1 Cor 8: A misunderstood, hand grenade text

[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?

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.

Not sure where you are getting that from.  What scriptures are you using to say that applies to the marketplace, apart from the pagan feasts?  Just wanting to make sure we are on the same page.  I know we might be rehashing old ground here, but bear with me, I am slow somtimes as no doubt Ransom, FSSL and R2D2 with tell you.

 

[rsc2a]

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?

As Ransom said earlier...

...because meat sold in the open market had likely also been sacrificed to pagan gods...

 

[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?

As Ransom said earlier...

...because meat sold in the open market had likely also been sacrificed to pagan gods...

And it likely had not, also.  Meat markets sell meat.  So ask no questions, as per Scripture.  However, if information is forthcoming that identifies it as polluted by idols, don't eat it. 

Not sure how the likelihood of meat sold in the market, or being served at the unbelieving neighbors' wedding feast, having been offered to idols provides the historicity that trumps Scripture. Paul made it very clear how to handle those particular scenarios.

 

[Anchor]

Not sure where you are getting that from.  What scriptures are you using to say that applies to the marketplace, apart from the pagan feasts?  Just wanting to make sure we are on the same page.  I know we might be rehashing old ground here, but bear with me, I am slow somtimes as no doubt Ransom, FSSL and R2D2 with tell you.

After discussing the question of meats offered to idols for 3 chapters (I Cor. 8:1 "Now as touching things offered unto idols...")  Paul concludes with how to handle the specific situations of Corinthian life (with principled application to all Christendom) in regards to these meats. "Eat anything that is sold in the meat market without asking questions...If one of the unbelievers invites you and you want to go, eat anything that is set before you without asking questions...[I Cor. 10:24 FF NASB]."  However, in regards to the meat market or the neighbor's feast, "But if anyone says to you, 'This is meat sacrificed to idols,' do not eat it...."

Corinth, like many of the Mediterranean cities, was flooded with items (meat in this particular instance) openly associated with idolatry.  Idolatry was the main external issue, as it is today, that has extreme harmful ramifications to the church.  The objective to keep idolatry out of the church was balanced with the need to function "normally" in living in Corinth through the instruction "ask no questions." But when information was forthcoming through other channels, and that information affirmed the idolatrous nature of the action or object (meat/feast in this specific instance) that action or object was to be rejected out of hand and immediately--"Eat not!"

 

[rsc2a]

As Ransom said earlier...

...because meat sold in the open market had likely also been sacrificed to pagan gods...

And it likely had not, also.

No...and this just highlights your ignorance of relevant history about these passages.

[quote author=Anchor]Meat markets sell meat.  So ask no questions, as per Scripture.  However, if information is forthcoming that identifies it as polluted by idols, don't eat it. [/quote]

You missed a qualifier in there...

I do not mean your conscience, but his. For why should my liberty be determined by someone else's conscience?

...in other words, even with this knowledge, you can still partake as long as your partaking does not cause another to stumble. (i.e. violate their conscience)

[quote author=Anchor]Not sure how the likelihood of meat sold in the market, or being served at the unbelieving neighbors' wedding feast, having been offered to idols provides the historicity that trumps Scripture. Paul made it very clear how to handle those particular scenarios.[/quote]

Scripture cannot be interpreted in a vacuum. The historicity of the culture and times is part of the context by which we interpret Scripture.

 

[Anchor]

You missed a qualifier in there...

I do not mean your conscience, but his. For why should my liberty be determined by someone else's conscience?

...in other words, even with this knowledge, you can still partake as long as your partaking does not cause another to stumble. (i.e. violate their conscience)

"If any of them that believe not...eat not for his sake that shewed it, and for conscience sake...Conscience, I say, not thine own, but of the other...."

Probably it is time for us to come up with a correct definition of conscience here.  But, in the meantime, exactly what kind of conscience does an unbelieving pagan have that your eating will cause him to stumble?

 

[biscuit1953]

The conclusion of the context is not "don't eat." It's "sometimes eat, sometimes don't, depending on the circumstances."

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, your argument is no different than that which Lisa Ruby gives.  I used to attend a Baptist church where birthdays, Easter, Christmas, wedding rings and just about everything imaginable was condemned because some how or another they were all connected with paganism.  They would go to Jeremiah 10 and show that the Christmas tree was nothing more than a "Baal Bush" and it was even implied that most Christians who celebrated such things weren't even saved.  It is impossible to separate from paganism in this world.  Every day of the week and every month of the year is named after some "god" or another.  But just like Jeremiah states in chapter 10 verse 5: "Do not be afraid of them, For they cannot do evil, Nor can they do any good."

Paul is saying the same thing in 1 Corinthians 8.

4 Therefore concerning the eating of things offered to idols, we know that an idol is nothing in the world, and that there is no other God but one. 5 For even if there are so-called gods, whether in heaven or on earth (as there are many gods and many lords), 6 yet for us there is one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we for Him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, through whom are all things, and through whom we live.

7 However, there is not in everyone that knowledge; for some, with consciousness of the idol, until now eat it as a thing offered to an idol; and their conscience, being weak, is defiled. 8 But food does not commend us to God; for neither if we eat are we the better, nor if we do not eat are we the worse.

