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 29 by shnarkle]

I'm calling the new covenant as big a failure as the old. Using the logic of Paul. If righteousness could come through the sacrifice of Jesus it certainly would have come by now.

And yet your assessment is lacking much of what Paul stated. For example, he points out that the lack of faith of some doesn't negate the promises of God. He also points out that it isn't just Christ's sacrifice, but being "a new creature in Christ" which is equivalent to being "born from above" in John's gospel. The new creature doesn't prevent others from sinning. They just don't sin themselves.

Paul indicated that suffering was due to a deficit of affliction on Jesus's part.

Colossians 1:23-24 New International Version (NIV)

23 if you continue in your faith, established and firm, and do not move from the hope held out in the gospel. This is the gospel that you heard and that has been proclaimed to every creature under heaven, and of which I, Paul, have become a servant.

I'm not sure how that indicates a deficit on Jesus' part.

Pauls Labor for the Church
24 Now I rejoice in what I am suffering for you, and I fill up in my flesh what is still lacking in regard to Christs afflictions, for the sake of his body, which is the church.

Here again, you seem to be missing out on the fact that Paul defines his terms and explicitly points out that he isn't referring to Christ apart from his body "which is the church". So once again, there is no deficit on Jesus' part.

But then again Paul also claimed that the gospel was already proclaimed to the whole of creation.

Which would fit with his belief that the end of the ageswas upon them.

Yep. Definitely.

1 Corinthians 10:11
These things happened to them as examples and were written down as warnings for us, on whom the culmination of the ages has come.


Hebrews 10:36-37 New International Version (NIV)

36 You need to persevere so that when you have done the will of God, you will receive what he has promised. 37 For,

In just a little while,
he who is coming will come
and will not delay.

Yes, and that age ended with the destruction of the temple which was just around 70 c.e. This is explicitly what Christ was referring to, and there is no reason to suppose that Paul meant anything other than that as well.

[postroad]

[Replying to post 31 by shnarkle]

You indicate that no deficit exists. Paul indicated that there was a deficit.

In fact Jesus's death didn't reset anything. Believers keep sinning and dying.

Eventually the promise is completely written off.


Hebrews 8:5-6 New International Version (NIV)

5 They serve at a sanctuary that is a copy and shadow of what is in heaven. This is why Moses was warned when he was about to build the tabernacle: See to it that you make everything according to the pattern shown you on the mountain.[a] 6 But in fact the ministry Jesus has received is as superior to theirs as the covenant of which he is mediator is superior to the old one, since the new covenant is established on better promises.

The Jews are relegated to illegitimate heir status.


New International Version (NIV)

Hagar and Sarah
21 Tell me, you who want to be under the law, are you not aware of what the law says? 22 For it is written that Abraham had two sons, one by the slave woman and the other by the free woman. 23 His son by the slave woman was born according to the flesh, but his son by the free woman was born as the result of a divine promise.

24 These things are being taken figuratively: The women represent two covenants. One covenant is from Mount Sinai and bears children who are to be slaves: This is Hagar. 25 Now Hagar stands for Mount Sinai in Arabia and corresponds to the present city of Jerusalem, because she is in slavery with her children. 26 But the Jerusalem that is above is free, and she is our mother.

And of course the Jesus character follows suit.

John 18:36


Jesus said, My kingdom is not of this world. If it were, my servants would fight to prevent my arrest by the Jewish leaders. But now my kingdom is from another place.

[shnarkle]

[Replying to post 27 by 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.

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

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

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

Paul did not consider any food to be unclean,

Says you. Paul would never consider eating anything that was rotten or filthy, and that includes rotten or filthy food. Paul doesn't disagree with the biblical definition of unclean, and there is nothing in any of his letters to indicate otherwise.

and so he would not have suggested that they were sinning by anything they were eating (unless they themselves thought their food was unclean and that eating it was a sin).

