Mar 3, 2009

Osteen & Kosher Food

In a blog I read, Huey's blog, brother Huey spoke about Joel Osteen promoting eating Kosher food and observing dietary laws of the Old Covenant. Now, I am not one to "beat up on" brother Osteen, as some are anxious to do, but I must protest this belief of his. Christians are not under dietary laws, and they are not made better or worse for the kinds of food they eat.

On the other hand, in Huey's blog, Osteen is praised for being Kosher. This is from Messianic Jews who believe that all Christians, Jew and Gentile, should be observing the dietary laws of the Old Testament.

Perhpaps we are not reading the same New Testament? Does it not teach that such OT dietary laws are abolished?


Bruce Oyen said...

Stephen, you are right about this matter. My experience has been that those who get off on this tangent get off/are off on others, too. One false doctrine seems always linked to others.

J.K. McKee said...

A blog is not the kind of place where one can discuss theology or exegesis in any detail. Obviously, our ministry and others are reading the same New Testament as you are, but we are interpreting some of it differently. We are aware of issues present in Peter's Vision, Romans 14, and various other Pauline passages.

As I recall, I told you that our ministry websites detailed our beliefs more closely (information outside of the McHuey Blog). I do honestly wonder if you read the relevant articles and FAQ postings before writing your two paragraph dismissal.

And, just to clarify, our conviction that the dietary laws were not abolished by no means infers that we consider them to be a salvation issue. Our salvation comes by God's grace, through our faith placed in Messiah Yeshua (Christ Jesus).


Stephen Garrett said...

Dear brother McKee, a fellow believer in Jesus the Messiah:

I appreciate your visit to my blog and your taking the time to comment.

Perhaps you are right about being able to discuss theology "in any detail," but that is debatable (but probably not here because we cannot discuss it in detail). What would you consider the right "kind of place"? At least you owe it to me and my readers to tell us about those places? Surely when you tell a man about a wrong you at the same time inform him about the right?

It depends on the kind of blog. I have other blogs, see the links, where I have some of my formal debates partially transcribed (homilies and debates) and my ongoing book on Hardshellism, etc.

Actually, some of the blogs I visit where theology is discussed nearly every day have lots of debate and discussion into the comment boxes.

Would you like to have a public discussion on this? I would be happy to affirm that no Christians are under the Old Covenant nor its dietary laws.

I am sure you are aware of the passages you cite. Why not comment on the verse I cited and commented upon? Can we have some discussion on that? Besides, what is wrong with short discussion? Why must it be long and time consuming? Scriptues are not that hard to understand.

Yes, brother McKee, I have read more from your recommended cites, as well as other Messianic cites, so you need not have any more "wonder" about it.

I think the citation from the apostle Paul was shorter than "two paragraph." He seemed to dismiss all the O.T. dietary laws in one verse!

Is obedience to the commands of Yeshua not a "salvation" issue? Is obedience to the words of Paul not a salvation issue? Is keeping the Old Covenant, instead of the New, not a salvation issue? You will please have to clarify what you mean by your statement.

Again, thanks for your comment. I look forward to hearing from you again.



Stephen Garrett said...

Pardon, but I kept writing "cite" when I meant web "site."

Stephen Garrett said...

The verse I alluded to was Col. 2: 16.

"Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holyday, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath days"

I thought I had mentioned that verse in this posting but it was in another.

My mistake

J.K. McKee said...

Thank you for informing me that you have looked at our ministry websites. I do not know what other Messianic sites you have looked at, but I just wanted to state that our ministry does not believe that people who eat pork or shellfish are "unsaved."

Stephen Garrett said...

Dear Br. McKee:

How can you say you do not believe keeping the Torah is not connected with salvation when the confession of what one of your web sites says is the following.

"We encourage all Believers to obey God to their furthest extent, by remembering the seventh-day Sabbath, the appointed times of Leviticus 23, and eating kosher, just to name a few things. We believe that by obeying the Torah we become part of the holy and set-apart people that the Father desires, and this sanctification will be evident in those who are truly growing and maturing in their faith."

See here

That is clear. You believe obeying the Torah and its ceremonies, including dietary laws and the keeping of holy days, is required in order to be a holy child of God, or part of the elect. Yet, you comment that keeping Torah is not a salvation issue.

In Messiah's name,


J.K. McKee said...

We teach, as do many evangelical Christians, that obedience as a part of a born again Believer's sanctification--living a holy life unto God--is something that *follows* salvation. When this takes place, God's people can be all of the things that He intends for them to be.

You did not quote the first sentence of the previous paragraph:

"We do not believe that meticulous observance of the Torah is mandatory for salvation."

Both myself and Mark Huey have said many, many times that only God Himself is the final Judge of one who may be considered "saved" or not. That is true of you, me, and everyone who lives or ever has lived on Planet Earth. That is true whether one is Calvinist, Arminian, Open Theist, or whatever...

I really have no desire to debate with you. I just dislike it when our ministry is misrepresented.

This will be my final post. God bless.

Stephen Garrett said...

Dear Br. McKee:

The citation from your web site speaks for itself, so there should be no debate on that. All you say now is that "meticulous observance" is not mandatory for salvation. Observance is required, but not meticulous observance! I can understand why you would not want to discuss this!

I don't believe I misrepresented you or your ministry at all. In fact, ironically, I think you are now misrepresenting me!