Is this law applicable....

[payattention]

No it doesn't answer my querry at all.

If you have a first step, you obviously have in mind later ones. So give them.

Again, I gave you the totality of my thought. After saying what the first step should be, I then told you what is required in the very next paragraph. You may have overlooked it. Please read it again. I am saying that the method we have discovered with which we can ably study nature is the same that should be used in our study of theology. I don't see how much clearer I can be.

 

[payattention]

Am I right to understand that you, payattention, are trying to promote independent (not independent of scripture, but independent of previous theologian) thought on the issue rather than giving the answer (give a man a fish...he eats for a day...)?

One could say that. More precisely, I was hoping that we could together tackle a problem that every Christian must be concerned about. We have our various theologies but we cannot give our people hope that that which they hope for is anymore definite today than it was 2,000 years ago. I believe in the promises of Jesus Christ and in His teachings. If He expected to return within the first century it must be because it was possible for Him to do so. For centuries we have been telling people how to live and many valiant Christians of all stripes have lived exemplary lives before the world. Yet, we are still here. That is convincing evidence that we need another bite at the apple.

When I speak of an independent method I mean one that is not dependent on which group one belongs to. We cannot be satisfied with our present system in which we simply shift Christians from one group to the next. In that system the only reason why one may reassess what he believes as doctrine is if he has a problem with the authorities in his particular group. That is not a search for truth; it is a search for leadership.

I may be wrong for I am only human. But the way to show me I am wrong is to deal with my methodology, regardless of my conclusions. Many good conclusions have come from faulty methodologies, and the converse is also true.

I believe that my ideas have some basis in Scripture where we are encouraged to "test every Spirit whether it be of God."

 

[tall73]

You still have not shown your methodology.

Your last paragraph was asking a question we already answered. It was quite clearly the particular and not the principle, which was already pointed out by others without your method--others who you called confused.

You still said that the way to look at theology is the way we look at nature. If that is your whole methodology I would say it has little to offer.

And if your goal is to discover it together, why did you come in saying we were all confused and had no system, when the development of a system was the goal?

You have yet to show even one thing that your methodology says, or to outline its precepts other than to say nature.

Are we to take fallen nature? Killing and all?

Or original nature, which we have no access too?

Would nature have anything to do with these laws?

And why should we look to nature when the laws are from God's self revelation, which you say you don't accept for certain anyway?

 

[woobadooba]

One could say that. More precisely, I was hoping that we could together tackle a problem that every Christian must be concerned about. We have our various theologies but we cannot give our people hope that that which they hope for is anymore definite today than it was 2,000 years ago. I believe in the promises of Jesus Christ and in His teachings. If He expected to return within the first century it must be because it was possible for Him to do so. For centuries we have been telling people how to live and many valiant Christians of all stripes have lived exemplary lives before the world. Yet, we are still here. That is convincing evidence that we need another bite at the apple.
true.

So what are you saying here, that the coming of Jesus is dependant on our good behavior?

 

[Sophia7]

This used to be an interesting discussion; I would like to bring it back to the original topic because anyone who reads this to find the answer to the thread subject is not going to want to wade through pages of commentary that have nothing to do with it.

I have been posting on the subject of whether the Levitical laws are still binding on Christians on a non-Adventist thread (under General Theology) because someone asked the question of whether it is a sin to eat shrimp. Others have pretty well covered the way I see the biblical evidence in previous posts; I don't believe that the Levitical dietary laws are applicable to Christians today for many of the reasons previously stated. However, I personally am a vegetarian for health reasons, so I don't stress over it.

One thing I would like to point out is that although the text in Acts 10 that people often use to say that we can eat anything does not refer to food at all but to Gentiles, Romans 14 does address the issue of food. This is a text that I don't see how Adventists can use to justify the church's official position. Here is a portion of it:

12 So then, each of us will give an account of himself to God.

13 Therefore let us stop passing judgment on one another. Instead, make up your mind not to put any stumbling block or obstacle in your brother's way. 14 As one who is in the Lord Jesus, I am fully convinced that no food is unclean in itself. But if anyone regards something as unclean, then for him it is unclean. 15 If your brother is distressed because of what you eat, you are no longer acting in love. Do not by your eating destroy your brother for whom Christ died. 16 Do not allow what you consider good to be spoken of as evil. 17 For the kingdom of God is not a matter of eating and drinking, but of righteousness, peace and joy in the Holy Spirit, 18 because anyone who serves Christ in this way is pleasing to God and approved by men.

19 Let us therefore make every effort to do what leads to peace and to mutual edification. 20 Do not destroy the work of God for the sake of food. All food is clean, but it is wrong for a man to eat anything that causes someone else to stumble. 21 It is better not to eat meat or drink wine or to do anything else that will cause your brother to fall.

