Half arguments over at GCM

[Revgill87123]

http://www.gracecentered.com/christian_ ... -the-deal/ :lol: lol They'll be busy for minute!

 

[Edward the Elder]

I would like to apologise, Randy, for my outburst. Yes, I was hurt and I was offended. Thankyou for reminding me of something I thought I rarely forget, but seem to have forgotten. I hope you do forgive me as I am not being sarcastic. I am truly sorry. I recently lost a good friend some time ago because of differences in doctrine and I am feeling a little insecure because we agreed on virtually all points until we hit this wall. This is one rift that likely will not heal. I did not know that you were the 'head cheese' here, and yes, that does make a difference. You can pontificate all you wish. It's your castle. You da boss. Besides, I have my own groups and web sites to tend to. Not many manage to hurt my pride these days, and quite honestly, I was beginning to wonder if I had any left. This family has been through the proverbial "meat-grinder" since the birth of Shiloh. Well, you remedied that so you did me a service. I apologise for acting like a moron.

My view is that if two words are exactly the same, they must also be spelled the same way, be prounounced the same way, and mean the same thing. So, I guess we will just have to agree to disagree. A friend recently told me something about men who supported the idea of plural marriage and I am beginning to think he has a point after all. To paraphrase him, he suggested quite adamantly that men who did believe in this sort of thing would always be odds with one another because were too individualistic in nature to stand together for long. To be quite honest, this is being made painfully clear to me and causes me to wonder if the end result culminates in so much division in the body of Christ, then perhaps plural marriage is highly compromising and ought not to be practiced after all. I have a growing conviction to tell people exactly what I believe and what I represent in my faith before I invest further time with them. I have learned a valuable lesson. Again, I sincerely apologise for any inconvenience I may have caused. I agree that my approach was wrong. I tend to come on a little strong at times. I maintain that the content of my work is correct, and if I am permitted to remain here, I will let you know when I am done going through all the 70 some odd examples of mia proving that mia and heis are not the same words and that they do not mean exactly the same thing.

I may be contacted at Son_of_mann@hotmail.com.

To the rest, it behooves me to declare that I eat pork, shrimp, and sorts of other "non-kosher" food because I am fully persuaded that my food is sanctified through prayer and thanks giving and that I am able to eat it in faith. I make no demands that others should only eat the same food that I eat, but I will not embrace the view that I will go to hell because I eat pork and I will not be brought under the power of this doctrine. I feel this is an important declaration to make because others seem to feel so strongly about it that they are prepared to sacrifice friendships over it, lie for it, resort to defamation of character, libel, and harrassment. If being a "kosher" food eater is a requirement for membership here, please inform me so that I can make the necessary adjustments. As far as I understand the scripture, all my food is made kosher through the sanctification of faithful prayer before the Almighty One.

GOD bless you

Edward

 

[steve]

hey guys:
lets not let the enemy win here, we can disagree w/out ripping each other up.
randy:
that post did not at all show a pastors spirit. a pastor leads to food and water but does not use a cudgel to get them to partake of it.
edward:
you are still offended. forgive him as you know that Yeshua requires of you.
do not let the enemy cause you to abandon your voice on this board. i, for one, feel that what you have to say is important. your response to revgill about fathers is a case in point.
kosher? i do not eat pork but the majority of my friends do. it is not a salvation issue. i would guess that the majority on this board do not agree with the need to eat kosher.
yes, we are individualistic, attempting to be free of the need to conform to what other people think. but what did He pray? keep through thine own name those whom thou hast given me, that they may be one, as we [are]. and Endeavouring to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace..........Till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ:
we are not in the unity of the faith yet, but lets keep in the unity of the spirit, not trying to be one with each other but becoming one with Him. then being one with each other will be natural

 

[The Revolting Man]

I know that our movement has been around for a long time so it is probably not accurate to describe us as pioneers, we are however definitely frontiersmen. We are in a constant struggle to try and live our beliefs in a hostile enviroment and are under constant threat of attack. A movement like this requires strong, courageous men who are willing to take bold stands and defend them in the face of apparently overwhelming odds. I would like to commend our brothers for exhibiting those traits.

