Who has not failed?

[BobRyan]

On the contrary - I stated explicitly that option 1 was out for that - because there the sinner is fully to blame.

I stated explicitly that option 3 was a clear case of not having information and not being blamed.

I stated explicitly that there was a lot of cases in option 2- some with the person accountable for sin and some without - and that God was fully capable to decide the cases.

What part are you missing?




Bob

 

[steaver]

On the contrary - I stated explicitly that option 1 was out for that - because there the sinner is fully to blame.

I stated explicitly that option 3 was a clear case of not having information and not being blamed.

I stated explicitly that there was a lot of cases in option 2- some with the person accountable for sin and some without - and that God was fully capable to decide the cases.

What part are you missing?




Bob

Steaver:
Under which option is "I have many more things to tell you but you cannot bear them now" John 16. ?

All you had to do was say "option 2". I don't know why you have such difficulty giving simple answers.

My other question was;

Steaver;
Under which option or options is a Christian excused for not obeying according to your pov?

As per my question about John 16:12, this would have to fall under your option 2 since I already established that we are speaking of a Christian who has read God's word on a certain point but does not do what it says and also is not held accountable.

You do not decide individual cases yourself, but you have decided that some Christians in general are excused for not obeying what they have read in God's word on certain commands. This excusal for some Christians on some commands is because God has decided they could not yet bear the truth so He chose not to tell them this certain truth. This according to you is what John 16:12 states and this is one of the verses you cite for the excusal of some Christians for not obeying certain commands.

Since these Christians have read the word on these certain commands it cannot be said that John 16:12 applys only to the reading thereof because according to you just reading the text is not sufficient for accountability. One must also be "told" by God and this would have to be called an "enlightenment" or a "conviction" above and beyond the simple reading of the text.

I disagree with this exegesis of the verse. I believe that when a Christian reads God's commands they have been "told" for the Scriptures are the word of God. No matter what portion it is they have read. And once told they are indeed accountable for all the do's and don'ts.

But let's plug you into your own model. You do not eat swine even though God's word says nothing is to be refused (1Ti 4). You are still bound by the traditions of men. However, if we use your application of John 16:12 one can excuse your behaviour because even though you can read that nothing is to be refused God has not yet "told" you or "enlightened" you because you "cannot bear" it yet.

Paul spoke of this in Romans 14 as well. Those weak in the faith should not eat swine if they cannot bear the truth. Let them abstain because if they do not then they are sinning against their own conscience. It took Peter some prompting in order to accept the swine eating. We should not judge those who cannot yet bear it. I would agree with you on this much.

:jesus:

 

[BobRyan]

As per my question about John 16:12, this would have to fall under your option 2 since I already established that we are speaking of a Christian who has read God's word on a certain point but does not do what it says and also is not held accountable.

You do not decide individual cases yourself, but you have decided that some Christians in general are excused for not obeying what they have read in God's word on certain commands. This excusal for some Christians on some commands is because God has decided they could not yet bear the truth so He chose not to tell them this certain truth. This according to you is what John 16:12 states and this is one of the verses you cite for the excusal of some Christians for not obeying certain commands.

John 16 is a pretty easy case since it is obvously true that the disciples at that very moment rejected the idea of the Messiah being the savior of the World - by dying for the sins of mankind - an antoning substitutionary death.

It is also really easy - because it is obvious that these guys are choosing to follow Christ - not choosing to crucify Him.

It is even simpler when we consider that Christ does not say to the disciples in John 16 "your problem is that in the 3.5 years of my ministry you have not finished reading the scriptures so there are things you still don't know - simply because you have not read far enough".

"not having read the bible" is not mentioned as their problem.

So again - John 16 is the incredibly obvious example.

Since these Christians have read the word on these certain commands it cannot be said that John 16:12 applys only to the reading thereof because according to you just reading the text is not sufficient for accountability. One must also be "told" by God and this would have to be called an "enlightenment" or a "conviction" above and beyond the simple reading of the text.

Sort of a "did you know the Messiah is supposed to die for the sins of the world" kind of enlightment.

yeah - that is exactly what they did not know - primarily because the priests and leaders of the Jews had so taught them "the Messiah is coming is King to make the Jews great".

That was pretty hard for them to shake off -- as it turns out.

I disagree with this exegesis of the verse. I believe that when a Christian reads God's commands they have been "told" for the Scriptures are the word of God. No matter what portion it is they have read. And once told they are indeed accountable for all the do's and don'ts.

Ahh so you think Christ was dead wrong in John 16??? Pretty gutsy.

Christ did not say "you have rejected the work of the Messiah in saving the world - I break with you who are in rebellion against the Word of God".

As your model would have it.

Neither did Christ say "you have not yet read the book of Leviticus, or of Isaiah or of Daniel -- that is your problem".

Thus your model failed in John 16.

That should tell you something -

:wavey:

in Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

But let's plug you into your own model. You do not eat swine even though God's word says nothing is to be refused (1Ti 4). You are still bound by the traditions of men.