22 So whatever you believe about these things keep between yourself and God. Blessed is the man who does not condemn himself by what he approves. 23 But the man who has doubts is condemned if he eats, because his eating is not from faith; and everything that does not come from faith is sin.

I suppose that Adventists would generally try to explain away this text by saying that Paul is talking about food sacrificed to idols. However, when he talks specifically about food sacrificed to idols, such as in 1 Corinthians 8, he calls it "food sacrified to idols." In Romans 14 he seems to be speaking of food in general. Here he says that no food is unclean by its nature. That would dispel the theory that he refers to food polluted by idols. One thing I would emphasize, though, is that, according to this text, if people believe it is wrong to eat certain foods, they should not eat them.

 

[woobadooba]

I suppose that Adventists would generally try to explain away this text by saying that Paul is talking about food sacrificed to idols. However, when he talks specifically about food sacrificed to idols, such as in 1 Corinthians 8, he calls it "food sacrified to idols." In Romans 14 he seems to be speaking of food in general. Here he says that no food is unclean by its nature. That would dispel the theory that he refers to food polluted by idols. One thing I would emphasize, though, is that, according to this text, if people believe it is wrong to eat certain foods, they should not eat them.

The question that one has to ask here is were the Corinthians to whom Paul addressed with this teaching aware of the levitical dietary laws prior to the fact? If they were, they would understand that such things would not even fall into the category of being called 'food'.

It's hard to say.

Some people like to use the argument that just because the 4th commandment is not addressed as such in the writings of Paul or the epistles, that it is no longer binding for the Christian. Of course, I disagree with this since in Hebrews 4, it is quite clear to me that it is still binding.

The point however, is it wasn't necessary to address the Sabbath issue as such because the people knew that it was necessary to keep it. We have enough internal evidence in the book of Acts to verify this. And so, it just wasn't an issue. Could it be the same for the dietary laws? I don't know.

But I do know this: I don't believe it is a salvific issue, but an issue of do you really value the life that God has given you? If so, you will do what is necessary to maintain a healthy lifestyle, to live long and prosper in good health and happiness while serving the Lord.

And let's face it, eating those things have caused numerous health problems for so many people! It's just not wise to consume things that were never intended by God to be used for food.

 

[payattention]

So what are you saying here, that the coming of Jesus is dependant on our good behavior?

You could say that if I were trying to determine which laws we should keep. Before deciding what about us is the hindrance we have to agree that God is not the problem and be resolved never to adopt a perspective that paints Him as the problem.

 

[payattention]

You have yet to show even one thing that your methodology says, or to outline its precepts other than to say nature.

Are we to take fallen nature? Killing and all?

You do the same thing I hope you do when you come across passages like the following in the Bible.
[BIBLE]Judges 21:20-22[/BIBLE]

Or original nature, which we have no access too?

Would nature have anything to do with these laws?

Nature refers to all that God has created, not exclusively to human nature.

And why should we look to nature when the laws are from God's self revelation, which you say you don't accept for certain anyway?

You are going to have to tell us what you mean by "God's self revelation" because that is an accusation that does not fit my personal philosophy.

 

[payattention]

You still have not shown your methodology.

Your last paragraph was asking a question we already answered. It was quite clearly the particular and not the principle, which was already pointed out by others without your method--others who you called confused.

If you had not misunderstood me to believe that God never speaks to humans the answer would be plain. My position is that these communications from God must be approached with the same God-given method with which we study nature. The reason is that all knowledge comes from God.

 

[woobadooba]

You could say that if I were trying to determine which laws we should keep. Before deciding what about us is the hindrance we have to agree that God is not the problem and be resolved never to adopt a perspective that paints Him as the problem.

This is as far as I am going to take this because I don't want to hijack Sophias thread.

But when you speak of us hindering the coming of Christ, the logical conclusion is that it has something to do with what we are or aren't doing. Hence, it is an issue of behavior.

I disagree with this because God doesn't base His actions on our actions. And what I mean by this is that because He is omniscient, He already knows what He is going to do and when He is going to do it. He makes the rules. And if we don't abide by those rules it has already been predetermined by God what the result will be for such defiance.

So, I can't agree that Jesus' coming is dependant on our behavior, but that He knows when He is coming prior to the fact. He couldn't be omniscient if He didn't know! And whether we are ready or not when He returns, that's our problem, not God's. For, God gave us all plenty of time to allow Him to work out His good will in and through us, so as to accomplish His higher purpose for man in us, which is to make him holy!

Now, this doesn't mean we have to reach a state of sinlessness in order to be received by Christ when He comes, as if we've arrived and it weren't possible for us to misbehave in some way again prior to being received by Him. Nevertheless, we do have to be sinless in the sense that we've, by faith, given everything we've got to the Lord, who has the power to free us from the condemnation of sin, which is death, if we are to be received by Him.

