Bacon eaters! Do you see?

[BobRyan]

Science is science. You live in a land of superstition.

You have said that Lev 11 forbidding the eating of rats is "doctrines of demons" from a spin you put on it from 1Tim 4 -- bending the text AWAY from the clear vs 5 teaching that only food blessed and affirmed (set aside - sanctified) by scripture is to be eaten.

Now you claim that to obey the Word of God in Lev 11 - is to "follow mere supertition".

Is there any "limit" to your attacks on scripture itself?

What about getting back to "sola scriptura TESTING" of your own wild claims??

in Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

Quote:
But it is in fact all misdirection on your part - as you appear to be making an argument of the form -- "if God's Law is inconvenient then you don't need to pay attention to it".

This is your practice. Unless you can demonstrate your obedience to the command of Deu.22:11 I would have to conclude that you have no regard whatsoever for the commands written in Deuteronomy. They are just not convenient for you to obey.
The law is the law.
Whosoever shall in offend in one point is guilty of breaking all the law of God.
This law in Deu.22:11 is just as important as the dietary laws of Lev.11. Why do you discriminate against one and not the other?

Your less-than-scriptura solution above is more transparent to the objective unbiased reader than you may have at first imagined.

For example - you "claim" to believe in the Lev 19:18 command to "Love your Neighbor as yourself" just as Christ spoke it to the Jews in Matt 22.

But according to your les-than-Biblical method above - we should ask the members of this board, you and your friends - if you have ever spoken a "less than kind" word to anyone. For your argument is that if we simply judge you to be less than flawless in that regard - that in fact Christians DO NOT have to be concerned with Lev 19:18 as anykind of law that is to be obeyed - but rather it is to be ignored as per DHK.

Such a "doctrine by judging others" method that you propose - is not even remotely "sola scriptura testing" of any doctrine at all!

What Catholic on this board could not use that very method to destroy every Bible doctrine you claim to believe??

You simply are not thinking this one through.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

It is appearing to me and probably to all watching this debate that you might not be applying the clothing law to your own life.

Are you? If so, tell us how.


:jesus:

Steaver - either you are not actually reading what I post on this thread - or you are stuck getting the answer to your point time after time while pretending not to understand the simple text of the post.

Either way - you are not presenting a compelling argument by going down that road.

Try - reading the posts.

 

[steaver]

Steaver - either you are not actually reading what I post on this thread - or you are stuck getting the answer to your point time after time while pretending not to understand the simple text of the post.

Either way - you are not presenting a compelling argument by going down that road.

Try - reading the posts.

You haven't any problem telling us over and over how you abstain from bats, cats and rats as a food source in compliance with Lev 11.

Why won't you tell us how you apply Deut 22 to your life in a practical way? Give us an illustration like you do with the rats and cats dialogue.

:jesus:

 

[targus]

Bob, what we are looking for is a direct and personal answer as to how you keep Duet 22:11

Do your read clothing labels to ensure that the materials used do not violate Duet 22:11?

Please give us an answer with examples from your own life.

 

[Tom Bryant]

I have read through this whole thread. No one is convincing anyone of anything. It is driving me to eat pork fried in bacon grease while I am wearing my blended shirt. :laugh:

 

[DHK]

You haven't any problem telling us over and over how you abstain from bats, cats and rats as a food source in compliance with Lev 11.

Why won't you tell us how you apply Deut 22 to your life in a practical way? Give us an illustration like you do with the rats and cats dialogue.

:jesus:

It's such a simple question. But he can't answer it without condemning himself.

 

[steaver]

It's such a simple question. But he can't answer it without condemning himself.

The master rabbit at taking rabbit trails got himself caught up in a snare and is jumping around all over the place trying to find a way to wiggle out!

I will make a prediction. Bob will never answer this question. For if he must he must abandon the rat/cat speaches he loves to give.

But it would be for his good if he could break free from the false teachings of EGW. I'm pulling for you Bob raying:

 

[BobRyan]

I have read through this whole thread. No one is convincing anyone of anything. It is driving me to eat pork fried in bacon grease while I am wearing my blended shirt. :laugh:

What? No eating rats, cats, dogs and bats???!!

I believe that a certain someone said that if you do not eat them because you are inclined to obey the Word of God in Lev 11 - then you are following "doctrines of demons".