1. If God's Word (Lev 11, Isaiah 66) forbiding the eating of diseased animals, rats, cats, dogs and bats is really nothing more than "traditions of men" (as you wildly propose) you are right. Turns out however - God's Word is far beyond "traditions of men".

2. Your bending of 1Tim 4:3-5 does not help you either because Paul says in that very text - that that which is blessed for food is that which scripture approves of -- Paul does not say in 1Tim 4:3-5 "I hereby negate scripture as being worthless from now on it is merely man-made traidtion. Let each one now eat diseased animal carcasses and rat sandwiches no matter what God's Word in Lev 11 says to the contrary". (though you seem to imagine that very form of eisegesis when you read the text for reasons I cannot begin to fathom).

Paul spoke of this in Romans 14 as well. Those weak in the faith should not eat swine if they cannot bear the truth. Let them abstain because if they do not then they are sinning against their own conscience. It took Peter some prompting in order to accept the swine eating. We should not judge those who cannot yet bear it. I would agree with you on this much.

Sadly - once again your imagination has run away with you my friend. Paul makes no mention at all in Romans 14 of eating unclean meat vs clean meat. In Romans 14 Paul explicitly states that the contrast is between eating meat or being vegetarian - and there is no command at all in the OT to be vegetarian (no not even in Lev 11 or Isaiah 66).

Paul is discussing the well known problem of meat eating in Romans 14 that is already spelled out in triplicate in 1Cor 8 and 1Cor 10.

Paul concludes 1Cor 8 with the same "vegetarian" argument that we see in Romans 14 "I will never eat meat again if it causes my brother to stumble".

The vegetarian - vs- meat issue discussed in both Romans 14 and 1Cor 8 has nothing at all to do with the Lev 11 issue of "eating diseased rats" or being vegetarian as many Christians seem to imagine. Rather it has to do with eating approved Lev 11 foods that have been offerred to idols.

Recall that Acts 15 forbids the eating of those meats offerred to idols - yet in 1Cor 8, and 1Cor 10 Paul argues that the JEWS are the STRONG in the faith who KNOW that idols are nothing -- but that the newly converted pagan GENTILES are the WEAK of the faith for whose sake the Jews very well may have to offer to become vegetarians.

Nice of you to bring this up though as if you were interested instudying that part of the NT and what they were dealing with in the first century.

We will see how long that lasts

in Christ,

Bob

 

[steaver]

John 16 is a pretty easy case since it is obvously true that the disciples at that very moment rejected the idea of the Messiah being the savior of the World - by dying for the sins of mankind - an antoning substitutionary death.

It is also really easy - because it is obvious that these guys are choosing to follow Christ - not choosing to crucify Him.

It is even simpler when we consider that Christ does not say to the disciples in John 16 "your problem is that in the 3.5 years of my ministry you have not finished reading the scriptures so there are things you still don't know - simply because you have not read far enough".

"not having read the bible" is not mentioned as their problem.

So again - John 16 is the incredibly obvious example.

Sort of a "did you know the Messiah is supposed to die for the sins of the world" kind of enlightment.

yeah - that is exactly what they did not know - primarily because the priests and leaders of the Jews had so taught them "the Messiah is coming is King to make the Jews great".

That was pretty hard for them to shake off -- as it turns out.

Ahh so you think Christ was dead wrong in John 16??? Pretty gutsy.

Christ did not say "you have rejected the work of the Messiah in saving the world - I break with you who are in rebellion against the Word of God".

As your model would have it.

Neither did Christ say "you have not yet read the book of Leviticus, or of Isaiah or of Daniel -- that is your problem".

Thus your model failed in John 16.

That should tell you something -

:wavey:

in Christ,

Bob

I suppose "my model" as you say would fail if I ever spoke about mysteries.

I have been consistent that I speak of "commandments" not "mysteries".

This is where you error at John 16. Christ would not declare that he had new commandments to give that they could not bear. On the contrary. Christ actually had to teach them how to rid themselves of traditions of men that have twisted the intent of the commandments. A good example of this is Sabbath worshipping and the forbidding of certain foods. The disciples could not yet bear what Jesus had to say concerning these things, but He would send them the Holy Spirit to teach them all things.

Look how Peter resisted the vision that the Gentiles could be included in God's salvation and that it was ok to eat all things. These were hard things to accept, they were use to the traditions of the Pharisees and had to shake it off and learn from Christ. They had to learn the purpose for the cerimonial laws and understand that they have been done away with in the new "Way".

Even unto this day there are Christians who cannot yet bear this teaching. It does not amke them any less a Christian. They simply need others with stronger faith and knowledge to help them understand. But most importantly they need to shake off the traditions of men and get one on one with God to let the Holy Spirit teach them.

:jesus:

 

[steaver]

1. If God's Word (Lev 11, Isaiah 66) forbiding the eating of diseased animals, rats, cats, dogs and bats is really nothing more than "traditions of men" (as you wildly propose) you are right. Turns out however - God's Word is far beyond "traditions of men".


in Christ,

Bob

There are examples of traditions of men and then there are examples of cerimonial laws that have been abolished. Your example here is of the latter.