The only reason Paul would not eat such foods is if he thought it would cause someone else to stumble.  If anyone has ever done any mission work and seen a wino come to Christ, certainly at a Bible study or restaurant alcohol should not be served for the sake of the convert saved out of a life of alcoholism.  Should the mature Christian who has no problem drinking wine occasionally prove he is strong by exercising his liberty of indulging in something that obviously would cause someone else to stumble? 

 

[AresMan]

Read the above, FSSL, and tell me that we don't have a national problem.  I know, I know, you and others can handle it.  I pray you are right.  The average person drives over 80 times impaired by alcohol before ever getting pulled over for it.  No doubt countless thought they were "handling" it.

For your next trick, are you going to cite statistics on STDs and out-of-wedlock pregnancy, and call for an end to sex?

Or statistics on the prevalent obesity in America and call for an end to foods containing sugar, complex carbohydrates, and fat.

 

[rsc2a]

[quote author=Anchor]Probably it is time for us to come up with a correct definition of conscience here.  But, in the meantime, exactly what kind of conscience does an unbelieving pagan have that your eating will cause him to stumble?[/quote]

No. It is time to understand that, with a corrected view of history, your entire argument is invalid. I see no reason to figure out whether or not we have the right flooring type when you are using the wrong set of house plans to begin with.

 

[jimmudcatgrant]

Read the above, FSSL, and tell me that we don't have a national problem.  I know, I know, you and others can handle it.  I pray you are right.  The average person drives over 80 times impaired by alcohol before ever getting pulled over for it.  No doubt countless thought they were "handling" it.

For your next trick, are you going to cite statistics on STDs and out-of-wedlock pregnancy, and call for an end to sex?

Or statistics on the prevalent obesity in America and call for an end to foods containing sugar, complex carbohydrates, and fat.

Where did I call for an end to anything? I never called for prohibition.  You are the one doing that.  BTW, any doctor will tell you that you can't safely eliminate all fat from your diet.  If you came over to my house as a Christian and said eating all those things would cause you to sin, then I would honor your wishes and serve fresh salmon and simple carbohydrates.  Of course, if you are trying to compare this to those who die on the highway, then your point is still moot.  Feeding yourself these things doesn't endanger the public the way drunk driving does.  Any other non-comparisons you want to make?

 

[rsc2a]

[quote author=jimmudcatgrant]Of course, if you are trying to compare this to those who die on the highway, then your point is still moot.  Feeding yourself these things doesn't endanger the public the way drunk driving does.  Any other non-comparisons you want to make?[/quote]

You're right...this is a much slower, more uncomfortable death. If obesity is a cancer, being killed by a drunk driver is a quick bullet to the head.

 

[jimmudcatgrant]

[quote author=jimmudcatgrant]Of course, if you are trying to compare this to those who die on the highway, then your point is still moot.  Feeding yourself these things doesn't endanger the public the way drunk driving does.  Any other non-comparisons you want to make?

You're right...this is a much slower, more uncomfortable death. If obesity is a cancer, being killed by a drunk driver is a quick bullet to the head.
[/quote]

R2D2 why do you purposely twist my words?  I wasn't comparing the way people die.  I was saying that eating wrong endangers yourself, not the public, which drunk driving plainly does.  You should be a politician as you never answer the question posed.  You always twist things in a dishonest way, imo.  I may make mistakes and mispeak sometimes, but I am not intellectually dishonest.

 

[Anchor]

Anchor, your argument is no different than that which Lisa Ruby gives.  I used to attend a Baptist church where birthdays, Easter, Christmas, wedding rings and just about everything imaginable was condemned because some how or another they were all connected with paganism.  They would go to Jeremiah 10 and show that the Christmas tree was nothing more than a "Baal Bush" and it was even implied that most Christians who celebrated such things weren't even saved.  It is impossible to separate from paganism in this world.  Every day of the week and every month of the year is named after some "god" or another.  But just like Jeremiah states in chapter 10 verse 5: "Do not be afraid of them, For they cannot do evil, Nor can they do any good."

Paul is saying the same thing in 1 Corinthians 8.

4 Therefore concerning the eating of things offered to idols, we know that an idol is nothing in the world, and that there is no other God but one. 5 For even if there are so-called gods, whether in heaven or on earth (as there are many gods and many lords), 6 yet for us there is one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we for Him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, through whom are all things, and through whom we live.

7 However, there is not in everyone that knowledge; for some, with consciousness of the idol, until now eat it as a thing offered to an idol; and their conscience, being weak, is defiled. 8 But food does not commend us to God; for neither if we eat are we the better, nor if we do not eat are we the worse.

The only reason Paul would not eat such foods is if he thought it would cause someone else to stumble.  If anyone has ever done any mission work and seen a wino come to Christ, certainly at a Bible study or restaurant alcohol should not be served for the sake of the convert saved out of a life of alcoholism.  Should the mature Christian who has no problem drinking wine occasionally prove he is strong by exercising his liberty of indulging in something that obviously would cause someone else to stumble?

A couple of things here:
1) Who is Lisa Ruby and what gives her any credibility or non-credibility, and how does she enter into this discussion?

