There is a relativity in Rom 14, paul said it is not sin to eat the meat, as by Jesus, but it is for another, only because of his weak conscience, ONE OBSERVES ANOTHER DAY, ONE DOES NOT, ETC, ALL SHOWING THAT THE FAITH/SIN VERSE, IN YOUR CITATION, WAS A RELATIVE SUBJECTIVE "SIN" THING, ONLY IN HIS WEAK CONSICENCE, BECAUSE THE VERSE BEFORE SAYS THE SAME GUY WAS NOT IN SIN, WHEN HE ATE, AND HE WAS OK GOING BY HIS OWN PERSONAL CONVICTIONS, SO TO USE THAT VERSE, "WHATEVER IS NOT OF FAITH IS SIN", IN AN OBJECTIVE UNIVERSAL TRUTH is incorrect usage, PAUL was showing the SUBJECTIVE, and the weak conscience, HOW CAN IT BE SIN, IF JESUS SAID IT WAS NOT SIN TO EAT IN 14:14? And it was not sin to eat, or not eat, or what day one prefers, both can't be right IN ROM 14, all proving the subjective point, it was not an objective universal thing paul was saying in that verse. THAT WOULD CREAT BONDAGE TO LIVE THAT WAY, ALWAYS FEARING ONE IS NOT IN FAITH, WHEREBY HE IS NOW IN 'SIN".
In other words rom 14:1 opens about the weak guy, probably the jew, with meats and all that.
His eating was not in faith, because only in his weak personal subjective conscience, his not eating in faith, hence sin, again, only in his weak conscience, it was not actually sin, all the meat is clean 14:14 of Rom.
Someone can think something sin, but it is not, and that was what Rom 14 was about, relativity and the weak conscience, manifested around foods and days in the Romans house churches, it was not Paul teaching a hyper faith, that would mean that we are in sin, every time we are not cruising along in faith , and that is wrong to think Paul was teaching that.
They were arguing in the churches about all that stuff, paul was just saying to leave each other alone on it, and don't freak out the weak guy, Rom 15:1 talks about him again as 14:1, and 15 goes into jew and greek, proving who the two factioning parties were.
One eats only vegetables, another eats meat, one observes one day, another day for another, they can't both be in sin, because neither mattered, it was all subjective, and they can't be in sin, because those food and sabbath days are over, Paul was showing a point there, about the weak conscience, or else we must presume it sin to eat certain foods. How can the guy in the verse before not be in sin for eating, but the guy in the next verse, whom you quote be in sin?
One ok, yet one in sin, how can that be?
14:22 The faith that you have, keep between yourself and God. Blessed is the one who has no reason to pass judgment on himself for what he approves. 23 But whoever has doubts is condemned if he eats, because the eating is not from faith. For whatever does not proceed from faith is sin.[d]
We now see the relative subjective point he was trying to show in 14 of Rom?
In his own mind, the guy in verse 23 thinks it is sin, but was he really sinning?
