"Thinking Eternally, Acting Locally." - Neal August
"The greatest born among men" (7:28-35)
You're going to have to help me out here. Jesus said that there is not a greater prophet than John the Baptist. This doesn't tell me that Jesus was saying that he was the greatest born among men. Of course, I don't read Greek, so maybe that is what he really said. But even if he did, he followed it by saying that "the least in the kingdom of God is greater than he." So who is Jesus talking about when he talks about "the least"? And how does that come out to mean that John was the greatest and therefore the standard? You see, I am lost as to what the writer was talking about.
"I say to you, among those born of women there is no one greater than John; yet he who is least in the kingdom of God is greater than he." (Luke 7:28 NASB)
Jesus is making a differentiation between this world and the Kingdom of God which is in this world. The Gospel message that Jesus proclaimed is the message that the Kingdom of God is here. It has arrived in this world in the person and ministry of Jesus and it will continue through Jesus and His Spirit in all His followers, from least to greatest.
Generally, the “least” in the kingdom of God are those who have just entered the kingdom and have just embarked on their journey of following Jesus and turning towards God. They do not have to be children though they can be.
These new “Christians” are quite important and need to be given sufficient attention (like a new child, as it were) so they do not stumble or fall away from the Faith. So forceful is Jesus about this that he states that those who causes one of these to become scandalized or to stumble is in for due punishment.
“But whoso shall offend one of these little ones which believe in me, it were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and [that] he were drowned in the depth of the sea.” (Matt 18:6)
But in Luke 7:28 (and in the parallel passages in Matthew and Mark), Jesus is stating that among those individuals who are born into this world, John the Baptist was the greatest. However, the Kingdom of God is greater that this world. So great it is the Kingdom of God that even the newest believer (the least spiritual progressed follower of Jesus in the Kingdom of God) is better than the greatest individual of this world.
John the Baptist is a great standard for the world, but the only standard in the Kingdom of God is Jesus. There is no other. This is why the alcohol abstinence issue is such an important issue. It is an issue about Jesus as the standard for the Christian life.
The person who wrote the article that I referenced in my post was accidentally setting up John the Baptist as a better standard for the Christian life than Jesus! Now I fully admit that I think that this person did so inadvertently, but the mistake is there nonetheless. By posting the rest of the passage in Luke I was allowing Scripture to comment on the error.
Unfortunately, too many people in the SBC are so determined to get their way on this issue of alcohol abstinence, that they are not only neglecting their own important pet issues of Scriptural inerrancy and sufficiency but they are neglecting an undoubtedly more important issue that cuts across every strand of Christianity, conservative, moderate and liberal – Jesus as the full representation of God and as the perfect example of the Christian life.
Friday, July 21, 2006
Popularity and the Christian Minister
I often here fundamentalists speak ill of Billy Graham and Rick Warren as being somehow flawed in their ministries or are preaching a weak or partial gospel. This is absolute nonsense, of course, but these fundamentalists often find evidence for their accusations in the fact that these ministers are popular with the world, meaning the non-Christian “secular” world. These fundamentalists then find verses in the Bible that support their view that the world is supposed to hate true messenger of God and if the world loves Graham and Warren (and Joel Osteen and T.D. Jakes), then, therefore, they are not true messengers of God. So their logic goes.
Let us take a look at John the Baptist. He was a recognized prophet of God. No one really doubted this among the people of Palestine and neither did Jesus or His disciples.
John was filled with the Holy Spirit from the womb. He had great godly parents. He may have had some religious affiliation with the Essenes or Qumran community. He lived a humble, Nazarite lifestyle in the wilderness away from the world. But the world came to him. He was a revolutionary leader who instituted believer’s baptism and was the real originator of his time that stated that racial ties to Abraham were not sufficient to earn salvation. He taught that even Jews needed to repent.
It is quite odd that we really know very little about one of the most important individuals in history.
As a prophet, he was highly critical of King Herod and the royal family. He was highly critical of the religious Pharisee party.
John appears to have been quite humble in his attitude toward himself.
