever is put before you without raising questions of conscience [in general, enjoy your freedom in Christ]. But if anyone says to you, “This has been offered in sacrifice,” then do not eat it, both for the sake of the man who told you [obviously because such information was evidently important to him] and for conscience’ sake– the other man’s conscience, I mean, not yours. . . .

Do not cause anyone [specifically in this context, unbelievers] to stumble, whether Jews, Greeks or the Church of God–even as I try to please everybody in every way. For I am not seeking my own good but the good of many, so that they may be saved. (1 Cor 10:23, 27-29, 32-33)

While we may have the freedom to do something like drink a bottle of beer, if we have reason to believe that it will offend an unbeliever and reflect on Christ in a bad way to them, we need to limit our freedom in this context as well.

It becomes apparent that in all of these matters, love is the key. What the Apostle prayed for the Philippians would seem to be a promise (and a challenge) that is very applicable to dealing with differences of conscience between people:

This is my prayer: that your love may abound more and more [even as you grow in doctrinal] knowledge and depth of insight, so that you may be able to discern what is best and may be pure and blameless until the day of Christ, filled with the fruit of righteousness that comes through Jesus Christ–to the glory and praise of God (1:9-11).

Pastoral Practices

• Ask God to bring to mind anyone you have offended recently and if so, “go and be reconciled to your brother” (Matt 5:24) or whomever else you have offended, whether intentionally or not. Especially consider whether or not you have ever tried to “strengthen” the conscience of a “weaker” Christian on a particular issue. Sincerely apologize to them and affirm them in the value of the convictions they have on an “acceptable” or “debatable” issue.
• Is there anyone in your ministry who has a “weak” conscience on a particular issue? Pray for them, committing yourself to not offend them and to defend them before others if necessary.

Extras & Endnotes

A Devotion to Dad

Our Father in Heaven, we thank you so much for creating all humanity with a conscience. We especially thank you for the “still small voice” that resides in us to tell us when we are going astray. We pray that you would help us to always remain sensitive to our conscience and keep it clear of any guilt so that we can serve you effectively and confidently. We pray too that we would not be the cause of offending the conscience of another. Finally, help us to maintain peace in all our relationships so that both our conscience, and the conscience of others may be free of any turmoil and that the harmony that you desire, both in us and around us, may be enjoyed.

Gauging Your Grasp

1. What is a verse of Scripture that speaks about the importance of a Christian maintaining a clear conscience?
2. What are some reasons that it is important to keep a clear conscience?
3. How do we gain a clear conscience when we sin against God or others?
4. Why isn’t every sin in our life necessarily on our conscience?
5. Define a “doctrinal” conviction and give an example. What helps us have unity over different “doctrinal” convictions.
6. Define a “debatable” conviction and give an example. What helps us have unity over different “debatable” convictions.
7. Define an “acceptable” conviction and give an example. Why are such convictions “acceptable”?
8. Why can we define what the Apostle calls a “weak” brother, a “legalists”? Why can we define the “strong” as a “freedomist”?
9. What does God expect of the “legalist”? What does He expect of the “freedomist”?
10. What are some of the dangers of a “freedomist” trying to “liberate” a legalist?
11. What are some common examples of legalism in the Church today?
12. Why must Christians at times limit their freedom for the sake of unbelievers.

Publications & Particulars

1. Quoted from 4.3.B.3. ↑

2. James Stalker, “Conscience,” in the International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, James Orr ed. Electronic Edition STEP Files (Parsons, 1998).

   Thus, we have no items for Recommended Reading above. The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia and the Evangelical Dictionary of Theology (EDT) both list C. A. Pierce’s study, Conscience in the New Testament (A. R. Allenson, 1955). However, we think the reader will find it rather shallow, and several scholars today are somewhat critical of it.

   A. M. Rehwinkle, the contributor to the article on “Conscience” in the EDT (Baker, 1984, 267-8) lists only two rather old books, including Pierce’s, and his own book, The Voice of Conscience, which we could not locate.