2. Your bending of 1Tim 4:3-5 does not help you either because Paul says in that very text - that that which is blessed for food is that which scripture approves of -- Paul does not say in 1Tim 4:3-5 "I hereby negate scripture as being worthless from now on it is merely man-made traidtion. Let each one now eat diseased animal carcasses and rat sandwiches no matter what God's Word in Lev 11 says to the contrary". (though you seem to imagine that very form of eisegesis when you read the text for reasons I cannot begin to fathom).

The food laws have been abolished in Christ. Again this is not of the "traditions" category. However, Christ taught concerning these things.

Jhn 16:12 I have yet many things to say unto you, but ye cannot bear them now.

Sadly - once again your imagination has run away with you my friend. Paul makes no mention at all in Romans 14 of eating unclean meat vs clean meat. In Romans 14 Paul explicitly states that the contrast is between eating meat or being vegetarian - and there is no command at all in the OT to be vegetarian (no not even in Lev 11 or Isaiah 66).

Paul is discussing the well known problem of meat eating in Romans 14 that is already spelled out in triplicate in 1Cor 8 and 1Cor 10.

Paul concludes 1Cor 8 with the same "vegetarian" argument that we see in Romans 14 "I will never eat meat again if it causes my brother to stumble".

The vegetarian - vs- meat issue discussed in both Romans 14 and 1Cor 8 has nothing at all to do with the Lev 11 issue of "eating diseased rats" or being vegetarian as many Christians seem to imagine. Rather it has to do with eating approved Lev 11 foods that have been offerred to idols.

Recall that Acts 15 forbids the eating of those meats offerred to idols - yet in 1Cor 8, and 1Cor 10 Paul argues that the JEWS are the STRONG in the faith who KNOW that idols are nothing -- but that the newly converted pagan GENTILES are the WEAK of the faith for whose sake the Jews very well may have to offer to become vegetarians.

Nice of you to bring this up though as if you were interested instudying that part of the NT and what they were dealing with in the first century.

We will see how long that lasts

It is ok that Christians choose to abstain in these things. Paul said do not cause a weaker brother in the faith to stumble. If they choose to learn from the Holy Spirit they may pray and study, but if they are content to abstain then they do not sin either.

Jesus said,

Jhn 16:12 I have yet many things to say unto you, but ye cannot bear them now.

Many will never be able to bear these truths and that is ok. It is not an issue that should divide brothers in Christ.

:godisgood:

 

[BobRyan]

According to your pov I could be one of those who God has not "enlightened" to the scriptures you say "are very clear".

You keep claiming you are not one of those.

The Spirit has not enlightened me that the scriptures you are presenting are to be applied the way you are applying them.

It is called "exegesis". try it I think you will like it.

Notice for example that when you insert "pork" into the text of Romans 14 - it totally failed the review of the context and the text.

What group is those who have read the text but the Spirit has not enlightened them so they are excused from obeying the text? Is that group 2?

It has been stated repeatedly that one of the group 2 scenarios covers that point and that God is the one to decide not men.

We are not arguing 2Tim 3:16. It really has no bearing on this topic. We both agree with 2Tim 3:16.

On the contrary - you have asked for me to identify some text of scripture saying "you are not accountable for that part of God's Word".

I keep saying that our role as Christians is to uphold God's Word as "valid" and to encourage people to accept it. Period.

Hence my statements that all of God's Word is valid - 2Tim 3:16.

It is not up to me to judge as to which group they are in. My role is to "teach them all things that I have commanded you" Matt 28:20

With the understanding that "ALL scripture is given by inspiration from God" 2Tim 3:16

But your pov declares that a Christian can read the word of God which was inspired by the Holy Spirit and still not be held accountable if the Spirit did not also cause "enlightenment"

The calvinist model is to blame God when man falls short.

God's model is to say "I have many MORE things to tell you but YOU cannot bear them now".

Instead of "I have many more things to tell you but I arbitrarily choose not to tell you now".

It is the difference between the Arminian Bible and the Calvinist fiction.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

Originally Posted by BobRyan
1. If God's Word (Lev 11, Isaiah 66) forbiding the eating of diseased animals, rats, cats, dogs and bats is really nothing more than "traditions of men" (as you wildly propose) you are right. Turns out however - God's Word is far beyond "traditions of men".

There are examples of traditions of men and then there are examples of cerimonial laws that have been abolished. Your example here is of the latter.

You have just made the wild claim that the Lev 11 commands against eating diseased flesh and rats, cats dogs and bats is some kind of odd "ceremony" that has been done away with.

1. What ceremony consisted of "not eating diseased flesh"??

2. What part of "eating diseased flesh" do you see happening in the NT?

3. What part of your response do you even remotely consider to be "exegesis"?

in Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

2. Your bending of 1Tim 4:3-5 does not help you either because Paul says in that very text - that that which is blessed for food is that which scripture approves of -- Paul does not say in 1Tim 4:3-5 "I hereby negate scripture as being worthless from now on it is merely man-made traidtion. Let each one now eat diseased animal carcasses and rat sandwiches no matter what God's Word in Lev 11 says to the contrary". (though you seem to imagine that very form of eisegesis when you read the text for reasons I cannot begin to fathom).