John was apparently a great speaker and teacher. He amassed many disciples, including Jesus Himself. They were related by birth and were followers of each other. Indeed, John the Baptist taught Jesus a lot that deeply affected His ministry.
And John the Baptist WAS POPULAR. He was extremely popular. The people of his day believed that he was either the messiah or Elijah, the prophet. Many of the Pharisees didn’t like them but were very afraid to speak ill of him because he was so popular. Even years after his death, they were too afraid to speak against him because of his continued popularity. Herod himself was very reluctant to arrest and execute John because of this popularity. Twenty to thirty years after his death, the apostles of Jesus were still finding disciples of John as far away as Greece and Asia Minor. For many centuries after his death, there still remained John the Baptist sects. Even in the Gospel of John, the author is making the point that although John the Baptist is a great man he was not himself the Messiah.
John the Baptist was more popular in his life than Jesus was at any point in His life. Jesus was the Messiah and John was not. Both John and Jesus taught this but still John was more popular. The Pharisees always feared John because of his popularity even after the prophet’s death. Jesus had some popularity to give Him cover but towards the end of His life on earth, the Pharisees felt that they had enough support to withstand any scrutiny. They appear to have been correct because they were not at all afraid of bad-mouthing Jesus after His death as they were with John’s. Again, Herod was very reluctant to arrest John; he was not at all afraid to arrest Jesus.
John was a great man as far as great men go but he was not perfect in any way. Now this does not mean he wasn’t a true prophet and messenger of the Lord. He was and everyone knew it, but He was still popular. He was popular and this popularity didn’t mean he was preaching a weak or partial gospel. Far from it! He was one of the most revolutionary religious figures in the history of humanity and received the highest praise from Jesus … but he was still popular with the world.
Let us take a look at John the Baptist. He was a recognized prophet of God. No one really doubted this among the people of Palestine and neither did Jesus or His disciples.
John was filled with the Holy Spirit from the womb. He had great godly parents. He may have had some religious affiliation with the Essenes or Qumran community. He lived a humble, Nazarite lifestyle in the wilderness away from the world. But the world came to him. He was a revolutionary leader who instituted believer’s baptism and was the real originator of his time that stated that racial ties to Abraham were not sufficient to earn salvation. He taught that even Jews needed to repent.
It is quite odd that we really know very little about one of the most important individuals in history.
As a prophet, he was highly critical of King Herod and the royal family. He was highly critical of the religious Pharisee party.
John appears to have been quite humble in his attitude toward himself.
John was apparently a great speaker and teacher. He amassed many disciples, including Jesus Himself. They were related by birth and were followers of each other. Indeed, John the Baptist taught Jesus a lot that deeply affected His ministry.
And John the Baptist WAS POPULAR. He was extremely popular. The people of his day believed that he was either the messiah or Elijah, the prophet. Many of the Pharisees didn’t like them but were very afraid to speak ill of him because he was so popular. Even years after his death, they were too afraid to speak against him because of his continued popularity. Herod himself was very reluctant to arrest and execute John because of this popularity. Twenty to thirty years after his death, the apostles of Jesus were still finding disciples of John as far away as Greece and Asia Minor. For many centuries after his death, there still remained John the Baptist sects. Even in the Gospel of John, the author is making the point that although John the Baptist is a great man he was not himself the Messiah.
John the Baptist was more popular in his life than Jesus was at any point in His life. Jesus was the Messiah and John was not. Both John and Jesus taught this but still John was more popular. The Pharisees always feared John because of his popularity even after the prophet’s death. Jesus had some popularity to give Him cover but towards the end of His life on earth, the Pharisees felt that they had enough support to withstand any scrutiny. They appear to have been correct because they were not at all afraid of bad-mouthing Jesus after His death as they were with John’s. Again, Herod was very reluctant to arrest John; he was not at all afraid to arrest Jesus.
John was a great man as far as great men go but he was not perfect in any way. Now this does not mean he wasn’t a true prophet and messenger of the Lord. He was and everyone knew it, but He was still popular. He was popular and this popularity didn’t mean he was preaching a weak or partial gospel. Far from it! He was one of the most revolutionary religious figures in the history of humanity and received the highest praise from Jesus … but he was still popular with the world.
