Refuting the Argument: “Romans 14 makes Vaccination a Matter of Christian Liberty”

“There is enough data out there if you look and you uncover it … you will be picking these things up that will tell you, you really don’t have the freedom to take this — to take something that will harm you, harm your body, even harm those around you, with spike proteins being shed by you. … It’s not even an option for someone to do it. Suicide is not an option.” — Geoffrey Botkin on the COVID shot

Vaccination is a deceitful, murderous practice; it is condemned by Scripture, and should be criminalized. Despite this, an apparently common misuse of Scripture is to use Romans 14 to say that Christians should morally tolerate all opinions on vaccines.

“Vaccination,” this position holds, “is a matter of Christian liberty since the Bible does not talk about it. Every Christian must decide for himself what is the best course. We are not to make a big deal about differing views.”

There are those on both sides of the vaccine debate who might hold this position: both pro- and anti-vaxxers.

Here I will not question the sincerity of those who do so; their motivation is for God to judge. Cast in the best light, they are looking for peace within the church. I respect this — and we do want peace as much as possible in the church — but, as we show here, this is a misguided notion of peace. There is no peace when countless Christians and their children are being seriously injured and slain left and right by vaccines.

(Of course, I would rather pro-vaxxers hold that vaccination is an optional matter of liberty than to hold that Scripture requires vaccination. Moreover, if consistent, they are on our side when it comes to opposing vaccine mandates.)

I also want to say that I do believe that there are certain aspects of Romans 14 that always apply to Christians — such as not looking down on one another, respect for one another’s conscience, and not creating a stumbling block for each other. Here we are not taking issue with these, but with misapplying Christian liberty (as found in Romans 14) to vaccines, with the consequence of denying that vaccination is a serious moral matter and danger to one’s life.

Now, as for the idea that Romans 14 applies to vaccination simply because Scripture does not mention vaccines: we have already refuted this in our article “Refuting the Argument: ‘The Bible doesn’t Specifically Condemn Vaccines, so WE can’t Condemn Vaccines.’”

Scripture is silent on the word “vaccine,” but not on its essence. This is because vaccination unlawfully harms and kills — acts that the Bible condemns.

Put another way, Scripture does not have to specify all of the different methods of unlawful killing for us to consistently identify murder (which Scripture condemns) any more than it has to specify every false god in existence for us to consistently identify idolatry. That God’s law is transgressed (such as harming someone under the guise of safety, which vaccines do) suffices to show that Scripture speaks to it, regardless of how it is transgressed. The use of gas chambers to commit genocide are not in Scripture either — but we know they are condemned by Scripture because they unlawfully destroy human life.

Before going over the chapter, for a more thorough discussion of the text than we present here, see Pastor Joe Morecraft’s sermon on Romans 14. Also see this from Ligonier and this from Got Questions. See also several Bible commentaries, starting from verse 1 of Romans 14, on Bible Hub. A final point: we do not believe the liberty of days referred to in the chapter makes the keeping of the Lord’s Day on Sunday optional — but that is a discussion for another day. Our concern here is whether Romans 14 applies to vaccination.

Article topics include:

• The text
• Liberty is optional — but God’s law is not
• Liberty, food, poison
• Do we harm ourselves and our kids for the sake of the weaker brother?
• What about those on the fence regarding vaccination?
• If Romans 14 applies to vaccination, then vaccination in and of itself is ultimately unimportant
• Vaccinating children and the effects of vaccines on others — “liberty for me, tyranny for thee”?
• But even IF Romans 14 applies to vaccination …
• Vaccination and conscience
• Christian liberty and general medical decisions
• Concluding thoughts

The text

Now to the text. Here are the first six verses (see the full chapter here):

As for the one who is weak in faith, welcome him, but not to quarrel over opinions. One person believes he may eat anything, while the weak person eats only vegetables. Let not the one who eats despise the one who abstains, and let not the one who abstains pass judgment on the one who eats, for God has welcomed him. Who are you to pass judgment on the servant of another? It is before his own master that he stands or falls. And he will be upheld, for the Lord is able to make him stand.

One person esteems one day as better than another, while another esteems all days alike. Each one should be fully convinced in his own mind. The one who observes the day, observes it in honor of the Lord. The one who eats, eats in honor of the Lord, since he gives thanks to God, while the one who abstains, abstains in honor of the Lord and gives thanks to God. (Romans 14:1-6, ESV)

Here there are two categories of Christians: the one who is “weak in faith” (who believes he can eat only vegetables and esteems certain days over another) and the one who has a more mature understanding of Christian liberty (the one who believes he may eat anything and esteems all days alike).

