To go back to the idea of defiled conscience, this is also mentioned in Titus 1:15. If I am reading you correctly, your idea of conscience – knowing with God, others and oneself – is akin to what we would today call a ‘worldview’ and this would fit here in Titus too. If we say that the works of the circumcision party, who were trying to Judaize the Christians by getting them to be circumcised, eat Kashrut (kosher food) and observe sabbaths, new moons, etc are not in keeping with the new covenant worldview, then they have a defiled worldview or conscience. Is that how you would view the matter?

If one of the unbelievers invites you to dinner and you are disposed to go, eat whatever is set before you without raising any question on the ground of conscience. (But if some one says to you, “This has been offered in sacrifice,” then out of consideration for the man who informed you, and for conscience’ sake — I mean his conscience, not yours — do not eat it.) For why should my liberty be determined by another man’s scruples? If I partake with thankfulness, why am I denounced because of that for which I give thanks?

I think that may be a good way of understanding Paul’s train of thought. We could re-arrange the verses to make it clearer–which Paul himself might have done if he had a cut-paste function!

If one of the unbelievers invites you to dinner and you are disposed to go, eat whatever is set before you without raising any question on the ground of conscience. For why should my liberty be determined by another man’s scruples? If I partake with thankfulness, why am I denounced because of that for which I give thanks? (But if some one says to you, “This has been offered in sacrifice,” then out of consideration for the man who informed you, and for conscience’ sake — I mean his conscience, not yours — do not eat it.)

I think there might be other possibilities too, centered on different ways one might translate verses 29b and following. For example, it might be possible to translate 29b and 30 in such a way that verses 31-33 are seen to be answering those questions: “Why? Here’s why …” When I read them in English, I tend to read them in relation to the preceding verses, as you have, and as rhetorical questions with an implied negative answer. I don’t see anything in the Greek that clearly signals that they’re rhetorical questions though. Perhaps they’re genuine questions and verses 31-33 give the answer … ?

The solution is found by comparing Romans 14:1 with 1 Corinthians 8:7. The weak in Rom 14 are not the same as the weak in 1 Cor 8, in spite of the similar terminology. In Romans, Paul is concerned about the weak in faith, or in other words, those who doubt that God permits them to eat meat. In 1 Corinthians, those who are weak in conscience are in view, which is people whose conscience aren’t sufficiently well developed to warn them against idolatry. The important point of comparison between the two groups in the two chapters isn’t weakness or strength per se but weakness or strength with respect to what? Conscience or faith.

The strong in Romans seem to me quite similar to the strong in 1 Corinthians. Being strong in conscience, they would never knowingly commit idolatry, and being strong in faith, they know God permits them to eat idol meat. That said, the weak in Romans also are similar to the strong in 1 Corinthians: they have a strong conscience that warns them against committing idolatry by eating idol meat. Their weakness is in faith, not a deficiency of conscience. The weak in Corinth, by contrast, have no such scruple and gladly go about doing what the weak in Rome would shudder even to think of!

To sum up, the two largest categories to use when comparing Rom 14 with 1 Cor 8-10 have to do with the conscience. The strong in conscience are knowledgeable, the weak in conscience are ignorant and immature in the faith. The two groups in Rom 14 are both subsets of the strong in conscience: the strong in faith and the weak in faith are both strong in conscience. Both groups know idolatry is wrong and do not practice it. The strong in faith, however, feel free to eat idol meat. The weak in faith could only do so by sinning against their well-developed consciences.

It’s a great question you’ve raised. I hope this solution satisfies you, or at least maintains your interest! I’d love to get your thoughts about the whole subject, especially if there are points of disagreement or things you think I’ve overlooked.