And that would only be due to the fact that it was defined as a sin in the law. Paul never denies the law, only the "curse", and even then that only pertains to those who "walk after the Spirit". Everyone else must continue to rely upon Christ's sacrifice to cover their sins.

Please be so kind as to show where the Mosaic law states that unclean animals are not in the food category at all.

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

The law stated that the meat of unclean animals was not permitted to be eaten by Israel.

The book of Moses a.k.a. the book of the Law written by Moses includes Genesis, Exodus, and Numbers, and unclean animals were known to be unclean long before Israel ever existed as can be seen with the story of Noah in the book of Genesis.

The law does not state that the meat of some animals is food, and the meat of other animals is not food.

Yes, it does. See the above references I provided for your edification where God stipulates that you shall not eat any abominable thing. They are explitly told what is clean and therefore acceptable to eat and what is not clean and therefore not acceptable.

The law did not make that distinction;

Yes, it does. The law made the distinction between clean and unclean animals;

Yep, and clean animals can be eaten while eating unclean animals is "an abomination" to God.

even of clean and unclean food.

Again, you haven't provided any scriptural support for your idea that God refers to some food as unclean. Other than rotten food, where does God or the bible refer to food as unclean?

The meat of unclean animals was not permitted to be eaten by Israel.

Exodus 12:49 points out that God doesn't have a different law for Gentiles. Paul and Luke both reiterate that fact by pointing out that God is not a respecter of persons.

Israel was given certain laws (that Gentiles were not given) because Israel was meant to be a holy nation. So they had to learn to distinguish between the holy and the common; the clean and the unclean.

And the foreigner was also under those same laws as I already pointed out with Exodus 12:49 Luke and Paul also reiterates this fact by pointing out that "God is not a respecter of persons"; "there is no Jew or Greek in the kingdom", and that "whatever the law says, it says to them who are under the law, that EVERY mouth may be stopped, and ALL THE WORLD may become guilty before God"; "Is He the God of the Jews only? Is He not also the God of the Gentiles? YES, of the Gentiles also".

Again, there is nothing in Paul's letters to indicate that he see's one law for Jews and one for Gentiles. There is no gospel just for the Jews, and another one for Gentiles.

However, I would have to agree that God may have a caste system, and those who are not called to holiness simply have no need to keep any of God's laws.

From Deuteronomy 14:


"You are the children of [the LORD] your God. Do not cut yourselves or shave the front of your heads for the dead, for you are a people holy to [the LORD] your God. Out of all the peoples on the face of the earth, [the LORD] has chosen you to be his treasured possession....


... All flying insects are unclean to you; do not eat them. But any winged creature that is clean you may eat.

Do not eat anything you find already dead. You may give it to the foreigner residing in any of your towns, and they may eat it, or you may sell it to any other foreigner. But you are a people holy to [the LORD] your God.

This is clearly a different standard for a foreigner, than for a member of Israel.

It is the standard for God's holy people regardless of who they may be. God doesn't change his standard just because those who would prefer to work their way to salvation are failures.

There was "a mixed multitude who left Egypt, and anyone who sins against God is cut off. Paul also points out that they are those who suppress the truth in unrighteousness. Those who do so, are not saved. They aren't supposed to do what is right. God has left them to their own devices as Paul notes in the first chapter of his letter to the Romans. My apologies, I was under the impression that you were claiming to be a member of the body of Christ.

I never claimed that those whom God has cast aside as "vessels fitted for destruction" need to be aware of God's law. They necessasrily can't keep God's law. I was referring to those God has chosen from among the Jews and Gentiles. God cares about the church as can be seen when Luke points out:

"This is he, that was in the church in the wilderness with the Angel Which spake to him at Mt. Sinai, and with our fathers: who received the lively oracles TO GIVE TO US" Luke 7:38

If you pay attention to the context, Luke is pointing out that the "lively oracles" which were given to Moses on Mt. Sinai were then rejected by the children of Israel, but then given to the church e.g. "to us". "Us" should be compared to, and distinguished from "they" which is a reference to the congregation of Israel which failed to keep God's commandments and were subsequently left for dead through their faithlessness. Paul also points out that the church will meet with the same fate if they disobey. 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.

