#STRask - Is Doing the Right Thing a Sin If You Truly Believe It’s Wrong?

Episode Date: September 22, 2025

Questions about whether Romans 14:23 means that doing the right thing is a sin if you truly believe it’s wrong, and how to reconcile Hebrews 10:16, which says God will put his laws on our hearts, with Romans 7:7, which says that if it weren’t for the Law, we wouldn’t know sin.   How should we view Romans 14:23 when it comes to people whose consciences have become twisted to the point where they start believing right things are actually wrong? Would doing the right thing become sin for them if they do it while truly believing it's wrong? How do you reconcile Hebrews 10:16, which says God will put his laws on our hearts, with Romans 7:7, which says that if it weren’t for the Law, we would not know sin?

This is Stan Ter Reason's hashtag S-TR-ask podcast with Greg Kokel and Amy Hall. And we're ready for the first question, Greg. Yes, ma'am. No time for chit-chat. You gave me top billing, though, so I'm a happy camper now. All right. So here's the first question from James. How should we view Romans 1423 when it comes to people whose conscience has become twisted and start believing right things are actually wrong? Would that make doing the right thing become sin for them if they do it while truly believing it's wrong? I'm going to go to Romans 14. I have an opinion about that. It just occurred to me. Is that 1423? Is that what you said?

Yes. Okay. It just occurred to me that this would apply to homosexuals who are convinced that Romans is referring to people who are not intrinsically or born gay, but whose natural, so to speak, inclinations are for the same sex. That's part of their argument or has been in the past. it's not so popular nowadays, then if that's their, what they really believe, then it would be a sin for them not to pursue gay sex on this thinking, okay? I'm just using a counter example. So let me, let's look at the passage.

And this has to do with, I think, meat offered idols and eating that and offending a brother or causing a brother to stumble, whatever. Okay, so chapter 14, verse what? 23. 23, all right. But he who doubts is condemned if he eats, because his eating is not from faith, and whatever is not from faith is sin.

In this situation, Paul is clarifying, I'm just looking at thinking of the whole context, I've never been confronted with this question before, so I'm kind of working it through in my mind. The answer is no, but I'm trying, I mean, to me, it's obviously this person is not being given leave to sin because his own twisted conscience tells him that it's fine and to the opposite is sin. All right, that's not what's going on here. I mean, I think that that conclusion is obviously false. on its face. Now, we still have to deal with the text, and we think, why is that not so? And in this

circumstance, what Paul is talking about is morally neutral behavior. Is it a sin to offer, eat me to sacrifice to idols? And he goes, no, an idol is nothing. Now, there are two passages that refer to this one here in Romans and the other one in Corinthians, but they both deal with the same issue from a little different angle. So making my references here, I might be referencing from memory different passages, but in any event, it amounts to the same thing. No, it's not a sin to eat, meat, sacrifice to idols. Now, if your conscience is such that you think it's not appropriate to do that, that it's wrong. And some people have those circumstances because they've been raised in an environment that has condemned things that are not condemned by God.

The Jews do this all the time. Still do. This is Talmudic law, which adds to the law, just almost on reading Deuteronomy in my own reading. And it says there, don't add to the laws. They're already burdensome enough, you know, but anyway, we have a tendency to do that, all right? And so consequently, we have a conviction that something is wrong, that isn't really wrong, and this is a circumstance that Paul is facing here, all right? So now what? He's trying to correct people's understanding, so they don't feel like they're doing something wrong when they're not doing something wrong, eating meat sacrifice to idols.

but if that's feeling is not overcome by good instruction, and you still feel it's wrong, then you can't do it with confidence before the Lord in faith, and then don't do it. And the reason is that we don't want to, I think this is my assessment of it, we don't want to wound our consciences. We don't want to go against what our conscience is telling us not to do, even if our conscience is not accurately informed. Once we start doing that, then we end up wounding the conscience, and that's not a good thing. But in this particular case, we have somebody believing something is wrong that isn't wrong.