2) People have always found tangents and will always find tangents.  The passages dealing with pollutions of idols (meat in the instances cited) are establishing principles regarding the dominant, distinguishable idolatry of any given culture.  Every culture is different, so every idolatry is different and will incorporate differing actions or objects that define it in its cultural context.  The worship of Aphrodite or Artemas (Diana) are not a cultural phenom in the USA, so the issue of eating meat is completely irrelevant--nobody gives a rat's rear where the meat came from, and no one should worry about it any more.  Same thing with Christmas trees or whatever--they may have had pagan identification at one time, but that is long past; they no longer identify pagan-ness to the culture, and are, therefore, completely irrelevant.

3) That is not to say that America or western civilization does not have its culturally defining idolatry, or that that idolatry has not polluted culturally defining/accepted objects or actions through idolatrous identification as much as the meat/feasts were polluted in their association with Aphrodite and/or Artemas.  It is these pollutions that, when identified (knowledge, if you please), are strictly forbidden to be part of the believer's life or incorporated into Christ's church.  "Abstain from pollutions of idols." It is no longer a liberty issue.  "...The things which the Gentiles sacrifice, they sacrifice to devils, and not to God: and I would not that ye should have fellowship with devils."   The problem is idolatry though the culturally acceptable identifiers will vary from culture to culture and generation to generation. 

 

[Anchor]

[quote author=Anchor]Probably it is time for us to come up with a correct definition of conscience here.  But, in the meantime, exactly what kind of conscience does an unbelieving pagan have that your eating will cause him to stumble?

No. It is time to understand that, with a corrected view of history, your entire argument is invalid. I see no reason to figure out whether or not we have the right flooring type when you are using the wrong set of house plans to begin with.
[/quote]

OK, then just run with the question: how is my eating something identified as sacrificed to a pagan deity going to offend the conscience of (cause to stumble) the unregenerate pagan who is feeding me the meat as a gesture of good will, which is clearly the context of I Cor. 10:28-29?

 

[FSSL]

It is not the object, it is the conduct. That is Paul's point all along in.every context.

Anchor: do you believe Paul forbid wine, entirely? Is wine always associated with idolatry today ? If not, under what.circumstances would be allowed?

 

[Anchor]

It is not the object, it is the conduct. That is Paul's point all along in.every context.

Anchor: do you believe Paul forbid wine, entirely? Is wine always associated with idolatry today ? If not, under what.circumstances would be allowed?

Let me reverse the question on you:  What is the dominant idolatry or prevalent idolatries  that define American culture today?

 

[biscuit1953]

It is not the object, it is the conduct. That is Paul's point all along in.every context.

Anchor: do you believe Paul forbid wine, entirely? Is wine always associated with idolatry today ? If not, under what.circumstances would be allowed?

Let me reverse the question on you:  What is the dominant idolatry or prevalent idolatries  that define American culture today?

I sincerely wish I could find a passage that says it is wrong to drink wine but I can't.  Believe me I do wish that.  It comes back to Christian liberty which some may have and others don't.  It's as simple as that.

 

[Anchor]

I sincerely wish I could find a passage that says it is wrong to drink wine but I can't.  Believe me I do wish that.  It comes back to Christian liberty which some may have and others don't.  It's as simple as that.

One of the issues I have with discussions on things such as wine is simply this: the primary focus tends to be "prove to me that I can't do what I really want to do and am going to find a way to do relatively guilt free." The Scripture focus is "Let no man seek his own, but every man another's [welfare]."

 

[biscuit1953]

I sincerely wish I could find a passage that says it is wrong to drink wine but I can't.  Believe me I do wish that.  It comes back to Christian liberty which some may have and others don't.  It's as simple as that.

One of the issues I have with discussions on things such as wine is simply this: the primary focus tends to be "prove to me that I can't do what I really want to do and am going to find a way to do relatively guilt free." The Scripture focus is "Let no man seek his own, but every man another's [welfare]."

The flip side is if you don't have the same convictions I do on something that is a gray area, you are wrong and sinning under any circumstances.

 

[FSSL]

Let me reverse the question on you:  What is the dominant idolatry or prevalent idolatries  that define American culture today?

Overeating... therefore, do not eat meat.

Personally, I do not drink often. The last time I drank was when I was in a business meeting (two years ago) and I had a cup of wine so as not to offend the person I was with. He was paying the bill.

My kids are young in their faith. I have trained their consciences, using Scripture, so that they have no issue with me drinking. They do not have a background in idolatry like the Corinthians.

It is NOT the object, it is the abuse of the object (conduct). The CONTEXT, where Paul is concerned is the weak falling back into their old ways.

I know Christians who drink but never abuse it. Unfortunately, the IFB community has wrongly trained the consciences of their people. The IFB community has gone too far the other direction. They have placed themselves in a situation where they cannot properly reconcile statements like...

"...not give to much wine..."
"...a little wine for your stomach's sake..."
Marriage feast where Jesus turned water into the best wine
etc...etc...etc...

Instead of training consciences to align with Scripture, the IFBrs have used the "wine" issue like a hand grenade.