dadof10
Member
This doesn't work in practice, otherwise you would only have one denomination.
Christian Forums
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
-
Desire to be a vessel of honor unto the Lord Jesus Christ?
Join For His Glory for a discussion on how
https://christianforums.net/threads/a-vessel-of-honor.110278/
-
Taking the time to pray? Christ is the answer in times of need
https://christianforums.net/threads/psalm-70-1-save-me-o-god-lord-help-me-now.108509/
-
-
Depending upon the Holy Spirit for all you do?
Read through the following study by Tenchi for more on this topic
https://christianforums.net/threads/without-the-holy-spirit-we-can-do-nothing.109419/
-
-
How are famous preachers sometimes effected by sin?
Join Sola Scriptura for a discussion on the subject
https://christianforums.net/threads/anointed-preaching-teaching.109331/#post-1912042
-
This doesn't work in practice, otherwise you would only have one denomination.
J
JoReba
Guest
I agree that you have not seen it work.
BTW, There is indeed only One Denomination. Lol.
Tina
Member
Have you seen it work? I mean today....
What's that One Denomination? Let me guess, Christ ....
Do you have pastors, leaders, elders and teachers in your church? Are you even part of a local church ?
J
JoReba
Guest
Have you seen it work? I mean today....
What's that One Denomination? Let me guess, Christ ....
Do you have pastors, leaders, elders and teachers in your church? Are you even part of a local church ?
I see The Holy Spirit guide comprehension of Scripture quite often within The True Church. Yes, I am even part of a local Church.
Lol.
Tina
Member
quite often .... so it's not always then.
Would you say that will make it any less of a "True Church" since it's not always that the Holy Spirit guides comprehension of scripture ?
J
JoReba
Guest
Even The True Church and True Believers commit errors. But that is not the point of this thread even as you have strayed onto this track. The True Church and True Believers are those who easily submit to correction from Scripture.
Correct comprehension of Scripture is not shown in Scripture to ever occur without The Holy Spirit. Correct grasp of Scripture only occurs by The Holy Spirit. If you think not, then show examples of another means.
Dadof10,
I realize you were probably looking for my response last night around 11:59... I wrote one, but forgot to post it and then deleted it! Sorry.
Claiming someone is desperate and becoming frustrated is an old internet debating trick used to either degrade the other or garnish support from others or strengthen one's own convictions. Before the internet and to this day, it's used by politicans during elections. Don't feel bad, I've used it too! However, I am not frustrated or desperate. My stance is still strong.
Not that you haven't tried to give me a few headaches. You consistently ask the same questions which have already been answered, you make strong inferences and then claim you "never said that", you make the same erronous conclusions about scripture, you fail to look at other scripture, and you make derrogatory statements about Paul and then try to pin them on me. It would be frustrating if I wasn't correct in my points.
Yes, I'll provide examples of each of those charges if you want.
I will give you this: there are some questions I haven't answered. I haven't spoken on your Revelations 2 verse, I haven't explained why I don't believe that particular council or James were relying on grace through faith and I haven't fully explained why the Holy Ghost was behind the council's decision. I have my reasons, which for the most part are that it would take time to lay down some important groundwork first.
I am going to give you the opportunity to ask me once again for clarification on any point I have made. I am resolved to make it the last time, since this thread (or the portion that we hijacked) has gone in complete circles. I will of course, explain those three questions I admitted to not answering at soon.
May I ask you one question? Perhaps I missed your commentary on it (there have been quite a few posts in this thread), but I'd like your views on Romans 14:22, which says:
Hast thou faith? have it to thyself before God. Happy is he that condemneth not himself in that thing which he alloweth.
I realize you were probably looking for my response last night around 11:59... I wrote one, but forgot to post it and then deleted it! Sorry.
Claiming someone is desperate and becoming frustrated is an old internet debating trick used to either degrade the other or garnish support from others or strengthen one's own convictions. Before the internet and to this day, it's used by politicans during elections. Don't feel bad, I've used it too! However, I am not frustrated or desperate. My stance is still strong.
Not that you haven't tried to give me a few headaches. You consistently ask the same questions which have already been answered, you make strong inferences and then claim you "never said that", you make the same erronous conclusions about scripture, you fail to look at other scripture, and you make derrogatory statements about Paul and then try to pin them on me. It would be frustrating if I wasn't correct in my points.
Yes, I'll provide examples of each of those charges if you want.
I will give you this: there are some questions I haven't answered. I haven't spoken on your Revelations 2 verse, I haven't explained why I don't believe that particular council or James were relying on grace through faith and I haven't fully explained why the Holy Ghost was behind the council's decision. I have my reasons, which for the most part are that it would take time to lay down some important groundwork first.
I am going to give you the opportunity to ask me once again for clarification on any point I have made. I am resolved to make it the last time, since this thread (or the portion that we hijacked) has gone in complete circles. I will of course, explain those three questions I admitted to not answering at soon.
May I ask you one question? Perhaps I missed your commentary on it (there have been quite a few posts in this thread), but I'd like your views on Romans 14:22, which says:
Hast thou faith? have it to thyself before God. Happy is he that condemneth not himself in that thing which he alloweth.
dadof10
Member
What's the title of this thread? "The PRESUMPTIVE Arrogance..." It's not often I come across someone who starts a thread condemning a behaviour, then engages in the exact same behaviour within the SAME THREAD. I guess if you stay here long enough, you see it all.
Do you believe the Holy Spirit guides you to Truth through the reading of Scripture? Do you believe this is the normative way God leads his people to doctrinal Truth? Do you believe that if someone disagrees with your "Holy Spirit guided" interpretation on a certain topic (say...OSAS), that he is somehow misguided?
Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk
dadof10
Member
What are some of the key doctrines taught by the "True Church"? What is it's view on OSAS, for instance?
Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk
dadof10
Member
No problem. Just re-write it. I've done that before myself. The beauty of forums as opposed to chat is that there is no hurry. Anytime is fine.
In your last few posts I've noticed more straw-man arguments and unfounded accusations. That usually means a person is running out of arguments, or can't answer questions logically. It was simply an observation.
The only one I can think of redundantly questioning is your take that "James DID lay rules on the gentiles and the Jewish believers". I still don't see it where you get the notion that James laid any rules on the Jewish converts. Because the council (AGAIN, not James alone) REMOVED "the law" from Gentiles, doesn't translate into the council laying anything on the Jews. All I'm asking for is some clarification.
Or maybe you are just not getting nuanced points. For example, you keep harping on my take that "just because Paul didn't write it in his letters, doesn't mean he didn't teach it." I didn't say Paul definitely taught to abstain from meat sacrificed to idols, all I said (over and over) was that he taught things other than what he wrote, so your argument is a mute point. I never said he taught it, just that your argument from silence is weak.
LOL...Nope, nice try.
And right after you write this you admit to doing the same thing:
"I will give you this: there are some questions I haven't answered. I haven't spoken on your Revelations 2 verse, I haven't explained why I don't believe that particular council or James were relying on grace through faith and I haven't fully explained why the Holy Ghost was behind the council's decision."
Three Scripture to be exact. Do I get to use your excuse about "laying groundwork"?
WOW. I've explained this. Please go back and read it.
Yes, please. Start with "you make strong inferences and then claim you "never said that""
Here they are, so it will be easy for you to find:
You: Nowhere is Acts 15 were the Jewish believers relieved of this burden. And to hammer the point more, please read Acts 21:20-24. James is speaking here, and describes how believing Jews are still zeolous for the law.