It's morally neutral, all right? In situations where sin is the question, that's not morally neutral. And if you believe that one thing is okay, that turns out to be sin and obeying God by not sinning goes against your conscience in this issue, you need to obey God, not follow a distorted conscience. In that case, the conscience is twisted because the people have been, in a certain sense, trained to think that which is bad is good. and that which is good is bad. And this is precisely the circumstance we see, as I mentioned a moment ago, in Romans 1, where it looks like Paul is inveying against the natural condition of man, where he is made by God for heterosexual sex and gays have in the past,

claim this verse isn't applying to them because this isn't applying to those who have, as they would consider themselves, constitutional. homosexuality. It's built in. They didn't choose it. They were born this way or whatever justification they give. And therefore, since our natural inclination is to be sexually attracted to the same sex, this verse is not applying to us. In fact, if we obeyed what you want us to do, according to your understanding, Christian, of this verse, then we would be violating our own conscience and doing the wrong thing instead of doing the right thing, which is following our conscience on this matter because this verse doesn't address the peculiar, particular, I should

say, behavior that we're involved in. And the variation now is very similar, not that kind of homosexuality. It's the cultural distance argument. Well, that is applying to a circumstance that we don't face now. pederasty and master slave abuse and that kind of stuff. And we're in loving relationships. So this is a way they dismiss that. If this line of thinking that James has offered is legitimate, that would justify those

people's behavior who think they're born gay and it's natural for them to pursue that. And to not pursue that would be a violation of their conscience and therefore sinning according to this passage in Romans chapter 14. That just seems so obviously wrongheaded. And the distinction here, and this is the principal distinction, is that when script, in the case of Romans 14, Paul is talking about a morally neutral behavior, that it may turn out to be you don't feel is right for you,

then don't do it. Follow your conscience. But when you have morally proscribed behavior and your conscience doesn't convict you about that, it doesn't mean that you're free to do it. That's the difference. So I have a slightly different answer. However, when I divide it into two parts, I think we'll end up agreeing, but you can tell me if you think so. So I think there are two different aspects to this can if you believe something right is wrong does it become wrong for you that's the first one and then the second one is if you think something that's wrong is right does it become right for you and I think the answers are different there and I'll explain why if if you think that something that is right is actually wrong then doing that thing you cannot do that thing

to the glory of God you in your heart think you're rebelling against God when you do that thing. So it's not that the thing you're doing itself is sin. It's your rebellion against God. That's the sin. So you're adding a rebellion into the situation. So that's where the sin is. But this certainly doesn't mean the opposite is true. If you think something is right and you're doing it, then you're still sinning. And the Bible is really clear about this. And I thought of a couple places where this is true. First of all, there were sacrifices for intentional sins. So the fact that they didn't know something was a sin doesn't excuse them from being a sin. Then I thought of Luke 12, 47, and 48, and here's what that says. And this is Jesus.

And that slave who knew his master's will and did not get ready or act in accord with his will will will receive many lashes. But the one who did not know it and committed deeds worthy of a flogging will receive but few. So here we see if you think you're doing wrong, when you're actually doing right, that thing involves the sin of rebellion. But if you think you're doing right when you're doing wrong, now you're sinning because you're actually sinning and it doesn't excuse you to think it's right. In the act itself, right. In the act itself, right. So if you were to say, I'm not going to do this thing because I think it's wrong, even though it's right. And you abstain from that. If you were to do it, it would be wrong in the rebellion.

But if you do the opposite, now you're adding on another sin, which is the actual sin of the thing that you're doing. Does that make sense? Yeah, sure. So I think if you look at it in those two ways, you can see that if you, your view of something as being a sin can make it a sin for you to do that thing. But your view of sin as being good can't make it a good thing. Right, right. So it's a sin of commission in both cases, but you're committing a different sin in each case. Yes.

In the second case, you're committing the sin. of doing the things you ought not do even though you feel good about it. And in the first case, you're committing a sin of doing the thing you think is wrong before God, rebellion, even if you it's not wrong. Right, right. So you're either introducing the sin of rebellion in the one case, and in the other case, you can't erase the sin just by thinking it's good. So hopefully, so I think we're in agreement on this when we make that distinction. You just refer. find a detail about it that I had thought about, which is good. Okay, let's go to a question from Tom.

