What does Paul mean, when he says

[Elijah John]

Romans 14.33

..for whatever is not of faith is sin.

What does this mean? Is everything a person does during the course of a day a matter of faith? Are mundane activities "of faith"? If not, are mundane things "sin"?

[shnarkle]

[Replying to post 47 by tam]

tam: My post was in response to the suggestion that Paul was telling his fellow Jews in this letter, to stop giving the Gentiles a hard time about what they were eating... because said gentiles were new and would eventually come around to obeying dietary laws of the Jews.

Me: Where does Paul suggest that it is okay to let gentiles converts continue to sin in any of his letters?

tam: I'm not sure why you are asking me this question.

Me: Because you posted that they " would eventually come around to obeying".

tam: I did not.

Did you happen to notice the quotation marks? I used them because they are a direct quotation of your words.

I simply responded to the person who seemed to believe that. If you are in doubt, I would urge you to go back and re-read from the start.

I don't need to re-read anything from the start. I have your own words which you are denying. Here they are again in context:

My post was in response to the suggestion that Paul was telling his fellow Jews in this letter, to stop giving the Gentiles a hard time about what they were eating... because said gentiles were new and WOULD EVENTUALLY COME AROUND TO OBEYING dietary laws of the Jews.

The fact that you believe they would eventually come around to obeying is an explicit admission that you believe that they are not obeying these laws at that present moment. This is your assumption, and at this point you still haven't provided any biblical support for this idea that Paul allows or condones sin.

I can see how Paul is pointing out that we shouldn't judge or even bother pointing out that someone is violating the law as there is no better way to convert one to faith than proclaiming the gospel, but it doesn't then follow that Paul is claiming it's okay to let them keep sinning for the time being. If this was the case, he would never has pointed out his own judgment upon those who were gossiping, back-biting, living with their father's wife, spreading false rumors against him, etc.

More importantly, the fact that the gospel converts people from sin should be our first clue as to why points out that those who have come to this saving faith not only no longer sin, but can no longer rely upon Christ's sacrifice to cover their sin. Hebrews 10:26-30

[shnarkle]

[Replying to post 47 by tam]

Therefore let us stop passing judgment on one another. Instead, make up your mind not to put any stumbling block or obstacle in the way of a brother or sister. I am convinced, being fully persuaded in the Lord [Jesus], that nothing is unclean in itself. But if anyone regards something as unclean, then for that person it is unclean.

There are no references whatsoever to anything in the dietary laws in this passage. If so, where? Prostitution caused ritual uncleanliness. Sodomy caused ritual uncleanliness. Adultery caused ritual uncleanliness. Drug use caused ritual uncleanliness. Offering sacrifice to pagan gods caused ritual uncleanliness. According to your logic we can all dismiss these cleanliness laws because we don't regard these activities as unclean anymore. What you are suggesting is a direct contradiction to what scripture teaches, namely that doing what one thinks is right in one's own eyes is folly in God's eyes(Judges 17:6;21:25). Paul couldn't be disagreeing with what God views as an abomination. The context indicates that Paul isn't referring to the dietary laws at all. Your regard doesn't negate God's commandment.

All food is clean, but it is wrong for a person to eat anything that causes someone else to stumble. It is better not to eat meat or drink wine or to do anything else that will cause your brother or sister to fall.

And yet practically no Christian would ever consider obeying the dietary laws even if it meant preventing the rest of the world from stumbling. Of the three Abrahamic religions, only Christianity disregards the dietary laws, and yet how many Muslims or Jews would notice if Christianity began to keep God's commandments? How many of them would be prevented from stumbling when invited to a Christian's home for dinner knowing that Christians now keep the dietary laws? Don't you think it's a bit odd that Christians boast in not keeping the dietary laws which prevent all observant Jews and Muslims from ever having much of anything to do with them socially or otherwise? This is exactly what Paul is pointing out. If the Christian is truly more concerned with the welfare of his fellow man, they would have no problem keeping God's commandments for the sake of a lost world in desperate need of hearing the gospel message.