Me: I agree. I didn't make the point the decision was binding on Jewish
converts. In fact. in a previous post I said that what was binding on Jewish and Gentile converts was different and confusing.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
You: That's the KJV and it hardly shows Paul "needing to be sure". This is especially so when he just said in verse 1:8 that if anyone preaches another gospel they are accursed. It is also especially so when he called those who brought him to Jerusalem false brethren and said they seemed to be pillars and added nothing to him. It really helps to read this verse in proper context.
Me: I said Paul asked their opinion on whether what he was teaching corresponded to what the apostles and elders were teaching. He wasn't getting input from the "false teachers" who were in Jerusalem at the council also. What in the world does "lest by any means I should run, or had run, in vain" mean if it doesn't mean Paul had some doubts and was looking for corroboration and verification? He got the verification because "they added nothing to my message."
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You:You have no evidence.... You can't say Paul preached these things when the only evidence we have (his letters) never mentions it. In fact, I've given you plenty of times the scripture that says there are no dietary restrictions on the gentiles.
Me: I never claimed I had any evidence. You are getting pretty desperate. Here is what you are responding to:
"You are reading me right. Paul preached for how many decades to how many thousands of people? We only have 13 letters of his. Certainly he preached things NOT in his letters. You are arguing that if Paul had really been on board with the decision, his view would have been prevalent throughout his letters. An argument from silence is a pretty weak one, especially when the council and the book of Revelation say to abstain from the meat."
I'm complaining about YOUR argument from silence. I never said Paul preached these things, only that, BECAUSE THEY AREN'T IN HIS LETTERS, DOESN'T MEAN HE REJECTED THEM, which was YOUR point.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
You: You claim Paul did preach those dietary restriction but have no scripture to back that up (only the arguement that it doesn't matter that it was never written, but he did anyway)
Me: Again, I never said that, only responded to YOUR notion that unless it's prevalent in Paul's letters he DIDN'T teach it.
If you have any more you'd like to share, feel free. I think you are just misunderstanding me.
Ok. I'll be waiting.
Well, they are in my last post. I've been asking you about Revelation and the Holy Spirit's guidance of the council for while. Have you laid enough groundwork yet?
dadof10
Member
Sure, but let’s back up to get some context:
KJV:
20For meat destroy not the work of God. All things indeed are pure; but it is evil for that man who eateth with offence.
21It is good neither to eat flesh, nor to drink wine, nor any thing whereby thy brother stumbleth, or is offended, or is made weak.
NKJV:
20 Do not destroy the work of God for the sake of food. All things indeed are pure, but it is evil for the man who eats with offense. 21 It is good neither to eat meat nor drink wine nor do anything by which your brother stumbles or is offended or is made weak.
NIV:
20 Do not destroy the work of God for the sake of food. All food is clean, but it is wrong for a person to eat anything that causes someone else to stumble. 21 It is better not to eat meat or drink wine or to do anything else that will cause your brother or sister to fall.
These verses are saying that, even though ALL food is clean (as I clarified in my last post), to eat it and “eateth with offense†is wrong. To cause someone to stumble, that person has to see another actually eating it, or hear about it. Which brings us to:
KJV::
22Hast thou faith? have it to thyself before God. Happy is he that condemneth not himself in that thing which he alloweth.
23And he that doubteth is damned if he eat, because he eateth not of faith: for whatsoever is not of faith is sin.
NKJV:
22 Do you have faith?[g] Have it to yourself before God. Happy is he who does not condemn himself in what he approves. 23 But he who doubts is condemned if he eats, because he does not eat from faith; for whatever is not from faith is sin.[h]
NIV:
22 So whatever you believe about these things keep between yourself and God. Blessed is the one who does not condemn himself by what he approves. 23 But whoever has doubts is condemned if they eat, because their eating is not from faith; and everything that does not come from faith is sin.[c]
Obviously, Paul is telling his readers to keep from doing anything that bothers their consciences and if it doesn’t bother you, keep it between you and God. Don’t let others know how you feel about whether you consider the foods clean or unclean because it could cause your brother to go against their consciences.
Paul can’t be talking about actually EATING the meat here, he must be only talking about their beliefs and words about them, because verse 20 says: “All food is clean, but it is wrong for a person to eat anything that causes someone else to stumble.†Note, he doesn’t say wrong to GET CAUGHT. He is giving the reason for the decision, not approval to disobey.
With all due respect, I'm going to have to disagree with you. It makes me think your belief is that my salvation and liberty in grace is based on someone else's feelings and convictions.
If that is true, let's talk about pork chops. We both know it is not allowed in the OT. So if a Christian (being weak in faith and knowledge) is offended by it, then I can never eat a pork chop, even if he is not around? I agree it would be wrong for me to invite him over and serve him it, but does that mean I can never have it?
I really don't have to use plain logic to point out that your belief (I'm reiterating it here to make sure I understand you) that meats offered to idols can't be ever eaten because it offends Jewish Christians.
20 For meat destroy not the work of God. All things indeed are pure; but it is evil for that man who eateth with offence.
It seems to me that you believe "that man" is one who eats and offends others, not one who eats and is offended himself. In a few verses, we will see the clarification.
21 It is good neither to eat flesh, nor drink wine, nor any thing whereby thy brother stumbleth, of is offended, or is made weak.
Thus I brought up the pork chop.... I can also bring up wine. They even drank wine in the OT, yet alot of Christians today never drink any alcohol. John the Baptist didn't drink wine, but Jesus did. Did Jesus offend John by drinking? So does that mean their weakness prohibits me from having a glass of wine? Of course not!
22 Hast thou faith? have it to thyself before God. Happy is he that condemneth not himself in that thing which he alloweth.
The "it" is referring to the thing eaten, not one's convictions about it. The underlined portion of this verse shows that. It's talking about what allowing that which you actually eat, not how you feel about eating it. It also says he that allows it is not condemned. It doesn't exactly say that when taken by itself, so we must read the next verse.
23 And he that doubteth is damned if he eat, because he eatheth not of faith: for whatsoever is not of faith is sin.
So that clarifies it. It's a matter of showing the contrast between two people. If you eat in faith, you are not damned. If you doubteth then to you it is a sin and you are damned.
So yes, Paul is saying to have "it" (your meal, not your beliefs about it) before God. Furthermore, if you go to the beginning of this chapter and read the first 6 verses, it talks more about it. It is actually talking about those who eat and those who eat not -- not merely their convictions, but actually following through or not following through -- on them.
If that is true, let's talk about pork chops. We both know it is not allowed in the OT. So if a Christian (being weak in faith and knowledge) is offended by it, then I can never eat a pork chop, even if he is not around? I agree it would be wrong for me to invite him over and serve him it, but does that mean I can never have it?
I really don't have to use plain logic to point out that your belief (I'm reiterating it here to make sure I understand you) that meats offered to idols can't be ever eaten because it offends Jewish Christians.
20 For meat destroy not the work of God. All things indeed are pure; but it is evil for that man who eateth with offence.
It seems to me that you believe "that man" is one who eats and offends others, not one who eats and is offended himself. In a few verses, we will see the clarification.
21 It is good neither to eat flesh, nor drink wine, nor any thing whereby thy brother stumbleth, of is offended, or is made weak.