Jeremiah 31 in Hebrews 10 say that God will write the law on our hearts, but Romans 7-7 says that if it weren't for the law, we would not know sin. How do we reconcile the written law versus what is written on our hearts? Well, when he says he is writing the law on our hearts, it doesn't mean that he's writing all of the particulars of the Jewish law on our hearts so that you don't have to read the scroll, just read your heart, you know, kind of thing. The Jewish law was meant to accomplish a number of particular things, and one of them is to be a tutor, and Paul develops us in Galatians, to lead us to Christ, okay? Now, once we are in Christ, we are not under the

the law because we are being led by the Spirit. And this is in Galatians 5. We see this detail. He was, and he uses two phrases in parallel. One is led by the Spirit. I don't have Galatians in front of me, but I just turned to Galatians 5 in one sweep. Oh, must be the Lord. All right. I say walk by the spirit, you will not carry out the desire of the flesh. The first 16 and then 18. But if you are led by the spirit, you are not under the law. So led by the spirit and walked by the spirit are in parallel. And what they mean is that in the new covenant with the spirit abiding in you, it is the law of God written on your heart, which is the law of love. All right. Love God, love your neighbor. Remember, Jesus said the entire law is really summed up in these two concepts. And if you are

walking in dependence and reliance on the spirit, then you are fulfilling. in your progressive sanctification, the genuine and deep demand of the law that Jesus describes in the two great commandments. And that's what Paul calls walking by the spirit and being led by the spirit. He does not mean the phrase led by the spirit where you're getting nudge, nudge, hint, to go in different directions, whatever God's will is for you. That's not how he uses the term. This is the second place he uses that phrase, Galatians 518, the first place is in Romans 8, and it means the same thing, putting to death the deeds of the flesh. So the point here is that when the prophet is talking about the law being written on our heart,

he is talking about the underlying purpose of the law, which can be summed up in the New Testament is the law of love, clarified by the... the two great commandments that Jesus offers, which we know we can't fulfill, but we're not under the fulfillment obligation of that for acceptance. We're already accepted by God in Christ, but that still is the guide for our life. And so that is the law that is written on our hearts, that the spirit now in dwells us helps us to live out and fulfill, and we are not obliged by the letter of the Mosaic law. like the Jews were, okay? And so I think that's the, I mean, that's probably the best way of seeing

how those things work together. And I can add something to that too. In Romans 7, he's talking about how the law reveals the sin in our hearts. So without the law, we still have our consciences, because he talked about that already, earlier in Romans. But the law reveals the what's in our hearts. It draws out our sin, and it condemns us. So this is the law outside of us coming in. But so I think what, when he's talking about the law in our hearts, I think it's more even than just knowing. It's about desiring to do what's right. It's about the spirit in you, as you explain, the spirit enables us to kill our sin. The spirit gives us a desire to do what's right. And this is the distinction Paul's making between Romans 7 and Romans 8. The idea that the law

can't enable you to follow it, it condemns you. But when the Holy Spirit is in you, when you trust in Christ, you can put your sin to death. So there's a difference in the way you relate to the law. When it's on your heart, it's something you want to do. If it's something you are reading, it's coming from outside of you, and it's revealing the sin in your heart. So I think these are just two different ways he's using it. I remember many, many years ago in the 80s of religion on the line, Dennis Prigger, the host of that show, and I had been a regular guest on that show. And one of the things Dennis asked me, as he said, I don't understand on your view, on Christians view, Protestant Christians, when you're saved by grace and your presence in heaven is assured,

then why wouldn't you keep sinning? And I know that Christians don't want to do that, but I don't understand why. And I sold him, Dennis, you're not taking into account a very important part of the equation that is the new birth. When you are born again, when you are regenerated in your spirit, the spirit dwells within you. You have two things, actually, the desire that you didn't have before to please God, not just to do what's right, but to please God and therefore do what's right. And you have what, and I'm not sure if I explain this to him, but I'll just add it right now. You have what I call the Christian curse, and that is, if you're actually regenerate, you cannot go back to the old way of living and

still enjoy it. If you do, it's clear that the Spirit is not in you. You're living according to the flesh, and if you're in the flesh, in the sense that Paul means it in Romans 8, unregenerate, it's impossible to place God. So there's a transformation that takes place that is described there somewhat in the Jeremiah 31 passage, and then Ezekiel, what, 36 or whatever, you see this role of the Holy Spirit being given that makes this radical difference. And now we're kind of down to two commands, the command of love, love God, love your neighbor, which are not new. They're both in the scriptures.