Wednesday, July 19, 2006
"The greatest born among men" (7:28-35)
In a recent BP article which attempts to justify the recent SBC resolution which calls for convention leaders to abstain from alcohol despite the clear teachings of Scripture, I read this line:
"John the Baptist, touted by Jesus as 'the greatest born among men,' was a total abstainer."
"The greatest born among men." That is a quote from Luke 7:28.
"For I say unto you, Among those that are born of women there is not a greater prophet than John the Baptist: but he that is least in the kingdom of God is greater than he." (7:28)
A very good verse.
Are you interested in what follows? Of course you are!
"For John the Baptist came neither eating bread nor drinking wine; and ye say, He hath a devil. The Son of man is come eating and drinking; and ye say, Behold a gluttonous man, and a wine-drinker, a friend of publicans and sinners!" (Luke 7:33-34)
Interesting, isn't it?
I would think that this would convince any believer in the Scriptures, that it is perfectly okay to drink alcohol. Of course, I know that it won't convince those who do not care what the Scriptures say about this issue. They think they know better than God does and nothing will unharden their hearts or minds at this point.
"John the Baptist, touted by Jesus as 'the greatest born among men,' was a total abstainer."
"The greatest born among men." That is a quote from Luke 7:28.
"For I say unto you, Among those that are born of women there is not a greater prophet than John the Baptist: but he that is least in the kingdom of God is greater than he." (7:28)
A very good verse.
Are you interested in what follows? Of course you are!
"For John the Baptist came neither eating bread nor drinking wine; and ye say, He hath a devil. The Son of man is come eating and drinking; and ye say, Behold a gluttonous man, and a wine-drinker, a friend of publicans and sinners!" (Luke 7:33-34)
Interesting, isn't it?
I would think that this would convince any believer in the Scriptures, that it is perfectly okay to drink alcohol. Of course, I know that it won't convince those who do not care what the Scriptures say about this issue. They think they know better than God does and nothing will unharden their hearts or minds at this point.
Sunday, July 16, 2006
T is for Tofu
A short song in response to the decision to remove cookies from the Cookie Monster diet.
T is for Tofu
It's good enough for me.
T is for Tofu
It's all they'll let me eat.
T is for Tofu
I'll take a bite and see ...
Barfy-warfy-warfy its not for me.
T is for Tofu
It's good enough for me.
T is for Tofu
It's all they'll let me eat.
T is for Tofu
I'll take a bite and see ...
Barfy-warfy-warfy its not for me.
Wednesday, July 12, 2006
A Quick Thought on God as Being
In the beginning was Being. Being began by being being. But Being was always being. There was never a time when Being wasn’t being. There was never a time when Being began to be being. Being as being always has been being and always will be being. Therefore, Being had no beginning. To begin would make Being less a being. To begin would make Being not a being, but a began. But if there was a beginning, then Being would be being there and would have been being before the beginning. Be.
Monday, July 10, 2006
KEEP YOUR HANDS TO YOURSELF (PART TWO): Concerning celibacy
Friday, Jul 7, 2006
By Matt Trey Moanial
Baptist Pravda
FORT WORTH, Texas (BP)--References to marriage are frequent in both the Old and New Testaments. The Masoretic text of the Old Testament employs the Hebrew word laqach in the vast majority of cases. A handful of other words are translated “marriage” but not with enough frequency to matter. The Greek term gamos is used predominantly in the New Testament, and coming through Latin is transliterated into English as “monogamy.”
Marriages varied in kind and strength. However, four basic varieties may be distinguished, all of which are described indiscriminately as “marriage”.
1) laqach –“ to take, get, fetch, lay hold of, seize, receive, acquire, buy,
bring, marry, take a wife, snatch, take away”
This form of marriage usually occurs without the assent of one or either party in the decision and, thus, is no longer applicable to the modern believer (Gal 3:28).
2) yabam –“ to perform levirate marriage, perform the duty of a brother-in-law; the duty due to a brother who died childless - to marry his widow and have a son for his name”.
Of course, this form of marriage (like polygamy) was already abandoned by the time of the NT and is no longer applicable to the modern believer (Gal 3:28).