The food laws have been abolished in Christ. Again this is not of the "traditions" category. However, Christ taught concerning these things.

There is not one example in all of scripture of Christ or any NT writer eating diseased flesh, rats, cats, dogs or bats.

No not one.

And as I point out - there is no way to bend 1Tim 4 to that end -

2. Your bending of 1Tim 4:3-5 does not help you either because Paul says in that very text - that that which is blessed for food is that which scripture approves of -- Paul does not say in 1Tim 4:3-5 "I hereby negate scripture as being worthless from now on it is merely man-made traidtion. Let each one now eat diseased animal carcasses and rat sandwiches no matter what God's Word in Lev 11 says to the contrary". (though you seem to imagine that very form of eisegesis when you read the text for reasons I cannot begin to fathom).

Since you offer no exegesis of 1Tim 4 - or of any text at all - to the contrary -- I assume this is another point where you struggle to find a solid Biblical reason to ignore the text. I am not here to say up or down about that struggle - I am just pointing to the fact that you have chosen to given no exegetical support at all for your claims.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

Paul spoke of this in Romans 14 as well. Those weak in the faith should not eat swine if they cannot bear the truth. Let them abstain because if they do not then they are sinning against their own conscience. It took Peter some prompting in order to accept the swine eating. We should not judge those who cannot yet bear it. I would agree with you on this much.

Sadly - once again your imagination has run away with you my friend. Paul makes no mention at all in Romans 14 of eating unclean meat vs clean meat. In Romans 14 Paul explicitly states that the contrast is between eating meat or being vegetarian - and there is no command at all in the OT to be vegetarian (no not even in Lev 11 or Isaiah 66).

Paul is discussing the well known problem of meat eating in Romans 14 that is already spelled out in triplicate in 1Cor 8 and 1Cor 10.

Paul concludes 1Cor 8 with the same "vegetarian" argument that we see in Romans 14 "I will never eat meat again if it causes my brother to stumble".

The vegetarian - vs- meat issue discussed in both Romans 14 and 1Cor 8 has nothing at all to do with the Lev 11 issue of "eating diseased rats" or being vegetarian as many Christians seem to imagine. Rather it has to do with eating approved Lev 11 foods that have been offerred to idols.

Recall that Acts 15 forbids the eating of those meats offerred to idols - yet in 1Cor 8, and 1Cor 10 Paul argues that the JEWS are the STRONG in the faith who KNOW that idols are nothing -- but that the newly converted pagan GENTILES are the WEAK of the faith for whose sake the Jews very well may have to offer to become vegetarians.

Nice of you to bring this up though as if you were interested instudying that part of the NT and what they were dealing with in the first century.

We will see how long that lasts

It is ok that Christians choose to abstain in these things. Paul said do not cause a weaker brother in the faith to stumble.

Now - see? we agree on something! Those Christians in 1Cor 8 and Romans 14 that chose to "eat vegetables only" (even though Lev 11 and Isaiah 66 mention no such thing) are free to do so, while those Jews - strong in fatih who knew there is really only one God - eat meats offerred to idols as long as it does not offend their weak-in-the-faith gentile brethren (pagan that is now newly-turned christian).

ahhh - "context" what a beautiful aspect of exegesis! This is the part we can all appreciate no matter what bias or preference you may have when you come to the text.

Sometimes I call this "the inconvenient details" found in the text itself that "need to be ignored" to hold out against that text in some way or another.

As I have said - my purpose is not to convince or convict. I am simply presenting "the details" and let all decide as they will - as it is between them and God - not me and them.

Blessings.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[steaver]

[/I]

You have just made the wild claim that the Lev 11 commands against eating diseased flesh and rats, cats dogs and bats is some kind of odd "ceremony" that has been done away with.

1. What ceremony consisted of "not eating diseased flesh"??

2. What part of "eating diseased flesh" do you see happening in the NT?

3. What part of your response do you even remotely consider to be "exegesis"?

in Christ,

Bob

"Wild claim"?

James A. Borland, Th.D. Professor, Liberty University. B.A., Los Angeles Baptist College; M.Div., Los Angeles Baptist Theological Seminary; Th.M., Talbot Theological Seminary; Th.D., Grace Theological Seminary.

...states this....

"A. Access Maintained Through Ceremonial Purity.
1. Ceremonial laws regulating deit. 11:1-47.
God was concerned about the health of His people and wanted them to avoid certain contagion and parasitic diseases, so He laid down some guidelines perfectly in accord with modern science. The other cultures of that day based such classifications on magical formulas, while God simply indicated which animals were good to eat and which were not.....................The basis of these laws was grounded in the holiness of God. God's people are to be set apart unto Him. We can now disregard all of these regulations because Christ has nailed them to His cross (Col 2:14; 1Tim 4:3-5)."

