Doubtful Things

Paul is trying to reconcile two factions within the church at Rome: Converted Jews who hold on to the ceremonial aspects of the law of Moses concerning eating and drinking and keeping of days, against the more liberal Gentile converts who believe that they may eat anything and keep everyday alike.  The former faction he  refers to as "weak in the faith." 

The vegetarians are weak in the faith in the sense that they have a weak or scrupulous conscience.  According to The Catholic Encyclopedia Dictionary, "To scruple, or to have a scruple, is to doubt about and to hesitate doing something on false grounds, of conscience.  Scruples cause a state of anxiety in those afflicted with them.  They arise from excessive servile fear in some persons, because they represent God as an exacting tyrant.  In others, they are mere temptations of the enemy of human nature, but frequently fortified by stubbornness and obstinacy in the individual.  Scruples are enemies to spiritual progress, because they lead to discouragement and despondency in the practice of religion." 

Paul makes clear that God has received both factions, and that therefore they should receive one another and that one group should not condemn or judge the other in such external nonessential matters.  Both should follow after "the things which make for peace" and edification. 

Paul in verse 22 is asking do you have a conviction in relationship to what you eat or drink, or keeping or not of particular Jewish holidays?  Then keep the standard to yourself without condemning others who may not have it.  The Apostle teaches that the believer with a strong conscience should not flaunt his liberty out of consideration for the peace of mind of his weak brother, nor should the weak brother condemn the strong for his liberty. 

To maintain the joy of the Lord, one must keep a clear conscience.  If one eats meat without faith (without a clear conscience), then he is damned by his conscience and consequently will lose the peaceful and joyful mindset promised by the Kingdom of God.  But this does not mean that he loses his salvation and actually is on his way to Hell for the Christian is not under the Jewish ceremonial ordinances.  He has not actually transgressed the moral law, so that he would not in reality be damned, but only be condemned by his scrupulous conscience. 

When Paul says, "Whatsoever is not of faith is sin," he must mean that a scrupulous conscience considers something to be sin when in fact it is not. Would God damn a soul without actually transgressing the law?  I think not. So doubtful things which do not in fact break God's law are not damnable to Hell, but damnable to a weak conscience. 

Charles G. Finney in his sermon, "Doubtful Actions Are Sinful" applies Paul's teachings on these narrow matters concerning Jewish traditions to all sorts of controversial issues, which may or may not be intrinsically evil.  Finney 
seems to think that the main point of Paul's sermon was that "If a man eat of meats called unclean, not being clear in his mind that it is right, he offends God."  Therefore Finney concludes, "If a man doubts whether it is lawful to do a thing, and while in that state of doubt, he does it, he displeases God, he breaks the law and is condemned whether the thing be in itself right or wrong. Where he doubts the lawfulness of the act, but has no cause to doubt the lawfulness of the omission, and yet does it, he sins and is condemned before God, and must repent or be damned." 

Finney illustrates his principle by damning to Hell those who are engaged in employment on the Sabbath or even own stocks in companies that break the Sabbath.  Controversial indulgences of appetite such as intoxicating beverages, tobacco, tea and coffee, since they are of "doubtful right," are roundly condemned by Finney.  Those who partake of these things sin against God and must repent or be damned.  He applies his principle to various amusements such as the theater, parties of pleasure, dances, novel reading, and other "methods of wasting time."  Finally, Finney condemned slave owners who must at least doubt the lawfulness of slavery, and therefore are condemned with everyone else who does not conform to Finney’s standards. 

Finney teaches that "God has given a sufficient revelation of his will, so that a man might know his duty if he would." Finney also states, "that if God so far enlightens his mind as to make him doubt the lawfulness of an act, he is bound to stop there and examine the question and settle it to his satisfaction." 

Sometimes God's will is not as clear as Finney claims.  There are many instances where godly men disagree on the legality of actions which are not specifically outlawed in the Bible.  Many reasonable men do not even believe 
that Christians are obligated to keep the Sabbath under the new covenant, let alone whether or not they may be employed on the Lord's Day.  Also a man may doubt the lawfulness of a questionable action when God has not enlightened his mind.  He may be confused and weakened in his conscience by the traditions of men or even false accusations from the devil.  After thoughtfully considering a matter someone in the light of scripture and reason might act on the behavior in question even though he may have the nagging doubts of a scrupulous conscience, which are rooted in men's traditions or satanic accusations. 

Paul's main point was not that doubtful actions are sinful as Finney teaches, but that weaker brothers should receive those who are at liberty to do what others consider doubtful, and that the libertarians should not reject those with the scrupulous conscience, nor should they flaunt their liberty to the possible determent of the weaker brother. 

Finney instead of following Paul's principle of letting "every man be fully persuaded in his own mind," is demanding that everyone be fully persuaded to Finney's mind concerning doubtful or controversial behavior or else be damned to Hell.  Thus instead of promoting peace and unity within the church Finney's dogmatic standards result in factions and a censorious spirit among Christians.  Paul considered the stricter brothers to be the weaker. But Finney turns the weaker brothers with their a list of questionable prohibitions into the stronger.