I would submit that there are very few issues that can be considered points of fellowship however. I'm not sure we would all agree on each other's lists but as long as someone claimes the name of Christ, believes in His divinity and the forgiveness of sins only through Him, then I for one can put up with a lot of differences. So I say fight away boys, just remember that you'll be spending a long time together one day.

 

[Edward the Elder]

:lol: Well put, Zephyr. Well put.

 

[Edward the Elder]

hey guys:
lets not let the enemy win here, we can disagree w/out ripping each other up.
randy:
that post did not at all show a pastors spirit. a pastor leads to food and water but does not use a cudgel to get them to partake of it.
edward:
you are still offended. forgive him as you know that Yeshua requires of you.
do not let the enemy cause you to abandon your voice on this board. i, for one, feel that what you have to say is important. your response to revgill about fathers is a case in point.
kosher? i do not eat pork but the majority of my friends do. it is not a salvation issue. i would guess that the majority on this board do not agree with the need to eat kosher.
yes, we are individualistic, attempting to be free of the need to conform to what other people think. but what did He pray? keep through thine own name those whom thou hast given me, that they may be one, as we [are]. and Endeavouring to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace..........Till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ:
we are not in the unity of the faith yet, but lets keep in the unity of the spirit, not trying to be one with each other but becoming one with Him. then being one with each other will be natural

Thankyou for your words of encouragement, Randy and Steve. I have lost a friend... Supposedly, a minister of GOD. All else has lifted here except that I have lost a friend and a man whom I loved as a brother. I am deeply saddened by this. Pork is not my dietary mainstay, I confess, but I cannot be brought under the power of this doctrine any more than I can urge anyone else to abstain from meats in good consience. When my eldest daughter became a vegitarian I cooked food that was appropriate to her diet, ensuring that all the complimentary proteins and essential fatty acids were available to her. She was certainly healthy, but I still ate my beef steak and my poultry (including wild meat) all the while and gave thanks for my food. I just feel that telling people that they're going to burn in hell because they eat pork is going too far. It would seem that some just want to bring people back under that old, dietary covenant which saved no one. I just wanted to say that if anyone here believes I'm going to burn in hell for eating pork or shrimp or whatever they find offensive to eat, please don't waste your breath on me, don't pray for me, and by all means shun me. I won't pursue people who think like this and I won't be pursued by them. I am at liberty to eat whatsoever is sold in the shambles.

This experience has made me wary of something and now I am convicted to tell everyone I meet that I eat pork so I don't waste anyone's time, including my own. I have been told that my faith is a "damnable heresy" and if that is the case I should not fellowship with people of that persuasion. Amos 3:3 says, "Can two walk together, except they be agreed?" Wherefore I must agree to disagree and continue walking in the faith that was once delivered to the saints.

GOD bless you

 

[steve]

I just feel that telling people that they're going to burn in hell because they eat pork is going too far.

did this happen on this board? if so, i missed it and i am truly sorry that they would say that
even though i believe in not eating it, i do not see any proof that it is a salvation requirement. i do not feel under bondage to the law, but have a sincere desire to do what pleases my Creator. if i am mistaken all that i lose out on is some porkchops, ham, shellfish and other bottom-feeders. not that big of a sacrifice. to not get angry when i feel unfairly treated, now that is a sacrifice.

 

[sweetlissa]

We are all covered by grace and God made it so that we can eat whatever we want to. We chose to eat little pork because we believe that just because it is sanctified doesn't mean it is healthy for us. But we are not militant about it. We just don't usually choose to eat it. We love turkey sausage and just don't eat bacon. We usually eat chicken because it is lower in fat and beef when we want something different. But if we go to someone's home and they serve pork, it would never even come up in conversation.

It isn't a salvation issue and we wouldn't even discuss it unless asked specifically.

SweetLissa

 

[The Revolting Man]

I have to say, when they lead me to the gallows it will hopefully be with a ribeye cooked medium rare smotherd in sauteed mushrooms and onions and sweet potato in my stomach. Barring that though, I'd want pork loin with the red barely cooked out of it.

 

[Mark C]

I agree that 'clean' food is not a salvation issue. But I would like to "try this out for size".

