1 Cor 8: A misunderstood, hand grenade text

[rsc2a]

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.

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.

I don't have to show you where idols or idolatry are mentioned anywhere in the book of Romans. All I have to do is have an understanding of the source of meat in the Roman world.

 

[Anchor]

In the bolded parts, Paul states the conditions for which one should not eat the meat in question. This means that there are conditions when eating said meat would be appropriate. Or, as Ransom stated, "sometimes eat, sometimes don't, depending on the circumstances."

Let me take you by the hand here and lead you through the pertinent passages.  There are 3 primary scenarios:
I Cor. 8:4-13 "As concerning therefore the eating of those things that are offered in sacrifice to idols...If any man see thee which hast knowledge sit at meat int he idol's temple, shall not the conscience of him which is weak be emboldened to eat those things which are offered to idols; And through thy knowledge shall the weak brother perish, for whom Christ died? But when ye sin so against the brethren,...ye sin against Christ.  Wherefore, if meat make y brother to offend, I will eat no flesh while the world standeth, lest I make my brother to offend." 
When in this passage does is state that eating meat associated with idol worship is appropriate.  The conclusion is definitively no meat [offered to idols] while the world stands.

I Cor. 10:18-22 "...are not they which eat of the sacrifices partakers of the altar?...the things which the Gentiles sacrifice they sacrifice to devils...I would not that ye should have fellowship with devils.  Ye cannot drink the cup of the Lord and the cup of devils: ye cannot be partakers of the Lord's table, and the table of devils...."

Where in this passage does it state that eating meat associated with idol worship is appropriate?  The conclusion here is definitive if it is nothing else.

I Cor. 10:23-33 "...Let no man seek his own...whatsoever is sold in the shambles, that eat, asking no question...If any of them that believe not bid you to a feast, and ye be disposed to go; whatsoever is set before you, eat, asking no question...But if any man say unto you, This is offered in sacrifice unto idols, eat not....Whether therefore ye eat, or drink, or whatsoever ye do, do all to the glory of God.  Give none offense, neither t the Jews, nor to the Gentiles, nor to the church of God...."
And where in this passage does it state that eating meat associated with idol worship is appropriate? It is pretty definitive that as soon as knowledge is garnered, "eat not!" 

 

[Anchor]

I don't have to show you where idols or idolatry are mentioned anywhere in the book of Romans. All I have to do is have an understanding of the source of meat in the Roman world.

Okay, then show me where the co-reference to days (vs. 5-6) is referencing idolatrous sacred days. 

 

[rsc2a]

I don't have to show you where idols or idolatry are mentioned anywhere in the book of Romans. All I have to do is have an understanding of the source of meat in the Roman world.

Okay, then show me where the co-reference to days (vs. 5-6) is referencing idolatrous sacred days.

Has anyone make this claim?

 

[Anchor]

So the days are foundationally Judaic, and the meat is foundationally pagan? 

But the pagan meat, which is clearly defined as demonic in a previous writing (I Cor. 10:20-21) is here described as "He that eateth, eateth to the Lord, for he giveth God thanks...?" 

The Holy Spirit inspired Apostle Paul is coming off as one fickle dude here.

 

[Ransom]

anchor said:

So wrong! It is always "don't eat when you have knowledge it is associated with idolatry."

And when you have no knowledge of it being associated with idolatry, feel free to eat.

In other words, "sometimes eat, sometimes don't, depending on circumstances."

So right.

 

[Anchor]

In other words, "sometimes eat, sometimes don't, depending on circumstances."

So right.

I can agree with you with the alteration of one word: from "circumstances" to something specifically singular.  There is only one circumstance allowed--no knowledge.  Once knowledge is obtained there are no other allowable circumstances.

 

[PAYDAY]

I grew up in, was educated in and ministered in IFB churches. However, ONLY in seminary, when I was forced to actually exegete 1 Corinthians did I really get the outworkings of this passage.

I have heard this passage used to support a litany of IFB, pharisaical issues (hair length on men, skirts on women, movies and, yes alchohol).

Paul was addressing people who have come out of idolatry in the temples of cultic prostitution. Meat, offered to idols, caused a stumbling block to the weak. It was the connection to the cult which caused issues for a few new believers coming out of the temples.