Just how is an observant Jew who comes to a saving faith in Christ supposed to break bread with fellow Christians who are eating what he has vowed to God he would never do? Are these vows also meant to be broken? Thankfully, at least they aren't being forced to at the edge of a sword anymore, but the fact remains, they aren't being helped because Christians blatantly ignore Paul's instructions to be charitable to them instead of rejecting these potential brothers who can't break their vows to God.

[shnarkle]

[Replying to post 47 by tam]

Paul does not consider any food to be unclean.

What we know for sure is that you do not consider any food unclean, and that must include food that is rotten. Rotten food is explicitly referred to as "unclean". This is what is meant when they point out that animals that die due to disease, are not to be eaten. This is what happens when blood is not drained from a carcass. This is what happens when an animal is left unpreserved for too long. It is no longer fit for human consumption. Granted the pagans may eat and drink all the blood they please, but God see's this as detestable regardless of who does it. All human beings are created in God's image, and God doesn't play favorites. To claim otherwise only spotlights that there is nothing inherintly wrong with transgressing any of these laws as they are the laws of a capricious god. This is what is happening. The same arguments you use to support your position are being used to support adultery, sodomy, fornication, drug use, incest, pedophilia, bestiality etc. This list will only grow as time goes on. These commandments are quickly becomeing meaningless. When the standard of righteousness is removed, there is no standard to judge between right and wrong, good or evil, etc. It's all clean and its's all good.

It never ceases to amaze me how Christians are increasingly taking their queues from the arguments of atheists.

[shnarkle]

[Replying to post 47 by tam]

I do not know why you are saying everyone "else" must continue to rely upon Christ's sacrifice, as if there is someone out there who does not need to rely upon His sacrifice.

This is Paul's argument. Start reading from Romans onward, and it should become clear that those who "walk after the Spirit do not fulfill the lust of the flesh". Those who do not sin, do not require sacrifice. This is a fundamental principle of the law. One only offers sacrifice when they make a mistake. No mistakes means no sacrifice. It's that simple. If you notice what the texts state, they point out that after one has come to a knowledge of saving faith, and they no longer continue to sin, they no longer need rely upon Christ's sacrifice. Those sins referred to are explicitly referred to in the past tense. Those who continue to sin intentionally after coming to knowledge of the truth are in no way ever going to be able to rely upon Christ's sacrifice (See Hebrews 10:26-30)

Paul is pointing out a fundamental priniple of the Mosaic law (which is the only law Christ came to fulfill), which is that those who sin unintentionally may offer a sacriice, but those who sin intentionally may never offer a sacrifice because this was never the remedy for intentional sin. From the cross, the authors of the gospel have Christ point out

Father forgive them FOR THEY KNOW NOT WHAT THEY DO

(I don't know how to use bold type. I'm not "yelling" here)

[shnarkle]

[Replying to post 54 by shnarkle]

Leviticus 11:1-23; Deuteronomy 14:1-15:23

tam: Both of these support what I have been saying, that animals were divided into two categories: clean and unclean, and that the meat of the clean animals were permitted to be eaten (by Israel) and the meat of the unclean animals were not permitted to be eaten (by Israel), so that Israel would learn the difference between clean and unclean; just as they were to learn the difference between holy and common.

I already addressed this, and you have once again ignored my response. Read Acts 7:35-40 where God's commandments were given to Moses who then gave them to the children of Israel who refused to obey. They gave those same commandments "to us" the church in the New Testament dispensation. Luke is pointing out who has finally recieved God's commandments, not to disobey, but to keep in their hearts; the new testament church. There is no law against keeping God's law, and therefore those who keep the law needn't rely upon a sacrificial system that can only become redundant through neglect.

[shnarkle]

[Replying to post 47 by tam]

Nothing in those laws states that (the meat of) unclean animals are not in the food category at all.

What is it about "ye shall NOT eat" that suggests to you that this is food?

It does not state that the meat of some animals is food and the meat of other animals is not food.

It most certainly does. That's exactly what is meant by clean and unclean. Clean animals are food, and unclean animals are not acceptable as food. There's a website online called "Ask Moses" You can google it and ask them. They will tell you the same thing Paul is saying. Paul is not contradicting the Mosaic law.