3) `ownah – “cohabitation, conjugal rights”
This form of marriage does not involve a marriage ceremony as such and is more closely aligned to “common-law” marriages. While such practices may continue among Southern Baptist college and seminary students, it is generally no longer applicable to the modern believer (Gal 3:28).
4) ba`al – “to marry, rule over, possess, own”
While this form of marriage is preferred among Southern Baptists, it is also is no longer applicable to the modern believer (Gal 3:28).
THE ATTITUDE OF SCRIPTURE
In strict fairness, one must acknowledge that the ancients, however noble, married without reluctance. Evidently the prophets and the apostles did not view this as wrong, so long as it was with a woman or two and taken with the noon or evening meal. These marriages, of course, were locally produced.
At this point, however, a significant difference exists between what is permissible and what is best for the child of God. In addition to the constant clear identification of divorce as a highly disreputable and debilitating sort of sin, please note the following:
-The consistent promotion of celibacy (Matt 19:10-12; 1 Cor 7:7; Rev. 14:4).
-Negative treatment of family in Mark: 1:16-20, 29; 2:1, 15; 3:19; 4:17; 8:34-35; 9:33, 49; 10:28-30; 13:9-13.
-Negative treatment of family in Matthew: 19:10-12.
-Negative treatment of family by Paul: 1 Corinthians 7:7.
-- John the Baptist, touted by Jesus as “the greatest born among men,” did not marry. He was evidently patterning his lifestyle after that of God, and thereby expressing God’s prescription for what is the best for a godly man. Likewise with Jesus, Paul and Jeremiah. God is not married; how can we be godlike if we are married?
To this evidence must be added Scripture’s numerous warnings against marriage. Here are a few:
“And, behold, there met him a woman [with] the attire of an harlot, and subtil of heart. (She [is] loud and stubborn; her feet abide not in her house: Now [is she] without, now in the streets, and lieth in wait at every corner.) So she caught him, and kissed him, [and] with an impudent face said unto him, [I have] peace offerings with me; this day have I payed my vows. … Come, let us take our fill of love until the morning: let us solace ourselves with loves. For the goodman [is] not at home, he is gone a long journey: He hath taken a bag of money with him, [and] will come home at the day appointed. With her much fair speech she caused him to yield, with the flattering of her lips she forced him. He goeth after her straightway, as an ox goeth to the slaughter, or as a fool to the correction of the stocks; Till a dart strike through his liver; as a bird hasteth to the snare, and knoweth not that it [is] for his life. Hearken unto me now therefore, O ye children, and attend to the words of my mouth. Let not thine heart decline to her ways, go not astray in her paths. For she hath cast down many wounded: yea, many strong [men] have been slain by her. Her house [is] the way to hell, going down to the chambers of death.” (Prov 7:10-14, 18-27)
“[It is] better to dwell in the wilderness, than with a contentious and an angry woman.” (Prov. 21:19)
“Such [is] the way of an adulterous woman; she eateth, and wipeth her mouth, and saith, I have done no wickedness.” (Prov 30:20)
SOME TEXTS TO BE EXPLAINED BY ABSTAINERS
In Jesus’ attendance at the Marriage at Cana of Galilee (John 2:1-11), one can affirm with certainty that Jesus did not marry anyone Himself or even make a positive comment concerning the ceremony. But the following evidences cannot be easily bypassed:
-- The text nowhere indicates that Jesus approved. Either way the argument is from silence.
-Indeed, Jesus attended but did not marry (John 2:1-11). Furthermore, He Himself taught that marriage was not the ideal that should be followed by His disciples (Matt 19:10-12).
-Celibacy is the ideal that God wishes upon the believer and particularly those called or seeking leadership positions in His church.
-Indeed, marriage is not God’s ideal because it ends at death and eternity (Rom 7:2, 3).
-It was only introduced by God in order to prevent immoral behavior (1 Cor 7:2, 9)
-Just as God allowed divorce because of the hardness men’s hearts (Matt 19:3-9), so also God allows marriage because of the hardness men’s hearts (Matt 19:10-12).