The living Temple - which is the body of Christ - has no animal sacrifices.

I never claimed they did. I pointed out that the body of Christ would never introduce something so defiling as swine into it.

- the body of Christ - that the living God dwells within).

And he doesn't dwell with filthy, polluted swine.

This does not even make sense.

It makes perfect sense as swine are polluted and filthy. This is explicitly what the bible states.

As Christ said, what goes into the mouth, goes into the stomach and out the body. We are not made unclean by what we consume (physically).

I never said otherwise. This is a strawman argument. However, I did point out what Christ actually stated, which is that it is the heart that defiles, and once one is defiled there is nothing anyone can do to defile oneself or make oneself clean. Your quotation only makes sense within the whole context, otherwise you are making the same claim those who engage in drug use or sodomy or illicit sexual relations make. Under your logic, fornication is perfectly acceptable, but we already know that can't be the case, and the same is true with all sin including sin against God's dietary laws which are for the benefit of the church. It is an abomination to eat garbage, and God defines that as sin.

The same with circumcision of the flesh may help us to understand the circumcision of the heart (not the heart of flesh, but of the spirit)

Not likely. Circumcision is only a benefit when one keeps God's law(Romans 2:25), and you've just effectively made the claim that God's laws don't need to be kept so circumcision will be of no use to you whatsoever. Moreover, 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).

I have consistently said that love is the law (love does not steal, love does not commit adultery, love does not bear false witness; love does not commit murder); Paul also said that love is the fulfillment of the law.

Quite right, but ignoring the law or redefining sin doesn't fulfill the law. Love does not desire to violate any of God's laws, and the dietary laws as well as the 4th commandment can only be fulfilled by love. When one doesn't fulfill them, they can't be loving God by ignoring those commandments.

Let no debt remain outstanding, except the continuing debt to love one another, for whoever loves others has fulfilled the law.

And trampling upon and desecrating God's Sabbath is not showing God that you love him.

The commandments, You shall not commit adultery, You shall not murder, You shall not steal, You shall not covet, and whatever other command there may be,

Whatever other commands there may be???? Did you catch that part? The dietary laws as well as the Sabbath commandment do actually exist, do they not?

are summed up in this one command: Love your neighbor as yourself.

I think you might want to look up the definition of 'summed up' because it doesn't mean 'subtract the 4th commandment'.

Love does no harm to a neighbor. Therefore love is the fulfillment of the law.

Notice that it states "the fulfillment of the law" rather than "leaving it unfullfilled", or "ignoring the law".

Paul also wrote:

For in Christ [Jesus] neither circumcision nor uncircumcision has any value. All that matters is faith, expressed through love.

Yep, and that is because those who are in Christ keep the law. As I already pointed out earlier, it can only benefit those who keep it. Thus, those who disregard God's commandments will never benefit from them, and they can't fulfill any of them if they don't have the love of Christ. To then point out you no longer keep them only spotlights what's really going on.

Paul also said to stop judging one another, specifically he said this about judging others over what they eat (or don't eat).

Sure, but then so what? I'm not judging anyone here. I'm simply pointing out that the dietary laws aren't done away with. In fact, the only law that is done away with is the "curse" of the law, and God's commandments are in no way a curse. They aren't a burden either as the only burden was introduced by the legalists, and the commandments weren't introduced by the legalists, nor were the dietary laws.

I am not judging you (or anyone else) over what you choose not to eat - not because Paul said not to judge, but because Christ said not to judge. Christ is the One to whom I listen.

And neither Christ nor Paul ever did away with the Sabbath or the dietary laws. If so, where?

His words can apply to more than just this ritual washing of hands, and we can see that in His other words that were understood more fully, later. Such as what Temple He was referring to that could be torn down and built back up in three days.

What's your point? I don't see the connection.

