Posted by BE on 12/30/2001, 4:53 pm
Message modified by board administrator 4/19/2006, 1:27 am

I don’t eat crab either, but... Posted by Bill Engle on 11/19/2001, 1:39 pm , in reply to "Re: Crustaceous surprise in my chicken" ...far be it from me to go around pointing my finger at people and saying, “You’re not going to be in the kingdom of heaven because you eat this or drink that....” Where I fellowship, among the people I am close to, nobody, except me, has any concept of abstaining from unclean meats, and they probably never will. Yet God pours out his Spirit on these people; he blesses them greatly. I’m accustomed to living among people who know nothing about unclean meats, and at the same time I recognize that God loves them and accepts them as his people just as much as he used to with us at Chapel. In their case they do it in innocence and God turns a blind eye to it because they don’t know anything about it. As for people in your situation who used to be part of Chapel (or at least, I’m assuming you were) and have now modified their viewpoint on the subject, I can understand that too. After careful study of the Word of God, I’ve come to modify in my mind a few former Chapel doctrines (and I want to emphasize that I mean I have only SLIGHTLY modified a few things, none of them concerning the fundamentals of Christianity). I hold now what I think is a stricter stand on the meats issue than the way it used to be taught at Chapel, because I view it as a spiritual thing and not merely a health law, but I also hold—after careful study—views on some other issues that are a little more lenient than what Chapel’s stand was. On the meats issue, as with many issues, I think it’s a question of each person’s understanding—and who am I to judge what’s going on in other people’s hearts and minds? I’d chalk it up to another one of the finer points in the Great Antinomian Enigma. “Antinomian”—that’s a word I learned from someone on this board about a year or two ago (I think it may have been Steve B.) in a sentence he used in a post, something like, “Certainly we were in some antinomian darkness at the time” (referring to the time of connections). I confess, I didn’t know the word, so I looked it up. “Antinomian: [From Greek anti-, against + nomos, law] One who maintains that, under the gospel dispensation, the moral law is of no use or obligation, but that faith alone is necessary to salvation. The sect of Antinomians originated with John Agricola, in Germany, about the year 1535.... adj.: relating to or influenced by antinomianism.” In one interpretation, simply the disconnecting of the dependence of our salvation on the Law of Moses (the foundational Protestant doctrine of salvation by grace and not by works); in another interpretation, the taking of the issue of grace to an extreme, to the extent of living one’s life in knowing violation of the will of God and not even caring about it. “Shall we continue in sin, that grace may abound? God forbid.” I used to think we had the perfect balance on it at Chapel. “Salvation is by grace through faith,” we would say, “but if you don’t completely rid your life of sin, or be sure you’ve repented of every sin you’ve ever committed, you’re not going to make it to heaven for eternity.” Well, that’s still basically my viewpoint, but with one minor modification: I have not been able to avoid concluding later that, although we ought not and must not, though it’s repugnant to God and a stench in his nostrils, though the fact of it is unfortunate, a person can still get away with a little more than we used to think at Chapel and still make it into the kingdom of God. (Maybe, from another point of view, I should reverse that and say it’s fortunate for some people, myself included.) I left Chapel before the connections thing and the fall into sexual immorality, so I wasn’t there to see what was said, or what may have been changed on the works/grace issue, that led to what the poster called “antinomian darkness.” At any rate, it’s not easy for us humans with a darkened understanding to know exactly where the lines are drawn on the issue of conduct and heaven in eternity. And as far as comestibles, there’s an insight Jesus gives about it, which some people take as lifting the ban on unclean meats completely, but I don’t. He said, “The kingdom of heaven is more than what you eat and what you drink.” Sure, the ban on unclean meats was to continue in the New Testament dispensation, but Jesus intended for us to maintain this balance in our perspective of it, too, that the kingdom of heaven is more than merely things of that nature. “Jesus called the crowd to him and said, ‘Listen and understand. What goes into a man’s mouth does not make him “unclean,” but what comes out of his mouth, that is what makes him “unclean.”