Thus I brought up the pork chop.... I can also bring up wine. They even drank wine in the OT, yet alot of Christians today never drink any alcohol. John the Baptist didn't drink wine, but Jesus did. Did Jesus offend John by drinking? So does that mean their weakness prohibits me from having a glass of wine? Of course not!
22 Hast thou faith? have it to thyself before God. Happy is he that condemneth not himself in that thing which he alloweth.
The "it" is referring to the thing eaten, not one's convictions about it. The underlined portion of this verse shows that. It's talking about what allowing that which you actually eat, not how you feel about eating it. It also says he that allows it is not condemned. It doesn't exactly say that when taken by itself, so we must read the next verse.
23 And he that doubteth is damned if he eat, because he eatheth not of faith: for whatsoever is not of faith is sin.
So that clarifies it. It's a matter of showing the contrast between two people. If you eat in faith, you are not damned. If you doubteth then to you it is a sin and you are damned.
So yes, Paul is saying to have "it" (your meal, not your beliefs about it) before God. Furthermore, if you go to the beginning of this chapter and read the first 6 verses, it talks more about it. It is actually talking about those who eat and those who eat not -- not merely their convictions, but actually following through or not following through -- on them.
Last edited by a moderator:
J
JoReba
Guest
To whom are you posting?
dadof10
Member
This has nothing to do with salvation. Nothing in these verses mentions salvation. There is a reference to sin, but not to salvation.
Are pork chops abhorrent to this hypothetical Christian? This is a false comparison. It's not a question of simple dislike, meat sacrificed to idols was part of the worship of the idols. The Jews were forbidden by God Himself from partaking. Some of the strongest language in the OT was reserved for this abhorrent practice, which is why Revelation ties it to horrible sin. Not even close. You can't compare a hypothetical Christian to a 1st century Jew.
The council said to abstain, so does Revelation. Why don't you?
Same argument as above.
Sorry, no. The "it" refers to "faith". Faith is the noun in the previous sentence and "it " refers back to faith. This fact is your main point and effects the rest of your argument below, so there's really nothing more to comment on. I would like to try and take you beyond this, though. Let's move on.
Suppose you are right. Paul is preaching that abstaining from meat sacrificed to idols is no big deal. "The council said it, but if you get hungry, go ahead and eat it, just not in front of the Jewish converts. Those apostles and elders in Jerusalem can't tell me what to teach and neither can John." It seems like, in your view, the Holy Spirit contradicts Himself. Paul, guided by the Holy Spirit, is teaching one thing, the council, guided by the same Holy Spirit, is teaching the opposite. How do you reconcile this in your mind? Does Scripture contradict itself in your opinion?, Is it wise to at least try to reconcile two seemingly contradictory views before we throw a Holy Spirit guided author (always James, never Paul) under the bus?
dadof10
Member
Romans 14:23 says that he that doubteth is damned if he eat, so maybe it has a little more to do with salvation than you think.
I am not really comparing a hypothetical Christian to a 1st century Jew. Would that 1st century Jew find it abhorrent to eat pork? I think so. Furthermore, Romans 14:21 say:
It is good neither to eat flesh, nor to drink wine, nor any thing whereby thy brother stumbleth...."
So yes, the pork chop and wine are included by Paul. In fact, he specifically mentioned wine!
Because Paul said it didn't matter, just don't do it in the presence of weak brethren.
It really helps if you read the Bible in context. We can't get caught up in reading the Bible by verses instead of as a letter, which it was originally written in. Here is the proper context:
"For meat destroy not the work of God. All things indeed are pure; but it is evil for that man who eateth with offence. It is good neither to eat flesh, nor to drink wine, nor any thing whereby thy brother stumbleth, or is offended, or is made weak. Hast thou faith? Have it to thyself before God. Happy is he that condemneth not himself in that thing which he alloweth. And he that doubteth is damned if he eat because he eateth not of faith: for whatsoever is not of faith is sin."
You are going to be hard pressed to find a Biblical scholar, Pastor, knowledgable Christian or even a Language arts teacher who agrees with you on your assertion that the "it" refers to faith and not the main subject of the conversation.
The council didn't say that. They flat out said, "don't do it." They [the council] never said, "just don't do it in front of us", like Paul said. What Paul is saying is don't do it if it offends your brother.
Paul said if it or any thing else causes your brother to stumble, don't do it for their conscience sake. He did say he would never eat meats sacrificed to idols, but he was saying "in front of them or in their presence. If he were around the gentiles, he would eat what the gentiles eat. If he were around Jews, he would do what the Jews did.
He also said that when you go to buy your food, don't even question where it came from. If you are invited to dinner, don't question where it came from, but if someone objects, for their sake don't eat it.
Furthermore, when Paul said he would never eat something that offends a weak brethren, you have to look at it from his frame of reference. He was a traveling Apostle who came in contact with many different levels of belief and understanding. He wasn't laying that on everyone, because not everyone was in his situation. he did say that IF you come in contact with a weak brethren, do as I do.
I'd me more than happy to put the verse in Revelation in proper context for you, but until you understand the simple fact that Paul said, "Have it (meaning the meal, not faith) to thyself before God", it's not going to matter.
dadof10
Member
Really? So Scripture teaches that if you doubt and eat of meat sacrificed to idols, you will lose your salvation? So we are justified by faith and proper eating habits? :biglol
This is so convoluted it's not worth my time to cut and paste all the relevant give and take. Bad analogy.
And AGAIN, you will not address the FACT that Scripture calls the decision (which includes meat sacrificed to idols) guided by the Spirit, and the eating of the meat "evil" according to Revelation. I notice your last two posts have completely ignored these two FACTS, in favor of "well, Paul said it doesn't matter." When do you think you'll be getting around to actually addressing the points I've been bringing up for 5 posts now? Have you "laid the groundwork" yet?
Step out of the KJV, which was written in the 17th century, and read an updated version for a change. The KJV is accurate, but so are most of the modern translations, which also take into consideration the latest MMS and Biblical scholarship.
You are completely wrong here, Slider. Here are a few other versions that prove it.
NIV:
22 So whatever you believe about these things keep between yourself and God. Blessed is the one who does not condemn himself by what he approves. 23 But whoever has doubts is condemned if they eat, because their eating is not from faith; and everything that does not come from faith is sin.[c]
ESV:
22 The faith that you have, keep between yourself and God. Blessed is the one who has no reason to pass judgment on himself for what he approves. 23 But whoever has doubts is condemned if he eats, because the eating is not from faith. For whatever does not proceed from faith is sin.[d]
NASB:
22 The faith which you have, have [j]as your own conviction before God. Happy is he who does not condemn himself in what he approves. 23 But he who doubts is condemned if he eats, because his eating is not from faith; and whatever is not from faith is sin.
The "it" here is "your faith" or what you "believe". Here are three "biblical scholars" who agree with me, and there are plenty more over at Bible Gateway. I wasn't hard pressed at all.
It would help to keep up and actually read what I post, all of it, not just part. Here is what you pasted and responded to:
Originally Posted by dadof10
Suppose you are right. Paul is preaching that abstaining from meat sacrificed to idols is no big deal. "The council said it, but if you get hungry, go ahead and eat it, just not in front of the Jewish converts.
You didn't even paste the whole quote, which was OBVIOUSLY written from the perspective of paraphrasing what you want Paul to have said. Here it is:
Suppose you are right. Paul is preaching that abstaining from meat sacrificed to idols is no big deal. "The council said it, but if you get hungry, go ahead and eat it, just not in front of the Jewish converts. Those apostles and elders in Jerusalem can't tell me what to teach and neither can John."