-- Paul advised the Corinthians to forsake marriage unless they felt they had no other choice (1 Cor 7:1-2, 8-9, 11, 26, 32-35, 40).
“[It is] good for a man not to touch a woman. Nevertheless, [to avoid] fornication, let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband.” (v. 1-2)
“I say therefore to the unmarried and widows, It is good for them if they abide even as I. But if they cannot contain, let them marry: for it is better to marry than to burn.” (v. 8-9)
“I suppose therefore that this is good for the present distress, [I say], that [it is] good for a man so to be.” (v. 26)
Paul is reluctantly allowing marriage only for the former pagans whose hearts are hardened and who cannot reach holiness. Though he does restate that God’s ideal is singleness and celibacy.
“But I would have you without carefulness. He that is unmarried careth for the things that belong to the Lord, how he may please the Lord: But he that is married careth for the things that are of the world, how he may please [his] wife. There is difference [also] between a wife and a virgin. The unmarried woman careth for the things of the Lord, that she may be holy both in body and in spirit: but she that is married careth for the things of the world, how she may please [her] husband. And this I speak for your own profit; not that I may cast a snare upon you, but for that which is comely, and that ye may attend upon the Lord without distraction.” (v. 32-35)
Paul further states how it is and abuse of Christian liberty for leaders to marry (1 Cor 9:5) and that, for leaders in the church, it is best that they not marry lest they cause a weak brother to stumble by use of their liberty (1 Cor 8:9).
SOME ADDED OBSERVATIONS
-In a world plagued by sexual immorality and failed marriages, the believer needs to set a higher example than the one permitted by the world.
-Problems inevitably follow the introduction of sex and marriage into the believer’s life.
-Such problems include:
• loss of service or even hindrance of service to God
• arguments and strife amidst married couples
• children who rebel
• divided priorities
• spousal abuse
• adultery
• divorce
• single parent children
• widows and widows
• bigamy
• polygamy
Can we marry? Yes. But should we marry? No.
It is better that weak brothers and sisters to marry in this life than to burn in the next.
Can I say it is always a sin to marry? No. Can I say it is almost always ill-advised? Yes, because it violates the biblical principles of holiness and purity.
As a pastor or church leader, would I demand celibacy for church membership? No, I would not. Would I demand it for leadership? Absolutely! The principle of Proverbs 6:24-30 is appropriately applied here,
“To keep thee from the evil woman, from the flattery of the tongue of a strange woman. Lust not after her beauty in thine heart; neither let her take thee with her eyelids. For by means of a whorish woman [a man is brought] to a piece of bread: and the adulteress will hunt for the precious life. Can a man take fire in his bosom, and his clothes not be burned? Can one go upon hot coals, and his feet not be burned? So he that goeth in to his neighbour's wife; whosoever toucheth her shall not be innocent. [Men] do not despise a thief, if he steal to satisfy his soul when he is hungry;”
The following conclusions may be safely and smugly drawn:
(1) Many of the most excruciating and debilitating events of history are associated with sex and marriage. The Bible has almost no good word about it and, in fact, usually associates tragedy and sin with sex and marriage. For example, after a life of exemplary behavior, Noah became a stumbling block to his own children, necessitating a curse on his grandson. If he had refrained from sex and marriage then he would have never been a stumbling block.
(2) To whatever extent Jesus allowed marriage, clearly it was in small quantities and either for weak believers or those who were already married prior to their decision to then leave a holy life and no longer be fornicators. Certainly this was not the ideal for believers. Certainly this disqualified one from leadership. Certainly no tragic institution was supported by marriage. This latter point is crucial for the believer. A believer in no way can justify sex and marriage if thereby he is contributing to the sustenance of an institution responsible for two-thirds of the single parent households, all divorces, adulteries and widows, and untold millions of dollars in lawyer fees. Such would violate all laws in the Bible, and especially the Corinthian principle on the effect of your choices and actions on you: “All things are lawful for me, but all things are not helpful: all things are lawful for me, but not all things edify” (1 Corinthians 10:23).