You seem to be limiting his words

You seem to be ignoring my question.

"It is not what goes into a man that makes him unclean' to only eating with unwashed hands. His words are about more than just this.

Right, and I pointed out explicitly to what he was referring to which was where sin originated. It originates in one's heart, and that is what defiles. One can go out and commit adultery, murder, lie, steal, etc. and none of those things will ever defile what their own deceitful, desperately wicked heart has already defiled through it's own wicked desire to break God's commandments.

How does eating pork or shellfish cause sexual immorality, theft, murder, adultery, greed, malice, deceit, lewdness, envy, slander, arrogance and folly?

It is quite arrogant to view God's laws as capricious, and to eat what God explicitly states is "filth" is one of the best examples of folly imaginable. It also seems to be the case that those who disregard God's law do seem to be quite deceived, and even intentionally engaging in deceit themselves.

You did not answer my question.

I most certainly did. Eating garbage is foolish. If this doesn't sound correct, please be so kind as to point out how eating garbage is a good idea. How does one become wise from eating filth? How is it that wise people eat garbage?

To suggest that God views eating garbage as "an abomination", but then to suggest that what was once considered detestable to God is now condoned is to present a capricious god. A god who determines what is good or bad simply based upon some whim. In other words, there is nothing inherently good or bad. There is no good reason to keep any of God's commandments other than because he says so. This is foolish, and shows a serious disregard for common sense. When God's laws are kept, it becomes much easier to see that they're all really just pointing out what should be common sense. The fact that it isn't common sense is a potent indicator of just who is keeping God's laws and who isn't.

I specifically quoted a verse in my previous post that used the words 'unclean food'.

Maybe you quoted a verse, but it didn't state "unclean food". That verse doesn't exist in anything written by any of the authors of the bible.

Nobody ever addresses the fact that rotten food is unclean, but according to your logic it is now clean and acceptable to be eaten.

Lets address that issue now then.

I wish you would, but I already looked ahead and you still haven't addressed it, much less refuted it.

Lets say that someone ate rotten food. Perhaps they have a mental disorder or some strange hormonal disorder causing them to crave rotten food. Perhaps they are homeless or starving. Whatever their reason, someone has eaten rotten food.

There is ultimately only one reason, and it is because they are deceived and they have defiled themselves by their own desire to do what God has forbidden.

That person will probably get sick (so it is not wise to eat rotten food), and depending upon how bad it is, they might even die.


But that person will not be rendered unclean before God because of the rotten food they ingested.

And again, I never said they would. This is what is known as a straw man argument. More importantly, it doesn't even begin to address the issue of condoning the eating of rotten food. This is your position because by stating that rotten food is now clean, the author is pointing out that it is now acceptable to eat rotten food. Unclean food is rotten food. That is how it is defined in the bible.

Because it is not what goes into a man that makes him unclean!

Again, it is what emanates from the defiled heart. In this case, it is the desire to eat what God views as garbage. That is explicitly what defiles, and anything afterwards is anticlimactic, and can in no way defile what is already defiled by one's own desperately wicked heart.

But the things that come out of the mouth come from the heart, and these things defile a man. For out of the heart come evil thoughts, murder, adultery, sexual immorality, theft, false testimony, and slander.

And it is slanderous to claim that Paul ever condoned the idea that grace would abound through sin, which is what this is suggesting. To suggest that eating what God has forbidden is somehow condoned is nonsense.

there is definitely an effect on the bodies of an alcoholic (even if it is not seen on the outside until later).

Same goes for eating what God referes to as "filth".

Liver damage springs to mind. And in fact, an alcoholic will have withdrawal if he suddenly stops drinking, even just for a single day.

Something similar happens to those who live on a diet of swine and shellfish. If they were to go a few days without eating, the toxins that have been stored in their own fat cells would begin to burn off and flood into their system causing havok. This is the case today with most people who subsist on a normal American diet. They can't go more than a few days without food before they get quite ill. It is only those who know enough to follow God's explicit instructions that have a chance of going on to fast like Christ himself calls us to. There are very few people nowadays who could get beyond a week, forget about 40 days of fasting.

