The Path of Truth Forum

(This is an archived correspondence at The Path of Truth. We have sent notification to the correspondent.)

You seem to sit in judgement of many who proclaim the glory of God.
Even Jesus said that the law doesn't guide the man. Billy Graham, Joel Osteen and others on your list of “False Teachers” are spreading the message of the Bible. The “letter” of the law in the Bible also applies to the times it was written in: i.e.: dietary restrictions
Pork, improperly preserved would have killed many people with trichinosis.

Plus if God is invincible and all powerful how can Hell be allowed to exist? Why would God allow a competitor?

If heaven is to be filled with pious, closed minded individuals such as those who write these dreary rants as appear in your site then it seems like a place I wouldn't want to inhabit.

Wayne

Wayne, you're right - you wouldn't be happy in Heaven the way you are. Heaven is home to the Truth and Law of God, both of which you hate.

You refer to the Bible, but you don't know or believe what it says. You instead substitute your own perverted beliefs. Satan's messengers transforming themselves into ministers of righteousness are just fine by you.

Eating rats, bats, and mice is just fine by you. Go and do as you please, then, for as long as God allows, and see where it gets you.

As for hell, are you also foolishly denying it exists? Hell serves God's purposes until He destroys it in the Lake of Fire. Who or what can withstand Him?

Paul

Dear Paul,

You seem to have misread the original Greek text (you have studied original languages of Biblical text I hope?)
Hades = grave, & pit of fire was from Gehenna or rubbish burning area often used by locals to exterminate the deceased.

HELL In common usage, this term refers to the place of future punishment for the wicked. The word properly translated “hell” in the New Testament is the Greek Geenna or Gehenna, a place in the Valley of Hinnom where human sacrifices had been offered and where continuous burning of rubbish made it an apt illustration of the eternal lake of fire (cf. Matt. 5:22). Other words like sheol or hades are improperly translated by this term.
SHEOL The general idea of this word is “the place of the dead” including the grave (cf. Num. 16:30,33; Ps. 16:10), and the unseen place of those who have departed from this life, the place of departed spirits of both the righteous (Gen. 37:35) and the wicked (Prov. 9:18).

Pork is a debatable issue and one which involves the Old Testament scripture and Jewish dietary laws.
New Testament doctrine seems to have a lighter view of this:

Romans 14:1-12

Accept the one whose faith is weak, without quarrelling over disputable matters. 2 One person's faith allows them to eat anything, but another, whose faith is weak, eats only vegetables. 3 The one who eats everything must not treat with contempt the one who does not, and the one who does not eat everything must not judge the one who does, for God has accepted them. 4 Who are you to judge someone else's servant? To their own master, servants stand or fall. And they will stand, for the Lord is able to make them stand.
17When he had left the crowd and entered the house, His disciples questioned Him about the parable. 18And He said to them, "Are you so lacking in understanding also? Do you not understand that whatever goes into the man from outside cannot defile him, 19because it does not go into his heart, but into his stomach, and is eliminated?" (Thus He declared all foods clean.) 20And He was saying, "That which proceeds out of the man, that is what defiles the man. 21For from within, out of the heart of men, proceed the evil thoughts, fornications, thefts, murders, adulteries, 22deeds of coveting and wickedness, as well as deceit, sensuality, envy, slander, pride and foolishness. 23All these evil things proceed from within and defile the man.”

When we get to the New Testament and the issue of whether or not a Christian ought to eat this meat or not eat the meat, it is not a matter of black or white. It is not a matter of yes or no, and no in between. It is a matter of personal conviction. The Christian there may eat it freely, knowing that God has given him all things to eat. There are others however who have different scruples. If they cannot eat in good conscience, they should not eat. If I can eat in good conscience, but I cause a weaker brother to go ahead and eat and defile his conscience, then it is sin. The Old Testament did not leave room for convictions. The New Testament does! It is the work of God that is written in our hearts, and it is the work of the Spirit inside that guides us as we make those kinds of decisions.

(By the way I never mentioned anything about bats, rats or mice.)

The important thing to keep in mind the the Bible is all about context. God exists outside of our concept of time (as we know it in human terms.)

Only God can judge me and your misguided fanaticism about Bible interpretation only serves to strengthen my view of that.
Remember that faith without works is dead.
Your devotion to Christ would be better served by you perhaps helping others in need, not slandering those whose opinion differs from yours.

God Bless,

Wayne

Wayne, you obviously haven't red much at our site, given that you're telling us things we've clearly indicated we already know or agree upon doctrinally or factually. You also suggest, if not accuse, that we teach things we don't believe or teach. So why would you do these things?

Read:

The Great Promise of the Lake of Fire and the Second Death
The State and Fate of Hell
The True, Scriptural Meanings of “Forever,” “Everlasting,” and “Hell”
The Good News

Concerning dietary issues, read Christian Physical Diet, which answers your objections with Scripture; not gray at all; quite clear if one understands. As well, read The Sabbath section and see how you've misunderstood what the Scriptures truly say concerning foods (Romans 14) and the keeping of the Sabbath.

You say (and you lie, contradicting Scriptural testimony), “(By the way I never mentioned anything about bats, rats or mice.)”

You most certainly did mention those (“It is a matter of personal conviction. The Christian there may eat it freely, knowing that God has given him all things to eat.”). Think about it; see if you can figure that one out for yourself; it isn't that difficult for you, is it? I'll give you a hint: What is the definition of “all”? Or are you admitting that you shouldn't eat all things? And who is the final judge of what is good to eat - you or God? Who knows better? Are you a law unto yourself, or does He define right and wrong?