Since you offer no exegesis of 1Tim 4 - or of any text at all - to the contrary -- I assume this is another point where you struggle to find a solid Biblical reason to ignore the text. I am not here to say up or down about that struggle - I am just pointing to the fact that you have chosen to given no exegetical support at all for your claims.

Jesus said, "I have yet many things to say unto you, but ye cannot bear them now." (John 16:12)

1Ti 4:3 Forbidding to marry, [and commanding] to abstain from meats, which God hath created to be received with thanksgiving of them which believe and know the truth.

These who "know the truth" have learned from Christ through the apostles teaching that all food is now ok with God. These were able to "bear the truth" (John 16:12)

1Ti 4:4 For every creature of God [is] good, and nothing to be refused, if it be received with thanksgiving:


Every creature of God is good, not just a select few, God says every creature is good and it should not be refused (Remember Peter trying to refuse the meats God was showing him).

,...... If it be received with thanksgiving. Believers give God the thanks for their every meal and God blesses their food. As God says....

1Ti 4:5 For it is sanctified by the word of God and prayer.

When Jesus said to His disciples, "I have yet many things to say unto you, but ye cannot bear them now." (John 16:12) , should we presume that He meant commandments that they have already received from the beginning?

Let's plug this in and see if it makes sense. (Jesus speaking) All you disciples listen up! I have something to say unto you and I want to see if you can bear it now. Here it is, I don't want you to eat any of the meats I forbade you to eat in Leviticus 11.

(Disciples looking dumbfounded at each other) What is He talking about? Why does he think we cannot bear that information? We have been following Leviticus 11 our whole lives.

Now what would make perfect sense? What things would the disciples have trouble "bearing"?

Gentiles receiving the Spirit of God could be one. That is one, Jesus said "many things".

What would be hard to bear for a Jewish disciple in the day of Christ?

How about telling them they could now eat all foods? That would be hard for them to bear as Peter displayed while looking upon God's vision of the unclean animals.

How about telling them sabbath days no longer needed to be observed? That would be hard for them to bear after following that tradition for all of their lives.

Moral commandments are eternal and will never change, it is the cerimonial commands and time specific commands that God implements and abolishes at His will for His purposes. Such as Christ is the end of the law for all of those who believe. Those who refuse to believe are still under the law and will be judged by the law.

Jesus said, "I have yet many things to say unto you, but ye cannot bear them now." (John 16:12).

Some cannot bear these changes, that is ok. But they are not to look poorly on those who can bear them and do eat whatever God blessess them with.

:jesus:

 

[BobRyan]

Originally Posted by BobRyan
1. If God's Word (Lev 11, Isaiah 66) forbiding the eating of diseased animals, rats, cats, dogs and bats is really nothing more than "traditions of men" (as you wildly propose) you are right. Turns out however - God's Word is far beyond "traditions of men".

Originally Posted by Steaver
There are examples of traditions of men and then there are examples of cerimonial laws that have been abolished. Your example here is of the latter.

You have just made the wild claim that the Lev 11 commands against eating diseased flesh and rats, cats dogs and bats is some kind of odd "ceremony" that has been done away with.

1. What ceremony consisted of "not eating diseased flesh"??

2. What part of "eating diseased flesh" do you see happening in the NT?

3. What part of your response do you even remotely consider to be "exegesis"?

"Wild claim"?

Indeed - the "wildest" so far! :thumbs:

James A. Borland, Th.D. Professor, Liberty University. B.A., Los Angeles Baptist College; M.Div., Los Angeles Baptist Theological Seminary; Th.M., Talbot Theological Seminary; Th.D., Grace Theological Seminary.

...states this....

"A. Access Maintained Through Ceremonial Purity.
1. Ceremonial laws regulating deit. 11:1-47.
God was concerned about the health of His people and wanted them to avoid certain contagion and parasitic diseases, so He laid down some guidelines perfectly in accord with modern science. The other cultures of that day based such classifications on magical formulas, while God simply indicated which animals were good to eat and which were not.....................The basis of these laws was grounded in the holiness of God. God's people are to be set apart unto Him.

Ok I stand corrected - you were making an "extremely wild claim" as even your own source debunks your idea that prohibiting the eating of diseased flesh is some form of ancient OT "ceremony".

But you do get "some help" from your source - when in the last sentence your own source makes a totally wild about face - without any logic or Bible at all to support it. At that point you have no-exegesis and wild-claim company.

We can now disregard all of these regulations because Christ has nailed them to His cross (Col 2:14; 1Tim 4:3-5)."

1. There was NO "diseased flesh" nailed to the cross.
2. Hint: The eating of diseased flesh has the same result today that it had in Lev 11.

Neither Col 2 nor 1Tim 4 say anything at all about eating rats or eating diseased flesh being "approved" by scripture or practiced by NT saints.

reducing the Gospel message of Col 2 where the penalty of sin is nailed to the cross - down to "diseased flesh" and "rat sandwiches" is to miss entirely the point of the Gospel itself.

Why go to such extremes in your struggle to avoid the text?


in Christ,

Bob

 

[steaver]

1. There was NO "diseased flesh" nailed to the cross.
2. Hint: The eating of diseased flesh has the same result today that it had in Lev 11.

