Chapter # 14 Paragraph # 2 Study # 17
October 10, 2021
Humble, Texas
(Download Audio)
(145)
Thesis: The concept of the "condemnation" of the person who acts without "faith" is not "condemnation".
Introduction: In our last study, we considered Paul's concept of "blessedness" in respect to the person who operates according to the dictates of his/her conscience. We saw that "blessedness" has a two-fold realm: one is the realm of the present time; and the other is the realm of eternity to come. We saw that "blessedness" can be real in the present time, but erased when the judgment of eternity comes into play. This is because, in the present time, God is seeking to "bless" those who are willing to operate on the basis of a "conscience void of offense" even if their "conscience" is misinformed. However, in the day of the judgment of God upon those who belong to Him, He will not permit any "blessedness" to continue that was rooted in the warped "faith" of the ignorant. Final "blessedness" depends upon both a clear conscience
and "Truth" , while temporal "blessedness" depends upon a clear conscience regardless of whether that conscience is informed by "Truth". This is the foundation of
1 John 1:9 and its clear declaration that God "cleanses" those, who "confess" their failures to live by "conscience", of "all" unrighteousness. In time, God holds His people to the standard of "conscience", not accuracy of "truth": in eternity the judgment will be according to the standards of both "conscience"
and "Truth".
This brings us to Paul's description of what happens to the one who "doubts", but goes ahead anyway.
- I. The Nature of the "Doubting".
- A. The explanation of "doubting" is fundamentally described as "doing something that is not rooted in faith".
- B. However, what Paul is addressing as "doubt" has already been given an informative illustration in this letter to the Romans.
- 1. The word translated by the NASB as "doubts" is a present participle that is used to describe the person in this context as "the one who eats while 'believing' that 'eating' is not approved by God", i.e., the one who is diseased in The Faith.
- a. His "faith" is "diseased", first, because it is clinging to the twisted meaning of the "Law" by which a man is "justified by God" on the basis of his own behavior and not that of Christ.
- 1) This "faith" accepts the idea that "eating" forbidden foods is a "Sin" and that ignoring the observance of memorial days is also a "Sin".
- 2) This "faith" is an in-grained "tradition" for those who lived under Law during the period prior to the coming of the Christ.
- b. His "faith" is also "diseased", second, because it is flawed at the "Love" level where the acceptance by men is more valuable than acceptance by God.
- 1) That this is the case is because no one would "eat" what is "believed" to be unacceptable to God if "being accepted by God" was the highest priority.
- 2) The only reason for "eating" when it is contrary to "faith" is to appear to men to be in harmony with their "faith" so that they can be accepted by those men.
- c. This "diseased faith" is not a late blooming development.
- 1) The verb translated by the NASB as "condemned" is actually a Perfect Tense verb, indicating that the so-called "condemnation" has been in play for a significant amount of time.
- 2) Paul's point is that anyone who is willing to do something contrary to "conscience" is displaying a "root" that has been in place for a good while: that "root" being the desire to be accepted by men rather than God.
- 2. This word translated as "doubts" is used in only one other place in Romans, but in that place we discover what it actually is.
- a. The place is Romans 4:20.
- b. The word's etymology is "to make a judgment after sifting through pertinent data".
- 1) This word has its origin in the idea of making a decision to accept or reject someone or something (krino).
- 2) This word emphasizes the process by which such a decision is made (dia + krino) which involves two (or more) data sets being set at odds with each other (in a court of law, this would be like unto the data set that the prosecution puts forth and the contrary data set that the defense puts forth).
- c. The use of this word in Romans 4:20 is in Paul's use of Abraham's "faith" as the pattern by which we should also operate.
- 1) In this context, Abraham's first data set is the conditions "on the ground" regarding the condition of his and Sarah's physical bodies in respect to procreation abilities.
- 2) The contrary data set in this context is the promise of God.
- 3) Abraham, Paul says, diligently considered both data sets and then made his decision: God's data set overrules the situation "on the ground".
- 4) Abraham's decision is called "faith".
- C. Thus, the nature of the "doubting" is being unduly influenced by the conditions "on the ground" to decide that God's promise is not legitimate.
- II. The Nature of The "Condemnation".
- A. The translation, "condemnation", is too strong in the light of how we currently view "condemnation".
- 1. Our view of "condemnation" tends strongly in the direction of being rejected forever by God.
- 2. But, in the text/context of Romans 14, this cannot be the meaning for at least two reasons.
- a. First, it places one's "performance" directly into the question of "acceptance" by God; a fundamental contradiction of the doctrine of acceptance by grace.
- b. Second, it directly contradicts 14:3 where Paul says that "God has accepted" and made "a servant" the one being "judged" by his "brother"; and it contradicts 14:4 where Paul says that "he will stand" when the "Master" judges His "servants".
- 3. At issue in the terms of "judgment" and "acceptance" is the foundation of the Gospel's promise that "justification" is rooted in the performance of The Christ and not of the one who "believes" in Him.
- B. Paul's use of the word translated "condemnation" in Romans is instructive.
- 1. In 8:34 the issue is the futility of anyone being able to bring a charge against the elect of God because it is God Who justifies.
- a. This use clearly swirls around the attempt to get someone "condemned" in an eternal sense, but this is impossible for the ones who are justified on the basis of Christ's performance and not their own.
- b. Thus, this use of "condemned" does have eternity in mind.
- 2. But, in the other uses, the issue is not "eternal rejection", but being placed into a situation where legitimate "judgment" means "inescapable consequences", not "eternal consequences": 2:1; 8:3; and 14:23.
- a. What Paul is warning the Romans about is the established fact that God does not ignore the believer's sins in terms of legitimate responses: Galatians 6:7.
- b. Paul is not warning the Romans that "if a believer sins, God will send him/her to Hell".
- 1) "Hell" is determined by "Justice" issues; "Heaven" is determined by "Grace" issues.
- 2) Jesus' "condemnation of Sin" (Romans 8:3) eliminates the possibility of a "believer" being sent to Hell because of some action he/she takes and gives us a "definition" of sorts for "condemnation".
- a) Being sent to Hell for some action taken by a "believer" would automatically mean that escape from Hell depends upon sinless behavior by that "believer"; a total contradiction of the Gospel's promise of "a righteousness of God" imputed to all who "believe" it.
- b) "Condemnation" does not mean "send to Hell"; it means to completely frustrate the objective(s) sought" (i.e., not allow "blessedness" to come upon the person who seeks it through the approval of men rather than God).