   Current Christian theologies do not cover the topic very well either, although Ladd at least devotes a page to it and lists some books of Christian anthropology that may be helpful (A Theology of the New Testament, rev. ed. [Eerdmans, 1993], 519). Even MacArthur’s book, The Vanishing Conscience (Word, 1994) is more of an apologetic for morality and a recognition of sin rather than a theological study regarding the conscience. The most helpful resource by far was Raymond Opperwall’s entry to the International Standard Bible Encyclopedia (ISBE), Geoffrey W. Bromiley ed., 4 vols., (Eerdmans, 1988), I:761-65. ↑

3. MacArthur, 50, 53. ↑

4. For a discussion of “common grace” see Wayne Grudem, Systematic Theology (Zondervan, 1994), 660-61. ↑

5. For further discussion of the universality of morality in humanity see section 5.15.A. ↑

6. James R. Edwards, Romans (NIBC) (Hendrickson, 1992), 70. ↑

7. For further discussion of the difference in the commands for OT and NT people see section 7.3.E. ↑

8. W. D. Stacey, The Pauline View of Man (MacMillan, 1956), 206. ↑

9. Mega mysticism is the belief that God regularly communicates to us regarding extrabiblical matters (e.g. what job to choose) through more direct and miraculous means of divine revelation such as inspired intuitions, and miraculous “signs.” For further discussion see Book 14. ↑

10. The NIV rendering may be misleading as it states: “the requirements of the law are written on their hearts, their consciences also bearing witness.” The addition of “also,” which is not in the original Greek text, may imply that the Apostle is speaking of two different faculties, but actually the “heart” and the “conscience” are synonymous here. ↑

11. Opperwall writes:

    Conversion should not be construed in such a way that the awareness of conscience appears as a product of conversion, as if apart from conversion the conscience is necessarily dull, or seared, or silent. In Rom. 2:15 the Apostle speaks of the witness of conscience in the Gentiles, reflecting his awareness that the testimony of conscience is a broadly human experience. (I:765). ↑

12. Opperwall responds to the view that the, “conscience is always and only a negative or disapproving voice”:

    That analysis appears to fail to do justice to the “excusing” conscience of Rom. 2:15 and to the positive testimony of the good conscience (e.g. 2 Cor. 1:12), which is more than mere silence. However, more than the interpretation of a few passages is at stake. At stake is the nature of conscience itself. If the voice of conscience is, as observed above, the internalized voice of all the authorities that we recognize, the question is whether those authorities speak only negatively in people’s lives. While it is undeniable that both external authorities and the internalized voice of conscience speak more negatively than positively, this is not because that is the only way. (I:763)

    Opperwall adds that the Greeks, from whom the Apostle may have borrowed the idea of conscience, certainly did not view it as only a source of negative or condemning thoughts:

    In a passage sometimes attributed to the Stoic philosopher Epictetus there is a striking insight into the Greek view of conscience.

    When we were children our parents handed us over to a nursery slave who should watch over us everywhere lest harm befall us. But when we were grown up, God hands us over to the conscience implanted in us, to protect us. Let us not in any way despise its protection for should we do so we shall be both ill-pleasing to God and have our own conscience as an enemy.

    The conscience, like the nursery slave, is a kind of substitute parent. Its inner voice is not by nature the voice of an enemy, not just an instrument producing pain. The conscience, until alienated, is seen as having a positive and protective purpose. It is advisable and possible to stay on good terms with this inner voice. (Ibid.) ↑

13. Opperwall, I:764. ↑

14. C. K. Barrett, The Epistle to the Romans (BNTC) rev. ed. (Hendrickson, 1991), 50. ↑

15. John Murray, The Epistle to the Romans (Eerdmans, 1959, 1965; reprint 1997), 73. ↑

16. 4.3.B.3. ↑

17. Opperwall, I:764. ↑

18. Quoted from section 2.5.C.1. ↑

19. For further discussion on how the conscience is formed see section 2.5.C. ↑

20. Opperwall, I:173. ↑

21. Colin Kruse, 2 Corinthians (Eerdmans, 1999), 2 Cor 1:12. ↑

22. C. F.Keil and F. Delitzsch in their highly regarded Commentary on the Old Testament, note here at Psalm 32:3-5 that it is describing:

    [T]he tortures which his accusing conscience prepared for him. The more he strove against confessing, the louder did conscience speak; and while it was not in his power to silence this inward voice, in which the wrath of God found utterance, he cried the whole day. (Electronic Edition STEP Files CD-ROM [Findex.com, 2000]) ↑

23. Granted, the discipline described in Hebrews 12:7 includes “hardship.” ↑

24. There is some debate regarding the cultural audience of Romans, as some suggest that in 1:5-6, 13 the Apostle indicates his audience is only Gentile. We agree with Dr. Moo, however, that:

