1 Cor 8: A misunderstood, hand grenade text

If the application cannot be directly derived from a passage, then something is worse than a slippery slope. It is a misguided application.

The problem is that IFBrs (among others) have so convoluted and ignored the background and context of these passages that they are not consistent in their application of the passages.

Again, because you have not done the proper exegesis, you are unable to give an equal application for the eating of "meat" as you do drinking "alcohol."

This highlights a major problem...IFBrs have redefined the "weak" to include seasoned, decades old believers. At the beginning of this letter, Paul scolds the Corinthian believers for having not progressed. They were just 5 years into their faith (max).

So, the "weak" are no longer the young believers trying to sort out their superstitious cultic beliefs with real faith. The IFB has redefined the "weak" to be Christians who are easily offended. (I may start a new thread on this...)
 
[quote author=Anchor]Rom. 14 is referencing a matter of meat entirely unrelated to meat offered to idols...[/quote]

I don't think you understand the culture/history in which this letter was written...
 
FSSL said:
If the application cannot be directly derived from a passage, then something is worse than a slippery slope. It is a misguided application.

The problem is that IFBrs (among others) have so convoluted and ignored the background and context of these passages that they are not consistent in their application of the passages.

Again, because you have not done the proper exegesis, you are unable to give an equal application the the eating of "meat" on as drinking "alcohol."

This highlights a major problem...IFBrs have redefined the "weak" to include seasoned, decades old believers. At the beginning of this letter, Paul scolds the Corinthian believers for having not progressed. They were just 5 years into their faith (max).

So, the "weak" are no longer the young believers trying to sort out their superstitious cultic beliefs with real faith. The IFB has redefined the "weak" to be Christians who are easily offended.
Click to expand...

We will just have to agree to disagree on the application.  I am not caused to stumble by anyone's usage of alcohol, I made that clear.  And I think you have not exegeted well if you can't see that the scriptures and those following do contend that the ones easily offended are weak Christians.  Are you saying that isn't so?  The IFBxers problem is that they think the ones easily offended are the strong ones, not the weak.  I think you do err in this regard.  I am merely saying that we have a responsibility to these weak Christians, and it isn't limited to meat offered to idols.  You can't explain away the words in Corinthians and other references that say "anything" that offends or causes to stumble.  Would you care to define anything?  I have asked you this in the past and your never have addressed that point.
 
I have already established the fact that you have no exegetical study of 1 Corinthians 8... why should I continue running all over Scripture to deal with your diversions?
 
rsc2a said:
[quote author=Anchor]Rom. 14 is referencing a matter of meat entirely unrelated to meat offered to idols...
Click to expand...

I don't think you understand the culture/history in which this letter was written...
[/quote]I
dont think you understand that the bible is as relevant today as it was when it was written.
 
FSSL said:
I have already established the fact that you have no exegetical study of 1 Corinthians 8... why should I continue running all over Scripture to deal with your diversions?
Click to expand...

You have not establishe any such thing, FSSL, except in your own mind. 

What you call diversions I say are valid comparisons of scripture.  You can not explain away Paul jumping from the specific to the general with the verse I gave.  In your mind you think you already have the high ground here, but maybe you should consider this"

1 Corinthians 8:2 (NLT)
2 Anyone who claims to know all the answers doesn
 
I can dismiss the arguments of those who say they pass on exegeting the passage.
 
Romans 14:21 (HCSB)
21 It is a noble thing not to eat meat, or drink wine, or do anything that makes your brother stumble.

I may not be in top form, but I know a farce when I see it.  FSSL and later R2D2 used meat to attack me because I nailed the alcohol thing.  There are many people in this country that are offended by alcohol usage. . . . So, yes, the above scripture plainly applies to those offended, not just to some wine used in some temple somewhere in antiquity.

No, in fact, it does not. To "make your brother stumble" is not to cause him to take offense - it is to cause a less mature Christian to sin against his conscience., because on matters of meat, holy days, or wine (to use Paul's examples), he might still be over-scrupulous.

And you two dare to compare this to eating meat?  You ought to be ashamed of yourself.

Then direct your shame at the Apostle Paul, because it is him who puts them on equal footing in the verse you yourself quoted, above.
 
Ransom said:
Romans 14:21 (HCSB)
21 It is a noble thing not to eat meat, or drink wine, or do anything that makes your brother stumble.

I may not be in top form, but I know a farce when I see it.  FSSL and later R2D2 used meat to attack me because I nailed the alcohol thing.  There are many people in this country that are offended by alcohol usage. . . . So, yes, the above scripture plainly applies to those offended, not just to some wine used in some temple somewhere in antiquity.

No, in fact, it does not. To "make your brother stumble" is not to cause him to take offense - it is to cause a less mature Christian to sin against his conscience., because on matters of meat, holy days, or wine (to use Paul's examples), he might still be over-scrupulous.

And when he does stumble, he is offended because he violated his own conscience.

And you two dare to compare this to eating meat?  You ought to be ashamed of yourself.

Then direct your shame at the Apostle Paul, because it is him who puts them on equal footing in the verse you yourself quoted, above.
Click to expand...

I would have to agree with the above in reference to Paul giving equal footing.  I was over zealous in my remarks.
 
OZZY said:
I
dont think you understand that the bible is as relevant today as it was when it was written.
Click to expand...

No one would debate that. The problem is the Bible cannot mean what it never meant. IFB legalistic applications are not relevant today because they are not biblical.
 
FSSL said:
I can dismiss the arguments of those who say they pass on exegeting the passage.
Click to expand...

I already said I mostly agree with your exegesis, that is the application of which we differ.  You are dismissing my application, so tell the truth.
 
FSSL said:
OZZY said:
I
dont think you understand that the bible is as relevant today as it was when it was written.
Click to expand...