Maybe you missed that post :laugh:

 

[BobRyan]

I thought you guys might do me the favor of ducking this post --:type:

Originally Posted by Bob
Quote:
But it is in fact all misdirection on your part - as you appear to be making an argument of the form -- "if God's Law is inconvenient then you don't need to pay attention to it".



Quote:
Originally Posted by DHK

This is your practice. Unless you can demonstrate your obedience to the command of Deu.22:11 I would have to conclude that you have no regard whatsoever for the commands written in Deuteronomy. They are just not convenient for you to obey.
The law is the law.
Whosoever shall in offend in one point is guilty of breaking all the law of God.
This law in Deu.22:11 is just as important as the dietary laws of Lev.11. Why do you discriminate against one and not the other?

Your less-than-scriptura solution above is more transparent to the objective unbiased reader than you may have at first imagined.

For example - you "claim" to believe in the Lev 19:18 command to "Love your Neighbor as yourself" just as Christ spoke it to the Jews in Matt 22.

But according to your les-than-Biblical method above - we should ask the members of this board, you and your friends - if you have ever spoken a "less than kind" word to anyone. For your argument is that if we simply judge you to be less than flawless in that regard - that in fact Christians DO NOT have to be concerned with Lev 19:18 as anykind of law that is to be obeyed - but rather it is to be ignored as per DHK.

Such a "doctrine by judging others" method that you propose - is not even remotely "sola scriptura testing" of any doctrine at all!

What Catholic on this board could not use that very method to destroy every Bible doctrine you claim to believe??

You simply are not thinking this one through.

Which of course you kindly "did"!!

so I get to post it again!:thumbs:

 

[steaver]

I thought you guys might do me the favor of ducking this post --:type:

[/I]




Which of course you kindly "did"!!

so I get to post it again!:thumbs:

You already tried that method of escape and it has not worked for you. You are still caught. Keep wiggling but try something different. Or do the right thing and accept the defeat of your law keeping argument.

:jesus:

 

[Trotter]

BobRyan, so you choose to willingly place yourself back under the Law? Have you not read Galatians?

Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us: for it is written, Cursed is every one that hangeth on a tree . . . Is the law then against the promises of God? God forbid: for if there had been a law given which could have given life, verily righteousness should have been by the law. But the scripture hath concluded all under sin, that the promise by faith of Jesus Christ might be given to them that believe. But before faith came, we were kept under the law, shut up unto the faith which should afterwards be revealed. Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith. But after that faith is come, we are no longer under a schoolmaster. For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus. For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ. There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.
(Gal 3:13, 21-28 KJV, emphasis added)

"Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith. But after that faith is come, we are no longer under a schoolmaster." Does this not mean anything to you? Do you therefor turn your back on Christ and return to the yoke of the Law?

Why would anyone shun the gift that Jesus Christ has offered to us? He lived out the Law perfectly as He is the God-Man, but we are not. The Jews could not fulfill the Law and they tried for many, many generations... and yet you think that you can? True, Philipians 4:13 says, "I can do all things through Christ which strengtheneth me" but that strength comes through faith, but it is faith that releases us from the Law.

Do you not see the futility of what you are saying? You boast of upholding the dietary requirements of the Law as a SDA and yet you ignore the other points of the Law. When was the last time you offered a meat offering? a wave offering? paid the temple tax? All of those are a part of the Law. What? Christ fulfilled the sacrifices? Yes, He did... but you are choosing to shun that by willingly yoking yourself back under the Law.

You can't have it both ways. You are either in Christ and free from the Law... or you are not in Christ are yet in bondage to the letter of the law.

 

[Tom Bryant]

What? No eating rats, cats, dogs and bats???!!

I believe that a certain someone said that if you do not eat them because you are inclined to obey the Word of God in Lev 11 - then you are following "doctrines of demons".

Maybe you missed that post :laugh:

Well, then I have eaten dog and if I was hungry i'd eat the others. I don't eat them because they don't taste good with bacon or bbq-ed low and slow.

I am more inclined to follow what God said in Acts, "What God has called clean, don't call unclean." I certainly think you are a legalist who is subverting the Gospel.

And with that, I'm out of this foolishness.