It's not salvation by works of our own doing, but slavation by God's grace which enables us to produce works that are acceptable to Him.

He won't come to us because of our perfection, but because He is perfect in every way, thus knowing the end from the beginning.

 

[payattention]

This is as far as I am going to take this because I don't want to hijack Sophias thread.

Personally, I prefer to begin a new thread when we get on a tangent from the current thread. I tried that once and the response was somewhat negative so I simply continued answering the questions that were directed at me in this thread.

My apologies to Sophia for any contribution I have made to the hijacking of her thread.

 

[Sophia7]

I don't believe it is a salvific issue, but an issue of do you really value the life that God has given you? If so, you will do what is necessary to maintain a healthy lifestyle, to live long and prosper in good health and happiness while serving the Lord.

And let's face it, eating those things have caused numerous health problems for so many people! It's just not wise to consume things that were never intended by God to be used for food.

I agree, woobadooba. I don't believe it is a salvific issue either, and, as I said, I don't eat meat at all for health reasons, so I don't worry about it myself. The question comes up, though, since my husband (Tall73) is in a position of leadership in the church, and people sometimes ask us about these things. It's sometimes hard to know what to say to them without making them think we are complete heretics. Regardless of whether these laws are requirements today, it does make sense to avoid eating certain things in accordance with the general spiritual principle of preserving our health and our lives.

 

[tall73]

First of all, the reason it didn't go well when you broke off the thread was that you didn't state it, and didn't clarify later when asked. In fact, for a thread that was important enough to break off, you haven't even replied again. You left the impression that you were saying it in regards to me, which if you were, was not clear from the rest of the discussion.

Pointless is an opinion. Either you are satisfied with the status quo or you believe that Christ will return when we have decided which laws we must keep. I don't know which.

The status quo of people staying on the topic, not turning every issue into a discussion of your methodology? Yes, we do like that.

As to that quote from Judges...how precisely do you think I interpret it?

No one said anything about Christ coming when we keep certain laws.

Nor did I say that fallen nature was a reference to HUMAN nature. The whole creation is groaning according to Romans 8 under sin. Of course, you might not accept that, being from Paul.

And what I meant was that nature is degraded to a survival of the fittest contest. Now the things around us may still speak to God's power as Paul affirms in Romans 1, but it does not speak to God's character.

But again, you might not accept that either. You see, the real reason it is pointless is that you don't accept any scripture at face value. So a discussion built AROUND the scriptures is just an endless exercise in trying to get you to say what you think about it--as though that were somehow a key to the rest of us understanding it. You feel free to pick and choose according to your view of nature, so there can be no assumptions at all about what you accept as legitimate evidence in a discussion.

The only possible explanation we can find for what your method would be is that we study the scriptures scientifically as we do nature. But ifyou really thought that, surely you could have said it just as plain as that from the outset, that you subscribe to higher ciritical methodology ,etc. And we could have all gotten on with life.

The goal of independent thought is to think out the subject matter. Not to read your mind.

If you want people to think independently, then put some texts that challenges their usual thinking. The one on the second coming of Jesus was a decent example. But when you do this

a. don't start it in every thread you go to, even those where it clearly has no business like Woobadooba's
b. don't assume that no one but you has ever looked at this text in an honest light.

It is sheer arrogance.

 

[woobadooba]

I agree, woobadooba. I don't believe it is a salvific issue either, and, as I said, I don't eat meat at all for health reasons, so I don't worry about it myself. The question comes up, though, since my husband (Tall73) is in a position of leadership in the church, and people sometimes ask us about these things. It's sometimes hard to know what to say to them without making them think we are complete heretics. Regardless of whether these laws are requirements today, it does make sense to avoid eating certain things in accordance with the general spiritual principle of preserving our health and our lives.

I can see how this would be a tough call. This is one of the reasons why I encourage people to try to identify underlying themes in the Bible rather than to take everything that constitutes scripture at face value.

Identifying underlying themes is important because it enables us to discover the purpose for which the message has been given. Thus this safegurads us from calling something sin that really has no scriptural basis for such a classification. There are many exegetical variables that one has to factor into the equation to determine what is and isn't sin according to the Bible.

In any case, we need to be open and honest with people about what we believe without showing any sign of being evasive. Evasiveness only proves to foster a sense of suspician within the minds of those people who are bringing the integrity of our faith into question.

If they want to call you a heretic for your honesty, then that is just too bad for them. They also called Jesus a devil! So don't worry about it. They will have to answer to God for being so callous.

I believe that if we would inform people that God doesn't value them by what they eat, but that He values them simply because they are, people would come to realize that doing what God says isn't about gaining His love, but about demonstrating that we value what He values--life, and that is what is most important in my opinion.