Suppose you knew a man with a daughter whom he loved. (I'll make this example a daughter in order to avoid any unintended "parallels" - not from any implied sexism. )

The man gives his daughter a new car as a present, because he loves her, and then puts a copy of the owner's manual on top of the keys in the driver's seat when he shows it to her.

"Everything that you need to know is in that book, from windshield wipers to oil to tire pressure. Drive safely, and please take good care of it," he says, "and know that I love you."

A couple of days later, you see her putting more oil in the car, which seems good. Looking closer, however, you notice that it's recycled sludge from the local junkyard.

None of us would disown her, I strongly suspect, or "break fellowship" over her treatment of her own gift. But there are no doubt other questions worth asking. I won't even try to speculate on what the "loving father" would do, or whether he'll buy her another car after this one.

But if I knew her, what I would say to her depends entirely on the type of relationship that she and I have.


Blessings,
Mark

 

[The Duke Of Marshall]

We are all covered by grace and God made it so that we can eat whatever we want to.

Would love to touch on that, but I'm not going to.

 

[steve]

mark:
i completely agree with your analogy, but it is missing one part.
her favorite gas station (and 99.99% of the rest of the stations in town) have convinced her that they properly understand the instructions (after all, she is just a woman and cannot expect to understand "mechanicese") and that the sludge is sanctified as she pours it into her born-again car (it was previously wrecked and her father rebuilt it better than new).

she has been deceived, as we all have been. Lord have mercy on me if i ever get to the place where i believe that my theology is 100% pure with no tendrils of deception left over from the traditions handed down. i DO plan on getting to that point and desire to follow His word and learn from it on my journey.

 

[sadanyagci]

Few comments.

Then God said, "I give you every seed-bearing plant on the face of the whole earth and every tree that has fruit with seed in it. They will be yours for food.

We can eat plants. God said so.

Everything that lives and moves will be food for you. Just as I gave you the green plants, I now give you everything.

We can eat anything that lives and moves. Just as we were given the plants, we were given everything else....

But you must not eat meat that has its lifeblood still in it.

... except blood.

Take with you seven of every kind of clean animal, a male and its mate, and two of every kind of unclean animal, a male and its mate,

Before we were given creatures to eat, there was a distinction between clean and unclean animals. Noah knew which animals were clean, and which were unclean. However, they were not for eating.

The original purpose of clean animals was...

Then Noah built an altar to the LORD and, taking some of all the clean animals and clean birds, he sacrificed burnt offerings on it.

...sacrificing to God.

The LORD said to Moses and Aaron, "Say to the Israelites: 'Of all the animals that live on land, these are the ones you may eat:

While everyone was given everything, the Israelites were given commands on what animals to eat and what animals not to eat. Holiness was referenced as the reason, but Jesus said...

"Are you so dull?" he asked. "Don't you see that nothing that enters a man from the outside can make him 'unclean'? For it doesn't go into his heart but into his stomach, and then out of his body." (In saying this, Jesus declared all foods "clean.")

He went on: "What comes out of a man is what makes him 'unclean.'

And Paul's words.

Accept him whose faith is weak, without passing judgment on disputable matters. One man's faith allows him to eat everything, but another man, whose faith is weak, eats only vegetables. The man who eats everything must not look down on him who does not, and the man who does not eat everything must not condemn the man who does, for God has accepted him. Who are you to judge someone else's servant? To his own master he stands or falls. And he will stand, for the Lord is able to make him stand.

One man considers one day more sacred than another; another man considers every day alike. Each one should be fully convinced in his own mind. He who regards one day as special, does so to the Lord. He who eats meat, eats to the Lord, for he gives thanks to God; and he who abstains, does so to the Lord and gives thanks to God. For none of us lives to himself alone and none of us dies to himself alone. If we live, we live to the Lord; and if we die, we die to the Lord. So, whether we live or die, we belong to the Lord.

For this very reason, Christ died and returned to life so that he might be the Lord of both the dead and the living. You, then, why do you judge your brother? Or why do you look down on your brother? For we will all stand before God's judgment seat. It is written:
" 'As surely as I live,' says the Lord,
'every knee will bow before me;
every tongue will confess to God.' " So then, each of us will give an account of himself to God.