Hopefully the context would be studied by IFBrs. Our modern application is entirely different as it relates to abiblical standards, set up by certain Bible Colleges and legalistic churches.

 

[FSSL]

[quote author=Anchor]
I can agree with you with the alteration of one word: from "circumstances" to something specifically singular.  There is only one circumstance allowed--no knowledge.  Once knowledge is obtained there are no other allowable circumstances.
[/quote]

... If the weak of conscience are among you...

 

[Ransom]

There is only one circumstance allowed--no knowledge.  Once knowledge is obtained there are no other allowable circumstances.

"No knowledge" and "knowledge attained" are circumstances, plural. As I said.

And, as FSSL just pointed out above, these two only apply if there are weak Christians present.  If there are none present, then there is no requirement to abstain from the meat/wine/whatever, since you are not going to cause them to offend.  That is a third set of circumstances.

 

[rsc2a]

There is only one circumstance allowed--no knowledge.  Once knowledge is obtained there are no other allowable circumstances.

"No knowledge" and "knowledge attained" are circumstances, plural. As I said.

And, as FSSL just pointed out above, these two only apply if there are weak Christians present.  If there are none present, then there is no requirement to abstain from the meat/wine/whatever, since you are not going to cause them to offend.  That is a third set of circumstances.

And circumstances that can possibly be corrected. AND those offended would hopefully want them to be corrected since the offended are referred to as "weaker".

 

[Anchor]

... If the weak of conscience are among you...

A little selective in our context aren't we?  Yes, the vulnerable are addressed here and elsewhere (though never indicted).  However, there is far more to this passage than our responsibilities to those that are vulnerable.

Chap. 10:14-22 is exceedingly clear--"Ye cannot drink the cup of the Lord, and the cup of devils: ye cannot be partakers of the Lord's table, and of the table of devils."

There is one circumstance--lack of knowledge.  In all other scenarios it is to be abstained from (Acts 15:20 & 29), fled from (I Cor. 10:14), and removed from the assembly (Rev. 2:14 & 20).

 

[jimmudcatgrant]

... If the weak of conscience are among you...

A little selective in our context aren't we?  Yes, the vulnerable are addressed here and elsewhere (though never indicted).  However, there is far more to this passage than our responsibilities to those that are vulnerable.

Chap. 10:14-22 is exceedingly clear--"Ye cannot drink the cup of the Lord, and the cup of devils: ye cannot be partakers of the Lord's table, and of the table of devils."

There is one circumstance--lack of knowledge.  In all other scenarios it is to be abstained from (Acts 15:20 & 29), fled from (I Cor. 10:14), and removed from the assembly (Rev. 2:14 & 20).

It appears to me that this scripture is forbidding the Christian to partake in the pagan feasts and eating the meat there that has been sacrificed to idols, and not the meat that is sold in the market afterward, which verse 25 and following addresses.

 

[Anchor]

It appears to me that this scripture is forbidding the Christian to partake in the pagan feasts and eating the meat there that has been sacrificed to idols, and not the meat that is sold in the market afterward, which verse 25 and following addresses.

You are correct, with a caveat.  "...That eat asking no question for conscience sake...But if any man say unto you, This is offered in sacrifice unto idols, eat not...." Knowledge forbids partaking of pollutions of idols in every scenario, but for various reasons, the most blatant being "...I would not that ye should have fellowship with devils." 

 

[FSSL]

A little selective in our context aren't we?  Yes, the vulnerable are addressed here and elsewhere (though never indicted).  However, there is far more to this passage than our responsibilities to those that are vulnerable.

Chap. 10:14-22 is exceedingly clear--"Ye cannot drink the cup of the Lord, and the cup of devils: ye cannot be partakers of the Lord's table, and of the table of devils."

I am not being selective in context. I understand the context. As Paul says in 1Cor 10, Believers ought not sit at the "table of demons." They are not to participate in the pagan feasts. The Corinthians were trying to make temple attendance a non-issue.

Are you arguing for total abstinence?

 

[rsc2a]

A little selective in our context aren't we?  Yes, the vulnerable are addressed here and elsewhere (though never indicted).  However, there is far more to this passage than our responsibilities to those that are vulnerable.