On the one “weak in faith,” Bible commentator Matthew Poole writes:

Him that is weak in the faith; that is, wavering and unsettled in some lesser points of faith, particularly in the doctrine of Christian liberty, and freedom from the ceremonial law: he means, the scrupulous and erroneous Judaizer, though yet, in proportion, it may be applied to other scrupulous and doubting Christians. (Matthew Poole’s Commentary, Romans 14)

Back to the text. The following is said several verses later:

Therefore let us not pass judgment on one another any longer, but rather decide never to put a stumbling block or hindrance in the way of a brother. I know and am persuaded in the Lord Jesus that nothing is unclean in itself, but it is unclean for anyone who thinks it unclean. For if your brother is grieved by what you eat, you are no longer walking in love. By what you eat, do not destroy the one for whom Christ died. (Romans 14:13-15, ESV) .

Do not, for the sake of food, destroy the work of God. Everything is indeed clean, but it is wrong for anyone to make another stumble by what he eats. It is good not to eat meat or drink wine or do anything that causes your brother to stumble. (Romans 14:20-21, ESV)

Liberty is optional — but God’s law is not

Romans 14 discusses liberty Christians have when it comes to such things as eating meat or drinking wine (obviously not to excess). Such liberty, then, regards certain things one can choose to engage in or refrain from: matters that are optional.

But this cannot apply to vaccination, for vaccination, being dangerous to one’s health, is a matter of God’s moral law. And God’s law, by its very nature, is not optional. For when we violate God’s law, we sin:

Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law: for sin is the transgression of the law. (1 John 3:4, KJV)

(Of course none of us obey God’s required law perfectly. Far from it. This is why we need Jesus as our Savior! But the saved man should strive to obey God out of love for God.)

Vaccination violates the Sixth and Ninth Commandments by being harmful and based on lies. Engaging in acts that promote such sins is not remotely analogous to engaging in liberty to eat meat or drink wine — or surrendering such for a weaker brother.

If Romans 14 actually entails vaccination, then by extension, it also entails abortion and euthanasia, which are analogous to vaccination (despite having different motives — all are harmful, whether the recipient knows it or not).

Would any serious Christian say that we should accommodate such practices? “You believe you can murder your child. I don’t. But, let’s not make a big fuss about it. We have liberty. A child’s life is as disposable as meat and wine if it means peace within the church.”

(This may sound far-fetched for conservative churches, and yet, here we are, tolerating, in the name of peace, the slaughter of infants via vaccination.)

And really, those who apply Romans 14 to vaccination and therefore the Sixth and Ninth Commandments, would also have to, for logical consistency, apply it to all of God’s moral law. Worshiping idols, blasphemy, adultery, theft, etc., would be indifferent matters. They would either be optional matters of liberty, or tolerated for the sake of “peace.”

If blood poisoning via vaccination is “liberty” or should be tolerated, we would, of course, have to do away with church discipline and criminal law. After all, everything should be accommodated …

The Romans 14 position, then, that makes vaccination an indifferent matter reduces to absurdity. It proves too much; by making matters of moral law matters of liberty, wickedness of any form can be tolerated.

Liberty, food, poison

Those quick to say that liberty in food equals liberty in vaccines surely don’t even believe that liberty in food, as stated in Romans 14, is intended to be absolute. For what if one wants to eat food that is poisoned? Is this morally okay? No, of course not: by applying God’s moral law as articulated elsewhere in Scripture, we can reasonably conclude that it is not lawful to eat poisoned food, since it is harmful.

Let’s take this further. Not only would it be wrong to eat poisoned food, but those who know it is poisoned should warn the person eating it. Imagine if a brother is about to eat something that could make him very ill, and even cause him to die suddenly. Would we who know this be so hardened that we would say nothing due to a perverse understanding of peace and a clearly untenable interpretation of Romans 14? Of course not (I would hope).

Let’s take this even further. If we should warn someone about eating poisoned food, how much more should we warn people about taking poisoned injections? Ingesting poison is deadly enough. But by bypassing the innate immune system, injecting a poison directly into the bloodstream is even deadlier. (Consider the difference between drinking snake venom and injecting it via snake bite.)