Neither Col 2 nor 1Tim 4 say anything at all about eating rats or eating diseased flesh being "approved" by scripture or practiced by NT saints.

reducing the Gospel message of Col 2 where the penalty of sin is nailed to the cross - down to "diseased flesh" and "rat sandwiches" is to miss entirely the point of the Gospel itself.

Why go to such extremes in your struggle to avoid the text?


in Christ,

Bob

It took Peter seeing the vision three times before he could accept the changes that Jesus was implementing. It took Paul a face to face before he could become a follower of Jesus Christ and write the OT changes on behalf of God that we see in Col 2, Rom 14 and 1Tim 4.

Some Christians simply will not be able to bear these changes. But God does not condemn them for not understanding.

Jesus said, "I have yet many things to say unto you, but ye cannot bear them now." (John 16:12)


However, I believe God would consider judging the meats others choose to eat as sin.

Rom 14:1¶Him that is weak in the faith receive ye, [but] not to doubtful disputations.
Rom 14:2 For one believeth that he may eat all things: another, who is weak, eateth herbs.
Rom 14:3 Let not him that eateth despise him that eateth not; and let not him which eateth not judge him that eateth: for God hath received him.


Jesus said, "I have yet many things to say unto you, but ye cannot bear them now." (John 16:12)

1Ti 4:3 Forbidding to marry, [and commanding] to abstain from meats, which God hath created to be received with thanksgiving of them which believe and know the truth.

These who "know the truth" have learned from Christ through the apostles teaching that all food is now ok with God. These were able to "bear the truth" (John 16:12)

1Ti 4:4 For every creature of God [is] good, and nothing to be refused, if it be received with thanksgiving:


Every creature of God is good, not just a select few, God says every creature is good and it should not be refused (Remember Peter trying to refuse the meats God was showing him).

,...... If it be received with thanksgiving. Believers give God the thanks for their every meal and God blesses their food. As God says....

1Ti 4:5 For it is sanctified by the word of God and prayer.

Col 2:14 Blotting out the handwriting of ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to his cross;

Col 2:15 [And] having spoiled principalities and powers, he made a shew of them openly, triumphing over them in it.
Col 2:16 Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holyday, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath [days]:



That is three times Paul writes on behalf of God that ALL meats are ok with God.

However we have this truth from Jesus, "I have yet many things to say unto you, but ye cannot bear them now." (John 16:12)

Some Christians just simply cannot bear these changes. God says that is ok also, just do not judge those who do accept these changes.

It was so difficult for some Jewish Christians to grasp the idea of a "New Covenant" and a "New Way" in Christ. The Jews wanted to keep the law intact while believing on Jesus Christ as well. The Spirit through Paul went to great lengths to rid the traditional way of interpreting the OT scriptures. God could not have given us a more clear word on this issue. If one "cannot bear it" it is not for a lack of being told through the word.

:jesus:

 

[BobRyan]

It took Peter seeing the vision three times before he could accept the changes that Jesus was implementing. It took Paul a face to face before he could become a follower of Jesus Christ and write the OT changes on behalf of God that we see in Col 2, Rom 14 and 1Tim 4.

1. Peter relates the story 3 times and not once does he say "and so I now eat rat sandwiches and diseased flesh". Which kind shoots your idea out of the saddle.

2. Peter relates the story and each time he says that it was telling him to "call no MAN unclean". But there are those who get stuck on "yes but I want to eat diseased flesh and rat sandwiches" as if the whole "evangelize the gentiles thing" was not even in scripture.


Jesus said, "I have yet many things to say unto you, but ye cannot bear them now." (John 16:12)

However, I believe God would consider judging the meats others choose to eat as sin.

I see - so Lev 11 and Isaiah 66 is God "authoring sin"???

Facinating!

Rom 14:1¶Him that is weak in the faith receive ye, [but] not to doubtful disputations.
Rom 14:2 For one believeth that he may eat all things: another, who is weak, eateth herbs.
Rom 14:3 Let not him that eateth despise him that eateth not; and let not him which eateth not judge him that eateth: for God hath received him.

Notice that the issue is between eating meat God approves in scripture (did I say that Lev 11 is "scripture" yet?) - vs eating no meat (which is not commanded in Lev 11 or Isaiah 66 as the observing Bible student will quickly notice)


Jesus said, "I have yet many things to say unto you, but ye cannot bear them now." (John 16:12)

1Ti 4:3 Forbidding to marry, [and commanding] to abstain from meats, which God hath created to be received with thanksgiving of them which believe and know the truth.

1Ti 4:4 For every creature of God [is] good, and nothing to be refused, if it be received with thanksgiving:

,...... If it be received with thanksgiving.

1Ti 4:5 For it is sanctified by the word of God and prayer.

