Regarding doubt, how do we apply Romans 14 in difficult situations? Rom 14:23  But he who doubts is condemned if he eats, because he does not eat from faith; for whatever is not from faith is sin.  (NKJV)



The normal interpretation of this text is that if you’re unsure about the rightness of what you’re doing, you shouldn’t do it. This creates many practical and even ethical difficulties, some of which I’ll give examples for below. 

Some people are prone to doubt, some are analytical, and some are both of these things. 

Especially if you have both of these traits, you can be led to inaction - which itself can create doubt; after all, we’re told to redeem the time. 



1) The text in Romans 14 follows after a definite clarification that certain things are not a sin (v.14-15, 20). Yet, its readers are to abstain from that thing if they have doubt. Thus, is it not talking about doubts that arise from textual interpretations? That seems highly unlikely; I don’t hear of totally non-textual things being doubted, such as whether it’s a sin to turn over a rock during daylight.

2) What about instances where your non-action due to doubt leads to someone else’s suffering? Imagine being a police officer, and then at the final moment being struck with doubt: do I not shoot this perpetrator because I know he’ll probably go to hell? And even though not shooting him means that his victim will die?

3) Consider cases where a person is doing a good deed with righteous motivation behind it. But, there’s some aspect of it that he doubts. An example from my life: I’m an author, and I write Christian poems. But, I may make doctrinal errors in my poems. I can’t be certain I didn’t, so should I not publish them?

4) Practically, a doubting personality can doubt almost anything – and he may even have verse(s) in mind to support his reason for doubting. What this can lead to is a person that becomes totally burned out and depressed, because everything he wants to do is wrong. After all, he’s not redeeming the time. Or, he’s not redeeming it in the most efficient way. Note: both the Sabbath and Ecclesiastes show us that we’re not meant to be driven this hard. And also imagine a person who accepts that fact; now, he may doubt where to draw the line: how long should his break be, and how should he spend it?

5) And perhaps most powerfully: imagine someone that doubts all options. He may believe it’s acceptable to marry, but remain unsure if it’s right for him (1Co 7). He may even doubt that it’s right for him to stay single, due to burning with desire (v. 9). Yet, he may question if that burning rises to the level of justifying the conclusion that he must certainly marry (if able). But, he may interpret his society as one which has a ‘present distress’ (v. 26) that would lead Paul to recommend against marriage. So, among the only options (single vs married) – he doubts. Action (marrying) and inaction (staying single) both cause doubt. He is, as the text says, 'condemned' no matter what he does. 

6) As an alternative to the same problem that 5 presented, consider carrying a handgun. He might doubt both options: not carrying means he can't help others, but he believes he should be ready to lay down his life (put himself at risk, in this case) to save another person. On the other hand, it could harm his testimony; in our political climate, many would be offended. My reason for including this second example is to point out that there's no end to the number of things where both action and inaction can be doubted.



How do we interpret the text, in light of the difficulties which the normal interpretation creates? And to do so without making the text to mean nothing at all?
Honestly, I don't see where this interpretation comes from. Looking at the rest of the chapter, it seems easy to see the context. The chapter is largely a discussion of how to regard a neighbor who is more scrupulous in practice of their faith than you. He uses the example of someone who, perhaps due to weak faith, has difficulty with the teaching of the cleanness of all foods:

I know, and am persuaded by the Lord Jesus, that there is nothing unclean of itself: but to him that esteems anything to be unclean, to him it is unclean.
But if your brother is grieved with your food, you no longer walk in love. Destroy not him with your food, for whom Christ died.
Let not then your good be evil spoken of: For the kingdom of God is not food and drink; but righteousness, and peace, and joy in the Holy Spirit.
Romans 14:14–17, King James 2000

In other words, if someone has a very restrictive interpretation of Christian teaching, and you doubt that they're correct, you shouldn't let that doubt govern your behavior—at least not in front of them. Instead, you should take account of their weakness, and modify your behavior to adapt to their imperfect understanding

It is good neither to eat meat, nor to drink wine, nor anything by which your brother stumbles, or is offended, or is made weak.

And if your neighbor believes that something is forbidden, and you doubt that, do not act on your doubt in front of them—you will not be acting in love, nor out of your faith, but out of a sense of judgment or of showing off your superior understanding and deeper faith:

And he that doubts is condemned if he eats, because he eats not of faith: for whatever is not of faith is sin.