Why did you cut out the part that OBVIOUSLY explained what I was doing, then react impetuously to ANOTHER straw-man? This is bordering on deceit. But, I understand. It's all you have on this subject and you're getting desperate.
OK. Let me try again, SUPPOSE YOU'RE RIGHT....I'll just paste the UNANSWERED question again, so you can ignore it again.
Suppose you are right. Paul is preaching that abstaining from meat sacrificed to idols is no big deal. "The council said it, but if you get hungry, go ahead and eat it, just not in front of the Jewish converts. Those apostles and elders in Jerusalem can't tell me what to teach and neither can John." It seems like, in your view, the Holy Spirit contradicts Himself. Paul, guided by the Holy Spirit, is teaching one thing, the council, guided by the same Holy Spirit, is teaching the opposite. How do you reconcile this in your mind? Does Scripture contradict itself in your opinion?, Is it wise to at least try to reconcile two seemingly contradictory views before we throw a Holy Spirit guided author (always James, never Paul) under the bus?
So, you can finally get around to answering a point I've been posting for two weeks, but ONLY if I can "understand" your misunderstanding of Scripture? More desperation.
Dadof10,
Romans 14:23 says what is says. It says "he that doubteth is damned if he eats". I don't question what that means. As to whether we are justified by faith and proper eating habits; no we are not, That seems to be the conclusion of the council at Jerusalem, though. What Paul was saying in this verse is that if you don't believe in grace through faith, then when you sin, it's damning to you.
There is nothing convoluted about Romans 14:21. It says that you shouldn't eat flesh, drink wine or do anything that causes your brother to stumble. It's pretty straight forward. The "wine" covers the wine portion of my debate (Paul said it) and the "any thing" covers the pork chop.
Now, I said, "Because Paul said it didn't matter, just don't do it in the presence of weak brethren." You're answer was:
"And AGAIN, you will not address the FACT that Scripture calls the decision (which includes meat sacrificed to idols) guided by the Spirit, and the eating of the meat "evil" according to Revelation. I notice your last two posts have completely ignored these two FACTS, in favor of "well, Paul said it doesn't matter." When do you think you'll be getting around to actually addressing the points I've been bringing up for 5 posts now? Have you "laid the groundwork" yet? "
So what you did is completely ignore the statement and sidetrack the discussion. yes, I've laid the groundwork, but you fail to understand it. When you are ready to accept the fact that Paul did not preach the dietary restrictions given by the council and in fact said the opposite (yet he also said don't offend these weak brethren), then I can move on.
Isaiah 28:10 says that precept must be on precept. It's not going to do you any good for me to discuss these things unless you understand the basics, and it'd be a waste of my time, so it does neither of us any good.
As for me stepping out from the KJV.... Sorry, won't do. It's a personal conviction of mine to stick with one version, and it so happens to be the KJV. I've never asked you to read another version or multiple versions, so I expect the same curtiousy.
I have a friend who borrowed my lawnmower. He lives about 10 miles away. Do you have a pickup truck? Good. Go and get it!
Now what did I just ask you to do? Get your truck or the lawnmower? Obviously, yes, you have to get your truck, but it was in order to get the lawnmower. But the focus was getting the lawnmower. Likewise, faith is the vehicle to being able to eat anything, but when Pauls says, "Have it to thyself..." he's talking about the meal not faith.
When was the last time you read 1 Cor 10:24 through the end of the chapter? Paul clearly explains his point.
You then went into a discourse claiming I only partially quoted you. You're right. I did. Why because when you said, "Suppose you are right..." This indicates to me that you don't believe me, so why should I bother? When you are ready to admit I'm right, then we will discuss your question.
Furthermore, you missed my point. The council never said at all, "don't do it in front of us". They just said, Abstain from it. It is Paul that is saying "have it to thyself before God". It is Paul who is saying it's lawful but don't use your liberty as an occasion to offend.
I've mentioned this several times before and you just don't seem to get it. What was the council's decision concerning dietary practices? Here it is:
"But that we write unto them, that they abstain from pollutions of idols, and from fornication, and from things stangled, and from blood."
They later clarified this to say:
"that ye abstain from meats offered to idols, and from blood....."
Now, what did Paul have to say about it? Well, in Galatians chapter 2 he convienently never mentioned it when he was recounting. However, that's beside the point. In Romans 14 he says, "Have it to thyself before God." And in 1 Cor 10 he further expounds upon it, which proves my point that yes, he was saying don't do it around weak Christians. But the fact remains.... The council said "don't do it" and Paul says "it's ok to have it, but don't offend weak Christians with it, so don't do it around them."
See, if you don't understand that Paul never preached the guidelines the council gave, and in fact said just the opposite, you aren't going to understand why the Holy Ghost wasn't involved with that part of the decision. Paul already was certified by the Holy Ghost and his preaching was not the same as what the council wanted. There isn't any "supposing I am right". It either is or it isn't.
Yet I have provided evidence that James and his followers were still zealous for the law and still followed the law. If the Holy Ghost guided Paul in saying we are free from the law, then I'm not going to believe James who instructed and believed that we still must keep it. So why are you throwing Paul under the Bus and accusing me of throwing James under the Bus?
I am not throwing James under the bus.... I'm flat out agreeing with the Bible that what he taught he believed and I (as well as Paul) disagreed. Scripture doesn't contradict itself, but that doesn't mean the apostles and James didn't disagree. Paul hardly got along with anyone, ain't that right? He Publically confronted Peter, he disagreed with James, and there was so much contention between Barnabas and John that they parted ways. And, without speculating too much, it's pretty curious that all these happened shortly after this council. Hmmmm....
But in any sense, you are failing to see that Paul never followed up on the council's decisions. He actually preached contrary to those decisions, but said don't do it in the prescence of weak brethren.
So, I promised I'd answer your questions, and regardless of whether you realize these truths or not, I'll proceed. I have doubt on whether you'll accept this meat, when you can't even stomache the milk.
Romans 14:23 says what is says. It says "he that doubteth is damned if he eats". I don't question what that means. As to whether we are justified by faith and proper eating habits; no we are not, That seems to be the conclusion of the council at Jerusalem, though. What Paul was saying in this verse is that if you don't believe in grace through faith, then when you sin, it's damning to you.
There is nothing convoluted about Romans 14:21. It says that you shouldn't eat flesh, drink wine or do anything that causes your brother to stumble. It's pretty straight forward. The "wine" covers the wine portion of my debate (Paul said it) and the "any thing" covers the pork chop.
Now, I said, "Because Paul said it didn't matter, just don't do it in the presence of weak brethren." You're answer was:
"And AGAIN, you will not address the FACT that Scripture calls the decision (which includes meat sacrificed to idols) guided by the Spirit, and the eating of the meat "evil" according to Revelation. I notice your last two posts have completely ignored these two FACTS, in favor of "well, Paul said it doesn't matter." When do you think you'll be getting around to actually addressing the points I've been bringing up for 5 posts now? Have you "laid the groundwork" yet? "
So what you did is completely ignore the statement and sidetrack the discussion. yes, I've laid the groundwork, but you fail to understand it. When you are ready to accept the fact that Paul did not preach the dietary restrictions given by the council and in fact said the opposite (yet he also said don't offend these weak brethren), then I can move on.
