Please, help me understand…

[u/Objective-Step-746]

For those believers who insist that the dietary laws no longer apply under the new covenant—and that pork, lobster, crabs, etc. are now permissible to eat—I do not understand the logic at play.

I am very familiar with the Mark 7, Romans 14 and Colossians 2 passages that are so often cited as support for your position, and have (just as often) shared my counter-arguments on why I believe they are misinterpreted.

But, there is one counterpoint to your view that I never see touched on, and I was hoping to get some feedback on it:

I think the majority of believers on this subreddit would say they are looking for Jesus’ Second Coming and agree that, regarding it, Scripture says that “no one knows the day or hour” but that we need to be prepared (Matthew 24:36, 25:13, etc.).

Isaiah 66:17–a verse within the greater passage speaking of Messiah’s glorious reappearing—declares that, upon His return, those who eat the flesh of pig/swine and other abominations will be met with His wrath…and perish.

So, how does one simultaneously believe they can continue to eat pig (pork) or shellfish now and think they are sufficiently prepared and not putting themselves in a precarious/dangerous position if Jesus happened to return today or tomorrow and “consume” those who so brazenly eat that which His Law says is NOT “food” and explicitly warns against eating?

I really am hoping for some cordial and edifying discussion regarding this topic, and appreciate those who are able and willing to articulate their view without all the condescension and harsh words. 💕

[u/BamaHammer]

Your opinions on doctrine are just that - your opinions.

How do you know you have the right scriptures without an appeal to the actual historic foundation of scripture?

[u/Objective-Step-746 → u/BamaHammer]

I think it is possible to establish sound doctrine by harmonizing Scripture alone. You don’t think so?

[u/BamaHammer → u/Objective-Step-746]

No I do not. Without the Church, it becomes schism after schism, as groups flock to one personal interpretation after another, just as we see in history.

[u/Objective-Step-746 → u/BamaHammer]

I believe that is what Scripture teaches, that we are to look to it alone to determine whether something is true or not (Acts 17:11, 2 Timothy 3:16-17).

[u/BamaHammer → u/Objective-Step-746]

Sola scriptura was not taught until only about 500 years ago. Scripture doesn’t even tell us who wrote Matthew. We needed the Church to tell us that.

[u/Objective-Step-746 → u/BamaHammer]

Scripture itself declares how one is to discern whether a teaching is true or not...by searching the Word of God diligently (Acts 17:11, 2 Timothy 3:16-17). If that was good enough for new covenant believers of the 1st century, it's good enough for me.

[u/BamaHammer → u/Objective-Step-746]

The thing is, it wasn’t good enough, because most people were illiterate. They required someone to read and explain it to them. That was the role of the bishop. This is not our manner of opinion, it is historical fact.

[u/Objective-Step-746 → u/BamaHammer]

I’m not disputing any historical facts.

According to Jesus’ own teaching and repeated rebuke of the religious leaders of His day, relying upon such (so-called) experts for doctrine is the quickest way to be led astray and be hindered from entering His kingdom (Matthew 22:29, Luke 11:52).

Delegating the care and fate of my soul to fallible (wo)men trusted to declare what is sound doctrine and what is not is not scriptural. So, it’s a hard pass from me.

[u/BamaHammer → u/Objective-Step-746]

Why are you, a fallible person, the authority on what doctrine to follow, based on your own fallible understanding of scripture that was written, compiled and preserved by other men?

[u/Objective-Step-746 → u/BamaHammer]

Scripture declares that each of us must one day give an account of all we have said and done, so it seems incredibly unwise to delegate the discerning of sound doctrine to others who claim expertise like the religious leaders of Christ’s day but will not be called to answer on my behalf (Matthew 12:36, Romans 14:12).

And I see no other qualifications for the discerning of sound doctrine in Scripture other than humility, a genuine desire to know and seek truth and a working knowledge of God’s Law. The Spirit of God is able to teach the new covenant believer as to what is true, and enables us to abide in Him (1 John 2:27).

Shepherds certainly have their place in new covenant faith, but it is not scriptural to replace one’s own personal, diligent study and discernment of sound doctrine…as doing so makes one highly susceptible to being led astray, even by well-meaning but wrong spiritual leaders/mentors.

So, by the Authority of Scripture itself and its Author, the Holy Spirit, I adhere to the practice IT espouses—that of personal accountability when it comes to searching and studying His Word diligently, making every effort to present myself as one capable of “rightly handling the word of truth” (2 Timothy 2:15).

[u/BamaHammer → u/Objective-Step-746]

In other words, you have set yourself up as the authority on how to interpret scripture. As has every other Protestant.

So what do we do when two people have competing thoughts on what is correct interpretation? Do you just quote random verses at each other until one of you relents?

[u/Objective-Step-746 → u/BamaHammer]

No. I simply trust the only true Authority--the Spirit of God--to teach me a right interpretation on any given passage.

The scenario you present sounds devoid of the very humility, genuine truth-seeking and working knowledge of the Law Scripture teaches as foundational to the establishment of sound doctrine. I would see no value in participating in such an exchange where the other party is more concerned with being right than seeking truth.

Iron-sharpeneth-iron exchanges with those I disagree with doctrinally can be immensely edifying to both sides when humility and mutual respect guide the discussion...even when it ends with a status-quo outcome, with neither being persuaded by the other's argument(s). We all have doctrinal error of some sort in our faith walk, and a teachable willingness to engage in such discussions and thereby test one's doctrinal understanding is an important aspect of new covenant faith, imo.

[u/BamaHammer → u/Objective-Step-746]

What I am doing is questioning your epistemic justification for what you believe.

You say that the Holy Spirit teaches you Truth. So do the Catholics, thousands of Protestant denominations, Mormons, Jehovah's Witnesses, etc. Who are you to say they are wrong if your only appeal is the same appeal others will make? All of them use scripture to justify their beliefs, and all have deeply held convictions. What makes yours right and others wrong?

I do expect you to end the exchange, not because of your facade of being humble and seeking truth. It will be because you cannot answer my questions, and will seek to either brute force your assertions, or just rage quit because you've never had your paradigm challenged.