Blogotional

In this case, the discussion is based on a post by Abednego at Parableman. True to form, the comments are limited to the two authors atthat blog talking to each other. The question of Christian ethics is of vital importance, and little discussed.

Abednego posits an interesting discussion

Now, it's clear when we look at the rest of Scripture that this doesn't mean we aren't to judge anyone at all (for example, many other New Testament passages command believers to make judgments about people in certain situations, or command churches to cast out those engaging in certain kinds of immorality, etc.). So this passage is (I think rightly) understood to speak about what I would call disputable matters -- matters where individual Christians may have different convictions which are rightly left up to the conscience, because they are free to act in either way. Paul gives the only restriction by concluding the chapter with this statement: "Everything that does not come from faith is sin." The idea, then, is that in these cases of disputable matters, as long as people are acting in faith in accordance with their conscience, they are free to do as they see fit (and either eat meat, or not eat meat, to use Paul's example).

But where are the boundaries of these "disputable matters"? Is that, too, left to the believer's conscience? Or is it safe to say that when Scripture teaches something sufficiently clearly (for example, that murder and adultery are wrong) those are beyond dispute? That is, does the clear teaching on those issues mean that Christians can't commit such acts and then claim that they must not be judged on the basis of Romans 14? I'm interested in comments on this.

Great question, though an general answer can be difficult. Here's some thoughts.

• Jesus came not to abolish the law, but to fulfill it. Therefore, I think that the plethora of ethical guidance available in the OT is a great definer of the boundaries. Indeed, some OT guidance is specifically denied in the NT, Consider Peter's vision about food in Acts, but it is a great place to start.
• The Sermon on the Mount is Christ's great ethical guidance, and where I think the example issue (masterbation) Adebnego cites is addressed. Jesus clearly says we are to be pure in thought and deed (if a man lusts...). Masterbation involves impure thoughts...
• We have to learn that ethical thought and theological thought are different. Theological thought rightly says "all sin is the same." Ethics cleary cannot handle such indiscriminate understanding. Thus masterbation is wrong, but it is far more acceptable than fornication or adultery, which involves another individual and corrupts them as well.
• Christ sought not to condemn, but to transform. How we respond to people that do things we judge to be ethical violations is THE central issue.
• Proper operation of a society demands condemnation for some ethical issues, even if the point above says we should reach out to the condemned. Christ granted absolution to one of the other men hanging ont he cross with Him, but He did not take him off the cross.

With most ethical teachings in the NT, including Romans 14, I tend to think the point is more theological than ethical, relying as much as possible on the ethics of the OT. Thus in Romans 14, the genuine point Paul is trying to make is that our salvation is not of our behavior, but of our faith -- Thus his ending qualifier is also his summation. If people are operating out of genuine faith in Christ -- not some misguided and delusional conception of Christ, many a murderer has claimed divine guidance -- then we should seek to encourage that faith, and allow the Holy Spirit to convict them about behavior.