Your entire argument against Paul's words (that all food is clean)

My argument is not against Paul's words. I agree with Paul completely. I don't agree with your interpretation of Paul's words because they are conradictory. They contradict the teachings of the bible. An abomination is an abomination. God does not change.

rests on the idea that the meat of unclean animals was never in the food category at all, like a rock (your example) is not food.

Yep. Prior to the flood, Noah ate only plant life, and he never ate hemlock or nightshade. He knew what animals were clean and unclean long before he was permitted to eat the clean animals. Furthermore, if enough people had started eating rocks, there would have been a prohibition against it. Not because it's food, but because it is crazy to eat rocks. It's crazy to eat unclean animals. Why? Becuase they're "polluted"; and "filthy". This is what the Hebrew word "tame" means.

God calls all to holiness. Life is sacred, and eating what is polluted is not contributing to living a sacred life.

[tam]

[Replying to post 51 by shnarkle]

Shnarkle, I'm not going to keep explaining this to you. I was merely summarizing someone else's position (from post 4) which I questioned starting in post 17. You jumped in and responded to post 17 (which was not addressed to you) and from there you have continued to mistake that post 4 opinion as my own.


From my quote, please note that everything after the word 'suggestion' is a summary of someone else's post:

My post was in response to the suggestion that Paul was telling his fellow Jews in this letter, to stop giving the Gentiles a hard time about what they were eating... because said gentiles were new and would eventually come around to obeying dietary laws of the Jews.

I am not commenting further on this point.



Peace again to you.

[shnarkle]

[Replying to post 56 by shnarkle]

But you have not once shown that the issue was distinguishing between food and 'not food' (such as a rock). The issue was distinguishing between clean and unclean food.

Read Leviticus and Deuteronomy again. There is no place where the unclean animals are ever referred to as food or meat. There is no place anywhere in any of the manuscripts where food is referred to as clean or unclean. I'm not claiming the issue was between food and "not food". My claim has always been that unclean animals are not referred to as food. If so, where????

Simply pointing out what a translator or scribe as added to a manuscript doesn't prove your point. It proves my point.

Acts 15:21 shows conclusively that the church is in the synagogues on the Sabbath learning the Mosaic law, and that this is the reason why the elders see no point in repeating what they're already learning.

No, you are adding your own spin. Acts 15:21 states only that Moses has been preached from the earliest times and read in the synagogues. It does not state that the church was in the synagogues learning the Mosaic law.

I don't have to put any spin on it due to the fact that there is no reason to point out that Moses is being read in the synagogues every Sabbath if they aren't going to go in there and listen to it. He's pointing out what they're doing already. If they're not doing this, then please tell me why he would bring it up in the first place??? To say that we will not bother these new converts with the Mosaic law because they're not going into the synagogues on the Sabbath anyways is to suggest that there's really no point in telling them anything because they will just ignore it. The text states the reason as being because they have Moses being preached every Sabbath day in the synagogues. What is the point is bringing this up, if they aren't taking advantage of this fact???

That law did not save anyone.

That was never the purpose of the law. Therefore pointing out that the law was never intended to save anyone doesn't do away with the actual purpose of the law. If the purpose of the law is still in tact then the law is still in tact.

[shnarkle]

[Replying to post 47 by tam]

You keep saying this about me, and I keep repeating to you that the law of God is LOVE.

Yep, you keep repeating yourself. You're not advancing an argument. For some strange reason which you still have yet to reveal, you seem to think that loving your neighbor necessarily means you may disobey God's law. When the texts explicitly state it is only those who love their neighbor that can fulfill the law. Since when does fulfilling the law mean disregarding the law? Since when does loving your neighbor mean serving them swine for dinner when they can't eat swine because they vowed to the same God you worship that they would endeavor to keep all of his commandments?

Are you making the claim that gentiles must get circumcised (in the flesh)?

That was never the issue. If it was, then you have a serious problem due to the fact that Paul took Timothy and had him circumcised. Obviously he wasn't doing this to establish his or Timothy's righteousness, right? See the problem yet? He was doing it because it is only for those who can benefit from keeping God's commandments because of the faith of Christ given to them by the grace of God. Those who don't keep God's commandments have no reason to do any of it, and God leaves them to their own devices(Romans chapter 1).