Isaiah 28:10 says that precept must be on precept. It's not going to do you any good for me to discuss these things unless you understand the basics, and it'd be a waste of my time, so it does neither of us any good.
As for me stepping out from the KJV.... Sorry, won't do. It's a personal conviction of mine to stick with one version, and it so happens to be the KJV. I've never asked you to read another version or multiple versions, so I expect the same curtiousy.
I have a friend who borrowed my lawnmower. He lives about 10 miles away. Do you have a pickup truck? Good. Go and get it!
Now what did I just ask you to do? Get your truck or the lawnmower? Obviously, yes, you have to get your truck, but it was in order to get the lawnmower. But the focus was getting the lawnmower. Likewise, faith is the vehicle to being able to eat anything, but when Pauls says, "Have it to thyself..." he's talking about the meal not faith.
When was the last time you read 1 Cor 10:24 through the end of the chapter? Paul clearly explains his point.
You then went into a discourse claiming I only partially quoted you. You're right. I did. Why because when you said, "Suppose you are right..." This indicates to me that you don't believe me, so why should I bother? When you are ready to admit I'm right, then we will discuss your question.
Furthermore, you missed my point. The council never said at all, "don't do it in front of us". They just said, Abstain from it. It is Paul that is saying "have it to thyself before God". It is Paul who is saying it's lawful but don't use your liberty as an occasion to offend.
I've mentioned this several times before and you just don't seem to get it. What was the council's decision concerning dietary practices? Here it is:
"But that we write unto them, that they abstain from pollutions of idols, and from fornication, and from things stangled, and from blood."
They later clarified this to say:
"that ye abstain from meats offered to idols, and from blood....."
Now, what did Paul have to say about it? Well, in Galatians chapter 2 he convienently never mentioned it when he was recounting. However, that's beside the point. In Romans 14 he says, "Have it to thyself before God." And in 1 Cor 10 he further expounds upon it, which proves my point that yes, he was saying don't do it around weak Christians. But the fact remains.... The council said "don't do it" and Paul says "it's ok to have it, but don't offend weak Christians with it, so don't do it around them."
See, if you don't understand that Paul never preached the guidelines the council gave, and in fact said just the opposite, you aren't going to understand why the Holy Ghost wasn't involved with that part of the decision. Paul already was certified by the Holy Ghost and his preaching was not the same as what the council wanted. There isn't any "supposing I am right". It either is or it isn't.
Yet I have provided evidence that James and his followers were still zealous for the law and still followed the law. If the Holy Ghost guided Paul in saying we are free from the law, then I'm not going to believe James who instructed and believed that we still must keep it. So why are you throwing Paul under the Bus and accusing me of throwing James under the Bus?
I am not throwing James under the bus.... I'm flat out agreeing with the Bible that what he taught he believed and I (as well as Paul) disagreed. Scripture doesn't contradict itself, but that doesn't mean the apostles and James didn't disagree. Paul hardly got along with anyone, ain't that right? He Publically confronted Peter, he disagreed with James, and there was so much contention between Barnabas and John that they parted ways. And, without speculating too much, it's pretty curious that all these happened shortly after this council. Hmmmm....
But in any sense, you are failing to see that Paul never followed up on the council's decisions. He actually preached contrary to those decisions, but said don't do it in the prescence of weak brethren.
So, I promised I'd answer your questions, and regardless of whether you realize these truths or not, I'll proceed. I have doubt on whether you'll accept this meat, when you can't even stomache the milk.
Revelation 2:14
“But I have a few things against thee, because thou hast there them that hold the doctrine of Balaam, who taught Balac to cast a stumbling block before the children of Israel, to eat things sacrificed unto idols, and to commit fornication.â€
If we are talking about whether it’s wrong to eat things offered to idols, this verse comes up. It was not the eating of things sacrificed unto idols that was the problem. It was a symptom of a real problem. The real problem was the doctrine of Balaam.
If you have a cold, you might have a stuffy nose. Yet, when you go to the doctor, he’s not going to tell you that you suffer from a stuffy nose. The problem is that you have a common cold. The stuffy nose is just a symptom of it. It is the same thing here. Those at Pergamos were eating meats offered to idols, but that was not the problem. Paul didn’t have a problem with that in his writings. The Doctrine of Balaam, was the problem.
You have to understand what the doctrine of Balaam is. Balaam is most remembered for having a talking “donkey†that prevented him from cursing Israel. That was the error of Balaam in Jude 1:11. It is not the doctrine of Balaam, which can be found in Numbers 31:16 and the preceding chapters. As Israel was passing through Moab, they took in wives and allowed heathen customs into their worship.
So the problem was not eating the meat which was offered to idols that bothered the Lord in Pergamos. It was integrating false religion with Truth that was the problem. One of those items was eating meats offered to idols; the other was fornication (this time, both literal and spiritual fornication).
Now, just in case you want to say that eating meats offered to idols was a completely different problem, we still have to look at what Paul was talking about and what John was talking about.
So, it was wrong to eat meats offered to idols in Revelations, but Paul said it was ok? It does sound like a contradiction (and Paul DID say it was ok). But you have to understand that they weren’t talking about the exact same thing.
Paul was definitely against offering meats to idols and then eating that meat. There is no question there. He preached against it, but he was not against eating meats that had been offered to idols. When a heathen killed a cow or whatever animal in honor of a god, they then took the meat and gave it to charity, took it for themselves or sold the beef to a market. Paul is not saying partake in the ritual, but the meat is ok to eat. He is saying it doesn't matter where the meat came from as long as you don't actually sacrific it to idols. What they were doing at Pergamos was partaking in the ritual and mixing it with Christianity. Paul was against that.
The Biblical reference that backs this up is 1 Corinthians 10:25-33. Paul said if you by something from the market, don’t question where it came from – it doesn’t matter if it was formally offered to an idol. If someone invites you to dinner, don’t question about the meat's past history. Eat it. However, if someone objects and says it was offered to an idol, then for their sake – not your own – don’t eat it.
So again, the problem was the Doctrine of Balaam. You may not agree with me on what the Doctrine of Balaam is, but it is sufficient to say that no matter what it is, the problem was that they were allowing it in the first place. You can’t integrate pagan customs with God’s Word. You buy a steak at the supermarket, then it doesn’t matter where it came from or what its history was. Have it to thyself before God and have it to HIS glory. If you actually took part in the sacrifice ritual of that animal, then there is a problem.
“But I have a few things against thee, because thou hast there them that hold the doctrine of Balaam, who taught Balac to cast a stumbling block before the children of Israel, to eat things sacrificed unto idols, and to commit fornication.â€
If we are talking about whether it’s wrong to eat things offered to idols, this verse comes up. It was not the eating of things sacrificed unto idols that was the problem. It was a symptom of a real problem. The real problem was the doctrine of Balaam.
If you have a cold, you might have a stuffy nose. Yet, when you go to the doctor, he’s not going to tell you that you suffer from a stuffy nose. The problem is that you have a common cold. The stuffy nose is just a symptom of it. It is the same thing here. Those at Pergamos were eating meats offered to idols, but that was not the problem. Paul didn’t have a problem with that in his writings. The Doctrine of Balaam, was the problem.