Yet some people ignore 1Tim 4 or simply try to imagine that Lev 11 and Isaiah 66 are not the "Word of God" so that they can take the 1Tim 4 statement to mean "go ahead and eat diseased flesh and rat sandwiches"

Jesus said, "I have yet many things to say unto you, but ye cannot bear them now." (John 16:12)


:godisgood:
in Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

colossians 2

13 when you were dead in your transgressions and the uncircumcision of your flesh, he made you alive together with him, having forgiven us all our transgressions,

14 having canceled out the certificate of debt consisting of decrees against us, which was hostile to us; and he has taken it out of the way, having nailed it to the cross. (nasb)

msg col 2 -- 14the slate wiped clean, that old arrest warrant canceled and nailed to christ's cross.

amp -- 14having cancelled and blotted out and wiped away the handwriting of the note (bond) with its legal decrees and demands which was in force and stood against us (hostile to us). This [note with its regulations, decrees, and demands] he set aside and cleared completely out of our way by nailing it to [his] cross.

nlt -- 14he canceled the record that contained the charges against us. He took it and destroyed it by nailing it to christ's cross.
{new living translation)

esv -- 14by canceling the record of debt that stood against us with its legal demands. This he set aside, nailing it to the cross.
( english standard version)

cev --14god wiped out the charges that were against us for disobeying the law of moses. He took them away and nailed them to the cross.
()(contemporary english version) )

asv – (american standard version)
14 having blotted out the bond written in ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us: And he hath taken it out that way, nailing it to the cross;

Christ paid our debt of sin at the cross - the decrees that are written on a ticked - a debt - specifying our debt of sin for each sin we have comitted.

But some want to spin this around to "diseased flesh" nailed to the cross or rat-sandwiches getting approval at the cross.

How sad.

However we have this truth from jesus, "i have yet many things to say unto you, but ye cannot bear them now." (john 16:12)
:godisgood:

that is three times paul writes on behalf of god that all meats are ok with god.

Paul only says that meets approved by the Word of God or "ok".

Sadly this detail of 1Tim 4 gets missed by the "diseased flesh and rat sandwich" focus that some choose to bring with them when they come to that text.

But there "is" hope for them.

After all - we have this truth from jesus, "i have yet many things to say unto you, but ye cannot bear them now." (john 16:12)

So we happily let them take their time getting out of that "diseased flesh and rat sandwiches" rut of an idea they have for what happend at the cross.

:jesus:

in Christ,

Bob

 

[steaver]

1. Peter relates the story 3 times and not once does he say "and so I now eat rat sandwiches and diseased flesh". Which kind shoots your idea out of the saddle.



:godisgood:
in Christ,

Bob

The problem is it is not "my idea". Your problem is with the text.

All I can do is point you to the word of God. What you choose to do with God's word is between you and God.

Jesus said, "I have yet many things to say unto you, but ye cannot bear them now." (John 16:12)

Yet some people ignore 1Tim 4 or simply try to imagine that Lev 11 and Isaiah 66 are not the "Word of God" so that they can take the 1Tim 4 statement to mean "go ahead and eat diseased flesh and rat sandwiches"

It's not that they are "ignoring" the scripture. God's word instructs us to study and rightly divide the word of truth and these have done their homework. Some struggle with these text and fall under John 16:12, "I have yet many things to say unto you, but ye cannot bear them now."

Christ paid our debt of sin at the cross - the decrees that are written on a ticked - a debt - specifying our debt of sin for each sin we have comitted.

But some want to spin this around to "diseased flesh" nailed to the cross or rat-sandwiches getting approval at the cross.

How sad

One has to accept the whole of the scripture in order to bear the new truths established in Christ. Most will, but some will not be able to bear it.

John 16:12, "I have yet many things to say unto you, but ye cannot bear them now."

:jesus:

 

[BobRyan]

1. Peter relates the story 3 times and not once does he say "and so I now eat rat sandwiches and diseased flesh". Which kind shoots your idea out of the saddle.

2. Peter relates the story and each time he says that it was telling him to "call no MAN unclean". But there are those who get stuck on "yes but I want to eat diseased flesh and rat sandwiches" as if the whole "evangelize the gentiles thing" was not even in scripture.


Jesus said, "I have yet many things to say unto you, but ye cannot bear them now." (John 16:12)

In short - I merely point to the details "in the text" that your answer "needs" to avoid.

The problem is it is not "my idea". Your problem is with the text.

All I can do is point you to the word of God.

Still avoiding that Acts 10-11, 15 "detail"?? - how unnexpected that your argument will need to keep avoiding the text's detail even though you were the one that went to the text to start with.

Jesus said, "I have yet many things to say unto you, but ye cannot bear them now." (John 16:12)

One has to accept the whole of the scripture in order to bear the new truths established in Christ. Most will, but some will not be able to bear it.

Very true. That is why when we point out that Lev 11 and Isaiah 66 are not "sin" and are not "traditions of man" - some will struggle.

And that is why it remains true that we are not to eat diseased flesh or rat, cat, dog, bat sandwiches.

And it is why we do not reduce the Gospel of the Cross in Col 2 - to "making it ok to eat diseased flesh or rat sandwiches"

Still as you point out - some will struggle with that -- so as you so freely point out --

John 16:12, "I have yet many things to say unto you, but ye cannot bear them now."

