Bacon eaters! Do you see?

[steaver]

There is a sect of Christians, Seventh Day Adventist, who preach that a (professing) Christian who says that they see Lev 11 forbids the eating of swine but they choose to eat it anyways is in rebellion against God and therefore found to be a liar.

Here is a quote from an SDA supporter;

BobRyan;
In answer to your hypothetical (of the form) -- someone says "I see that God does not want me to eat diseased flesh and rat sandwiches when I read Leviticus 11 - but I don't care what God says - I like doing what I am doing and God is not going to stop ME" -

I gave the answer:

They have a problem right then and there - it does not matter if they "die the next day from eating that diseased flesh" or not.

As well as the confirming Bible answer

Quote:
Christ said in Matt 7 "not everyone who SAYS Lord Lord will enter the kingdom of heaven but he who DOES the will of My Father".

In Romans 2 Paul says "it is not the HEARERS of the Law that are just before God but the DOERS of the Law WILL BE JUSTIFIED".

John says "The one who SAYS that he knows Christ and does not KEEP His commandments is a liar" 1 John 2.

(The list of these texts is pretty long - hopefully you get the idea.)

Turns out that open willful rebellion against the Word of God is not one of the fruits of the Spirit listed in Gal 5.
in Christ,

I replied to him with this;

Steaver;
Your SDA view is that anyone who says they have faith in Christ and eats swine knowing what Leviticus 11 says about swine is a liar and therefore not saved. This would include myself and probably everyone on this board except for yourself.

Bob's reply back was;

Are you sure you are willing to take a flying leap off of that cliff as if you "see what you are doing"??

Christ said this of those who were thinking it was ok to defy the Word of God -

Christ said "IF you were blind you would not have sin - but you say that you see - so your sin remains" John 9:41

I don't know if you are really in the dire situation that you so willingly choose to paint yourself as being in or not.

But I know what God's Word says.

in Christ,

Bob

My answer is yes. I believe Jesus Christ is the Son of God and I also see what God said in Lev 11 concerning the eating of swine. I also choose to eat swine.

SDA's look upon me according to my answers as hell bound. My belief in Christ to them is a lie.

How does the board feel about these SDA standards?

:jesus:

 

[matt wade]

Bacon...yum!

 

[Thinkingstuff]

Leviticus 11 forbids eating pork. But Acts deminishes that requirement.

 

[BobRyan]

Steaver- you clarified your own point - saying that the person in that "diseased flesh" and "rat sandwich" scenario was in an act of open rebellion against God's Word.

Originally Posted by steaver
Indeed I get the idea and it helps a great deal. :thumbs:

I must say I stand corrected in my thoughts. I thought for sure you would not be willing to say that the person in my hypothetical would be going to hell.

This is exactly what I purposed to expose in the SDA teachings. The SDA believes that even though a person has faith in God and has been born of God this faith is void if the person dies in an act of rebellion against God (sin).

This is not the gospel of Jesus Christ.

I am wondering if those who are responding to your baited question - know that this is how you have actually positioned the point.

Just curious.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

Leviticus 11 forbids eating pork. But Acts deminishes that requirement.

Lev 11 actually mentions things like not eating diseased flesh and rats etc - (as does Isaiah 66) - are you saying that that point is "diminished" by a reference in the book of Acts that makes no mention at all of "pork"??

If so - how are Christians in the book of Acts either told to start eating diseased flesh, or rats or even pork?

Or is the argument that some parts of Lev 11 are countered by a reference in acts that makes no mention at all of pork - but not all?

(BTW - not all bacon is pork bacon as it turns out )

in Christ,

Bob

 

[Thinkingstuff]

Lev 11 actually mentions things like not eating diseased flesh and rats etc - (as does Isaiah 66) - are you saying that that point is "diminished" by a reference in the book of Acts that makes no mention at all of "pork"??

If so - how are Christians in the book of Acts either told to start eating diseased flesh, or rats or even pork?