Therefore let us stop passing judgment on one another. Instead, make up your mind not to put any stumbling block or obstacle in your brother's way. As one who is in the Lord Jesus, I am fully convinced that no food is unclean in itself. But if anyone regards something as unclean, then for him it is unclean. If your brother is distressed because of what you eat, you are no longer acting in love. Do not by your eating destroy your brother for whom Christ died. Do not allow what you consider good to be spoken of as evil. For the kingdom of God is not a matter of eating and drinking, but of righteousness, peace and joy in the Holy Spirit, because anyone who serves Christ in this way is pleasing to God and approved by men.

Let us therefore make every effort to do what leads to peace and to mutual edification. Do not destroy the work of God for the sake of food. All food is clean, but it is wrong for a man to eat anything that causes someone else to stumble. It is better not to eat meat or drink wine or to do anything else that will cause your brother to fall.

So whatever you believe about these things keep between yourself and God. Blessed is the man who does not condemn himself by what he approves. But the man who has doubts is condemned if he eats, because his eating is not from faith; and everything that does not come from faith is sin.

So, what were these laws then?

Therefore do not let anyone judge you by what you eat or drink, or with regard to a religious festival, a New Moon celebration or a Sabbath day. These are a shadow of the things that were to come; the reality, however, is found in Christ.

Why weren't the gentiles ever given the laws that the Israelites were given? Because they were a shadow of things to come. The Israelites were supposed to do certain things. But as for the rest of the world, they were never told these things. These things were never required of us, and Jesus didn't change that. Paul didn't change that. They are examples, but not for health, and not for actual holiness. They are simply examples for other reasons. I tend to favor the "you are what you eat" interpretation of those things, but that's just me. However it is clear.

Mankind was given plants.
Mankind was given animals.
Israelites were given the shadow, which included food stipulations.

Jesus brought us salvation,
but He didn't give us the shadow.
We are not men of the shadow.
We are men of the reality.
The reality isn't "don't eat this", "don't eat that".
The reality is found in Christ.

Like the holidays that were fulfilled by Christ, and the holidays that are still yet to be fulfilled by Him. These are easily seen and understood as the shadows that they are. The food is the same, though we don't tend to understand it as well.

Bottom line: As far as eating goes, all foods are clean. All plants and animals are given to us for food, by God's own words.

 

[sweetlissa]

Therefore let us stop passing judgment on one another. Instead, make up your mind not to put any stumbling block or obstacle in your brother's way. As one who is in the Lord Jesus, I am fully convinced that no food is unclean in itself. But if anyone regards something as unclean, then for him it is unclean. If your brother is distressed because of what you eat, you are no longer acting in love. Do not by your eating destroy your brother for whom Christ died. Do not allow what you consider good to be spoken of as evil. For the kingdom of God is not a matter of eating and drinking, but of righteousness, peace and joy in the Holy Spirit, because anyone who serves Christ in this way is pleasing to God and approved by men.

I promise that if I am around people who eat only a "kosher" diet, that I will not eat any unclean foods.

I think that the distinction needs to be made between "allowed" and "wise".

All things are lawful unto me, but all things are not expedient: all things are lawful for me, but I will not be brought under the power of any.

I won't pass judgment on others, and I don't expect others to pass judgment on me.

SweetLissa

 

[The Duke Of Marshall]

<-- (Still not going there)

 

[The Revolting Man]

I'd like to see where you're not going. It sounds fun. I have some reservations about your underlying argument though Sadan. Are you implying that the old testament doesn't apply to sanctified gentiles? That even though we've been adopted in we're not full sons? That would seem to be against the basis for most of us here who believe in polygyny; i.e. that the full Bible is the word of God and still in effect unless specifically altered in the New Testatment, such as the dietary laws.

 

[Anonymous]

Everything that lives and moves will be food for you. Just as I gave you the green plants, I now give you everything.

We can eat anything that lives and moves. Just as we were given the plants, we were given everything else....

But you must not eat meat that has its lifeblood still in it.

... except blood.

Therefore let us stop passing judgment on one another. Instead, make up your mind not to put any stumbling block or obstacle in your brother's way. As one who is in the Lord Jesus, I am fully convinced that no food is unclean in itself. But if anyone regards something as unclean, then for him it is unclean.