For circumcission truly profits, if you keep the law...what advantage then has the Jew? or what profit is there of circumcission? Much every way: chiefly because unto them were committed the oracles of God. For what if some did not believe? Shall their unbelief make the faith of God without effect?

The sad fact that almost all Christians ignore is that we are justified freely by his grace for the remission of sins that are past, but once faith has arrived, there is no condemnation, but to whoever then sins intentionally, there can be no sacrifice to cover it. (Romans 3,24,25;Hebrews 10:25-30)

In other words, when one feels anger, malice, contempt,resentments,judgments, jealousies,etc. welling up from within, it is nothing less than the tell-tale signs of a unrepentant, desperately wicked and deceitful heart that is completely defiled. Those who ignore this do so to their own eternal damnation. Those who notice this, do so because God has drawn their attention to it for one purpose and one purpose only; to take hold of the gift of repentance, and be conformed to the image of Christ. Taking hold of the gift is not something we do. It is something God does within us as he enters into redeem and regenerate what was once only damned.

[shnarkle]

[Replying to post 47 by tam]

Paul goes on to point out that if those who are uncircumcised keep God's law, they will judge those who don't(Romans 2:27).

No, we do not judge one another. Their actions (in keeping the law - love) will condemn those who have the written code and circumcision, but who do not keep the law that they are boasting in.

Your argument is against Paul. Take it up with him. I left you the quote from Romans. There is no way Paul is playing semantics with the law. The law is the Mosaic law. Look at the greater context if you think it will make a difference. He's clearly pointing out that circumcission is beneficial to those who have the faith to keep God's laws.

In the same way that Noah condemned the world by his faith. The world at that time cannot claim that it was impossible for them to have had or exercised faith, when Noah showed that it is possible to do just that, and when Noah did what was right.

Yep, and he did it by faith. Therefore, none of the law is done away with except what Paul explicitly points out is done away with, e.g. "that which was added because of transgressions"; "the curse"; "the penalty"; "that which was against us". None of those have anything to do with the dietary laws, or the Sabbath, or any of God's commandments.

Love fulfills (even surpasses for that matter) the law. How can that be? Love IS the law.

Yep, and the best way to keep the dietary laws is through the love God gives the new creature in Christ. Anything less is not of faith, and therefore sin.

Why do you keep bringing up the 4th commandment with me?

Because you keep attempting to justify disregarding God's law. Why does it bother you so much?

I'm not judging anyone here.

Are you not?

Have you not stated that God does not dwell within anyone who eats pork or shellfish?

It's an explicit transgression of God's law, and transgression of God's law is sin. This is explicitly how it is defined in the bible. It's a simple observation. I'm not judging anyone here. The real question is why would God condone disregarding his own commandments, and why does it bother you to have someone make this simple observation? Unlike you, I can show clear evidence of why a law may be disregarded, and at the same time prove that exceptions to the rule do not do away with the rule. The exception to the rule is not the rule.

That anyone who claims to be in the Body of Christ (such as myself),

Claims are neither here nor there. I'm not referring to anyone's claims. I'm pointing out what the texts state.

if such a one eats pork or shellfish and so such a one can not be in the Body of Christ?

That's what the texts state. You can take it up with the authors themselves if it bothers you so much. I'm just the messenger here. There is no sin in Christ. Licentiousness is explicitly stated to be a sin in the texts. As I pointed out before, Paul's definition of liberty is not freedom to sin, but freedom from sin. Everyone has to liberty to sin prior to becoming a new creature in Christ.

If that is what you are saying, then what about the gentiles who came to Christ and who received holy spirit because of their faith?

You've got it backwards. Gentiles come to Christ because they are dranw by the Father. Paul is clear when he says, "by grace through faith, and that NOT OF YOURSELVES" It's not their faith, but the "faith OF Christ". It's Christ's faith implanted in the believer; the Jew first, then the Gentile. This is explicitly stated in Jeremiah, Ezekiel, and quoted again in Hebrews. I've pointed this out repeatedly. Why don't you address these points?