Or is the argument that some parts of Lev 11 are countered by a reference in acts that makes no mention at all of pork - but not all?

(BTW - not all bacon is pork bacon as it turns out )

in Christ,

Bob

Are you saying Leviticus 11 makes no mention of Pork or that Acts revelation to peter does not lift the sanction on pork?

 

[BobRyan]

I am saying that there is no reference to Pork in the entire book of Acts. But there is a reference to a general category that fits rats,cats,dogs,bats,snakes etc. Peter then interprets that incident as teaching that gentiles are to be evangelized - instead of interpreting in a way that suggests that diseased flesh and rat sandwiches are the new item on the menu for Christians.

Clearly Peter's focus on "preaching the Gospel to gentiles" in that case - is taking the high road.

I am saying that Lev 11 mentions diseased flesh, and rats,cats,dogs,bats as being not fit for food - as well as mentioning swine.

If the argument is that Lev 11 is made defunct by something in Acts that makes no mention at all of Pork - then I want to know how that can be and also want to be shown where NT authors began eating diseased flesh, or rats ... etc such that they declared Lev 11 and Isaiah 66 to be null and void.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[Thinkingstuff]

I am saying that there is no reference to Pork in the entire book of Acts. But there is a reference to a general category that fits rats,cats,dogs,bats,snakes etc. Peter then interprets that incident as teaching that gentiles are to be evangelized - instead of interpreting in a way that suggests that diseased flesh and rat sandwiches are the new item on the menu for Christians.

Clearly Peter's focus on "preaching the Gospel to gentiles" in that case - is taking the high road.

I am saying that Lev 11 mentions diseased flesh, and rats,cats,dogs,bats as being not fit for food - as well as mentioning swine.

If the argument is that Lev 11 is made defunct by something in Acts that makes no mention at all of Pork - then I want to know how that can be and also want to be shown where NT authors began eating diseased flesh, or rats ... etc such that they declared Lev 11 and Isaiah 66 to be null and void.

in Christ,

Bob

Didn't God say in the vision "Get up, Peter. Kill and eat." And wouldn't the gentiles have on their menu food not "clean" according to Torah? Where by when they asked Peter to stay

Then they asked Peter to stay with them for a few days.

he would have eaten with them? And later when Peter was called to task he was accused of

"You went into the house of uncircumcised men and ate with them."

indicating unclean food. Peter does not say he had no unclean food but shows how the spirit filled them? And doesn't James later not put a restriction save for eating of blook on the gentiles?

 

[webdog]

SDA's...or Jesus telling Peter to kill and eat (which was considered unclean). I'll take Jesus...and bacon, ham, pork chops and BBQ ribs

 

[BobRyan]

Didn't God say in the vision "Get up, Peter. Kill and eat." And wouldn't the gentiles have on their menu food not "clean" according to Torah? Where by when they asked Peter to stay he would have eaten with them?

In Acts 10 - Cornelius is introduced as a worshipper of the God of the Bible who also is on good terms with the Jews. In Acts 13 we see a similar example where gentiles worship with Jews in the Synogague each Sabbath.

Thus it would be wrong to conclude that Cornelius is a pagan worshipper - eating diseased meat and rats in direct contradiction to the Bible that he views as being the sacred text for the God that he worships.

So when Peter comes to Cornelius and gives him the same "news" that the Jewish Christians were already giving their fellow Jews about the Christ - this would be a good time for him to inform Cornelius that the eating of diseased flesh and rats that is condemned in Lev 11 -- is no longer a problem.

But Peter relates the vision to Cornelius telling him that in fact the meaning of the dream is focused on evangelizing gentiles - and not on eating diseased flesh and rats.

And later when Peter was called to task he was accused of indicating unclean food. Peter does not say he had no unclean food but shows how the spirit filled them? And doesn't James later not put a restriction save for eating of blook on the gentiles?

