CRITICAL YouTube Comments Get DEBUNKED! | Ep. 8

Responding to Comments About Acts 10 and Christian Food Laws

Hey guys, Colin here, and welcome back to Fight For Truth, the channel where we bring you Christian commentary about the things that matter. This video is episode 8 of our series where we read authentic, unedited comments from this channel that disagree with the positions we take, and we respond to them.

The identities of the commenters will be hidden for their sake. Our first comment comes from our recent video in which we refuted a progressive Christian TikToker. If you'd like to go watch it, go ahead and hit the link in the description.

In that video, this progressive Christian voiced his support for the LGBT lifestyle and made the case that conservative Christians are hypocrites. Why? Well, they're hypocrites because they don't follow the Old Testament law when it comes to their diet.

You see, Old Testament law prohibited eating foods like pork and shellfish, which most Christians think is perfectly permissible. We responded by making it clear that Christians are not held to the Old Testament law when it comes to food.

And in favor of our position, I quoted the example of Acts chapter 10 where Peter has a vision. But shockingly, there were many people in the comment section who voiced concern at this. They suggested that Christians are, in fact, not supposed to eat pork or shellfish.

Let's read some of those comments. Again, much to my surprise, there were several of them. Here's one. Oops, Colin made a boo-boo. The cloth and unclean animals wasn't about food, it was about God calling the Gentiles clean after He shed His blood for all.

Another commenter said this, Acts 10 does not give us the right to eat pork and so forth. Jesus spoke in parables, nothing is what it looks like on the surface, you always have to dig. Peter is specific about what he learned, it was about people, not food.

And then yet another comment said this, Stop twisting Peter's dream. Peter himself never thought that his dreams were about food. Nowhere regarding those dreams was food mentioned or considered. Jesus, Peter, and all the apostles followed the law.

Then later it goes on saying, I agree with you, but let's keep that clear. Okay, let's respond. There are a few moving parts here, but most importantly, a few completely inaccurate statements that need to be mentioned.

Just for one example, look at what was said in that last comment. Nowhere regarding those dreams was food mentioned or even considered. Now, let's read about the dream itself in Scripture and see if that makes sense.

Acts 10 verses 10 -13 says,. And he, Peter, became hungry and wanted something to eat. But while they were preparing it, he fell into a trance and saw the heavens opened and something like a great sheet descending, being let down by its four corners upon the earth.

In it were all kinds of animals and reptiles and birds of the air, and there came a voice to him, Rise, Peter, kill and eat. End quote. So let's review. This commenter says that the vision never even mentioned food or eating.

Meanwhile, Peter had the dream while he was in the process of looking for something to eat. Then he saw animals in the dream, and the voice specifically tells him to, kill and eat. So if this dream has nothing to do with food, that's pretty hard to juxtapose with what it actually says.

But additionally, other commenters said that the main point was not the food being made clean, but rather the Gentiles being made clean. And that's partially true. Peter does say in Acts 10 28,. So yes, this had to do with ministering to the Gentiles.

There's no doubt about that. But that's part of the point. You see, the reason for the food laws in the first place was, in some sense, to separate the Jews from the nations around them in their behavior.

Now, with the coming of Christ, the Jews and Gentiles are no longer to be separated in that way. And therefore, the food laws that existed to separate them are fulfilled in Christ. That was our whole point.

And in any case, verse 14 says,. And the voice came to him again a second time, saying,. So just to clarify, Peter is talking specifically about the animals he was presented with in the vision, and how he does not want to eat them because they are unclean.

The voice in the vision then responds directly to this statement, commanding Peter to stop calling unclean what God has now made clean. It seems pretty clear that the food itself was made clean in the New Covenant.

But in case we needed more of an obvious evidence here, let's see another passage, this time from Jesus Himself. In Mark 7, 18, Jesus says,. End quote. I don't think it could possibly have been stated more obviously than that.

Jesus Himself declared all foods clean, according to Scripture. Given the fact that this has been generally understood by Christians for close to 2 ,000 years now, it is astounding to me how many people actually believe, in the year 2022, that Christians can't eat pork.