... Don't you see that whatever enters the mouth goes into the stomach and then out of the body? But the things that come out of the mouth come from the heart, and these make a man “unclean.” ’ ” (Matthew 15:10-11,17-18 NIV) There is one thing in the NIV translation of this verse and others on the subject that I disagree with, and always did ever since I first read it, and that’s the way they put quotation marks around “clean” and “unclean.” In the Aramaic Jesus spoke, quotation marks didn’t exist. And when they are used in writing in our language today, they mean that what is being called something really isn’t what it is being called. Because the NIV translators never had any concept of pork, shellfish and what-have-you being unclean, or any need to abstain from eating it, they added something to the text—those quotation marks—that actually change the meaning of it. They do that with “sinner” also. For example: Luke 6:31-33: “ ‘Even “sinners” love those who love them. And if you do good to those who are good to you, what credit is that to you? Even “sinners” do that.’ ” In other words, is it supposed to be saying that the sinners Jesus is talking about really are not sinners? Romans tells us, “all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God.” I disagree with those quotation marks in the NIV. Anyway, since, as I say, our unclear understanding of the finer points of the “Great Antinomian Enigma,” as I call it, necessitates allowing for some variation in the way we interpret which kinds of behavior keep people from the kingdom of heaven and which don’t or may not, whenever it comes to issues that deal with the finer points of theology—though not with the fundamental doctrines of salvation—we need to be willing to accept one another while having different viewpoints on the different issues. Assuming you’re walking in the grace of God, I’ll be expecting to see you in the kingdom of heaven, brother. So that’s my answer to your question. (By the way, are you in Louisiana? “Gumbo shrimp, shrimp creole, lemon pepper shrimp, catfish....”) ---------- Posted by lanny on 11/19/2001, 9:11 pm , in reply to "I don’t eat crab either, but..." I wouldn't say eating unclean will keep you out of heaven. Who knows, it may even speed up your trip to heaven. lanny ---------- Run Forrest, Run!! Posted by Dave Kenady on 11/19/2001, 10:15 pm , in reply to "I don’t eat crab either, but..." (By the way, are you in Louisiana? “Gumbo shrimp, shrimp creole, lemon pepper shrimp, catfish....”) Maybe he just saw Forrest Gump one time too many. ---------- New theory: Apparently Mozart died from eating pork Posted by Mort Devers on 11/20/2001, 6:22 pm , in reply to "Run Forrest, Run!!" That was a pretty good one, Lanny. Eating tref won't keep you out of the kingdom of heaven—it might even help you get there faster. Hah! Here’s a link to a bunch of publications telling about a Jewish doctor’s new theory that apparently Mozart died from eating pork cutlets, his favorite food. Link: Article list http://www.google.com/search?q=mozart+died+pork ---------- Interesting name Posted by Terry on 12/13/2001, 3:58 pm , in reply to "New theory: Apparently Mozart died from eating pork" "Mort Devers." Could that have anything to do with the French "Mort de(s) vers" ("He died of worms")? ---------- There’s a Latin phrase for this post Posted by Tony on 11/14/2001, 11:04 am , in reply to "...And Gordy" "Jejunus raro stomachus vulgaria temnit." ...Which means, "Your vulgar talk about rare meat has got my stomach jugglin'. Now terminate it." ---------- Incorrect translation Posted by Bill Engle on 11/15/2001, 11:35 am , in reply to "That was supposed to be...." “Jujunus raro stomachus vulgaria temnit”? No, I’d say what that means is, “Stop judjun’ my rare insight just ’cause your stomach can’t take the vulgar way I’m termin’ it.” ---------- Bravo, Bill! Posted by Terry on 11/16/2001, 8:57 am , in reply to "Incorrect translation" I think that's the first time I've ever seen somebody top off Tony and leave him with no comeback. ---------- Comeback Posted by Tony on 11/19/2001, 5:53 am , in reply to "Bravo, Bill!" "Jujunus raro stomachus Vulgaria temnit"? I'd say it means "Your judjun' is sendin' me rollin' rear-over-stomach to Bulgaria, now terminate it! And there's a German proverb for when you had the deer hanging by his hooves. It goes: "Ende gut, alles gut." That means "If you stab 'im... in the gut, all 'is guts... will come falling out."