    Paul claims in 1:7 that he is addressing “all those beloved by God in Rome,” and it is clear that there were Jewish Christians in Rome. Moreover, Paul’s exhortation to the “strong” and the “weak” makes best sense if both groups—roughly equivalent to Gentile and Jewish Christians respectively—were in his audience. . . . Along with the majority of commentators, then, we think that Paul addresses a mixed group of Jewish and Gentile Christians in Romans. (The Epistle to the Romans (NICNT), [Eerdmans, 1996], 12). ↑

25. Dealing with differences among Christians is dealt with further in the next chapter (3.3) concerning private judgment. ↑

26. For a detailed and helpful discussion of this issue, see Steve Miller, The Contemporary Music Debate, (Tyndale, 1993). ↑

27. Moo, 836. ↑

28. Erwin Lutzer, Who Are You To Judge? (Moody, 2002), 221-2. ↑

29. Opperwall, I:764-5. ↑

30. C. S. Lewis, Mere Christianity (Harper Collins, 2001), 79. ↑

31. Lutzer, 220. ↑

32. Both the context of Romans 14 and the use of “conscience” repeatedly in 1 Corinthians in a similar context, leads us to equate “faith” in Rom 14:1 with “conscience. Along these lines Dr. Moo writes:

    The “faith” with respect to which these people are “weak,” . . . involves their individual outworking of Christian faith, their convictions about what that faith allows and prohibits. . . . While we must be careful not simply to read I Cor. 8-10 into Rom. 14-15, the undeniable parallels between the sections give some weight to the fact that the word that stands in I Cor. 8-10 in place of “faith” is “conscience” (cf. 8:7, 10, 12; 10:25, 27, 28, 29). (836). ↑

33. The Catholic theologian John Henry Newman (1801-1890) would seem to even imply that the conscience represents the very presence of God in the heart of even the unbeliever when he wrote:

    If, in doing wrong, we feel the same tearful, broken-hearted sorrow which overwhelms us on hurting a mother; if, on doing right, we enjoy the same sunny serenity of mind, the same soothing, satisfactory delight which follows us from receiving praise from a father, we certainly have within us the image of some person, to whom our love and veneration look, in whose smile we find our happiness, for whom we yearn, towards whom we direct our pleadings, in whose anger we are troubled and waste away. These feelings in us are such as require for their exciting cause an intelligent being. (An Essay in Aid of a Grammar of Assent [University of Notre Dame Press, 1979], 101). ↑

34. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica (online at http://www.newadvent.org/ summa), I-II.19.5-6. ↑

35. Moo, 863-4. ↑

36. John Owen, A Discourse Concerning the Holy Spirit (online at ccel.org), VI.6. ↑

37. The meaning of the Apostle’s use of apollumi both here in 1 Cor 8:11 and Rom 14:15 is important and difficult. Surprisingly, many of the most respected and conservative NT scholars suggest that the Apostle is teaching that an insensitive Christian with a “strong” conscience can actually cause a genuine Christian “brother for whom Christ died” (Rom 14:15) to lose their salvation.

    For example, Dr. Moo writes: “Paul is warning the “strong” that their behavior has the potential to bring the “weak” to ultimate spiritual ruin—failure to attain final salvation” (854). Gordon Fee writes: “In saying that the brother “is destroyed” the Apostle most likely is referring to eternal loss” (387). Dr. Fee then approvingly quotes Hans Conzelmann: “He [Paul] of course presupposes the idea that the Christian, too, can lose his salvation” (Ibid. n. 61). Thomas Schreiner as well says, “These terms reveal that the danger spoken of here is nothing less than eschatalogical judgment . . . eschatological perishing is in mind” (Romans, [Baker, 1998]; 733-5). He lists others who agree including C. K. Barrett and C. B. Cranfield.

    Dr. Fee’s view is understandable, coming from a Pentecostal theological perspective which teaches that a born again Christian can lose their salvation. But Dr. Moo’s (Professor of NT at Wheaton) and Dr. Schreiner’s (Professor of NT at Southern Baptist Theological Seminary) are inexplicable, particularly in light of both of them being defenders of salvation by grace. In response, we would disagree for the following reasons.