:jesus:

BTW - this is an interesting game you have invented -- (tag - you are "it" )

in Christ,

Bob

 

[steaver]

BTW - this is an interesting game you have invented -- (tag - you are "it" )

in Christ,

Bob

I believe it was you who decided to abandon sola scripture and the exegesis thereof as the deciding factor as to who MUST obey what is in God's word and who it is that may be EXCUSED.

Basically saying, "if one does not see it my way then they could be of those who cannot yet bear it". Misapplying John 16:12.

When this is applied to your views as possibly being of those who "cannot yet bear it" then you desire to return to exegesis and demand that people are "struggling" and "ignoring the text"!

Truth is, the SDA have chosen to make up their own application of John 16:12 so that they may not be seen as those who are condemning other Christians to hell for choosing to eat swine. They teach their disciples to simply say, "Jesus hasn't enlightened some yet because they cannot yet bear it, so it is ok for some of those who do not understand as we do".

So the drill is to post Lev 11 and Isa 66 over and over in hope that by so doing the Christian living in sin (according to the SDA view) may somehow by the grace of God be shown special "enlightenment", if of course they are mature enough as the SDA's are and able to bear it.

In short - I merely point to the details "in the text" that your answer "needs" to avoid.

Still avoiding that Acts 10-11, 15 "detail"?? - how unnexpected that your argument will need to keep avoiding the text's detail even though you were the one that went to the text to start with.

Still as you point out - some will struggle with that -- so as you so freely point out --

John 16:12, "I have yet many things to say unto you, but ye cannot bear them now."

You see?

How do you know that you are not the one who cannot bear them and has not been "enilghtened"? Maybe you are the one "avoiding" and "struggling". I think so.

You will say the Holy Spirit has taught you that Lev 11 must still be obeyed.

I will say the Holy Spirit has taught me that it has been done away with.

Where does that leave us?

Here's the point. God has given us each the Scriptures and the Holy Spirit and has told us to study and rightly divide them. There is no such thing as a Christian being "excused" for not yet being able to bear a commandment. This is fabricated by the SDA so they do not need to preach "thus saith the Lord" on these matters and by so doing condemn those who do not agree.

It's like this according to the SDA, "some are weak in faith and immature so God has not yet revealed these truths unto them for thay are not yet able to bear it". "so yes, God has true sincere believers in all denominations, but they are weak and not yet able to bear all the truth like WE can".

Aren't we special! :thumbsup:

So in reality all your post about exegesis and context and avoiding and ignoring and struggling really means nothing when I can use your own theology to simply dismiss it all with Jesus said, "I have yet many things to say unto you, but ye cannot bear them now." (John 16:12)

A little test for you Bob,

A person has been born of God. You read to or show this Christian Lev 11 and this Christian says "yes, I see that God forbid the eating of swine here in Lev 11, but I am going to eat swine anyways because, well, I like it". The next day at breakfast while chewing on some bacon this Christian has a massive heart attack, blacks out, no time for even one thought, and dies. Said he seen with his own eyes that God forbid swine in Lev 11 but refused to repent of eating swine anyways and dies.

In your pov, according to what you have read in the scriptures, would this Christian go on to eternal life with Christ?

John 16:12 would not apply here for the Christian declared that he did see Lev 11 and understood God did say do not eat swine there in the text.

What's your answer?

ps. I don't mind if you want to do all the multi-color three page posting in your answer, but please at some point say either the man would go to heaven, hell or that you do not know. The third answer would be interesting indeed. Oh, and don't give me the "I cannot judge the man's heart" thing. It is a plausible hypothetical situation with all the details given. What would be the final destination of this Christian according to your appilcation of scripture?

Let me give my answer from my pov of scripture. The man would go to heaven. See, I am not God and I don't have a window into the hearts of men but I am capable of answering a hypothetical question with all the details given. It's called applying my beliefs and scripture to real life possible scenarios. This is how we test one's postions of doctrine. Those who do not want to be tested usually will avoid these questions at all cost, for they know it exposes their errors. We'll see how you do :thumbsup:

:jesus:

 

[BobRyan]

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

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.


Hope that helps!

:godisgood:

in Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

Christ said "I have many more things to tell you but you cannot bear them now" John 16.

James says "To him that KNOWS to do right and does it not - to him it is sin". James 4

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 believe it was you who decided to abandon sola scripture and the exegesis thereof as the deciding factor as to who MUST obey what is in God's word and who it is that may be EXCUSED.

Not even close. I am more than happy to let God decide and the Word of God I keep pointing to above - indicates that He will do that very thing.

Romans 2:6-13 comes to mind.

My response has been to consistently argue for proclaiming God's word and for insisting that God alone knows cases.

But if someone asks "Does God's word say it is ok for me to defy God and openly rebel against His word" - that SAME response I gave above applies.

State the fact that God's Word condemns that choice and ask them not to make it.

But still in the end - God will judge. And as Paul points out in Gal 6 "God is not mocked - whatsoever a man sows that shall he also reap".


in Christ,

Bob