Chap. 10:14-22 is exceedingly clear--"Ye cannot drink the cup of the Lord, and the cup of devils: ye cannot be partakers of the Lord's table, and of the table of devils."

I am not being selective in context. I understand the context. As Paul says in 1Cor 10, Believers ought not sit at the "table of demons." They are not to participate in the pagan feasts. The Corinthians were trying to make temple attendance a non-issue.

Are you arguing for total abstinence?

Seems he doesn't know his history regarding Roman sacrifices, sacrificial festivals (i.e. "table/s/ of devils"), and meat from the Roman markets...

Of course this results in his uniformed opinions about the Romans passage, the tie-in to the Lord's supper (1 Cor 10), and basically every other passage he's mentioned.

 

[Anchor]

...Are you arguing for total abstinence?

Abstinence from what?  If the matter is abstinence from the "pollutions of idols" then absolutely I am arguing for it, because that is what Scripture demands.

Acts 15:20 FF "...But that we write unto them, that they abstain from pollutions of idols...For it seemed good to the Holy Ghost, and to us, to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things; That ye abstain from meats offered to idols, and from blood, and from things strangled, and from fornication: from which if ye keep yourselves, ye shall do well."

Re-iterated in Acts 21:25 "As touching the Gentiles which believe, we have written [and] concluded that they observe no such thing, save only that they keep themselves from things offered to idols, and from blood, and from strangled, and from fornication." This event took place several years (approx. 3 by most records) following the penning of I Cor., but obviously nothing has changed in the intervening approx. 10 years between chap 15 and 20.

I Cor. 6-10, w/ emphasis on 8 & 10, does not negate the original instruction, just sets the specifics for the situations in question in Corinth at the time, and for all of Christendom as it was recorded and preserved under inspiration. 

Christ Himself took tremendous exception to the allowance of things offered to idols within His church as evidenced in the messages to Pergamos and Thyatira (Rev. 2).

Consistent throughout the OT and NT is the demand for complete abstinence by the set apart ones to pollutions of idols.  It is a necessary step to "flee from idolatry."  AS Paul so eloquently states in II Cor. 6, "...what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with darkness? And what concord hath Christ with Belial?...And what agreement hath the temple of God with idols? for ye are the temple of the living God...Wherefore come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean thing...."

 

[jimmudcatgrant]

Quote from: FSSL on Today at 08:47:39 AM

...Are you arguing for total abstinence?



Anchor wrote:
Abstinence from what?  If the matter is abstinence from the "pollutions of idols" then absolutely I am arguing for it, because that is what Scripture demands.

I can't speak for FSSL, but my question is:  Are you saying that abstinence from buying meat in the markeplace, some of which had been previously offered to idols is always necessary?  According to the scriptures I read, if someone does this and it isn't against his conscience nor anyone that eats with him, then everything is kosher.  Are you refuting this? 

 

[Anchor]

Seems he doesn't know his history regarding Roman sacrifices, sacrificial festivals (i.e. "table/s/ of devils"), and meat from the Roman markets...

Of course this results in his uniformed opinions about the Romans passage, the tie-in to the Lord's supper (1 Cor 10), and basically every other passage he's mentioned.

OK, since you have brought it up several times now, what specific historical element(s) trumps the clearly written mandates of Luke, Paul, and John in regards to pollutions of/ things offered to/meats sacrificed to idols?

 

[Anchor]

Quote from: FSSL on Today at 08:47:39 AM

...Are you arguing for total abstinence?



Anchor wrote:
Abstinence from what?  If the matter is abstinence from the "pollutions of idols" then absolutely I am arguing for it, because that is what Scripture demands.

I can't speak for FSSL, but my question is:  Are you saying that abstinence from buying meat in the markeplace, some of which had been previously offered to idols is always necessary?  According to the scriptures I read, if someone does this and it isn't against his conscience nor anyone that eats with him, then everything is kosher.  Are you refuting this?

Not sure where you're getting that from.  Scripture is quite plain.  If you buy it in the market place or it is presented you by a neighbor, don't ask any questions.  Just cook it and eat it.  However, if they sell you it or hand you it and state it came from the temple sacrifices, "eat not."  It doesn't get much plainer than that.  Knowledge is the key ingredient here.