Skip to content

Add your phone number?

Optional. Nothing is sent unless you choose it.

The Historic Faith
Sign in
Question 9
Paul says it is “evil” to eat “with offense,” and “whatever is not from faith is sin”; how should this reshape the way you make decisions in gray areas—especially when your conscience is uncertain—and how does it differ from the evangelical habit of asking only, “Is it technically allowed?”
Another way to ask: If it’s wrong to do something that offends someone and “whatever is not from faith is sin,” how should you decide in gray areas when you feel unsure? How is that different from only asking, “Am I allowed to do it?”

Direct Answer Bercot’s lesson says gray-area decisions should be guided by faith and a clear conscience, not merely permission; if you doubt and still do it, it becomes sin for you. This is different from asking only “Is it allowed?” because Paul’s test is whether it is done “from faith” and without harming a brother.

Support from Transcript:

  • Romans 14:20: “All things indeed are pure, but it is evil for the man who eats with offense,” and Bercot explains this repeats the emphasis about harming a brother over food.
  • Ambrosiaster (quoted): things are clean “by nature,” yet become unclean “to anyone who doubts,” becoming “a stumbling block to him who eats… because he doubts.”
  • Romans 14:23: “he who doubts is condemned if he eats… for whatever is not from faith is sin.”
  • Bercot explains the conscience principle: if a person thinks something is sinful or has “serious doubts,” and proceeds anyway, “then it becomes sin for him.”
  • He warns against “peer pressure” that forces others to act against conscience; that compels them to sin since they are “not… eating in faith.”
Discussion Follow-ups How might a “clear conscience” approach change what you do publicly versus privately, especially when your choices might pressure someone else to imitate you?