1. Peter is never accused of eating unclean foods by anyone - not even the Jews.
2. The only thing he is accused of is eating "with" gentiles - as the Samaritan woman is amazed at Christ and says that she did not think Jews would "talk to" Samaritans much less ask them for water.



in Christ,

Bob

 

[Thinkingstuff]

In Acts 10 - Cornelius is introduced as a worshipper of the God of the Bible who also is on good terms with the Jews. In Acts 13 we see a similar example where gentiles worship with Jews in the Synogague each Sabbath.

Thus it would be wrong to conclude that Cornelius is a pagan worshipper - eating diseased meat and rats in direct contradiction to the Bible that he views as being the sacred text for the God that he worships.

So when Peter comes to Cornelius and gives him the same "news" that the Jewish Christians were already giving their fellow Jews about the Christ - this would be a good time for him to inform Cornelius that the eating of diseased flesh and rats that is condemned in Lev 11 -- is no longer a problem.

But Peter relates the vision to Cornelius telling him that in fact the meaning of the dream is focused on evangelizing gentiles - and not on eating diseased flesh and rats.



1. Peter is never accused of eating unclean foods by anyone - not even the Jews.
2. The only thing he is accused of is eating "with" gentiles - as the Samaritan woman is amazed at Christ and says that she did not think Jews would "talk to" Samaritans much less ask them for water.



in Christ,

Bob

But for your well thought out rebuttle you miss the main vision. "get up, kill and eat" why would God indicate to specifically eat if eating wasnt the issue?

 

[BobRyan]

The argument for pork is from silence regarding events that do not appear in the text - since the text does not say Peter ate rats "three times", rather we see the rats-cats-dogs-bats-snakes sheet brought down "three times" and three times Peter says "no". It is presented "as if" Peter thinks this is some kind of "test". In fact he says more than "no" - he affirms as if a matter of faith "I have NEVER done that".

Those who argue that "three times Peter said YES and then ate rats and snakes" would have to make their case in direct contrast to the text.

At the end of that event - the text says Peter is asking himself "what does this mean" and then come the 3 gentiles to his door. And then Peter repeats the story 3 times - telling first Cornelius - then the Jews what the dream meant.

Not once did he say "it means we can eat diseased flesh and rats now". His interpretation (inspired as it is) is that the dream is specifically about gentile evangelism.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

On a side note - regarding the OP -

There is a sect of Christians, Seventh Day Adventist, who preach that a (professing) Christian who says that ..

Acts 24:14
"But this I admit to you, that according to the Way which they call a sect I do serve the God of our fathers, believing everything that is in accordance with the Law and that is written in the Prophets;

Acts 28:22
"But we desire to hear from you what your views are; for concerning this sect, it is known to us that it is spoken against everywhere."

The christian church in the NT was considered a sect of Judaism. That is why the Jews of the NT were so focused on opposing Christians. They did not oppose every "other religion in town" - but they opposed Christians because they viewed them as a branch of Judaism.

:godisgood:

 

[Thinkingstuff]

The argument for pork is from silence regarding events that do not appear in the text - since the text does not say Peter ate rats "three times", rather we see the rats-cats-dogs-bats-snakes sheet brought down "three times" and three times Peter says "no". It is presented "as if" Peter thinks this is some kind of "test". In fact he says more than "no" - he affirms as if a matter of faith "I have NEVER done that".

Those who argue that "three times Peter said YES and then ate rats and snakes" would have to make their case in direct contrast to the text.

At the end of that event - the text says Peter is asking himself "what does this mean" and then come the 3 gentiles to his door. And then Peter repeats the story 3 times - telling first Cornelius - then the Jews what the dream meant.

Not once did he say "it means we can eat diseased flesh and rats now". His interpretation (inspired as it is) is that the dream is specifically about gentile evangelism.

in Christ,

Bob

fellowship with people in that culture included eating with them. Often what the gentiles ate was prohibited. Why else the specific task of eating unless it includes fellowship which included eating?