You have to understand what the doctrine of Balaam is. Balaam is most remembered for having a talking “donkey†that prevented him from cursing Israel. That was the error of Balaam in Jude 1:11. It is not the doctrine of Balaam, which can be found in Numbers 31:16 and the preceding chapters. As Israel was passing through Moab, they took in wives and allowed heathen customs into their worship.
So the problem was not eating the meat which was offered to idols that bothered the Lord in Pergamos. It was integrating false religion with Truth that was the problem. One of those items was eating meats offered to idols; the other was fornication (this time, both literal and spiritual fornication).
Now, just in case you want to say that eating meats offered to idols was a completely different problem, we still have to look at what Paul was talking about and what John was talking about.
So, it was wrong to eat meats offered to idols in Revelations, but Paul said it was ok? It does sound like a contradiction (and Paul DID say it was ok). But you have to understand that they weren’t talking about the exact same thing.
Paul was definitely against offering meats to idols and then eating that meat. There is no question there. He preached against it, but he was not against eating meats that had been offered to idols. When a heathen killed a cow or whatever animal in honor of a god, they then took the meat and gave it to charity, took it for themselves or sold the beef to a market. Paul is not saying partake in the ritual, but the meat is ok to eat. He is saying it doesn't matter where the meat came from as long as you don't actually sacrific it to idols. What they were doing at Pergamos was partaking in the ritual and mixing it with Christianity. Paul was against that.
The Biblical reference that backs this up is 1 Corinthians 10:25-33. Paul said if you by something from the market, don’t question where it came from – it doesn’t matter if it was formally offered to an idol. If someone invites you to dinner, don’t question about the meat's past history. Eat it. However, if someone objects and says it was offered to an idol, then for their sake – not your own – don’t eat it.
So again, the problem was the Doctrine of Balaam. You may not agree with me on what the Doctrine of Balaam is, but it is sufficient to say that no matter what it is, the problem was that they were allowing it in the first place. You can’t integrate pagan customs with God’s Word. You buy a steak at the supermarket, then it doesn’t matter where it came from or what its history was. Have it to thyself before God and have it to HIS glory. If you actually took part in the sacrifice ritual of that animal, then there is a problem.
The Holy Ghost and the Council of Jerusalem
Acts 15:28:
“For it seemed good tothe Holy Ghost, and to us, to lay upon you no greater burden than thesenecessary things; That ye abstain from meats offered to idols, and from blood,and from things strangled, and from fornication: from which if ye keep yourselves, ye shall dowell. Fare ye well.â€
James and the council wrote this to the gentiles for Pauland Barnabas to relay, which they did. The letter also says that the Jewish Christians would no longer requirecircumcision and the following of the law (or that part of it). But was this decision inspired or endorsed bythe Holy Ghost as James claimed?
The answer is dependant on what Paul preached concerning thedecision. When the council decided thatcircumcision was no longer necessary for the gentiles, I’m sure that eventhough he didn’t need their decision, he was pleased with it. Certainly the Holy Ghost was pleased with it,as even James admitted it was foreordained and foretold in the book of Amos. The difference in what the council decidedand what Paul preached is with the amendments to that decision. Those amendments include:
Let’s look at the first one: abstain from meats offered to idols. Here is what Paul had to say:
Rom 14:14 I know,and am persuaded by the Lord Jesus, that thereis nothing unclean of itself: but tohim that esteemeth anything to be unclean, to him it is unclean.
Rom 14:20 For meat destroy not the work of God. All things indeed are pure, but it isevil for that man who eateth with offence.
Rom 14:22 Hastthou faith? Have it to thyself before God. Happy is he that condemneth not himself in that thing which he alloweth.
1 Co 8:8 But meat commendeth us not to God: for neither, if we eat, are we the better;neither, if we eat not, are we the worse.
1 Co 10:25 Whatsoever is sold in the shambles, that eat, asking no question forconscience sake.
1 Co 10:27 If any ofthem that believe not bid you to a feast, and ye be disposed to go; whatsoever is set before you, eat,asking no question for conscience sake.
1 Co 10:31 Whether therefore ye eat, or drink, or whatsoeverye do, do all to the glory of God.
1 Co 10:23 All things are lawful for me, but allthings are not expedient: all things arelawful for me, but all things edify not.
1 Ti 4:1-4 Now theSpirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from thefaith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and to doctrines of devils; Speaking lies in hypocrisy; having theirconscinec seared with a hot iron; Forbidding to marry, and commandingto abstain from meats, which God hatcreated to be received with thanksgiving of them which believe and know thetruth. For every creature of God isgood, and nothing to be refused, if it be received with thanksgiving.
Col 2:16 Let no man therefore judge you in meat, orin drink, or in respect of an holyday, or of the new moon, or of theSabbath days:
It is true that while we are not to use thisliberty as and occasion to offend. Pauldoes mention that in Romans and several times in 1 Corinthians. But these are 10 verses, which in propercontext, Paul says that we don’t have to abstain from any meat, whether it isoffered to idols or not. Paul also wasagainst actually offering meats to idols. That is worshipping false gods and, he preached against it (1 Cor 10:20,for example). However, he was notagainst eating the meat that was offered to idols once it was served to you orsold in the market.
What was the council’s decision? That they abstain from meats offered toidols. What did Paul have to say aboutit? He said it was lawful, and ok tohave as long as it didn’t offend weak brethren.
The second/third request the council made (abstain fromthings strangled, and from blood) Paul never directly said anything abouteither way. These were both forbidden bythe Law of Moses. Neither of them haveto do with idoltry, but rather it was seen as improper because Jews were not toeat/drink animal blood. When somethingwas strangled, the blood didn’t drain out properly.
In a commentary on Acts 15, John Gill notes:
“…and from things strangled; that is; from eating them, and designsuch as die of themselves, or are torn with beasts, or are not killed in aproper way, by letting out their blood;â€
He goes on to make a startling point. He goes on to note that in Due 14:21 thatwhile the Hebrews weren’t to eat such meat, they could sell it or give it tothe gentiles. So when James and thecouncil decided to lay this demand on the gentiles, they were actually goingagainst what the law of Moses allowed the gentiles to have! That’s right! The council freed them from one point of thelaw, yet brought them into bondage on another point, which the law originallyallowed the gentiles to have!
However, Paul never directly addresses these twopoints. Indirectly, he said all things werelawful, and all meats are allowable. This would include things strangled and blood.
So it is clear that Paul did not agree with thecouncil’s decision on the dietary guidelines. The Law of Moses didn’t even agree with it, if Gill’s commentary is accurate. We have to ask then if Paul was led to teachthe things he did by the Holy Spirit. Itisn’t even reasonable to question this; he was.
Next, let’s examine what Paul thought of thecouncil’s decision. First off, he didn’tneed the council’s decision. We have twopieces of evidence that he was already preaching freedom from circumcisionbefore the council’s decision.
The first is found in Acts 15:1-2:
“And certain men which came down from Judaea taught the brethren, and said, Exceptye be circumcised after the manner of Moses, ye cannot be saved. When therefore Paul and Barnabas had no smalldissension and disputation with them, they determined that Paul and Barnabas,and certain other of them, should go up to Jerusalem unto the apostles andelders about this question.â€
Paul and Barnabas were already preaching that circumcision wasn’t necessary. There wasno small dissension and disputation with them, which means it was an all outfight, much like we are having now! Itwasn’t a small dissension, it was a huge one! So Paul was already preaching “no circumcision†before these folks movedin.
