1. Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

Dietary laws

Discussion in '2004 Archive' started by dawna marie, Apr 10, 2004.

  1. Trotter

    Trotter <img src =/6412.jpg>

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2003
    Messages:
    4,818
    Likes Received:
    1
    Faith:
    Baptist
    CHrist fulfilled the Law, and we fulfil the Law through Him, not through trying to observe a part of the dietary laws. If you hold to the law, then grace is of no effect. Plain and simple.

    In Christ,
    Trotter
     
  2. rstrats

    rstrats Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Jan 5, 2002
    Messages:
    580
    Likes Received:
    2
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Trotter,

    re: "If you hold to the law, then grace is of no effect."

    Are you saying that grace is of no effect if a person honors their mother and father?
     
  3. Alcott

    Alcott Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Dec 17, 2002
    Messages:
    9,404
    Likes Received:
    353
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Thanks for admitting you do that (you fall under the category "people", do you not?).
     
  4. Audra

    Audra New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2004
    Messages:
    49
    Likes Received:
    0
    Please go back and read Acts 10.

    Let me explain step by step, lest anyone skip a point....

    Acts 10:9 The next day, as they went on their journey and drew near the city, Peter went up on the housetop to pray, about the sixth hour. 10 Then he became very hungry and wanted to eat; but while they made ready, he fell into a trance 11 and saw heaven opened and an object like a great sheet bound at the four corners, descending to him and let down to the earth. 12 In it were all kinds of four-footed animals of the earth, wild beasts, creeping things, and birds of the air. 13 And a voice came to him, "Rise, Peter; kill and eat." 14 But Peter said, "Not so, Lord! For I have never eaten anything common or unclean." 15 And a voice spoke to him again the second time, "What God has cleansed you must not call common." 16 This was done three times. And the object was taken up into heaven again. 17 Now while Peter wondered within himself what this vision which he had seen meant, behold, the men who had been sent from Cornelius had made inquiry for Simon's house, and stood before the gate. 18 And they called and asked whether Simon, whose surname was Peter, was lodging there.

    &gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;Here is the vision. Clearly it is talking &gt;about unclean animals, BUT notice verse 10 - &gt;Peter wondered what it meant! Notice he didn't &gt;go running out to eat unclean meat or announce &gt;to others we can eat unclean meat. He said he &gt;didn't know what it meant!!

    19 While Peter thought about the vision, the Spirit said to him, "Behold, three men are seeking you. 20 Arise therefore, go down and go with them, doubting nothing; for I have sent them." 21 Then Peter went down to the men who had been sent to him from Cornelius, F50 and said, "Yes, I am he whom you seek. For what reason have you come?" 22 And they said, "Cornelius the centurion, a just man, one who fears God and has a good reputation among all the nation of the Jews, was divinely instructed by a holy angel to summon you to his house, and to hear words from you." 23 Then he invited them in and lodged them. On the next day Peter went away with them, and some brethren from Joppa accompanied him. 24 And the following day they entered Caesarea. Now Cornelius was waiting for them, and had called together his relatives and close friends. 25 As Peter was coming in, Cornelius met him and fell down at his feet and worshiped him. 26 But Peter lifted him up, saying, "Stand up; I myself am also a man." 27 And as he talked with him, he went in and found many who had come together. 28 Then he said to them, "You know how unlawful it is for a Jewish man to keep company with or go to one of another nation. But God has shown me that I should not call any man common or unclean. 29 Therefore I came without objection as soon as I was sent for. I ask, then, for what reason have you sent for me?"

    &gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;Notice verse 28 - Peter now knows what &gt;the vision meant. God has shown me that I &gt;should not call any man common or unclean.


    &gt;That is cut and dry. There is no question that &gt;God didn't make unclean animals clean. God made &gt;the Gentiles clean.

    &gt;Does anyone have any other reason for Peter to &gt;say that God showed him not to call any man &gt;unclean, other than it was the answer to the &gt;vision? There is no other answer!
     
  5. Audra

    Audra New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2004
    Messages:
    49
    Likes Received:
    0
    Another thing to all the posts about the entire Law being done away with...
    Did God cleanse dead bodies? I mean, surely we don't have to wash our hands anymore after handling a dead body, right? God made them wash for purely ritualistic reasons, right? Right?

    The point is, for the thousandth time, is that some of the laws that God gave Israel have physical, literal applications for all men.

    If God had commanded the ancient Israelites to take a bath every night, then we would see a lot of unbathed Christians walking around, wouldn't we?
     