“There are others however who have different scruples. If they cannot eat in good conscience, they should not eat. If I can eat in good conscience, but I cause a weaker brother to go ahead and eat and defile his conscience, then it is sin. The Old Testament did not leave room for convictions. The New Testament does!”

Completely false and misleading. It was never a case of what was allowed by men, but what was commanded by God, to eat or not to eat. Now if one chose to not eat meat, fine - there was no law saying one must eat meat, but God did specify what was clean and unclean if one did choose to eat meat. You eat one in either category, you eat all.

Man's choices are to work within His Laws; otherwise, he would be known as a lawbreaker, a son of iniquity.

Just what is a “good conscience” anyway, and where are believers to draw the line? Are you suggesting, for instance, that if man has no problem with adultery or fornication, he's free under the New Covenant to indulge according to his convictions? How wicked and foolish is that, Wayne? You should know what Paul commanded the Corinthians to do with such a one in their midst. Was Paul being legalistic? Where was “grace” there?

I say to you that if your conscience is in line with His Law and Word, you do well; if not, you destroy yourself.

“To the Law and to the testimony! If they do not speak according to this Word, it is because no light is in them” (Isaiah 8:20 MKJV).

“All Scripture is God-breathed, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be perfected, thoroughly furnished to every good work” (2 Timothy 3:16-17 MKJV).

I expect you make a difference between dietary and moral Law; however, my point is that you don't make a difference between God's Law and man's philosophies and laws. You like your greasy grace too much to be a “discipled one.”

But God is merciful and hasn't left us to do that which is right in our own eyes (Judges 22). That's exactly what you're saying, isn't it (“The Old Testament did not leave room for convictions. The New Testament does!”)? He has given us His Word, the Lamp to light our path. He gave us rules, precepts, testimonies, judgments, commandments, laws and ordinances. For you to suggest God has allowed us in Christ to hold convictions contrary to His Law is simply diabolical.

Your hypocritical religious state is by no means unusual in nominal orthodox Christendom; you're simply another lifeless parrot, mindlessly repeating what you've heard from your cradle, a widget of Mystery's factory, a counterfeit copy of godliness with her indelible mark stamped on your forehead, dropping to your lips and falling out. You really are impressed with yourself, aren't you?

“(Thus He declared all foods clean.)” This is a false assumption and interpretation of what was meant by the Lord's words. He wasn't speaking of the nature of the food but of the act and attitude - the nature of clean and unclean was a given, clear in Moses' Law (read Christian Physical Diet).

Jesus was breaking no Law of God or teaching anyone to break them. You are plainly unlearned and foolish to assume so and thereby falsely accuse Him and mislead and deceive others. Woe to you.

“The important thing to keep in mind the the Bible is all about context. God exists outside of our concept of time (as we know it in human terms.)”

The Bible is all about context? Really? There is a right and a wrong context. For example, can you tell me what the context of Isaiah's prophecy was that a virgin would give birth to a son, a prophecy that was spoken to King Ahaz of Judah while they discussed warfare with Israel and Syria? Ahaz was to ask for a sign in his situation, but the sign given had nothing to do with his situation and wouldn't come to pass for 8 centuries?

Isaiah 7:10-17 MKJV
(10) And the LORD spoke again to Ahaz, saying,
(11) Ask a sign of the LORD your God; ask it either in the depth, or in the height above.
(12) But Ahaz said, I will not ask, nor will I tempt the LORD.
(13) And He said, Hear now, O house of David; is it a small thing for you to weary men, but will you weary my God also?
(14) So, the Lord Himself shall give you a sign. Behold, the virgin will conceive and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call His name Immanuel.
(15) Butter and honey he shall eat until he knows to refuse the evil and choose the good.
(16) For before the child shall know to refuse the evil and choose the good, the land that you loathe shall be forsaken before both its kings.
(17) The LORD shall bring on you, and on your people, and on your father's house, days that have not come, since the days that Ephraim departed from Judah, the king of Assyria.

If it weren't for hindsight with established historical facts, you, Wayne, are of those who would cry, “Out of context! Out of context! Isaiah was speaking of a sign to Ahaz! You have no right to apply those words the way you do. It's plain wrong.”

There are many such prophecies “taken out of context” and applied by the Lord through His saints and prophets. But not having His Spirit of understanding and discernment, how can you judge spiritual matters? You can't even judge earthly matters, judging by your darkened comments on subjects we discuss here.

“Remember that faith without works is dead.”

Indeed, faith is dead without works, even as James said. And works without faith are dead, as well. If you say you believe, yet deny the Word of God while presuming to preach and to know it, how should I believe your claim? Your works prove your unbelief. Essentially, Wayne, you're a liar and hypocrite.

Victor

You say tomato I say tomato. By the way it's “read", not red. Anyone can choose a place in the bible to make his/her point. You've just proven it to me.

That's how cults are formed. Good luck with Victor Town, may I recommend red Koolaid this time?

Jude 1:17-19 MKJV
(17) But you, beloved, remember the words spoken before by the apostles of our Lord Jesus Christ,
(18) because they told you that at the last time there will be mockers according to their lusts, leading ungodly lives.
(19) These are those setting themselves apart, animal-like ones, not having the Spirit.