    First, while the lexical data is surely on their side, (apollumi usually being used in the NT in a figuratively theological manner to refer to eternal damnation), this is not its only acceptable meaning. Literally, the word simply means “to destroy.” While the idea of being killed or perishing is common in the NT, the NIV also translates it as “ruin” three times in the different renderings of the parable concerning pouring new wine into old wineskins (cf. Matt 9:17). This parable, by the way, with its illusion to what happens when you attempt to “expand” someone’s grasp of truth too much and too quickly, has some intriguing parallels with the Apostle’s warning concerning the conscience, and the parallel may give added weight to the suggestion that the Apostle is using apollumi here in the same way that Christ did.

    In addition, apollumi is accurately translated as “wasted” when the Apostle John writes: “When they had all had enough [bread] to eat, He said to His disciples, “Gather the pieces that are left over. Let nothing be wasted [apollumi]” (John 6:12). Likewise the term is rendered “spoils” when the Apostle writes: “Do not work for food that spoils [apollumi]” (John 6:27). All of these terms could be used to describe the harmful effects on a person’s conscience without implying their loss of a salvation they possessed and resulting in eternal damnation.

    Admittedly, we should be careful about accepting a less common use of a word in the NT in place of a more frequent meaning, unless other considerations convince us to do so. In this case, there are indeed some compelling reasons. To interpret the Apostle as saying that one Christian can cause another Christian to lose their salvation presents theological difficulties which, not only the above authors fail to deal with sufficiently, but that surely strengthen our interpretation in this instance. The biblical doctrine of the perseverance of salvation is far too clear and central in the NT to simply concede on the suggested translation of one word possessing several different meanings.

    Even in this very passage, such God-given perseverance in eternal salvation is reinforced when the Apostle writes, “Who are you to judge someone else’s servant? To his own master he stands or falls. And he will stand, for the Lord is able to make him stand” (Rom 14:4; cf. 11:11, 20, 22 for meaning of “stands or falls”).

    Dr. Moo does not avoid these difficulties by simply suggesting that 1) the “weak” brother in question is not a Christian (cf. Schreiner, 735 n. 17), or 2) the Apostle is merely suggesting a hypothetical case (854, n. 28). Neither suggestion seems legitimate enough in the context of Romans 14 and 1 Corinthians 8 to even discuss. Interesting enough, Dr. Moo allows for our interpretation in his Romans entry to the New Bible Commentary in which he writes regarding 14:15:

    The word destroy (apollumi) is a strong one, usually denoting eternal damnation . . . This may be the meaning here, although, if so, the Apostle may not think of this eventuality literally. Or it may be that ‘destroy’ is used in a weaker sense here: ‘cause spiritual damage to.’ (New Bible Commentary, [InterVarsity, 1994, 1155).

    In the end, we agree with John MacArthur (MacArthur’s New Testament Commentary: Romans 9-16 [Moody Press, 1994], Rom 14:15) and specifically F. F. Bruce (1 and 2 Corinthians, NCB, [Oliphants, 1971], 82) who point out the likelihood that the Apostle himself is defining what he means by the “destruction” (apollumi) of a “brother for whom Christ died” in 1 Corinthians 8:11, when in the next verse the Apostle says “When you sin against your brothers in this way and wound [tupto: lit. pummel repeatedly, fig. to offend] their weak conscience, you sin against Christ” (1 Cor 8:12).

    These are no doubt strong words, but the Apostle does nothing to imply that the weak Christian might lose their salvation. Because 1 Corinthians 8 and Romans 12 relate to exactly the same topic, they should be used to interpret one another. More than that, all of the Apostle’s teaching in the NT itself militates against the idea that the actions of one Christian could actually cause another Christian to lose their salvation. ↑

38. Gordon Fee accurately describes the tension that may occur for someone with a “weak” conscience, in the context of eating meat sacrificed to idols in Corinth:

    Some of the Corinthian believers are among those for whom the [demonic] “gods” and “lords” were a genuine reality while they were pagans. Such people are thus “still accustomed to the idol,” that is, even though they now know that the god does not exist, their former association with him or her as a god is still a part of their experience of reality. They may tell their heads all they want that the god is only an idol and that an idol has no genuine reality. The fact is that their former way of life is woven into their consciousness and emotions in such a way that the old associations cannot be thus lightly disregarded. For them to return to the place of their former worship would mean once more to eat “as though it were truly being sacrificed to the god.” (379). ↑

39. Lutzer, 225. ↑