 

[Jon-Marc]

I see no food prohibitions in the New Testament. Being under grace and not the law, we are allowed to eat whatever is edible--except each other.

 

[DHK]

1 Timothy 4:3-5 forbidding marriage and commanding to abstain from foods which God created to be received with thanksgiving by those who believe and know the truth.
4 For every creature of God is good, and nothing is to be rejected, if it is received with thanksgiving.
5 For it is sanctified through the word of God and prayer. (WEB)

Let's restate verse four again:
For every creature of God is good (including swine), and nothing is to be rejected, if it is received with thanksgiving.

There is no possible way for the SDA's and other like-minded groups to rationalize this Scripture away. God has created all food good. None of it is to be rejected. Even rat is acceptable. It is only your cultural surroundings that make it so abhorrent to you. Many prisoners have survived on rats.

 

[Salty]

Its okay, as long as you use a fork!

 

[Tom Bryant]

Its okay, as long as you use a fork!

Also, cooking it low and slow!!!

 

[targus]

But for your well thought out rebuttle you miss the main vision. "get up, kill and eat" why would God indicate to specifically eat if eating wasnt the issue?

Don't expect a direct answer to your question.

When debating an SDA you are actually debating the entire SDA "cut and paste" library.

If it is not in the SDA library they are left without a response.

 

[BobRyan]

The argument for pork is from silence regarding events that do not appear in the text - since the text does not say Peter ate rats "three times", rather we see the rats-cats-dogs-bats-snakes sheet brought down "three times" and three times Peter says "no". It is presented "as if" Peter thinks this is some kind of "test". In fact he says more than "no" - he affirms as if a matter of faith "I have NEVER done that".

Those who argue that "three times Peter said YES and then ate rats and snakes" would have to make their case in direct contrast to the text.

At the end of that event - the text says Peter is asking himself "what does this mean" and then come the 3 gentiles to his door. And then Peter repeats the story 3 times - telling first Cornelius - then the Jews what the dream meant.

Not once did he say "it means we can eat diseased flesh and rats now". His interpretation (inspired as it is) is that the dream is specifically about gentile evangelism.

Thus the argument "from the text" is summarized as

1. No mention at all of pork in the entire book of Acts - much less in Acts 10.

2. The text says that three times Peter said "no" to the command to eat the rats,cats,dogs,bats snakes feast set before him. Those who imagine that the anwer was "yes and three times he ate rats" have to make that case from some other text - other than the book of Acts.

3. Peter himself interprets this vision 3 times. All three times he declares it to be about the GOSPEL going to gentiles - instead of a command to violate the Lev 11 restriction against eating diseased flesh and rats etc.

4. Cornelius is introduced in that chapter as being a follower of the God of the Bible - and so like the gentiles of Acts 13 - was familiar both with the Bible and the Jews.

5. The Jewish traditional restriction on Peter was the same as with Christ in John 4 - where He drinks water given him by a Samaritan and talks with her. She expresses surprise that a Jew would do that. It has nothing to do with "bad water".

fellowship with people in that culture included eating with them. Often what the gentiles ate was prohibited. Why else the specific task of eating unless it includes fellowship which included eating?

As was pointed out in the case of John 4 the restrictions had nothing to do with "bad water" or "bad food" eaten by gentiles that were followers of the God of the Bible. Rather the John 4 case makes it clear that it was gentiles themselves that the Jews were avoiding. And as we see in Mark 7 in the case of "unclean wheat" - there was a lot of tradition being tossed in that had much more to do with being "in contact with a gentile" or a sinner - rather than actually having "bad water" or "bad wheat".

Thus - trying to get out of a text that makes no mention at all of pork - the idea that diseased flesh and rats are ok for NT chrisitans to eat - is to argue from the silence of what the text does not say.

in Christ,

Bob