Critiquing: Is Romans 14 Saying That Christians Can Just Make up Their Own Rules?

January 4, 2024 | #STRask – Stand to Reason

Liberty vs. Law — Weaker vs. Stronger — Judgment vs. Sensitivity — Faith and Conscience — Moral Principles

---

Introduction

The content titled “Is Romans 14 Saying That Christians Can Just Make up Their Own Rules?” from the #STRask – Stand to Reason podcast, dated January 4, 2024, explores the concept of Christian liberty as described in Romans 14. The discussion involves the distinctions between weaker and stronger Christians, the obligations not to judge others for their beliefs, and the moral principles guiding Christian behavior. This critique will evaluate the logical coherence of the arguments presented, focusing on unsubstantiated claims, logical inconsistencies, cognitive biases, and the necessity of mapping beliefs to evidence.

Christian Liberty and Making Up Rules

Key Points

Definition and Scope of Liberty

The content asserts that Christian liberty allows for choices that are not inherently sinful.

“There’s genuine liberty, and all that means is, where we have latitude to make choices that are not sinful in themselves.”

Misinterpretations and Relativism

It rejects the notion that Christian liberty equates to moral relativism or antinomianism.

“There’s no antinomianism here. There’s no antinomians like no law.”

Role of Weaker and Stronger Christians

Weaker Christians are those with less understanding of what is right, and stronger Christians should guide them without causing them to sin.

“The stronger brother… has a richer understanding of what’s right and wrong.”

Critique

Unsubstantiated Claims

The argument hinges on the interpretation that liberty does not mean making up rules but does not provide substantial evidence to support this.

“I actually can’t see how a person would come to that conclusion by reading Romans 14.”

This claim lacks depth and evidence, making it less convincing. To strengthen this point, a more detailed exegesis of the relevant biblical texts would be necessary.

Logical Inconsistencies

The content argues that actions are not sinful if not inherently wrong yet warns against violating one’s conscience, even if misinformed.

“If he does it, if he thinks he’s sinning and it’s not sinning, he’s still sin.”

This introduces a paradox where an action can be simultaneously non-sinful and sinful, depending on the individual’s belief, creating a logical inconsistency.

Weaker vs. Stronger Christians

Key Points

Educational Responsibility

Stronger Christians should educate weaker Christians to avoid theological errors.

“He’s giving instruction so that the weaker can be stronger.”

Avoiding Judgment

Both weaker and stronger Christians are advised against judging each other.

“The weaker brother should not be judging the stronger brother for exercising their appropriate liberty in Christ.”

Critique

Cognitive Biases

The content exhibits a bias towards the perspective that stronger Christians possess a more accurate understanding, which could marginalize differing viewpoints. This bias is seen in the labeling of beliefs as “weaker” or “stronger,” inherently valuing one over the other without substantial justification.

Moral Principles and Conscience

Emphasizing adherence to one’s conscience, even if misinformed, contradicts the principle of seeking a well-informed conscience.

“The best thing is to have a conscience that’s biblically informed.”

This approach can perpetuate ignorance rather than encourage critical examination and growth.

Judgment and Sensitivity

Key Points

Mutual Respect

Christians are encouraged to respect each other’s beliefs and avoid causing others to stumble.

“He’s requiring both of them to not judge the other and not to condemn the other in different ways.”

Faith and Conscience

The content underscores that faith should guide one’s actions, respecting individual consciences.

“You stand in Christ. Your righteousness depends on Him.”

Critique

Substantiation of Claims

The idea that faith should guide actions needs substantiation beyond personal conviction.

“We’re supposed to do everything for the glory of God.”

This claim, while spiritually significant, lacks empirical support and would benefit from concrete examples or evidence of how this principle manifests in practical, ethical decisions.

Testing Alleged Promises

The content does not address how to empirically test or validate the promises or moral guidance attributed to faith. Suggestions for empirical methods or historical analyses to evaluate these claims could enhance credibility.

Conclusion

The podcast episode on Christian liberty in Romans 14 presents several logical and theological positions, some of which suffer from unsubstantiated claims, logical inconsistencies, and cognitive biases. Emphasizing the need to map beliefs to evidence is crucial. While faith-based principles play a significant role in the discussed moral framework, a more rigorous approach to substantiation and critical examination would improve the coherence and persuasiveness of the arguments.

---

I welcome further discussion on these points in the comments section.