It's shocking. I thought we solved this whole Jewish ceremonial law controversy way back in the days of the early Church. After all, a huge portion of the New Testament epistles are literally dedicated to resolving this very conflict.

We should have this down by now. In any case, I hope we've demonstrated here why those comments are not convincing. And let's move on to the next one. This comes from our recent video on Joel Osteen, entitled, The Strange Mystical Beliefs of Joel Osteen.

This is where we unpack some of the false prosperity gospel teaching he offers every week at his church. If you'd like to watch that video, the link is in the description. And in response to this, someone commented, There's a lot that's wrong with this particular comment.

First, offering a biblical critique of a particular professing Christian's teaching does not boil down to, talking bad of each other. This language gives the connotation of gossip or idle talk, something that's pointless.

The problem with this is that offering a sober-minded analysis of someone's public teaching is not gossip, nor is it, That's not an accurate representation at all. And more than this, the commenter goes on saying that our critique of Joel Osteen, In reality, nothing could be further from the truth.

Atheism is defined as the absence of belief in a deity or god. So how does our analysis of Joel Osteen's faulty teaching prove that there is no god? It doesn't. In fact, there's a good case to be made that it implies the exact opposite thing.

Our entire video on Joel Osteen presupposes that there is a god, and that this god inspired the holy scriptures. And therefore, as a result, we saw fit to analyze Joel's teaching in light of those scriptures.

In other words, our entire video assumed that there is a god, but not just that, we also assumed that the true god is the god of the Bible. It's almost impossible to conceive of a less atheistic worldview than that.

So the idea that our video in any way offers some sort of support for atheism is frankly ridiculous. And with that, let's move on to the next comment. This one comes from our video on Stephen Furtick, entitled,.

Again, the link is in the description if you'd like to watch it. In any case, the commenter said this,. Now for those who don't know, heresy hunter is a derogatory term that can be used against literally anyone who makes any practice of calling out teaching that they perceive to be unbiblical.

And first, I think it's important to grant something here. I will gladly concede that there are discernment-focused people who go way too far with their accusations. And that kind of thing is a real problem.

If we call someone's teaching false, we must labor to do so by analyzing it according to the standard of scripture. So, for example, people who read into casual hand symbols, or who call every prosperity teacher a top-secret 33rd degree Freemason, needs to actually substantiate their claims with sound reasoning.

And, of course, we shouldn't be unbiblically loose with terms like heretic or false teacher or any of that. For sure, that's something to definitely be careful about. Proverbs 24, 28 says,. So yes, it is very important to be truthful to the best of our abilities and to exhibit Christian charity when dealing with these controversies.

Yes and amen. However, there is another side to the story. There are many scoffers who seem to call anyone who participates in virtually any kind of discernment YouTube channel a heresy hunter, or an obnoxious fundamentalist, or an unloving, divisive person.

And this kind of comment is simply a logical fallacy. It's called an ad hominem attack, where instead of dealing with someone's actual points or logical structure, you make a derogatory comment about the person who is presenting the argument.

Unfortunately, calling someone a heresy hunter doesn't actually pass for an argument. And many of those who use that term seem to be ignoring many biblical truths related to this topic. For one, almost every single book of the New Testament calls out false teaching of various kinds.

Jesus Himself made a practice of calling out the Pharisees for their unbiblical teaching. In fact, on one occasion, in Matthew 12, 34, it's recorded that Jesus called them a, quote, brood of evil vipers.

And this doesn't even include the dozens of times that the Apostle Paul warns about unbiblical teaching. So before we go about throwing around the term heresy hunter willy-nilly, let's take a more biblical approach.

And at the same time, for those of us who are interested in investigating potential false teaching, we need to be very careful and biblical and loving in the way we go about this. It's important. And with that, let's move on to the next comment.

This one comes from our video on Mike Todd. It's entitled, quote, An Absurd Sermon from Mike Todd. Again, as always, the link is in the description. The commenter says this, quote, I rebuke the spirit of the accuser in Jesus' name.

Glory, hallelujah. End quote. This kind of comment comes up a lot when it comes to YouTube channels like ours. The logic goes something like this. Revelation 12, 10 refers to Satan as the accuser of the brethren.

