Nothing is unclean??

[Adventtruth]

Are you familiar with the phrase 'Be ye holy as I am holy.'

Where do you find it in Scripture?

Holy in what way?

AT

 

[EastCoastRemnant]

Why would God tell Israel not to eat certain animals said to be unclean, but Noah was given permission to eat all meats?

AT

He wasn't... there were seven of all the clean animals that went onto the ark and two of all the rest showing that the health laws were in place pre-flood.

 

[Joe67]

Are you familiar with the phrase 'Be ye holy as I am holy.'

Where do you find it in Scripture?

Steve,

The good, just and holy Pharisee understands this as a quantity of deeds.

Then the philosophically educated Pharisee understands this as a spirituality of motive in ethical attitude.

The Sadducee sees this as an opportunity to sell something.

None of these three are the birth from God in Jesus Christ.

Joe

 

[Adventtruth]

He wasn't... there were seven of all the clean animals that went onto the ark and two of all the rest showing that the health laws were in place pre-flood.

Chapter and verse showing Noah was not aloud to eat the unclean animals after the flood.

AT

 

[Steve Petersen]

Holy in what way?

AT

I am merely asking where the verses are found.

 

[EastCoastRemnant]

Chapter and verse showing Noah was not aloud to eat the unclean animals after the flood.

AT

The evidence is in the number of clean animals taken on the ark....

You already know there is no scripture that says he didn't eat unclean animals after the flood just like there is no scripture saying whether or not Noah fell into idol worship before his death either. You can't base your understanding of truth on what the Bible doesn't say...

 

[Byfaithalone1]

I dont think God will judge a person for eating pig,i think its Gods way of advising whats good or bad for our bodies.

I agree.

Luckey for me i choose to be vegetaian so i know im not eating anything that will harm my temple

How lucky for you!

My personal view on that is that God has given us some wise advise not to eat certain meat because its unhealthy,especially the pig.

Given us?

What does the phrase "nothing is unclean" mean to you (as it is used in Romans 14)?

BFA

 

[Byfaithalone1]

Thats the way I see it too. The Lord made us and therefore He knows what He made that is good for us to eat.

If the manufacturer of your car said to only put certain things in to ensure it's optimum operation and you chose to trust your own wisdom and put different spec'd fluids, you would more than likely harm the vehicle.

I also agree that it is not salvational but a choice to honour Him by treating my body the best I can. Same reason why I no longer smoke or drink... not good for my temple.

This raises a couple of intriguing questions in my mind.

I. Would you support the baptism of a person who:

1. Smokes?
2. Drinks alcohol?
3. Eats pork?
​

II. Would you support the nomination of a church member for the position of "DEACON" if you knew that person:

1. Smokes?
2. Drinks alcohol?
3. Eats pork?
​

If not, then it appears that this issue might run deeper than "personal choice."

BFA

 

[Steve Petersen]

I agree.



How lucky for you!



Given us?

What does the phrase "nothing is unclean" mean to you (as it is used in Romans 14)?

BFA

Two different Greek roots words are translated as 'unclean' in the NT. One is 'koine' and the other is 'akathartos.'

In the Greek OT (Septuagint) the word that is chosen for prohibited foods in Leviticus 11 is 'akathartos.'

The word Paul uses in Romans 14 is not 'akathartos', but 'koine.' What goes on here?

'Koine' is used for foods that were prohibited by legal enactment, even though they would have fallen into the category of permitted foods in the Law. Thus, Gentile wine was prohibited to Jews because it was assumed that a portion of that wine had been offered to pagan gods. It became 'koine', sometimes translated as 'unclean', but also translated as 'common' in the NT.
The same sort of restriction applied to cattle slaughtered by a Gentile. Though beef was permitted, it was assumed that the animal had been offered to a pagan god, thus it too became 'koine.'

Pharisees also held that permitted foods could become 'common' by contact with unclean items.

 

[Byfaithalone1]

Two different Greek roots words are translated as 'unclean' in the NT. One is 'koine' and the other is 'akathartos.'

In the Greek OT (Septuagint) the word that is chosen for prohibited foods in Leviticus 11 is 'akathartos.'

The word Paul uses in Romans 14 is not 'akathartos', but 'koine.' What goes on here?

