Why Am I Eating a Pork Chop?

[Religiot]

So you believe that salvation is through our obedience?

Yes, our obedience to the Lord.

--you don't think so?

 

[Servus]

Yes, our obedience to the Lord.

--you don't think so?

I think our salvation is through what the Lord did for us, rather than though what we do for the Lord.

 

[Religiot]

I've been a Christian my entire life and I'm pushing 60.

I don't see where all the scripture you posted is germane to the longstanding debate regarding Peter's vision, which is germane to eating pork chops.

With respect, I didn't know you were so experienced, fact is, I couldn't tell.

Moreover, the scriptures I posted where germane to the points I made--thought that was obvious, but then again, I also think that it should be obvious to obey the Lord, but you know me, always assuming others can see.

 

[Religiot]

I think our salvation is through what the Lord did for us, rather than though what we do for the Lord.

Never said we do anything for the Lord, that would actually be absurd: we obey Him because He is the Lord, and that we do for our sake, not His.

 

[Servus]

With respect, I didn't know you were so experienced, fact is, I couldn't tell.

Is that an insult?

Moreover, the scriptures I posted where germane to the points I made--thought that was obvious, but then again, I also think that it should be obvious to obey the Lord, but you know me, always assuming others can see.

The point is whether or not if it's okay for a Christian to eat a pork chop. It's not really all that complicated of an issue in of itself. There are standard scriptures Christianity has gone by for centuries as saying it's okay. Your position is that you disagree that any of them say it's okay. Like you said, nothing new. It's an age old debate.

 

[Servus]

Never said we do anything for the Lord, that would actually be absurd: we obey Him because He is the Lord, and that we do for our sake, not His.

Some believe that salvation is based on human performance, such as obedience.

 

[Religiot]

Is that an insult?

No, it isn't.

I truly couldn't tell.

Just a statement of fact.

--Not to offend you, but just being honest with you, for whatever it's worth.

 

[Religiot]

Some believe that salvation is based on human performance, such as obedience.

Obedience is not equal to performance: that is a false equivocation.

Performance implies success, yet obedience denotes attempt, apart from success.

 

[Servus]

No, it isn't.

I truly couldn't tell.

Just a statement of fact.

--Not to offend you, but just being honest with you, for whatever it's worth.

Sounded kinda like "you sure could've fooled me". But I don't mind.

Quid pro quo though, how long have you been a Christian?

 

[Servus]

Obedience is not equal to performance: that is a false equivocation.

Performance implies success, yet obedience denotes attempt, apart from success.

What do you believe is required for salvation?

 

[Religiot]

Sounded kinda like "you sure could've fooled me". But I don't mind.

Quid pro quo though, how long have you been a Christian?

It's been about twenty three years.

 

[Religiot]

What do you believe is required for salvation?

Obedience to the Lord, period.

 

[Servus]

It's been about twenty three years.

Ah late 90s. I remember watching Gene Scott and Arnold Murray back then. They were both pretty entertaining.

 

[Servus]

Obedience to the Lord, period.

So justification through obedience rather than by grace?

 

[Religiot]

So justification through obedience rather than by grace?

No, justification is by His grace through our faith, which results solely from belief to obey. --All things revealed are for the obedience of faith.

It's quite simple really: God says it, I believe it, then I try to do it. --that's it, really.

 

[Servus]

No, justification is by His grace through our faith, which results solely from belief to obey. --All things revealed are for the obedience of faith.

It's quite simple really: God says it, I believe it, then I try to do it. --that's it, really.

Sounds like Lordship Salvation, but not quite.

 

[Religiot]

Sounds like Lordship Salvation, but not quite.

Please keep in mind, that I don't subscribe, to man-made philosophies about God, and certainly don't care for seminarian prescriptions, but the meaning of the word of God, alone.

I perceive seminarian recipes to be, doctrines of demons, designed to shortcut an interrupt into natural thoughts. Lordship salvation, and other none biblical terms, don't help the dialog, at all, but retard it.

 

[Servus]

Please keep in mind, that I don't subscribe, to man-made philosophies about God, and certainly don't care for seminarian prescriptions, but the meaning of the word of God, alone.

I perceive seminarian recipes to be, doctrines of demons, designed to shortcut an interrupt into natural thoughts. Lordship salvation, and other none biblical terms, don't help the dialog, at all, but retard it.

I think I understand. You developed your own unique personal doctrine, philosophy, view (for lack of a better term) and therefore perceive most or all others to be false and incorrect. Which is why there's a lot of friction between you and others on the forum.

 

[civilwarbuff]

Now you're just scoffing.

That is not a response....According you your interpretation God was giving his OK to cannabalism. How does your interpretation square up with:
Peter’s Vision
9 About noon the following day as they were on their journey and approaching the city, Peter went up on the roof to pray. 10 He became hungry and wanted something to eat, and while the meal was being prepared, he fell into a trance. 11 He saw heaven opened and something like a large sheet being let down to earth by its four corners. 12 It contained all kinds of four-footed animals, as well as reptiles and birds. 13 Then a voice told him, “Get up, Peter. Kill and eat.”

That only serves to prove my point, extensively. ...

Not according to my quoted sources.....

No, you're wrong about that too: by using selected readings a person can twist anything--debunking requires proving completely, twisting just requires citing partially.

Which is why you failed to address the comment and simply deflected.

 

[civilwarbuff]

I think I understand. You developed your own unique personal doctrine, philosophy, view (for lack of a better term) and therefore perceive most or all others to be false and incorrect. Which is why there's a lot of friction between you and others on the forum.

Yep, I came to the same conclusion.