On I Corinthians 8:

http://www.bible.org/page.php?page_id=795

On I Corinthians 10:

http://www.bible.org/page.php?page_id=799

On the issue of the previous scenario regarding going to a Hindu’s meal and eating meat placed before me that was dedicated to an idol, I had to reconsider some things after further study.

On I Corinthians 10:14-22, Paul applied the example of Israel’s idolatry to the problem in I Corinthians 8—–eating meat sacrificed to idols. There is the danger of going a step beyond just eating sacrificed meat to that of joining the pagans in the sacrifical feasts in their pagan temples. To do that would indeed be wrong and sinful since Paul illustrates this by showing participation in the Lord’s Supper to signify a believer is in COMMUNION—in a sharing relationship (koinonia)–with the Savior. So participation in idol feasts in pagan temples means sharing in pagan worship……..and one cannot get past how such participation is forbidden.

How Christians today must discern how the illustration applies to our own lives is still the issue, though.

In I Corinthians 10:18-20, Paul compared the OT sacrifices with pagan offerings. When the people of Israel sacrificed at the altar and ate part of the sacrifice (Lev 7:15, Lev 8:31, Deut 12:17-18), they participated in and became part of the sacrifical system/worship of God. Though Paul says he doesn’t mean idols are anything, he does make clear that when they sacrifice they do so with DEMONS.

There’s always a spiritual aspect and he doesn’t want the Corinthians to share in worship having to do with demons. As radical as it sounds, A CHRISTIAN CANNOT AT THE SAME TIME PARTICIPATE IN THE MEAL AT THE TABLE OF THE PAGAN GOD AND THE TABLE OF THE LORD, whether INTENTIONALITY or INNOCENTLY.,,,,so chilling to eat a meal offered up to BUDDAH at the Hindu’s house may not be an OPTION FOR TODAY.

If we share in Pagan idolatry, THE SCRIPTURE’S very clear we’ll arouse God’s jealously and incite Him to action in his HATRED FOR SIN/MIXED ALLEGIANCEs or opening the door for the appearance of such (Deut 32:21, Psalm 78:58, Romans 12:17)…….and IMHO, we see nowhere in the Scriptures where Paul ever did so when witnessing with individuals.

Going to a Hindu’s house for dinner may be one thing, but going to a FULL-OUT HINDU FESTIVAL LIKE Maha Shivaratri OR Guru Purnima AND DINING OUT/ ACTING LIKE IT’S ALL GOOD is a different story.

Regarding the issue of verses 25-31, though Paul said meat eaten at an idol feast associated with pagan worship/contaminated, meat eaten in the market places wasn’t an issue since it’d lost it’s RELIGIOUS SIGNIFICANCE and is all right to eat……and this is where Paul teaches to eat meat without raising issues of conscience since meat/all things come from the Lord (I Corinthians 10:26, Psalm 24:!, Psalm 50:1, Psalm 89:11, I Timothy 4:1-5, etc).

MEAT sold at PUBLIX or PIGGLY-WIGGLY shouldn’t bother me if it was used previously at a HINDU FESTIVAL since I don’t know of it’s orgin and the purpose is simply MEAT BEING SOLD for GRUB.

But if a unbeliever—such as a Hindu–invites me to dinner at their house, Scripture seems to indicate Paul may’ve had in mind the believer giving the unbeliever a quiet/apprecitiative testimony…….and that’s only permissible if another believer DOESN’T POINT OUT MEAT WAS OFFERED TO AN IDOL. AT THAT POINT, be content with an empty stomach……because the freedom has condemned another man’s conscience despite any “rights’ One may have…..

Didn’t we discuss a situation like this recently—specifically, regarding Church Membership and how one couldn’t be a Continuist, for example, and join a church that held to a Cessationist position expecting to be able to preach openly open their beliefs in a leadership position if that was the church’s standard? This seems to be the same deal in another package regarding the issue with this professor, Brah.

Surprisingly, Of course, some would say that this is an issue of Christian Liberty being violated by the institution for not respecting the woman’s views which were non-essential (Romans 14)..

But when she took the job she knew the rules. This isn’t legalism it would be like a guy teaching Reformed Eschatology at Dallas TS. You already know what they stand for and to come in and say well I am going to try to change it by doing it another way is WRONG!!!!!!! If this becomes a legal case the woman loses all credibility. As a matter of fact I will post this to start the discussion. Thanks.

Seriously, I need to come here more often. I wish y’all could contribute to the discussion happening on my church’s message board about Calvin College and what went down with one of their profs — she was going to a mostly black but not reformed church, and asked for an exemption from the school’s policy about where their profs could be members, which they denied. Here’s the CT link: http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2008/january/5.20.html

Here’s what one of the pastors said: “The libertarian in me wants to say that the institution has the right to demand whatever they want from their staff. If they required their staff to wear shoes that said “I’m a tool” on the toes, shouldn’t they have the right to do so? … At the same time, if libertarian law ruled, we’d still have businesses with whites only signs out front in the parts of the country that are okay with that. … The whole idea of the rule of law is that certain aspects of morality are objective. There are certain ideas which are dangerous or hurtful to society as a whole. The question in this case (which is not YET a legal case) becomes about whether or not Calvin’s desire for theological purity ends up being repressive to one who is outside the cultural walls of their church. That’s where the issue is gray. (But just the thought of the word purity in a discussion with so many racial overtones gives me the jibblies.) …”

Other folks are playing the racism card — which gives me the creeps! It’s like the trump card to which nobody can respond!!

OH, btw, I’m not tryin’ to hijack, dudes, I swear. If you’d rather email me about this feel free!!