The flawed view that Romans 14 teaches us to essentially disregard differences about vaccination contradicts Scripture itself. Because vaccines are deadly, warning about their dangers is a biblical mandate:

Rescue those who are being taken away to death; hold back those who are stumbling to the slaughter. (Proverbs 24:11, ESV)

But if the watchman sees the sword coming and does not blow the trumpet, so that the people are not warned, and the sword comes and takes any one of them, that person is taken away in his iniquity, but his blood I will require at the watchman’s hand. (Ezekiel 33:6, ESV)

Exodus 21:28-32 describes liability regarding a man whose ox has gored someone to death. Verse 29 refers to someone who has warned the owner about the danger of the ox. Is the one who warns here considered a criminal agitator for being so “contentious” as to warn the owner? No — if anything, he did his moral duty. It is the owner, if he fails to restrain his ox, that is the criminal if the ox hurts someone. (And surely the liability increases when one subjects his own child to a certain medical intervention after being given sufficient evidence that the intervention is deadly.)

Consider also the parable of the Good Samaritan (Luke 10:25-37). Should we leave a man to die on the road who was severely beaten? Or, should we, like the Good Samaritan, do what we can to save his life? Obviously, the answer should be the latter. We should “go, and do likewise” (verse 37b). And surely doing likewise entails warning someone who is unwittingly endangering himself via vaccination. We should not make excuses to not do so — which is more like doing likewise as the priest and Levite (“religious men”!) who in the parable left the man to die.

(Granted — vaccination can be a very emotional issue, so addressing others may require tact and timing.)

Indeed, we are not just to warn about the dangers of vaccination, but the sin of vaccination (which again, violates the Sixth and Ninth Commandments):

Cry aloud; do not hold back; lift up your voice like a trumpet; declare to my people their transgression, to the house of Jacob their sins. (Isaiah 58:1)

All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work. (2 Timothy 3:16, 17)

However, since many have a hard time connecting vaccines with injury and death, many vaccinators cannot be treated as those who deliberately seek out to harm others; rather, they believe what they are doing is beneficial to life. In such cases, this should temper our approach.

Do we harm ourselves and our kids for the sake of the weaker brother?

Romans 14 discusses how the more mature brother should, if needed, be willing to forgo his liberty to one degree or another regarding such things as meat and wine for the sake of the weaker brother’s conscience. As such, liberty is an optional matter that may or may not be engaged in, depending on the circumstances.

Now, one thing you’ll probably never see when Romans 14 is (mis)used to neutralize the vaccine controversy is a discussion on actually applying what the chapter says about forgoing liberty for the sake of the weaker brother.

If in fact Romans 14 applies to vaccination, then one side should be willing to give up its vaccine preferences if it causes a problem for those on the other side.

And so, even if, for argument sake, the vaccinators are correct, they should, if need be, forever give up vaccination for the sake of fellow believers who oppose vaccination.

On the other hand, if the anti-vaccinators are correct (and of course, they are) — and thus not being vaccinated is the correct position — they likewise should, if need be, forever get regularly vaccinated for the sake of fellow believers who support vaccination.

How many on either side who say Romans 14 applies to vaccines would actually give up or embrace vaccines? If they would, I’d be impressed. If they wouldn’t, then — and I’m just asking this — is this hypocrisy?

No; unless they are nearly undecided, those on neither side — if sincere about vaccines — would embrace the opposite of what they believe about vaccines because they all must, deep down, see vaccination not as an indifferent issue, but a moral issue: the pro-vaccine side in a deceived way, and the anti-vaccine side in a correct way.

“But” — one might say — “I don’t know for sure whether I’m the stronger or weaker brother. Scripture does not discuss vaccines explicitly, and so humility compels me to not assume that I am the correct, or stronger, brother. Maybe I’m the weaker brother in this. I just don’t know. And the weaker brother is not required in Romans 14 to give up his practice for the sake of the stronger brother.”

First, Scripture does speak to vaccination — in the same way Scripture speaks to all methods of murder (more on this here).

Second, to err on the side of being the weaker brother is also to err on the side of being wrong. If one is likely wrong, then perhaps one should seriously consider giving up what he practices (in this case, his practice regarding vaccines).

Third, I would also say to the objection, why not err on the side of making peace? That is, giving up your vaccine preference for the sake of others?

If you can’t, then perhaps deep down you believe that vaccination is a non-negotiable moral issue. But if it in fact is, then again, we are not dealing with a Romans 14 liberty issue, but a moral law issue spoken to elsewhere in Scripture.