 

[BobRyan]

Well, then I have eaten dog and if I was hungry i'd eat the others. I don't eat them because they don't taste good with bacon or bbq-ed low and slow.

I am more inclined to follow what God said in Acts, "What God has called clean, don't call unclean." I certainly think you are a legalist who is subverting the Gospel.

And with that, I'm out of this foolishness.

There is no mention of eating pork in the entire book of Acts.

Those who think that Christ died on the cross so they can eat rats, dogs and diseased meat -- have missed the gospel point of Acts 10 entirely.

Peter states in Acts 3 three times that the lesson given him about eating rats had nothing to do with rat sandwiches but rather "I am to call no MAN unclean". Those who bend that text to say "I am to call no rat unclean" have missed the entire point of the Gospel.

In all three cases where the sheet filled with rats snakes etc was lowered - Peter affirms strongly that he would not eat rats (as if it were some kind of test). And in all three times where he related this vision to others - he declares that the message was "Call no man unclean" and that the Gospel was to go to the gentiles. No "rant sandwich" conclusion shows up in all of scripture.

Of course in Isaiah 66 God points out the fact that at the end of the world - when God judges the world with fire - he will burn those who choose to eat mice. Turns out that the burning of the wicked in Rev 20 happens long after the cross.


The inspired account "takes the high road".

The less-then-inspired stories of man supposes that the "eat more rats" message is the point of the text.

I am fine with letting the objective unbiased reader observe the "inconvient details" that point away from the "rat sandwich" solution that some people are still stuck on.

It is not everyone that will want to leap off of that cliff as it turns out.
:applause:

in Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

BobRyan, so you choose to willingly place yourself back under the Law?

Jesus said to his Jewish followers "If you LOVE Me Keep My commandments" John 14:15 - pre-cross.

Jesus said of the OT text that so many would like to toss out the window "The Scriptures cannot be broken".

Jesus said to his Jewish followers - before the Cross "You are my friends IF you do what I command you" John 15

Paul said "What MATTERS is KEEPING the commandments of God" 1Cor 7:19

In Rev 12 and 14 John reports that the saints are those who "Keep the Commandments of God"

In Romans 6:1-18 Paul argues that the Law defines sin and is to be obeyed now that we are under grace.

Have you not read Galatians?

"Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith. But after that faith is come, we are no longer under a schoolmaster." Does this not mean anything to you?

Yes. That is the role of the law "to the lost" - it defines sin and shows the need of salvation from sin. We are each one convicted as lost sinners that we need salvation from the penalty/punishment of sin.


1What shall we say then? Are we to continue in sin so that grace may increase?
2May it never be! How shall we who died to sin still live in it?
3Or do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus have been baptized into His death?
4Therefore we have been buried with Him through baptism into death, so that as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, so we too might walk in newness of life.

5For if we have become united with Him in the likeness of His death, certainly we shall also be in the likeness of His resurrection,
6knowing this, that our old self was crucified with Him, in order that our body of sin might be done away with, so thatwe would no longer be slaves to sin;
7 for he who has died is freed from sin.

8Now if we have died with Christ, we believe that we shall also live with Him,
9knowing that Christ, having been raised from the dead, is never to die again; death no longer is master over Him.


10For the death that He died, He died to sin once for all; but the life that He lives, He lives to God.
11Even so consider yourselves to be dead to sin, but alive to God in Christ Jesus.
12Therefore do not let sin reign in your mortal body so that you obey its lusts,
13and do not go on presenting the members of your body to sin as instruments of unrighteousness; but present yourselves to God as those alive from the dead,
13 -and your members as instruments of righteousness to God.


14For sin shall not be master over you, for you are not under law but under grace.
15What then? Shall we sin because we are not under law but under grace? May it never be!
16Do you not know that when you present yourselves to someone as slaves for obedience, you are slaves of the one whom you obey, either of sin resulting in death, or of obedience resulting in righteousness?
17But thanks be to God that though you were slaves of sin, you
became obedient from the heart to that form of teaching to which you were committed,
18and having been freed from sin, you became slaves of righteousness.

 

[BobRyan]

Do you not see the futility of what you are saying? You boast of upholding the dietary requirements of the Law as a SDA and yet you ignore the other points of the Law. When was the last time you offered a meat offering? a wave offering? paid the temple tax? All of those are a part of the Law. What? Christ fulfilled the sacrifices? Yes, He did... but you are choosing to shun that by willingly yoking yourself back under the Law.