By the way, these trouble makers… What did Paulcall them? Galatians 2 coincides withActs 15. Specificallty, Galatians 2:4coincides with Acts 15:1-2. He calledthem “false brethrenâ€.
The second piece of evidence is from Galatians2:6. Paul said that even though hedebated with them, listened to them and discussed the situation with them thatthey “added nothing to himâ€. Galatians 2isn’t a “happy chapterâ€. Paul is prettypissed off in it. Some people like toclean it up and say, “well, they didn’t add anything to his doctrine or what hewas teaching!†Ok… I’ll take that! He was already preaching it, so the councilmattered nothing to him. But with Paulcharging some as false brethren (not even “weak brethren†as he did severaltimes in Romans and Corinthians), him saying James and John and Peter “seemedâ€to be pillars and whatever their reputation was, he really didn’t care, andwith him telling the story that he got in Peter’s face about him being ahypocrite…. It really doesn’t make me think he thought a whole lot of goodabout that council.
Let me throw this in. Paul met Peter face to face! He didn’t say, “Now sweet brother. Let us pray over this. I have contentions with you and I just don’tthink you are doing right. Perhaps weshould go back to Jerusalem, pray with Brother James, ask his opinion and talkto the council. Then, we will all abideby their decision!†No, he called Cephas,the Rock, the guy who had the keys to Heaven, one of three apostles who wasclosest to Jesus out of 12, ahypocrite! He got in his face and calledhim out! There wasn’t a friggin’ councilabout it! I don’t have any verse thatsays he was upset at James the son of Zebedee, but I do have the verse thatthere was strong contention (and no council to sort out the problem) with John.
I’ll throw this in as well. Apparently, the council at Jerusalem didn’thave much of an effect. The Galatianswere still being harassed by Judiazers. Thus, Paul didn’t comfort them, he scolded them for not believing whathe (Paul) already told them and what the council had upheld. James’ own followers didn’t live up to it!
Now, back to the discussion. Paul did not abide by the council’srules. He preached otherwise. Because they were weak Christians (doesn’tthat bother anyone…. These folks atJerusalem…. Paul labeled them “weakâ€. Doesn’t that tell you something? He didn’t hate them, but clearly hecalls them weak…. Who wants to follow someone who is “weak†in doctrine? I certainly don’t!) he says “appeasethem. Keep the peace. However, he already made up his mind what wasto be preached about circumcision and eating of meats.
Paul didn’t need the council of Jerusalem’sverdict any more than Martin Luther needed the German princes’ decision to backhim. His mind was made up. The council added nothing to him. Like Martin Luther, he used it… But it didn’tchange his mind. His mind was alreadyset.
So, when someone asks me “If Paul had the HolyGhost, and James and the council had the Holy Ghost, how did theydisagree?†Well, I ask you. Clearly they did disagree. It’s not my question to answer. I have given a lot of scripture that showsthey disagree, and left a lot out. Youtell me! But clearly, James and Paulwere not on the same page. Paul preacheddifferently from the council’s decision on the amendments, he clearly had nointention of preaching differently from whatever decision they came up with,and he didn’t have a whole lot to say good about the council to theGalatians.
God, who sent lying spirits, strong delusions andfalse prophets can send the Holy Ghost for this purpose. The decision to look over circumcision, yea…That was of the Holy Spirit. But therest of the decisions, well… If you think Paul preached wrong, then the HolyGhost wasn’t sent to Paul on that.
Had the Holy Ghost done that before to theApostles? Jesus told Peter, “whatsoeveryou bind on earth will be bound on heaven.†Yet, Peter argued mightily with the Lord about meats. Jesus neglected to tell Peter, “now I’m goingto tell you what you will bind!â€
Peter thought the Holy Ghost was telling him tostart an election to replace Judas…. The “council†picked Matthias. Who did God pick? Paul. There is your only other council in theNew Testament other than that of Jerusalem and the multiple councils held bythe Pharisees. It was one that produceda wrong decision! You’re batting .000 on councils at this point! Itdoesn’t matter if anyone says the Holy Ghost enters into the situation, it onlymatters if he actually does.
The Bible says God declares (not only sees, butactually plans) the end from the beginning. I have mentioned this before, and I do so now… It would not be surprising to me IF the HolyGhost did guide the decision, though it was seemingly against God’s plan forPaul. He hardened Pharaoh’s heartagainst Moses while telling Moses to challenge him. Had not the Holy Ghost entered into the situation (though he was clearly on theside of Grace through Faith as Paul preached), then Paul would not have had theopportunity for write Galatians, Romans 14, and I Cor chapters 8 through11.
You may not understand why God would let Jamesmake an error in order to bring Paul’s preaching come to pass, but I do. It was so God could reveal that our works donot effect our salvation.
Acts 15:28:
“For it seemed good tothe Holy Ghost, and to us, to lay upon you no greater burden than thesenecessary things; That ye abstain from meats offered to idols, and from blood,and from things strangled, and from fornication: from which if ye keep yourselves, ye shall dowell. Fare ye well.â€
James and the council wrote this to the gentiles for Pauland Barnabas to relay, which they did. The letter also says that the Jewish Christians would no longer requirecircumcision and the following of the law (or that part of it). But was this decision inspired or endorsed bythe Holy Ghost as James claimed?
The answer is dependant on what Paul preached concerning thedecision. When the council decided thatcircumcision was no longer necessary for the gentiles, I’m sure that eventhough he didn’t need their decision, he was pleased with it. Certainly the Holy Ghost was pleased with it,as even James admitted it was foreordained and foretold in the book of Amos. The difference in what the council decidedand what Paul preached is with the amendments to that decision. Those amendments include:
- That ye abstain from meats offered to idols.
- That ye abstain from blood.
- That ye abstain from things strangled.
- That ye abstain from fornication.
Let’s look at the first one: abstain from meats offered to idols. Here is what Paul had to say:
Rom 14:14 I know,and am persuaded by the Lord Jesus, that thereis nothing unclean of itself: but tohim that esteemeth anything to be unclean, to him it is unclean.
Rom 14:20 For meat destroy not the work of God. All things indeed are pure, but it isevil for that man who eateth with offence.
Rom 14:22 Hastthou faith? Have it to thyself before God. Happy is he that condemneth not himself in that thing which he alloweth.
1 Co 8:8 But meat commendeth us not to God: for neither, if we eat, are we the better;neither, if we eat not, are we the worse.
1 Co 10:25 Whatsoever is sold in the shambles, that eat, asking no question forconscience sake.
1 Co 10:27 If any ofthem that believe not bid you to a feast, and ye be disposed to go; whatsoever is set before you, eat,asking no question for conscience sake.
1 Co 10:31 Whether therefore ye eat, or drink, or whatsoeverye do, do all to the glory of God.
1 Co 10:23 All things are lawful for me, but allthings are not expedient: all things arelawful for me, but all things edify not.
1 Ti 4:1-4 Now theSpirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from thefaith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and to doctrines of devils; Speaking lies in hypocrisy; having theirconscinec seared with a hot iron; Forbidding to marry, and commandingto abstain from meats, which God hatcreated to be received with thanksgiving of them which believe and know thetruth. For every creature of God isgood, and nothing to be refused, if it be received with thanksgiving.