  6. donnA

    donnA Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2000
    Messages:
    23,354
    Likes Received:
    0
    Audra, I have posted those questions several times on this thread becasue you said you have not seen them. As of yet you have not answered them.
    You said it was not a spiritual/biblical matter but rather heath(apart from scripture), I asked for proof and you have not given that either. Now you turn around and go to scripture after you said it had nothing to do wiht it, that pork was just plain bad even without scripture mentioning it.
    Which is it?
    Why are you refusing to answer questions?
     
  7. Audra

    Audra New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2004
    Messages:
    49
    Likes Received:
    0
    "You said it was not a spiritual/biblical matter but rather heath(apart from scripture)"
    Now Donna, where did I say that it was "apart from scripture? I tried looking in the posts but I can't find it. I had mentioned scripture before in the context of this discussion. I don't want to impute motives...but it almost seems like you are putting words in my mouth.

    What I mean by physical and not spiritual:
    Some of God's laws were strictly ritualistic, like the law against mixing the fabrics. Some laws were purely physical in nature, like the law commanding that the Israelites put a border on their roof so no one would fall. Of course, while under the Old Covenant, the Israelites were commanded to observe ALL of them, whether they had practical value or not.
    People seem to assume that ALL of God's Laws were ritualistic, or spiritual in nature in that they have no physical, non-religious applications. If we lived in a totally primitve agrarian society, wouldn't it be best to use God's laws of livestock ownership? There is nothing spiritual or religious about taking care of your neighbors cattle. If we lived in Jerusalem, and had a flat roof, wouldn't it make sense to build a small border around the edge so your friends wouldn't fall off? There is nothing spiritual or religious about that, is there? No. Some of God's laws had both ritualistic/spiritual and physical applications, like the law concerning the handling of dead bodies. The Israelites were cremonially unclean, and also, phsysically unclean due to....well, touching a rotting corpse. Since we can in no way, since the sacrifice of Christ, become "ceremonially clean" or justified by the works of the law, does that mean that is now safe to touch a rotting corpse? Washing up after coming into contact with a dead body (while rare for you and me) is not religious at all. It is physical.
    People do not seem to see that abiding by some of these things are not 'works of the law", but common sense. They have absolutely no ritualistic or spiritual application for us today, but only physical. And so, I feel that God, who designed our bodies, was not simply referring to certain animals as being ritually unclean, but physically unclean as well. If eat I pork, I am no longer "spritually defiled". Meat cannot make me spiritually unclean. However, I believe that it is not physically good for my body.
    Refraining from eating pork, shrimp, squid, ect does not make me special or justified in the eyes of God. NOTHING can do that except for faith in Jesus Christ. As far as everything being bad for us, I would have to refrain from eating almost anything. There are bad things(introduced by man) in all meats now. I will take my lumps, but I take my chances with the ones God said were unclean. By the way, I do not judge those who do eat unclean meat. Not that anyone here has judged me for doing so....; )
     
  8. dawna marie

    dawna marie New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2004
    Messages:
    51
    Likes Received:
    0
  9. donnA

    donnA Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2000
    Messages:
    23,354
    Likes Received:
    0
    And of course you have a N.T. verse that says which O.T. laws we are to contniue doing.

    So as you stated in earlier posts about it being for health reason is not true then? Becasue if it were you'd be concerned about eating anything contaminated, or even drinking faucet water. Do you think God created bad things? You are saying so. Biblically, what is it that is wrong with pork(I mean the actual meat) that is not wrong with other meats? What is it that is still unclean?
    Please use scritpure to show why it ok to eat contaminated foods, especially when earlier arguments were that we are to take care of our bodies, the temple of God. Is it not necessary to take care of our bodies against foreign contaminates that harm our bodies?

    No matter if it is a salvation issue or not, what you don't seem to understand is that anytime you add anything to grace it is no longer grace.
     
  10. HankD

    HankD Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    May 14, 2001
    Messages:
    26,977
    Likes Received:
    2,536
    Faith:
    Baptist
    This is going downhill fast.

    I think I will bow out with the following Scripture...

    Romans 14
    1 Him that is weak in the faith receive ye, but not to doubtful disputations.
    2 For one believeth that he may eat all things: another, who is weak, eateth herbs.
    3 Let not him that eateth despise him that eateth not; and let not him which eateth not judge him that eateth: for God hath received him.
    4 Who art thou that judgest another man's servant? to his own master he standeth or falleth. Yea, he shall be holden up: for God is able to make him stand.
    5 One man esteemeth one day above another: another esteemeth every day alike. Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind.
    6 He that regardeth the day, regardeth it unto the Lord; and he that regardeth not the day, to the Lord he doth not regard it. He that eateth, eateth to the Lord, for he giveth God thanks; and he that eateth not, to the Lord he eateth not, and giveth God thanks.

