-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Do pork-eaters go to hell?!
- Thread starter xdisciplex
- Start date
What ever Peter did NOT DO is speculation. Maybe Peter never ate pork with the Gentiles after the vision or maybe he did. That is why your "Peter never did" this and that is "pointless", because you don't really know. We should not go beyond what is written to establish doctrine.
God Bless!
Bob, I notice you do this alot in many of the positions you defend. You always come up with something as to what the subject DID NOT DO or what the scripture DOES NOT SAY. The way to study and establish sound doctrine is to build upon what the scripture DOES say! Don't go beyond what is written.
God Bless! :thumbs:
God Bless! :thumbs:
BobRyan
Well-Known Member
Indeed - I prefer what it DOES say. Those who like to argue that it really means "what it did NOT say" are arguing from the void. I simply like to point that out as part of the information that I provide on the subject.
Peter DOES say that the vision SHOWS that "we are to call no MAN unclean". Those who try to get this to apply to pigs, rats, cats and bats are arguing from what Peter does NOT say!
In Christ,
Bob
Peter DOES say that the vision SHOWS that "we are to call no MAN unclean". Those who try to get this to apply to pigs, rats, cats and bats are arguing from what Peter does NOT say!
In Christ,
Bob
BobRyan
Well-Known Member
steaver said:
I prefer not to speculate but let Peter state it AS HE DOES REPEATEDLY when relaying the vision to others. "Oh NO Lord for I have NEVER..." eaten rats.
That would be arguing from what the vision did NOT say about Peter eating rats or cats or ...
One could add "MAYBE while Peter was eating a rat sandwich he said GOD has shown me that I should call NO RAT unclean" thus explaining that the MEANING of the vision was in fact literally applicable to rats.
"MAYBE arguments" explicitly argue from the void of what the text DOES NOT say - so I NEVER use them!
In Christ,
Bob
I dunno' so will not speculate as to the details. But there was obviously something that had changed (or not, depending on the companyBobRyan said:
) with Peter, by Galatians 2:11. That is why Paul called Peter "on the carpet", and also called it hypocrisy. BTW, Gimme' a break on your last sentence, above!
Ed
BobRyan
Well-Known Member
If Peter is teaching "hypocracy" in Acts 10 and 11 by no eating rats AND saying "Oh NO Lord for I have NEVER eating anything unclean" then the Bible does not mention it.
If Peter is in error for preaching TO gentiles "God says to call NO MAN unclean" but not eating rats or cats -- then the Bible never mentions it.
BTW - this has just got to be the longest thread that XD has ever started - or did I miss a long one??
in Christ,
Bob
If Peter is in error for preaching TO gentiles "God says to call NO MAN unclean" but not eating rats or cats -- then the Bible never mentions it.
BTW - this has just got to be the longest thread that XD has ever started - or did I miss a long one??
in Christ,
Bob
BobRyan
Well-Known Member
steaver said:
I do love pointing out that the text does NOT say just what someone "needs" it to have said.
I also love to point out each time you use that "maybe they did what I needed them to do even though it is not mentioned" kind of argument.
It is just that I DON't want to be the one that has to use to either rely on a statement that is NOT in the text NOR do I want to be the one that has to make his case from a "well maybe they did this... though it is not mentioned because THEN my argument would hold water".
You know the way you do with the "maybe they ate rat sandwiches after Peter said - God should me that I should call NO MAN unclean" - style argument.
In Christ,
Bob
In Isaiah one can read of people who -- in contempt for God -- ate mice and such things : They WILL go to hell for it : the passage is clear about that!
But there are people who MUST eat pork and such things from it being their innocent way of life and social circumstances. Without, they would go hungry. They surely shall not go to hell for it.
There are also people who eat 'unclean' meats under circumstances of need directly due to the cold-heartedness of the wealthy. In their case, it is the others - those who don't eat the 'filthy stuff' - who will go to hell for it.
But there are people who MUST eat pork and such things from it being their innocent way of life and social circumstances. Without, they would go hungry. They surely shall not go to hell for it.
There are also people who eat 'unclean' meats under circumstances of need directly due to the cold-heartedness of the wealthy. In their case, it is the others - those who don't eat the 'filthy stuff' - who will go to hell for it.
steaver said:
GE:
It cuts both ways.
