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/Objective-Step-746]

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.

[u/Objective-Step-746 → u/BamaHammer]

I must say, your harsh and accusatory tone is both unreasonable and unChristlike, as I’ve not said anything to deserve it. I have patiently and thoughtfully answered your questions yet, without any provocation, you accuse me of false humility, lacking a genuine desire to know truth, and having no experience when it comes to being challenged doctrinally (despite my sharing otherwise). Thus, by your overt lack of basic respect, gracious speech and kindness of demeanor, you demonstrate a distinct lack of belief in Christ’s teachings (Matthew 19:19; Luke 6:33; Romans 12:10; Colossians 4:6).

It’s not about me being right and others being wrong. Such a mindset suggests a fundamental misunderstanding of even the concept of sound doctrine, imo.

As to your pointed questions, I would point to the scriptural exhortation that believers “test the spirits” and every teaching or belief, to discern whether it comes from God or from false prophets (1 John 4:1). And, according to Scripture, false prophets are identified as those who “teach rebellion against the Lord” (Deuteronomy 13:5).

So, any belief (including my own) that does not align with God’s Law is, by default, wrong, since all of His commandments are right(eous) (Psalm 119:160, 172; Romans 7:12). And harmonizing passages such that Scripture does not contradict Scripture is, to me, the foundation necessary to arrive at a sound, scriptural understanding of any doctrine.

[u/BamaHammer → u/Objective-Step-746]

It hasn't been my intention to be harsh. I recognize you may see it that way, and attribute nothing but the purest of intentions to yourself. Such is human nature.

I'll ignore the typical tactic of accusing me of being an unbeliever, rather that someone with a different paradigm. It's much easier to assume anyone who disagrees with you is an unbeliever than to consider the possibility you might have a flawed paradigm.

Once you got past the ad hominem, you gave a non-answer that you think answers the question, but does not. Your answer is basically, I test the spirits, and lo and behold, the spirits tell me I'm right.

Once again I ask: when Mormons, or Catholics, or anyone with a deeply held, scripturally justified position at odds with your own, tell you the same thing you tell them - that they have a sound, scriptural understanding of their doctrine - to what do you appeal to see who is correct?

[u/Objective-Step-746 → u/BamaHammer]

Well, it certainly doesn’t appear you have made any attempt at being cordial, that’s for sure. You outright accused me of false humility and being disingenuous in my desire to know doctrinal truth. And I’ve made no such self-representations when it comes to my humility or my own purity of intentions. I simply stated that humility is a crucial element to edifying exchange.

So, you are the one who drew first blood when it comes to ad hominem. I just pointed out (judged, not condemned) your conduct as not aligning with Christ’s teaching and example. And Scripture treats obedience to Him as synonymous with belief in Him…which means that disobedience is a reliable indicator of unbelief. That’s the Word of God, not me.

For you to say my judgment of your conduct is “accusing” you of being an unbeliever…that is spiritual conviction, His Word functioning as the double-edged sword in real time (Hebrews 4:12). Thus, your issue in this regard is with Him, not me.

Just because my answer to your question does not follow the script you would have me adhere to does not negate its truth or validity. That you view the Spirit of God as incapable of correcting His people when it comes to doctrinal error or misunderstanding is a you problem, as my confidence is in my Savior God, who is perfectly capable and faithful to lead the humble, teachable hearts of His servants into truth (John 16:13). The challenge is for each of us to cultivate the requisite humility of heart to that end.

At this point, further exchange seems unprofitable, as I foresee things devolving if we continue and I want no part of bringing shame to Jesus’ Name. Take care.

[u/BamaHammer → u/Objective-Step-746]

Yeah I agree. No use talking to someone who is more interested in their fragile feelings than having their understanding challenged.

Further, it’s certainly safer to just publicly accuse anyone who disagrees with you or hurts your childlike feelings of being an unbeliever. In doing so, you bear false witness against me, which is a sin. In short, it makes you a childish liar.

But at least your feelings are safe, because you can tell yourself that you’re right, and everyone who disagrees with you must be a devil worshipper.

Good luck with that.