    Please note, those who are "weak in the faith" are not being designated in my post.

    Peace.

    HankD
     
  11. Audra

    Audra New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2004
    Messages:
    49
    Likes Received:
    0
    Donna, I will answer your post if you answer this question. Do some of God's laws, given to the Israelites, have applications for us today?
    You seem to ignore that point time and time again.
     
  12. servant-96

    servant-96 New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 18, 2004
    Messages:
    35
    Likes Received:
    0
    Here we go again. Hank, your using Ro.14, which is about "doubtful disputations"(things not mentioned in the Bible). Unclean and clean meats are mentioned in the Bible so again you are taking something out of context to try to prove what you believe. Audra, well put. Amen. I have not heard it put so clear in such awhile. Donna, you still don't get it and it seems your not going to get it. Their is a difference between sanctification and justification. Food has never been a justification issue so don't make it one. I feel like Audra does, whatever you eat is between you and God.
     
  13. TWade

    TWade New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2003
    Messages:
    452
    Likes Received:
    0
    Amen, brother.
     
  14. Trotter

    Trotter <img src =/6412.jpg>

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2003
    Messages:
    4,818
    Likes Received:
    1
    Faith:
    Baptist
    servant-96,

    I have to disagree with you there. Even though the original writing of Romans 14 dealt with food offered to idols, it also applies here (and if you don't think Scripture is multi-purposed, you might as well chuck the whole thing).

    We are to give thanks to God, and to do all things for Him. That includes what we are to eat.

    Going by the dietary laws found in the OT is a personal choice, not a mandate. By living by them, a person will not be closer to God or 'more saved'. But if their heart convicts them that they should and they don't, they would be sinning. So it is up to the individual, period.

    Personally, I do not try to live the Law. But, if you recall, nine of the Ten Commandments were repeated in the NT as direstives by Jesus or the apostles. So honoring one's father and mother is living by what Jesus said, not by the Law.

    The Law was set up as a schoolmaster, to instruct us of the holiness of God. It was never meant to be a way into heaven, but rather a measuring stick of the sinfulness of man. By looking back to the Law, we see just how much we do not measure up to the holiness of God. But, when we look to Calvary, we see just what God was willing to do so that we didn't have to. Praise the Lord!

    In Christ,
    Trotter
     
  15. Pennsylvania Jim

    Pennsylvania Jim New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 8, 2000
    Messages:
    7,693
    Likes Received:
    0
    Again, I say that we need to distinguish between ceremonial law and moral law (see my previous posts).
     
  16. TC

    TC Active Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    May 7, 2003
    Messages:
    2,244
    Likes Received:
    10
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Why should we divide what the Bible doesn't? The law is treated as one complete unit - and it is.
     
  17. Pastor Larry

    Pastor Larry <b>Moderator</b>
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    May 4, 2001
    Messages:
    21,763
    Likes Received:
    0
    No. The Mosaic Law was given to the nation of Israel. There are some laws that exist both in the Mosaic Law as well as outside of it. But that does not mean the Mosaic Law is applicable today.

    I have already given explicit Scriptural refutations of your position. I could add other verses such as Col 2 and 1 Tim 4. These teachings are clear in Scripture.

    Servant says that when Mark says that Christ declared all foods clean, that he really didn't mean all foods. That doesn't even make sense. How can you affirm the mandate of Scripture while dismissing the mandate of the very same Scripture ... and then level these ridiculous attacks against me.

    There is absolutely no basis to insist on continuing the provisions of the Mosaic Law to a people with whom that Law was not made.
     
  18. donnA

    donnA Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2000
    Messages:
    23,354
    Likes Received:
    0
    I certainly have not ignored it. I have said over and over, grace. Grace plus anything(works, law anything) is not grace.
     
  19. donnA

    donnA Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2000
    Messages:
    23,354
    Likes Received:
    0
    There certanly is, never said there wasn't.
    But both are by grace, both are a work of God, not me.
     
  20. Pennsylvania Jim

    Pennsylvania Jim New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 8, 2000
    Messages:
    7,693
    Likes Received:
    0
    You treat it as one complete unit, but I don't know what the Biblical justification would be for that. The question is, when "the law" is mentioned in a particular passage, what is in sight, what is intended?

    Clearly when Jesus paid for our sins with His blood, it did not become OK to murder or lie or commit adultery. Why is it not OK to do these things? Because they violate God's Law. Sin is the transgression of the law (I John 3:4). The law that was done away with was the ceremonial law that necessitated the blood of animal sacrifice, no longer needed because of the finished work of Christ.
     
Loading...