And in fact, I think both are in the book of Deuteronomy, as I recall, having just read those portions, all right? And those two commands are still impossible. They still condemn us when we're faced with those. commands. And it's interesting when you see the circumstance of the parable of the Good Samaritan that Jesus gives. He gave that for a very particular reason, which is often missed because the passage in our Bibles has a heading called the Good Samaritan. Well, you need to read just before that what introduces Jesus telling that parable. And it's the circumstance of the

two great commandments, which a Jewish man that he's speaking. to, one of the legal experts, seems to think that he's already fulfilled the command to love God with your whole heart, mine, soul, and strength. But then the text says, seeking to justify himself, he asked the question, who is my neighbor? And then Jesus basically says, in the next section, he's your worst enemy. That's who that is. So put that in your pipe of smoke, kind of thing, you know. And so what he's trying to demonstrate there. That's the message version. Yeah, that's right. He's, he's, he's trying, Jesus is trying to clarify with the parable of the Good Samaritan, not give a morality lesson, but rather a condemnation lesson, not a lesson on

goodness, but a lesson on badness. You can't justify yourself. Actually, in either of the Great Commandments. You are guilty of both. And I mentioned in story of reality, I said, and I can say quite candidly, there is not an instant in my life, 52 years now and counting, almost 53, as a follower of Jesus, and I have never had a single instant where I've loved God with my whole heart, mind, soul, and strength. I just, no conscious awareness of that. there are sometimes when I've loved my neighbor as myself, but it's fleeting, you know, my own self-interest oftentimes is getting in the way. So, but the point is that's not relevant to our acceptance with God. We are rescued by Jesus. Well, I love it that Prager asked that question because it

shows that he got what you were saying about grace. And the reason why I say that is because that's exactly what Paul anticipated people would ask. Right. At the end of Romans, at the end of five, beginning of six, right. He says, well, if it's all because of grace, then why not sin? Yeah. He anticipates that objection to grace. And then he goes through the whole thing in there about how we have died to sin and we're raised with Christ. We're joined to him.

We die. We're raised. We receive the spirit and we put our sin to death. We're new creatures. We don't live in that life anymore. We desire to serve God and please him. and not to be slaves to sin anymore. So all of this goes through six through eight.

He's very clear about this. And the fact that he anticipates that question just emphasizes what the gospel is and how people are always surprised by that and don't really understand what it is because it's so counter to other religions and just the way. Yeah, in human nature. I heard one person put it this way. I thought it was very clever. He said, if you're not preaching grace,

so aggressively that people are going to ask this question, well, then we can just sit up all that we want, then we are not preaching grace the way Paul preached it, because that was the objection that he anticipated. And once again, Romans is the best. You know, it's so amazing. If you just go through it, what I'm finding is the better I know Romans, the better I understand all of Paul's letters and even the other letters because it's a lot of times he'll say the same thing, but he'll say it very quickly, like in a sentence, whereas in Romans he developed it,

he developed it, he went through it, he explained what he meant, so he'll throw out a phrase or two, and you're just, oh, yeah, I know what he's talking about, because he explained that so carefully in Romans. So as like a hub for all the other books, it's just been so helpful. I might add this, too, the book of Galatians, and the book of Romans are kind of joined at the hip. Now, Galatians come first because he's dealing with a theological problem that has to do with works versus grace. And he makes many statements in the book of Galatians to correct this false teaching of the Judaizers that fit hand in glove with what he develops in a much more thorough theological way in the book of Romans, much more methodical. But there is a methodical explanation of the grace of God, you know, in Galatians. If by law, then not by grace.

If by grace, then not by law. You know, so, and those of you are trying to be justified by getting circumcised as an act of the law, you've fallen from grace. Christ will be of no use to you. That's all right there in Galatians chapter four. So, or maybe it's chapter five. So, and it was for freedom that Christ set us free. that's the opening line of Chapter 5 of Galatians. So these books really work well together, thematically.

All right. Well, Tom, you got us going on Romans and we've gone over. But thank you so much, Tom and James. We appreciate hearing from you. If you have a question, just go to X and use the hashtag STR Ask. Or you can go to our website at STR.org and look for our hashtag STR Ask podcast. And you'll find a link there and you can send us your question. We look forward to hearing from you.

We need your questions. to do the show, so we're so grateful when you participate. We look forward to hearing from you. This is Amy Hall and Greg Kogel for Stand to Reason.