You can't have it both ways. You are either in Christ and free from the Law... or you are not in Christ are yet in bondage to the letter of the law.

There are some Christians today that argue that the Word of God is evil (doctrines of demons some of them will even say) and that it must be tossed out - to "spare us" from having to "Love God with all your heart" Deut 6:5 and "Love your neighbor as yourself" Lev 19:18, or "Not eat diseased meat and rats" Lev 11 -- or as you point out above "Not offer animal sacrifices" (Lev 4-8).

However - in wildly leaping off that non-sola-scriptura cliff that does not stand up to strict Bible review (no not even by NT standards) they miss the BIBLE point that the reason we do not still offer animal sacrifices IS NOT because we tossed God's Word out the window -- it is because the sacrifices themselves pointed forward to the death of Christ and the BIBLE itself states in Heb 10 that by ONE offering for sin HE TOOK AWAY ALL the animal sacrifices.

Thus the right view of God's Law is to let GOD be the one to say when something has ended INSTEAD of simply "making stuff up" about tossing out God's Word so that we don't have to do anything that might be "inconvenient".

My Bible has 66 books - and Paul says in 2Tim 3:15-17 that they are ALL inspired and ALL to be used "for doctrine" KJV21.

In Eph 6:1-4 Paul says that the 5th commandment is the FIRST commandment with a promise - (which is true if you are looking at the unit - of the Ten Commandments) and that Christians are to honor what God has said.

In 1Cor 79:19 Paul says "What matters is KEEPING the Commandments of God"

in Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

You already tried that method of escape and it has not worked for you. You are still caught.

:jesus:

Thank you for ducking that post again - I will repost it shortly in compliance with your offer.:type:

You guys are too accomodating in that regard. :thumbsup:

 

[DHK]

There is no mention of eating pork in the entire book of Acts.

Those who think that Christ died on the cross so they can eat rats, dogs and diseased meat -- have missed the gospel point of Acts 10 entirely.

Bob

To misrepresent what others have said is slander. You need to stop.
Here is what Tom said:

Well, then I have eaten dog and if I was hungry i'd eat the others. I don't eat them because they don't taste good with bacon or bbq-ed low and slow.

To say that he had eaten "diseased meat" is slander and a misrepresentation. You need to stop this nonsense. Who said it is diseased? Do you have evidence?

 

[DHK]

That may or may not be true - but his question still remains...

Do you personally keep Deut 22:11 ?

If so - how?

Bob:
Targus, Steaver, myself, and others have asked you the above question many times. You simply avoid it. You avoid it because you know that an honest answer will condemn you. This thread is now 16 pages long. I asked you this same basic question on PAGE 3!!

You can find it here
http://www.baptistboard.com/showpost.php?p=1540969&postcount=29

13 pages later you still haven't answered the question. What's up with that? Do you not believe in debate any longer?

 

[BobRyan]

As I already pointed out - the garments of the high priest included linen outer wear and wool underwear (loin cloth -- inner tunic). We seldom ever wear "wool underwear" -- usually it is cotton. And never wear "linen underwear" as it turns out. So in your example of COTTON underwear and WOOL suits - there is no "linen wool" WOVEN together at all. Not sure why you think this is making any case at all for you.

Secondly - as I keep pointing out - the form of your argument
EVEN if we were all wearing LINEN underwear instead of cotton -
and EVEN if the text did not reference linen-wool WOVEN intogether in a single garment --
and EVEN if we did not have the Biblical example of wearing WOOL undergaments with LINEN outergarments -

(so your argument has many huge mountains debunking it from the start) -- your BEST result is still of the form "SO the Bible is inconvenient to follow - don't follow it" AS IF that is a "Sola scriptura" basis for doctrine!!!

Hint Billwald, Steaver and DHK - that is nothing like a sola scriptura argument for a doctrinal position.

Why is this so difficult for Baptists?

I would have thought this would be the easy part!

Surely you guys can try to present your case in a way that aligns with actual scripture. Lot's o' pages have past and you still struggle to make the attempt to come up with a bible position.

in Christ,

Bob