'Koine' is used for foods that were prohibited by legal enactment, even though they would have fallen into the category of permitted foods in the Law. Thus, Gentile wine was prohibited to Jews because it was assumed that a portion of that wine had been offered to pagan gods. It became 'koine', sometimes translated as 'unclean', but also translated as 'common' in the NT.
The same sort of restriction applied to cattle slaughtered by a Gentile. Though beef was permitted, it was assumed that the animal had been offered to a pagan god, thus it too became 'koine.'

Pharisees also held that permitted foods could become 'common' by contact with unclean items.

The meaning of words is also a function of the context. Here, we find:

(1) It is the man whose faith is weak who says "eat only vegetables." The faith of other men allows them to eat anything.

(2) Whoever eats meat "does so to the Lord."

(3) These are "disputable matters."
​

BFA

 

[Steve Petersen]

The meaning of words is also a function of the context. Here, we find:

(1) It is the man whose faith is weak who says "eat only vegetables." The faith of other men allows them to eat anything.

(2) Whoever eats meat "does so to the Lord."

(3) These are "disputable matters."
​

BFA

Because meat (kosher) and vegetables were both permitted by God.

 

[r035198x]

...
I. Would you support the baptism of a person who:

1. Smokes?
2. Drinks alcohol?
3. Eats pork?
​

...

This one should be easier to answer. You would generally not impose any standards except that they have turned to Christ as their Lord and saviour. People are more likely to be baptised just after believing rather than after demonstrating abstinence from 'unholy activities'.

....II. Would you support the nomination of a church member for the position of "DEACON" if you knew that person:

1. Smokes?
2. Drinks alcohol?
3. Eats pork?
​

If not, then it appears that this issue might run deeper than "personal choice."

BFA

This would be contentious for churches that are not explicit in their doctrines about these matters. For those that are explicit then surely their doctrine should dictate. Whether their doctrine is scripturally correct or not of course is another matter.
For those not explicit, and where it is not clear to everyone that the election was by the Holy Spirit, then I would support the least contentious choice.
There is no point in electing (or not electing) a deacon in such a way that the ensuing dissatisfaction would render the decision disruptive.

 

[EastCoastRemnant]

This raises a couple of intriguing questions in my mind.

I. Would you support the baptism of a person who:

1. Smokes?
2. Drinks alcohol?
3. Eats pork?
​

II. Would you support the nomination of a church member for the position of "DEACON" if you knew that person:

1. Smokes?
2. Drinks alcohol?
3. Eats pork?
​

If not, then it appears that this issue might run deeper than "personal choice."

BFA

What witness to the world is there of the indwelling of the Holy Spirit if a church is full of people that smoke, drink and contrary to their doctrine, eat unclean foods? Sounds like the message alot of the mega celebration church's have today... serving the wants of the people. Let's just get on with gettin' along.

Doesn't make us very peculiar, does it?

 

[Byfaithalone1]

What witness to the world is there of the indwelling of the Holy Spirit if a church is full of people that smoke, drink and contrary to their doctrine, eat unclean foods?

How about a witness to the truth that "salvation is a free gift for which all persons are eligible?"

Doesn't make us very peculiar, does it?

A person can be so peculiar that they are no longer honoring the great commission.

BFA

 

[Byfaithalone1]

This one should be easier to answer. You would generally not impose any standards except that they have turned to Christ as their Lord and saviour. People are more likely to be baptised just after believing rather than after demonstrating abstinence from 'unholy activities'.

And yet the SDA denomination refuses to baptise people based on such criteria.

This would be contentious for churches that are not explicit in their doctrines about these matters. For those that are explicit then surely their doctrine should dictate. Whether their doctrine is scripturally correct or not of course is another matter.

Personally, I don't believe that churches have the authority to become the conscience of their membership on matters not expressly prohibited by Scripture.

BFA

 

[r035198x]

And yet the SDA denomination refuses to baptise people based on such criteria.
..

This can only be on philosophical grounds. If I were to walk into an S.D.A sermon and announce after the sharing that I have believed and want to be baptised, there is no way that they'd know whether I'm going to drink or smoke afterwards so they can't really (using their doctrine) deny me baptism.

...
Personally, I don't believe that churches have the authority to become the conscience of their membership on matters not expressly prohibited by Scripture.

BFA

But your question was on nomination of a church leader, so what the church has agreed should take precedence. If you were asked to nominate your personal leader however or mentor then that is a different scenario. A church should be able to set (in agreement with the Holy Spirit) principles that help non disruptive operation the same way as the church at Jerusalem did.