People will often claim that the bible isn't a science book, but God presents his law to his chosen people and then points out that to keep his law results in blessings while to ignore it results in curses. The proof is in the pudding. All one need to do is perform the experiment. I dare you to give it a shot. Chances are that it simply isn't possible because of a pre-existing health condition, or a few meals of pork followed by fasting for three or more days will inevitably lead to the quick realization that fasting isn't for you. And yet this is explicitly enjoined upon the church. No wonder no one even thinks to fast anymore. It will never enter into the mind of those who eat garbage to begin with, and if it does, watch out. It isn't pretty.

There are people who grew up eating nothing but fast food, and can no longer handle fresh fruits or vegetables. It will make them violently ill.

In the short term, it can make them uncomfortable (gastrointestinal discomfort; same goes for anything that the body is not accustomed to eating and digesting). That does not make vegetables bad though, right?

No, but the same doesn't hold true for those who have never eaten swine, shellfish, etc. It is foolish and down right crazy to start eating that garbage, especially when God has defined it as garbage and pointed out that it is detestable. When God views something as detestable, but others don't see it that way, something is seriously wrong.

Just something that the body is unaccustomed to eating and digesting.

That's why God calls it filth.

Every day is a sabbath; a day to set aside ourselves and do the work that God gives us.

Sounds nice, but nonetheless unbiblical.

The Temple is not our physical flesh and blood body.

Actually it is, and Paul points this out when he says:

Don't you know that your body is the temple of the Holy Spirit in you, which you have of God, and you are not your own? 1 Corinthians 6:19

This flesh and blood has sin and death in it.

Not when one has received the gospel message and denied themselves, or as Paul puts it "died to sin". Then the body houses the Spirit of God, and one does not bring swine into God's house.

No matter how good you take care of it; it will get sick or injured, and it will die.

Speak for yourself. Swine and shellfish does have the tendency to make one feeble and accident prone. All that garbage clogggin up everything makes people do odd things, and no doubt brings one to an early grave. I'm in better shape now than I was 30 years ago. I've got a few friends who look like their in their early to mid 30's. They're all over 65, and retired. They all follow God's laws which results in incredible health and vitality of life. We don't really look at it that way, but it's hard not to when everyone else around you is sick or dying.

We will be given NEW bodies when Christ returns: the white robe that has only LIFE in it (no sin and no death).

We don't need to wait for a new body when God reveals who we are in Christ. It is only for those who have discvored the kingdom to have the opportunity to make their way into it right now. As Christ points out when he states that people were forcing their way into the kingdom over 2000 years ago right in front of those who couldn't see it. Those who couldn't see it were doing all they could to block anyone else from getting in. Some things never change.

This flesh counts for nothing.

Especially when it justifies sin.

The Temple is the Body of Christ - made of people who are in Christ - with Him as our Head.

And Christ never ate swine or shellfish. There are no swine or shellfish in Christ. There is no filthy garbage in Christ and there is certainly no sin in Christ.

Those who sin are not in Christ, and they can't be any part of the body. This is what the texts state. 1 John 3:5; Romans 8:1

[shnarkle]

[Replying to post 31 by shnarkle]

You indicate that no deficit exists. Paul indicated that there was a deficit.

You're grasping at straws. I simply pointed out that the deficit is not inherently in Christ, but in those members of the church body who are still struggling. Paul points out that those who "walk after the Spirit do not fulfill the lust of the flesh". He also points out that at that point, there is no further need for a sacrificial system. Why? Because they no longer sin. For them, there is no deficit in Christ who's faith is now operating within them.

In fact Jesus's death didn't reset anything. Believers keep sinning and dying.

Sure, but only those believes who haven't been reborn.

Eventually the promise is completely written off.