Brother Sadanyagci,

I couldn't have said it better myself. Instead of espousing argument and rhetoric, you quoted Scripture to demonstrate the truth.

Mark 7:15-18: "There is no matter that enters a man from outside which is able to defile him, but it is what comes out of him that defiles the man. If anyone has ears to hear, let him hear!" And when He went from the crowd into a house, His taught ones asked Him concerning the parable. And He said to them, "ARE YOU ALSO WITHOUT UNDERSTANDING? Do you not perceive that whatever enters a man from outside is UNABLE to defile him?"

Col. 2:16: "LET NO ONE THEREFORE JUDGE YOU IN EATING OR DRINKING, or in respect of a festival or a new moon or Sabbaths"

Rom. 14:1: "And receive HIM WHO IS WEAK in the belief, NOT CRITICIZING HIS THOUGHTS. One indeed believes to eat ALL FOOD, but HE WHO IS WEAK EATS ONLY VEGETABLES."

As we can see from the Word, we each must be careful not to criticize those without understanding, our weaker brothers and sisters in the faith, for their thoughts. Nobody may rightfully judge us for our freedom in eating or drinking, and neither should we judge those without this understanding. It's not a question of morally right versus morally wrong -- it's simply a question of strong faith versus weak faith. We should never allow such an understanding (or lack thereof) to create division within the Body. Then we really would be demonstratively unclean. That's all I feel led to say on this subject.

In His love,
David

 

[Anonymous]

I'd like to see where you're not going. It sounds fun. I have some reservations about your underlying argument though Sadan. Are you implying that the old testament doesn't apply to sanctified gentiles? That even though we've been adopted in we're not full sons? That would seem to be against the basis for most of us here who believe in polygyny; i.e. that the full Bible is the word of God and still in effect unless specifically altered in the New Testatment, such as the dietary laws.

I can't speak for Sadan, but I'm guessing that his reasoning is that laws which were not given to sanctified gentiles are not applicable to sanctified gentiles. Genesis 9:2-4 was given to a sanctified gentile, whereas the Mosaic dietary laws were given to the nation of Israel as a physical symbol/shadow of things to come. It's much the same with physical circumcision (and I suspect the same proponents would argue for modern-day circumcision in order to be "obedient" to the wrong covenant). But honestly, if either had been expected or encouraged among the gentiles during the time of national Israel, it really would have served no purpose for national Israel during her covenant. The shadow pointed to the body FOR A REASON and we do Him a disservice by returning back to the shadow rather than the substance.

That's really more than I meant to say regarding Mosaic dietary law, so I'll stop there. However, I think it's important to recognize the distinction between the Mosaic and Messianic covenants. They are most certainly NOT the same covenant, nor is the new an extension or an addendum to the obsolete covenant. God's moral law is certainly demonstrated throughout His Word and it applies equally to ALL men in ALL times, but unique law given to a specific people for a specific period and for a specific purpose is not universal law. I am no more required to sacrifice animals than I am to build an ark. Neither of these requirements were given to New Covenant Believers. The New Covenant did not alter the Old Covenant, it replaced it entirely. The Old has long passed away.

Anyway, food for thought. I'm sure others will present opposing views, so best to read the entire NT over and over (not commentary) until this subject becomes crystal clear. The proper place of the law (and which law) is more controversial than a man taking more than one wife. :lol:

In His love,
David

 

[The Duke Of Marshall]

I'd like to see where you're not going. It sounds fun.

Well, let's just say...............nope. Still not going to do it. Not on the public side of things. Through PM, sure. Through one of the private forums on here? Sure. Say the new forum that we just opened up this week. I will say that both sides of this dietary issue thing are making their respective side a lot more difficult than it really is. I mean the conclusion is VERY sunday school simple.

 

[sadanyagci]

I can't speak for Sadan, but I'm guessing that his reasoning is that laws which were not given to sanctified gentiles are not applicable to sanctified gentiles. Genesis 9:2-4 was given to a sanctified gentile, whereas the Mosaic dietary laws were given to the nation of Israel as a physical symbol/shadow of things to come. It's much the same with physical circumcision (and I suspect the same proponents would argue for modern-day circumcision in order to be "obedient" to the wrong covenant). But honestly, if either had been expected or encouraged among the gentiles during the time of national Israel, it really would have served no purpose for national Israel during her covenant. The shadow pointed to the body FOR A REASON and we do Him a disservice by returning back to the shadow rather than the substance.