And discernment-focused YouTube channels certainly do accuse professing Christians of various kinds of unbiblical or subpar teaching. Therefore, all discernment channels must be on Satan's team, because they do some accusing and Satan is called the accuser.

Let me respond by saying there are several things wrong with this. Number one, it fails to take into account that there are different kinds of accusations, different kinds of accusing. For example, let's suppose a little boy steals a cookie from the cookie jar.

His mother sees this and asks him, Did you just take a cookie from that jar? The question is, in some sense, accusing him of doing something wrong. Does that mean that this child's mother is now a satanic accuser of the brethren?

Obviously not. In the same way as we've already covered, Jesus, Paul, and many others accuse people in a biblical way and with evidence of false teaching. Does that mean that Jesus and Paul are satanic accusers?

Of course not. That would be blasphemous. Indeed, at one point, Paul actually had to confront his brother in Christ, Peter, for acting in a way that was unbiblical and setting a bad example for the Church.

Galatians 2 .11 says, But when Cephas, that is, Peter, came to Antioch, I, Paul, opposed him to his face, because he stood condemned. Later in verse 14, Paul says that he confronted Peter, before them all, meaning in public.

Now, does this mean that Paul was actually just like Satan? He was a satanic accuser of the brethren? Again, of course not. There is biblical accusation in the hope of repentance, and then there is demonic accusation in the hope of condemning as many people as possible to hell.

We must be able to tell the difference between the two. So with that, let's move on to the next comment. This one comes from our video on Sarah Jakes, the daughter of infamous Prosperity Gospel teacher T .D. Jakes.

It's entitled, quote, The True Danger in Sarah Jakes' Teaching. And again, link is in the description. And the comment says this, quote, Content creator, how do your critiques demonstrate the love? Christians are known by our individual love as we live life.

How does this content demonstrate your quote-unquote love for others as the Bible states? How does your critical content spread the gospel? End quote. Now, if you pay attention to the end here, you can see something very important.

The commenter seems to equate two things. They say, quote, How is this loving? And then they say, quote, How is this spreading the gospel? Here we can see a sort of problem begin to form. The assumption seems to be that if you are not spreading the gospel directly through what you are doing, then it must not be loving.

This kind of oversimplified thinking does not work at all in practice. Let me give you an example. When a mother changes her infant child's diaper, is that a loving action? I would say yes, provided she does it with a good heart.

But is she directly and verbally preaching the gospel to the child or anyone else through that action? Well, to that we'd have to say probably no. Does that mean that she's doing something that's not loving?

Of course not. And secondly, as we've already had to say multiple times, Jesus called out false teaching, yet his actions were perfectly loving. Unfortunately, this inconsistent standard usually is only applied to discernment-focused YouTube channels.

For example, if someone made a video about building Christian orphanages in the Congo and they didn't offer an entire gospel presentation at some point in that video, no one's going to complain. If a good Christian apologist makes a video refuting a particular claim from atheism and they don't offer an entire gospel presentation at some point, usually no one complains.

If someone makes a video on Christian financial stewardship and they don't present the whole gospel in that video, usually no one complains. The problem is that some people inconsistently imply that because a particular channel focuses on a particular type of content, that must mean that they don't actually care about the biblical gospel.

This implication is simply not compelling, nor is it convincing. As you can see, it's an oversimplification that doesn't hold up. In any case, we hope that we've helped dispel some of the common myths offered in the comments section of our videos here at Fight for Truth.

I pray that this has been a blessing to you, and please know that this video isn't meant as a sinful attack, but rather as a biblical critique. And let's pray for all the people mentioned in this video, that by God's grace, they would hold to the truth of God's Word.

Thank you so much for watching that video. Please give us a like and subscribe so that you don't miss any content. Also, don't forget to subscribe to our Rumble channel as well, just in case YouTube ever takes us down.

The link is in the description. And before you go, take a look at this list here. These are the people who make all of the free content you see on this channel possible with their monthly support. Today's highlighted channel supporter is Luke A.

If you also want to help and become part of the solution today, hit the link in the description. Your support keeps us independent and helps us immensely here on the channel. So I hope you'll consider joining the Truth Army today, and until next time, fight for truth, never surrender, and keep your eyes open.

Thank you, and God bless.