<p>14:23- see on Col. 2:18.</p><p><i>But he that doubts- </i>Romans 14 and 15 have many allusions back to the earlier, 'doctrinal' part of Romans. Between them, those allusions teach that we <i>are </i>to be as Abraham; and yet we will be accepted if we can't rise up to his standard. Rom. 14:1 exhorts us to &quot;receive the <i>weak in faith&quot;- </i>when we have been told that Abraham was <i>not </i>weak in faith (Rom. 4:19) and we should seek to be like him. But we are to receive those who are in his seed by baptism, but don't make it to his level of personal faith. Rom. 14:5 bids us be <i>fully persuaded- </i>as Abraham was &quot;fully persuaded&quot; (Rom. 4:21). Yet, Rom. 14:23 he who <i>doubts</i> is damned- and Abraham didn't <i>stagger </i>s.w. Rom. 4:20). Thus ultimately, he must be our example, even if some in the ecclesia will take time to rise up to his standard, and unlike him are &quot;weak in faith&quot;.</p><p><i>Is condemned if he eats, because he eats not from faith</i>- This is the opposite case of those who can happily eat whatever on the basis of their faith in the Lord's work; which is how &quot;faith&quot; is used in Romans. </p><p><i>And whatever is not of faith is sin</i>- &quot;Of faith&quot; is a phrase used earlier by Paul in Romans; and I have argued that the practical section of the letter is full of reference to the theological foundations given in the opening section. &quot;The just shall live by s.w. &quot;of&quot; faith&quot; (1:17). If we are not living in justification in Christ, free from the Law, then we are in sin. This is the tough dualism Paul presents in the opening chapters of Romans. If they ate unclean food whilst still thinking they were thereby justified by the Law, then they were in sin- for Paul has proved that legalistic obedience to Law leaves us in sin, and only faith in Christ can get us into a status outside of &quot;sin&quot;. The Jews could only be justified by or 'of' faith (3:30; 4:16). Rightness before God is only &quot;of faith&quot; (5:1; 9:30,32). Any other way leaves us &quot;in sin&quot;. And yet we are left with a significant logical problem: If indeed justification and salvation are <i>only</i> &quot;of faith&quot; in Christ and not by keeping Mosaic commandments, then why does Paul as it were allow this whole question of obeying Jewish laws to be as it were a matter of personal conscience? I can only conclude that he accepts that God's grace in Christ is such that even those who did not fully 'get it' would still be saved. And that is grace indeed. This also answers the question as to what was to become of the Jewish Christians amongst Paul's readership who didn't fully accept his arguments. Were they thereby condemned? If they sought justification by obedience to Law, then yes- &quot;he that doubts is condemned&quot;.&nbsp; But if they still hankered after obedience to Law and couldn't emotionally accept the full implications of that status- well Paul seems content to allow them some concession to that weakness.</p>