This is correct. There are many things that can be gathered from the OT about what we as Gentiles should have been doing from the beginning, what love is, what sexual immorality is, what is right and wrong judgment. However, to say that we as Gentiles have "more" commands now that we are saved is nonsense. All we are told to do is what we were told to do from the beginning. Those are the things we repented of when we were saved. We did not repent of not being Jews.

Saved implies that we were sinful. Christ brought us forgiveness from our sins. That grafted us in as children of Abraham, and children of God, but we are not children of the tribe of Manasseh. We are not children of the tribe of Judah. We are not children of the tribe of Levi. We are not under the laws to the children of Levi any more than we are under the laws to the children of Jacob. We are not under the laws to the children of Aaron... the priests. They had their own shadows to demonstrate. Levi had their own. Judah and the other tribes had their own. Gentiles never had any of those shadows.

But what do we have? We have a whole lot, and we are told to learn from the shadow. We are not told to BE the shadow, but to learn from it. It is there for a reason. The holidays are there for a reason. They tell history, and they are foreshadows of things to come. Some of the holidays have been fulfilled in Christ, and the others WILL be fulfilled in Christ. We look to them, and we learn from them what will happen. However, WE were never commanded to DO them.

That's really more than I meant to say regarding Mosaic dietary law, so I'll stop there. However, I think it's important to recognize the distinction between the Mosaic and Messianic covenants. They are most certainly NOT the same covenant, nor is the new an extension or an addendum to the obsolete covenant. God's moral law is certainly demonstrated throughout His Word and it applies equally to ALL men in ALL times, but unique law given to a specific people for a specific period and for a specific purpose is not universal law. I am no more required to sacrifice animals than I am to build an ark. Neither of these requirements were given to New Covenant Believers. The New Covenant did not alter the Old Covenant, it replaced it entirely. The Old has long passed away.

Jesus did say that not one dot would pass away from the law until all is fulfilled, in relation to abolishing the law. The letters in the NT speak of a passing away, but not in the sense Jesus referred to it. Indeed, not all is fulfilled yet. There is still prophecy of what is to come later. There is still much yet to come. So, has it been made obsolete? Certainly not.

But the law states much for the Priests. Are we under that? No.
The law says much for the Levites. Are we under that? No.
The law says much for the other tribes of Israel. Are we under that? No.
The law says much for the other tribes, peoples, and nations of the earth. Are we under that? Yes. Always have been, and always will be.

So then what has passed? The shadow has passed. It's still there, pointing to everything it was made to point to. It still points to Christ. It still shows us God's heart. It still tells us what prophets to listen to, and what "prophets" to ignore. It still shows us sexual immorality and what Gentiles were required to do. It points everything out... but we follow the spirit of it, not the shadow.

I'll give an example. When I was working at a Christian bookshop in Turkey the American manager went to the USA for a few months. It was summer. When she left she told her few employees to go upstairs when a customer goes upstairs, and turn on the air conditioning up there. She didn't want it running all day when no one was up there, but she didn't want customers to be too hot up there. What did the Turkish employees do? They did exactly as they were told... through summer... and then through fall... because the boss wasn't there to think for them and give a new command. It was cold upstairs, but they turned on the AC anyway. The reality... make the customer comfortable... should have been followed rather than the letter of the law.

Now, I'm not saying what is sin changes over time. Indeed, that is not true. But Noah was commanded to build an ark of wood. If he built it of metal he would have sinned... even though no one else would have sinned by building an ark of metal. So it is the same with this. We were never given the shadow, and we do not have the shadow now. We were given the examples to learn from... we were given our commands that had been forgotten... and we were given forgiveness for our sins.

We are grafted in as children of Abraham, but not as children of Judah. We were not taken in under the laws God gave Moses to give to the children a few generations after Jacob. Note that Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob were not given these laws. Yet they were righteous. They were given a little extra though... circumcision. But that's a shadow for us. God never told us to do that. But we are to look to the shadow and learn.

Hope this clarifies things.