No one would debate that. The problem is the Bible cannot mean what it never meant. IFB legalistic applications are not relevant today because they are not biblical.
Click to expand...

The problem was that Anchor said "Rom. 14 is referencing a matter of meat entirely unrelated to meat offered to idols" which showed a lack of understanding of Roman culture because his statement is just plain wrong.
 
Ransom said:
Romans 14:21 (HCSB)
21 It is a noble thing not to eat meat, or drink wine, or do anything that makes your brother stumble.

I may not be in top form, but I know a farce when I see it.  FSSL and later R2D2 used meat to attack me because I nailed the alcohol thing.  There are many people in this country that are offended by alcohol usage. . . . So, yes, the above scripture plainly applies to those offended, not just to some wine used in some temple somewhere in antiquity.

No, in fact, it does not. To "make your brother stumble" is not to cause him to take offense - it is to cause a less mature Christian to sin against his conscience., because on matters of meat, holy days, or wine (to use Paul's examples), he might still be over-scrupulous.

And you two dare to compare this to eating meat?  You ought to be ashamed of yourself.

Then direct your shame at the Apostle Paul, because it is him who puts them on equal footing in the verse you yourself quoted, above.
Click to expand...

Additionally, I think he's interpreting the word "offend" to mean something the text never implied.
 
Anchor said:

1) I Cor. 8 is only a relatively small part of the greater context which begins in I Cor. 6 and continues through I Cor. 10.  The conclusions you make of I Cor. 8 must be consistent with the conclusions of the entire context which, in a nutshell, is don't eat the meat offered to idols and don't sit at meat in the idol temple.  Of course there are nuances of import.

Sorry, but if you're going to appeal to "the entire context," then you can't ignore the final conclusion in chapter 10:

[list type=decimal]
[*]Freely buy and eat the meat sold in the market, no questions asked, for the sake of conscience (because meat sold in the open market had likely also been sacrificed to pagan gods), because fundamentally false gods don't exist and all the meat belongs to God anyway. (10:25-26)
[*]Similarly, if you are invited to a meal by a pagan, feel free to eat whatever is placed before you, again no questions asked. (27)
[*]However, if you are informed that the meat had been sacrificed, then you should abstain for the sake of that person's conscience, because to do so at that point would be almost like serving both God and demons. (28-30; 20-22).
[/list]

The conclusion of the context is not "don't eat." It's "sometimes eat, sometimes don't, depending on the circumstances."
 
Additionally, I think he's interpreting the word "offend" to mean something the text never implied.

Correct. It's not to take offense, but to commit an offense (i.e. to sin).
 
If my applications are not correct, and I think they are spot on, then I am not the only one.

John MacArthur:

Two common extremes are often followed in regard to doubtful things. One is legalism; the other is license. Legalism believes that every act, every habit, every type of behavior is either black or white. Legalists live by rules rather than by the Spirit. They classify everything as either good or bad, whether the Bible mentions it or not. They develop exhaustive lists of do's and don'ts. Doing the things on the good list and avoiding the things on the bad list is their idea of spirituality, no matter what the inner person is like. Their lives are law controlled, not Spirit controlled. But refraining from doing things is not spirituality; walking in the Spirit is spirituality. Legalism stifles liberty, stifles conscience, stifles the Word, and stifles the Holy Spirit.
License is the opposite extreme. It is like legalism in that it too has no gray areas
 
Ransom said:
The conclusion of the context is not "don't eat." It's "sometimes eat, sometimes don't, depending on the circumstances."
Click to expand...

So wrong! It is always "don't eat when you have knowledge it is associated with idolatry." Knowledge is the key, and that knowledge can come from any number of sources with equal authority, from the elders of the church (Acts 15) to the unbelieving idolater (I Cor. 10:28).  From its establishment for the NT church in Acts 15 to its final mentioning in Rev. 2:14 and 20 partaking of meat offered to idols is always forbidden when knowledge of its idolatrous association is known.  Idolatry is a serious issue with God and He will not suffer His church to associate itself with it in any way, shape, or form (I Cor. 10:20-21).
 
Anchor said:
Ransom said:
The conclusion of the context is not "don't eat." It's "sometimes eat, sometimes don't, depending on the circumstances."
Click to expand...

So wrong! It is always "don't eat when you have knowledge it is associated with idolatry." Knowledge is the key, and that knowledge can come from any number of sources with equal authority, from the elders of the church (Acts 15) to the unbelieving idolater (I Cor. 10:28).  From its establishment for the NT church in Acts 15 to its final mentioning in Rev. 2:14 and 20 partaking of meat offered to idols is always forbidden when knowledge of its idolatrous association is known.  Idolatry is a serious issue with God and He will not suffer His church to associate itself with it in any way, shape, or form (I Cor. 10:20-21).
Click to expand...

Regarding the bolded part...no....not just "no" but what you state directly contradicts the passage in question:

Therefore, as to the eating of food offered to idols, we know that
Click to expand...
 
rsc2a said:
The problem was that Anchor said "Rom. 14 is referencing a matter of meat entirely unrelated to meat offered to idols" which showed a lack of understanding of Roman culture because his statement is just plain wrong.
Click to expand...

Okay, please show me where idols or idolatry are mentioned anywhere in the context of Rom. 14, or anywhere in the context of Romans in general once it begins referencing the work of Christ against the natural inclination of the unregenerate man as so eloquently outlined in chaps 1-2. 

OTOH, I can show you a plethora of context, beginning in 2:17, that records the very "Jewish flavor" of the Roman epistle.  Rom. 14 is most definitely referencing a change of moral stigma on an object (meat and days) and NOT countermanding the previous missives of the Jerusalem Council (Acts 15) and the previously recorded epistle to the Corinthians forbidding eating meat offered to idols. 
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top