 

[Joe67]

This post is in reference to the last statement in Post#34 concerning "peculiar".

The most peculiar people of all are those through whom the Spirit of Jesus is manifesting the fruit of repentance and its accompanying forgiveness and peace with God.

There are contentions between Jewish minded (faith through the solid) and Samaritan minded (faith through the flame) believers in Jesus of Nazareth as the Messiah/Christ of the Lord, though both have been forgiven. They have entered the sanctuary of the Lord through opposite doors.

Both of these opposing believers have a good beginning, but they must need follow on to know the Lord. The fruit of the Spirit that is born through them has spots and wrinkles.

The spots are removed through the cold water of affliction and bread of adversity. The wrinkles are smoothed by the hot iron of fiery trials.

Joe

 

[Byfaithalone1]

This can only be on philosophical grounds. If I were to walk into an S.D.A sermon and announce after the sharing that I have believed and want to be baptised, there is no way that they'd know whether I'm going to drink or smoke afterwards so they can't really (using their doctrine) deny me baptism.

Once upon a time, it was a part of the SDA baptismal vows. I haven't checked lately to see if there is still a reference to smoking, drinking and clean meats.

But your question was on nomination of a church leader, so what the church has agreed should take precedence.

Again, I personally believe that the church should not "agree" to prohibit and legislate activities not expressly described in Scripture. This would include using such criteria for baptism, church membership or church leadership. That's just the opinion of one guy in a discussion forum.

A church should be able to set (in agreement with the Holy Spirit) principles that help non disruptive operation the same way as the church at Jerusalem did.

Why are these issues of "disprutive operation?" Are you thinking in terms of public drunkenness? If so, then we certainly agree. Drunkenness is an issue that is specifically addressed in Scripture. Consumption in moderation is not "disruptive."

BFA

 

[Alawishis]

My personal view on that is that God has given us some wise advise not to eat certain meat because its unhealthy,especially the pig.I dont think God will judge a person for eating pig,i think its Gods way of advising whats good or bad for our bodies.I dont think its a sin that will keep a person out of heaven though.Luckey for me i choose to be vegetaian so i know im not eating anything that will harm my temple,and the bible says God wants us to keep our bodies healthy because we are te temple of the holy spirit .

I think you're on the right track here. It's not reasonable to take this passage to mean that it's OK to eat what ever you want and that all food is OK. We know that in the real-world this just isn't true. Even if you don't subscribe to the dietary laws that God laid out, eating anything is just not a good way to live. We know today that, especially in the west, that we have an abundance of dietary related diseases. Eating anything is not OK, if you expect to stay healthy, and I believe that a God who loves us wants us to be healthy.

To understand what is being talked about here it's important to know the context and who Paul is talking to. This is about members of the early church that were debating if it was a sin to eat meat from animals that had been sacrificed to idols. Some thought it was OK to eat the vegetables but not the meats so sacrificed and others thought only the meat was not to be eaten, still others believed it was all OK to eat.

I agree it is not our place to judge others, that is Gods job and his alone, as only he knows the human heart. This passage talks about not accepting each other even if we don't worship exactly the way others would like. For all the posts that slam other religions, here and on other forums, I think we all have something to learn from these words.

 

[Byfaithalone1]

This passage talks about not accepting each other even if we don't worship exactly the way others would like.

I agree. Although this is tangential to the topic of this thread, I wonder how Paul -- the author of Romans 14 -- would have viewed a human teaching that a man's eligibiity for the seal of God (and ultimate, eventual ability to avoid the mark of the beast) will hinge according to the day in which he participates in corporate worship. Based on what Paul wrote in Romans 14, I sense that he might have some real concerns with such a teaching. I submit that we do not have the authority to judge one another based on the days in which we participate in corporate worship.

Admittedly, this also means that I should not judge a man harshly because he participates in corporate worship on the seventh-day of the week. And I would hope that I have not done so. I respect the fact that seventh-day behaviors are very important for some and that seventh-day observance is a real blessing for them. I would never wish to rob anyone of such a blessing.

This is about members of the early church that were debating if it was a sin to eat meat from animals that had been sacrificed to idols.

Romans 14 doesn't seem to confirm this. In fact, the concept of meat sacrificed to idols does not appear anywhere in the book of Romans. It simply isn't a part of the context here.

BFA