Yep, but only by those who have no faith to begin with. As Paul points out those who are faithless do not negate God's promises.

[postroad]

[Replying to post 34 by shnarkle]

Where are their believers who have stopped sinning and dying.

It was Paul himself who wrote off the promise to Abraham.

Hebrews 8:5-7 New International Version (NIV)

5 They serve at a sanctuary that is a copy and shadow of what is in heaven. This is why Moses was warned when he was about to build the tabernacle: See to it that you make everything according to the pattern shown you on the mountain.[a] 6 But in fact the ministry Jesus has received is as superior to theirs as the covenant of which he is mediator is superior to the old one, since the new covenant is established on better promises.

7 For if there had been nothing wrong with that first covenant, no place would have been sought for another.

Which makes God a liar. The promise never changed in prophecy.


Jeremiah 32:38-42 New International Version (NIV)

38 They will be my people, and I will be their God. 39 I will give them singleness of heart and action, so that they will always fear me and that all will then go well for them and for their children after them. 40 I will make an everlasting covenant with them: I will never stop doing good to them, and I will inspire them to fear me, so that they will never turn away from me. 41 I will rejoice in doing them good and will assuredly plant them in this land with all my heart and soul.

42 This is what the Lord says: As I have brought all this great calamity on this people, so I will give them all the prosperity I have promised them.

[shnarkle]

[Replying to post 34 by shnarkle]

Where are their believers who have stopped sinning and dying.

Do you think they're going to be broadcasting the fact that they don't sin anymore?

It takes one to know one.

[postroad]

[Replying to post 34 by shnarkle]

Where are their believers who have stopped sinning and dying.

Do you think they're going to be broadcasting the fact that they don't sin anymore?

It takes one to know one.

I'm sure they wouldn't allow themselves to be subject to verification.

[shnarkle]

[Replying to post 34 by shnarkle]

Where are their believers who have stopped sinning and dying.

Do you think they're going to be broadcasting the fact that they don't sin anymore?

It takes one to know one.

I'm sure they wouldn't allow themselves to be subject to verification.

Given that "the kingdom" isn't subject to observation, it stands to reason those in it can't be subjected to it either.

Science has proven that our observations affect what is observed. The kingdom can't be manipulated by observations. So it isn't necessarily that they wouldn't allow it, but that it simply isn't possible.

Trusting in senses that are known to be fallible doesn't help matters either.

[postroad]

[Replying to post 38 by shnarkle]

Would you agree that Paul declared the Levitical priesthood null and void?

[postroad]

[Replying to post 34 by shnarkle]

Where are their believers who have stopped sinning and dying.

Do you think they're going to be broadcasting the fact that they don't sin anymore?

It takes one to know one.

I'm sure they wouldn't allow themselves to be subject to verification.

Given that "the kingdom" isn't subject to observation, it stands to reason those in it can't be subjected to it either.

Science has proven that our observations affect what is observed. The kingdom can't be manipulated by observations. So it isn't necessarily that they wouldn't allow it, but that it simply isn't possible.

Trusting in senses that are known to be fallible doesn't help matters either.

Paul's stance on "food" wasn't what you suggested.

1 Corinthians 10:25-30 New International Version (NIV)

25 Eat anything sold in the meat market without raising questions of conscience, 26 for, The earth is the Lords, and everything in it.

(Don't give it a second thought)

27 If an unbeliever invites you to a meal and you want to go, eat whatever is put before you without raising questions of conscience.

(Don't give it a second thought.)

28 But if someone says to you, This has been offered in sacrifice, then do not eat it, both for the sake of the one who told you and for the sake of conscience.
( only the Noahide prohibition applies and only with an unbeliever present)

29 I am referring to the other persons conscience, not yours. For why is my freedom being judged by anothers conscience?
(Not because there is even anything wrong with eating it. Simply to not cause offence to the unenlightened)

30 If I take part in the meal with thankfulness, why am I denounced because of something I thank God for?

(God doesn't care what is eaten)