Right on! I agree "maybes" don't matter. Why do you think I posted the "maybe" scenario? I was showing you how your "the text does not say" argument is no different. :thumbs: Well done! You make my point. "Maybes" don't matter and niether do the "text does not says". You see, you have to stick with what WAS SAID. :wavey:
God Bless!
BobRyan
Well-Known Member
Gerhard Ebersoehn said:
That is an interesting POV. I certainly am not trying to argue who goes to hell and who does not - I am just pointing out the content of the text of scripture as it indicates that God is not urging his People to eat rats and in fact seems to strongly object to humans choosing to eat rats, cats dogs and bats.
The Creator is the one that actually knows what animals are "for food" when it come to humans and diet. Or at least you must admit his views on the subject should be taken seriously.
I am not actually trying to go much beyond that rather mild and minimalist point.
in Christ,
Bob
BobRyan said:
GE:
I also take the 'unclean meat' matter seriously. I don't know how to approach the question with regard to other believers though, I must tell you honestly; unless I play judge and so bring myself unde judgement for a far more serious offense.
BobRyan
Well-Known Member
Why "play judge"? Why not just stand for the details in the text of scripture sayhing "I believe this text is true and I believe it is consistent with both the OT and NT text - telling us not to eat rats etc".:godisgood:
Why go beyond that?
I can then leave it to "others" to tell us why we should not read that text as if it had meaning for us - and we should consider the instruction of that part of God's Word to be void - and anybody who reads and accepts it as true and admits it to others must be some low form of life.:sleeping_2:
That way it is always easy for me - coming right from scripture ... and the same response is always pretty much guaranteed.:thumbs:
In Christ,
Bob
Why go beyond that?
I can then leave it to "others" to tell us why we should not read that text as if it had meaning for us - and we should consider the instruction of that part of God's Word to be void - and anybody who reads and accepts it as true and admits it to others must be some low form of life.:sleeping_2:
That way it is always easy for me - coming right from scripture ... and the same response is always pretty much guaranteed.:thumbs:
In Christ,
Bob
Last edited by a moderator:
Kill, Eat, and pass the bacon
This many applies to believers. Since everyone else is going to hell anyway for their sin if they are without Christ. Lets start from here. I follow the Once Saved Always Repentant line of thought. (Forget about that OSAS crap.) I can say flatly no hell for bacon because if you do manage to sin you will repent. Now some people will not follow me here so... Lets consider if it is a sin.
Anyone who puts an answer with yes or no doesn't understand: The answer is nuanced. Read Romans 14:1-4.
The answer is both yes and no. To those who think it is unlawful, yes its sin. To those who doesn't, no its not sin. Combine this with the fact that any unrepentant Sinners will go to hell and that your answer. If you think it is a sin and do it, your going to hell. If you think it isn't then you aren't. This doesn't sit too well with my TULIP brain.
This many applies to believers. Since everyone else is going to hell anyway for their sin if they are without Christ. Lets start from here. I follow the Once Saved Always Repentant line of thought. (Forget about that OSAS crap.) I can say flatly no hell for bacon because if you do manage to sin you will repent. Now some people will not follow me here so... Lets consider if it is a sin.
Anyone who puts an answer with yes or no doesn't understand: The answer is nuanced. Read Romans 14:1-4.
The answer is both yes and no. To those who think it is unlawful, yes its sin. To those who doesn't, no its not sin. Combine this with the fact that any unrepentant Sinners will go to hell and that your answer. If you think it is a sin and do it, your going to hell. If you think it isn't then you aren't. This doesn't sit too well with my TULIP brain.
Last edited by a moderator:
BobRyan
Well-Known Member
James 4:17
Therefore, to him who knows to do good and does not do it, to him it is sin.
If the Bible is the moral standard of right and wrong - then this subject is not a question of "making stuff up in your own mind and then that becomes law".
It is a question of acting on the Word of God or not. But having said that the rule of James 4 still applies.
In Christ,
Bob
Therefore, to him who knows to do good and does not do it, to him it is sin.
If the Bible is the moral standard of right and wrong - then this subject is not a question of "making stuff up in your own mind and then that becomes law".
It is a question of acting on the Word of God or not. But having said that the rule of James 4 still applies.
In Christ,
Bob
BobRyan said:
GE:
Yes, Bob. This has been the best of your posts I have read. You may rightly close it with your "in Christ, Bob"!