What about those on the fence regarding vaccination?

Some Christians are honestly on the fence regarding vaccination.

They just don’t know what to think; they are unsure whether vaccination preserves health, or destroys it. They don’t think, or are not sure, whether the morality of vaccination is addressed in Scripture.

(If the above is you, please read the material on this website!)

Even if they lean in one direction, it is not enough for a strong conviction.

In this case, I can see how one would practically default to Romans 14 regarding vaccination (pending more info). However, one should not, out of uncertainty, default to Romans 14 and then impose the chapter on everyone else.

This amounts to saying, “I am unsure about vaccination. Therefore, I don’t give anyone else permission to be sure about it.” It is better in a state of humility to realize that just because one fails to figure something out, it doesn’t mean everyone else does.

If Romans 14 applies to vaccination, then vaccination in and of itself is ultimately unimportant

Let us note that if encompassed by Romans 14, vaccination or non-vaccination is ultimately unnecessary in and of itself. That is, it is either a matter of liberty that can be surrendered or is a matter for a weaker brother who thinks he must regard it in a certain way, but actually does not have to (if his conscience would allow for it).

The important thing would be the attitudes of Christians on both sides towards one another, and maintaining a clear conscience on the matter: mutual love, and a clear conscience before God.

Conversely, if addressed by God’s law, vaccination would be an important matter in and of itself. But that would remove it from the Romans 14 category of liberty.

Vaccinating children and the effects of vaccines on others — “liberty for me, tyranny for thee“?

Adding to what seems to be impossible hurdles to applying Romans 14 to vaccines is vaccinating children and the effects of vaccines on others. Vaccines can be more than just a “personal choice.”

First, regarding children, young children are not mentally capable of making a voluntary choice regarding vaccines. Sure, parents may say they have Christian liberty as parents to decide to make their medical decisions; but does this entail unwittingly injuring and killing them with poisoned shots? This includes pregnant mothers vaccinating themselves, since it will also affect their unborn child.

Second, at least some vaccines can shed or transmit dangerous effects to others. This especially seems to be the case with the COVID shot, which appears to be a bioweapon.

Historically, this is nothing new. For instance, “shedding” is known to occur with live virus vaccines. Polio vaccination spread polio. It actually goes all the way back to the beginning, with smallpox inoculation.

Third, the use of aborted baby DNA in certain vaccines means that by using such vaccines, you are encouraging further murder of the unborn for the same purpose.

Fourth, those who control the vaccine agenda are not beyond using experimental vaccines on populations. You can read more about this here, and hear Dr. Stanley Plotkin — the “godfather of vaccines” — admit to doing so here. Again, getting vaccinated drives more murder to continue the practice.

Fifth, the possible consequences of vaccination on offspring. Could those who are vaccinated be passing on bad genetics to their children? This does not seem far-fetched, given that vaccines either use DNA from aborted babies, animals, or insects.

Moreover, there is the possibility of passing on causes of serious health problems. For instance, there is concern that SV40 — a cancer causing virus found in polio vaccines in 1960 — may be permanently passed on from parent to child. See this article and the book The Virus and the Vaccine by Debbie Bookchin and Jim Schumacher.

But even IF Romans 14 applies to vaccination …

While we have shown otherwise, for argument’s sake, even if Romans 14 does apply to vaccination, this doesn’t mean that there is no room for correction of the weaker brother. In verse 14, the Apostle Paul states that the stronger brothers are correct (meaning that the weaker brother can, if his conscience will allow for it, also have the liberty he objects to):

I know and am persuaded in the Lord Jesus that nothing is unclean in itself, but it is unclean for anyone who thinks it unclean. (Romans 14:14, ESV)

Even in Romans 15:1, he refers to “We who are strong” bearing with the weak’s “failings”:

We who are strong have an obligation to bear with the failings of the weak, and not to please ourselves. (Romans 15:1, ESV)

This is written publicly in a letter, for all to see. And so regarding vaccination (if in fact Romans 14 applies to the matter), since those who oppose vaccination are correct, then there would still be a place for them — while respecting the conscience of those who vaccinate — to demonstrate that vaccination is not necessary.

Vaccination and conscience

It is very important that the consciences of those who vaccinate becomes convicted that vaccines are sinful. We cannot expect them to want to stop vaccinating if doing so opposes their conscience.