Col 2:16 Let no man therefore judge you in meat, orin drink, or in respect of an holyday, or of the new moon, or of theSabbath days:
It is true that while we are not to use thisliberty as and occasion to offend. Pauldoes mention that in Romans and several times in 1 Corinthians. But these are 10 verses, which in propercontext, Paul says that we don’t have to abstain from any meat, whether it isoffered to idols or not. Paul also wasagainst actually offering meats to idols. That is worshipping false gods and, he preached against it (1 Cor 10:20,for example). However, he was notagainst eating the meat that was offered to idols once it was served to you orsold in the market.
What was the council’s decision? That they abstain from meats offered toidols. What did Paul have to say aboutit? He said it was lawful, and ok tohave as long as it didn’t offend weak brethren.
The second/third request the council made (abstain fromthings strangled, and from blood) Paul never directly said anything abouteither way. These were both forbidden bythe Law of Moses. Neither of them haveto do with idoltry, but rather it was seen as improper because Jews were not toeat/drink animal blood. When somethingwas strangled, the blood didn’t drain out properly.
In a commentary on Acts 15, John Gill notes:
“…and from things strangled; that is; from eating them, and designsuch as die of themselves, or are torn with beasts, or are not killed in aproper way, by letting out their blood;â€
He goes on to make a startling point. He goes on to note that in Due 14:21 thatwhile the Hebrews weren’t to eat such meat, they could sell it or give it tothe gentiles. So when James and thecouncil decided to lay this demand on the gentiles, they were actually goingagainst what the law of Moses allowed the gentiles to have! That’s right! The council freed them from one point of thelaw, yet brought them into bondage on another point, which the law originallyallowed the gentiles to have!
However, Paul never directly addresses these twopoints. Indirectly, he said all things werelawful, and all meats are allowable. This would include things strangled and blood.
So it is clear that Paul did not agree with thecouncil’s decision on the dietary guidelines. The Law of Moses didn’t even agree with it, if Gill’s commentary is accurate. We have to ask then if Paul was led to teachthe things he did by the Holy Spirit. Itisn’t even reasonable to question this; he was.
Next, let’s examine what Paul thought of thecouncil’s decision. First off, he didn’tneed the council’s decision. We have twopieces of evidence that he was already preaching freedom from circumcisionbefore the council’s decision.
The first is found in Acts 15:1-2:
“And certain men which came down from Judaea taught the brethren, and said, Exceptye be circumcised after the manner of Moses, ye cannot be saved. When therefore Paul and Barnabas had no smalldissension and disputation with them, they determined that Paul and Barnabas,and certain other of them, should go up to Jerusalem unto the apostles andelders about this question.â€
Paul and Barnabas were already preaching that circumcision wasn’t necessary. There wasno small dissension and disputation with them, which means it was an all outfight, much like we are having now! Itwasn’t a small dissension, it was a huge one! So Paul was already preaching “no circumcision†before these folks movedin.
By the way, these trouble makers… What did Paulcall them? Galatians 2 coincides withActs 15. Specificallty, Galatians 2:4coincides with Acts 15:1-2. He calledthem “false brethrenâ€.
The second piece of evidence is from Galatians2:6. Paul said that even though hedebated with them, listened to them and discussed the situation with them thatthey “added nothing to himâ€. Galatians 2isn’t a “happy chapterâ€. Paul is prettypissed off in it. Some people like toclean it up and say, “well, they didn’t add anything to his doctrine or what hewas teaching!†Ok… I’ll take that! He was already preaching it, so the councilmattered nothing to him. But with Paulcharging some as false brethren (not even “weak brethren†as he did severaltimes in Romans and Corinthians), him saying James and John and Peter “seemedâ€to be pillars and whatever their reputation was, he really didn’t care, andwith him telling the story that he got in Peter’s face about him being ahypocrite…. It really doesn’t make me think he thought a whole lot of goodabout that council.
Let me throw this in. Paul met Peter face to face! He didn’t say, “Now sweet brother. Let us pray over this. I have contentions with you and I just don’tthink you are doing right. Perhaps weshould go back to Jerusalem, pray with Brother James, ask his opinion and talkto the council. Then, we will all abideby their decision!†No, he called Cephas,the Rock, the guy who had the keys to Heaven, one of three apostles who wasclosest to Jesus out of 12, ahypocrite! He got in his face and calledhim out! There wasn’t a friggin’ councilabout it! I don’t have any verse thatsays he was upset at James the son of Zebedee, but I do have the verse thatthere was strong contention (and no council to sort out the problem) with John.
I’ll throw this in as well. Apparently, the council at Jerusalem didn’thave much of an effect. The Galatianswere still being harassed by Judiazers. Thus, Paul didn’t comfort them, he scolded them for not believing whathe (Paul) already told them and what the council had upheld. James’ own followers didn’t live up to it!
Now, back to the discussion. Paul did not abide by the council’srules. He preached otherwise. Because they were weak Christians (doesn’tthat bother anyone…. These folks atJerusalem…. Paul labeled them “weakâ€. Doesn’t that tell you something? He didn’t hate them, but clearly hecalls them weak…. Who wants to follow someone who is “weak†in doctrine? I certainly don’t!) he says “appeasethem. Keep the peace. However, he already made up his mind what wasto be preached about circumcision and eating of meats.
Paul didn’t need the council of Jerusalem’sverdict any more than Martin Luther needed the German princes’ decision to backhim. His mind was made up. The council added nothing to him. Like Martin Luther, he used it… But it didn’tchange his mind. His mind was alreadyset.
So, when someone asks me “If Paul had the HolyGhost, and James and the council had the Holy Ghost, how did theydisagree?†Well, I ask you. Clearly they did disagree. It’s not my question to answer. I have given a lot of scripture that showsthey disagree, and left a lot out. Youtell me! But clearly, James and Paulwere not on the same page. Paul preacheddifferently from the council’s decision on the amendments, he clearly had nointention of preaching differently from whatever decision they came up with,and he didn’t have a whole lot to say good about the council to theGalatians.
God, who sent lying spirits, strong delusions andfalse prophets can send the Holy Ghost for this purpose. The decision to look over circumcision, yea…That was of the Holy Spirit. But therest of the decisions, well… If you think Paul preached wrong, then the HolyGhost wasn’t sent to Paul on that.
Had the Holy Ghost done that before to theApostles? Jesus told Peter, “whatsoeveryou bind on earth will be bound on heaven.†Yet, Peter argued mightily with the Lord about meats. Jesus neglected to tell Peter, “now I’m goingto tell you what you will bind!â€
Peter thought the Holy Ghost was telling him tostart an election to replace Judas…. The “council†picked Matthias. Who did God pick? Paul. There is your only other council in theNew Testament other than that of Jerusalem and the multiple councils held bythe Pharisees. It was one that produceda wrong decision! You’re batting .000 on councils at this point! Itdoesn’t matter if anyone says the Holy Ghost enters into the situation, it onlymatters if he actually does.
The Bible says God declares (not only sees, butactually plans) the end from the beginning. I have mentioned this before, and I do so now… It would not be surprising to me IF the HolyGhost did guide the decision, though it was seemingly against God’s plan forPaul. He hardened Pharaoh’s heartagainst Moses while telling Moses to challenge him. Had not the Holy Ghost entered into the situation (though he was clearly on theside of Grace through Faith as Paul preached), then Paul would not have had theopportunity for write Galatians, Romans 14, and I Cor chapters 8 through11.
You may not understand why God would let Jamesmake an error in order to bring Paul’s preaching come to pass, but I do. It was so God could reveal that our works donot effect our salvation.