We must remember that the conscience of the fellow believer who vaccinates has been led astray by an unending barrage of vaccine propaganda. Unless he is vaccinating to please the world, he probably, in his mind, serves God by vaccinating (zeal without knowledge). Thus if we give him true information about vaccines, he may not change overnight (although that would be preferable, as more time means more dangerous vaccines) — but seeds can be planted.

What can convict their conscience? Scripture that speaks to vaccination, as well as anything that shows the suppressed dangers and lies about vaccines (much of which this website covers).

Christian liberty and general medical decisions

I do believe in Christian liberty for legitimate medical practices, in this sense: that Christians should not micromanage the consciences of one another when it comes to deciding on certain practices needed for our health. For instance: whether to assume the risks for what could be life-saving heart surgery.

There are many factors to consider in such cases, and others should not Pope over us — as if they have omniscience and can weigh all the variables of medical decisions.

However, such an approach shouldn’t warrant us to mindlessly apply this to all practices masquerading as “medical.” It is important to distinguish between life saving surgery and discredited medical practices — as well as “medical choices” that vaccination is analogous to, such as transgender surgery (for being unnatural), as well as pro-death procedures like euthanasia and abortion.

(The medical profession’s legacy of tyranny, torture, and murder should give us pause when we assume that its default position is our health.)

In the cases of liberty in legitimate medical practices, I would not apply so much Romans 14 (at least in its totality) as I would general principles of the Sixth Commandment — coupled with the idea that since none of us are omniscient and can see all the variables, we cannot lord over others how to best apply it. This is generalizing, as there are some cases where it is can be clearly pointed out by someone as to whether to accept or reject a medical intervention. (Sometimes, we do need someone else to say, “That is going too far.”)

There is also the question of how far to go in risky interventions that are not life saving, but are helpful for productivity (e.g., risky surgery to restore a maimed arm). The nuances of this are a discussion for another day, but I do think there is, within reason, liberty here too.

It is important, in any medical intervention, to avoid doing evil that good may come, which vaccination is guilty of. We discuss this here, where we also make the distinction between vaccination and necessary surgery.

Concluding thoughts

Those who make vaccination a Romans 14 matter of liberty are oversimplifying, to put it mildly. The examples given in the text are food and days — not matters of life and death, and of moral law. They are not analogous. Health and morality are not “optional liberties.”

Moreover, one cannot expect the more mature brother to promote lies and inflict harm on himself via vaccination because the weaker brother is uncomfortable around the unvaccinated. (And surely those who support vaccination would not likewise surrender their vaccine preferences for the sake of those who disagree.)

The spirit of Romans 14 is “walking in love”. This is not done by pretending there is no problem when a fellow believer unwittingly poisons himself and his children. It is neither loving nor peaceful to ignore the destruction of the lives and health of those within the church.

Rather, we ought to set a loving example by not vaccinating ourselves, by not harming our children via vaccination, and by warning others about the dangers and sinfulness of vaccines.

Of course, this must be done in a spirit of humility, peace, and as much as possible, gentleness (more firmness is reserved for obvious wolves). As noted, it is important that those who vaccinate are convicted by conscience to stop vaccinating. Scripture, proof of lies about vaccines, and testimonies of vaccine dangers can be helpful here.

We must not look down on fellow believers who vaccinate, for if it wasn’t for God opening our eyes, we would embrace vaccines too. As finite, fallen beings, we also have our blind spots. We need each other to show one another areas where we cannot see.

The question then becomes whether vaccination should be subject to church discipline. This is worth considering — at the very least, when it comes to parents vaccinating their children. Children have the procedure forced upon them and are most vulnerable to lifelong injury and death as a result.

Let us seek for peace on the vaccine issue — but not by means of ignoring the danger (namely, that vaccines are a fraud that harm and kill) but by speaking the truth in love:

Rather, speaking the truth in love, we are to grow up in every way into him who is the head, into Christ, from whom the whole body, joined and held together by every joint with which it is equipped, when each part is working properly, makes the body grow so that it builds itself up in love. (Ephesians 4:15, 16, ESV)

We can still be gracious and charitable without misapplying Romans 14 and trivializing the seriousness of medical murder.

Appendix: Romans 14 and The Evil of Men (by Pastor Matt Trewhella)

“A response to how the churchmen are falsely using Romans 14 to shame Christians into silence so they do not speak out against the evil of tyrants using the the pandemic to impose tyranny.”

If you find this site helpful, please consider supporting our work.

Tagged Christianity