Let us state three categories -- the prohibited, the acceptable and God’s ideal. After the Fall of man, God originally allowed monogamy. For a while He tolerated polygamy, even working mightily through such men as Solomon and Abraham despite their polygamous marriages. But with the final revelation of God in Christ, polygamy, marriage and sex were once again clearly prohibited. The noticeable absence of any mention of sex prior to Adam and Eve might indicate that men and women, in their pristine state, were not drawn to sex. In any case, the fuller revelation in Christ, plus the development of superior forms of entertainment like Biblical exegesis and expository preaching, render the whole subject passé for the believer.
Even if a Christian wished to demur from the idea that to have sex is sin, strict biblical evidence establishes that marrying is not God’s ideal for the believer. The question then becomes: Can it be anything less than sin for a believer who is genuinely grateful for the atoning power of Christ in his life to pursue anything other than the highest -- God’s ideal -- the best that he can be for Christ?
Unless you have to get married or burn with passion then you are obviously not pastoral material and, thus, God’s ideal.
By Matt Trey Moanial
Baptist Pravda
FORT WORTH, Texas (BP)--References to marriage are frequent in both the Old and New Testaments. The Masoretic text of the Old Testament employs the Hebrew word laqach in the vast majority of cases. A handful of other words are translated “marriage” but not with enough frequency to matter. The Greek term gamos is used predominantly in the New Testament, and coming through Latin is transliterated into English as “monogamy.”
Marriages varied in kind and strength. However, four basic varieties may be distinguished, all of which are described indiscriminately as “marriage”.
1) laqach –“ to take, get, fetch, lay hold of, seize, receive, acquire, buy,
bring, marry, take a wife, snatch, take away”
This form of marriage usually occurs without the assent of one or either party in the decision and, thus, is no longer applicable to the modern believer (Gal 3:28).
2) yabam –“ to perform levirate marriage, perform the duty of a brother-in-law; the duty due to a brother who died childless - to marry his widow and have a son for his name”.
Of course, this form of marriage (like polygamy) was already abandoned by the time of the NT and is no longer applicable to the modern believer (Gal 3:28).
3) `ownah – “cohabitation, conjugal rights”
This form of marriage does not involve a marriage ceremony as such and is more closely aligned to “common-law” marriages. While such practices may continue among Southern Baptist college and seminary students, it is generally no longer applicable to the modern believer (Gal 3:28).
4) ba`al – “to marry, rule over, possess, own”
While this form of marriage is preferred among Southern Baptists, it is also is no longer applicable to the modern believer (Gal 3:28).
THE ATTITUDE OF SCRIPTURE
In strict fairness, one must acknowledge that the ancients, however noble, married without reluctance. Evidently the prophets and the apostles did not view this as wrong, so long as it was with a woman or two and taken with the noon or evening meal. These marriages, of course, were locally produced.
At this point, however, a significant difference exists between what is permissible and what is best for the child of God. In addition to the constant clear identification of divorce as a highly disreputable and debilitating sort of sin, please note the following:
-The consistent promotion of celibacy (Matt 19:10-12; 1 Cor 7:7; Rev. 14:4).
-Negative treatment of family in Mark: 1:16-20, 29; 2:1, 15; 3:19; 4:17; 8:34-35; 9:33, 49; 10:28-30; 13:9-13.
-Negative treatment of family in Matthew: 19:10-12.
-Negative treatment of family by Paul: 1 Corinthians 7:7.
-- John the Baptist, touted by Jesus as “the greatest born among men,” did not marry. He was evidently patterning his lifestyle after that of God, and thereby expressing God’s prescription for what is the best for a godly man. Likewise with Jesus, Paul and Jeremiah. God is not married; how can we be godlike if we are married?
To this evidence must be added Scripture’s numerous warnings against marriage. Here are a few:
“And, behold, there met him a woman [with] the attire of an harlot, and subtil of heart. (She [is] loud and stubborn; her feet abide not in her house: Now [is she] without, now in the streets, and lieth in wait at every corner.) So she caught him, and kissed him, [and] with an impudent face said unto him, [I have] peace offerings with me; this day have I payed my vows. … Come, let us take our fill of love until the morning: let us solace ourselves with loves. For the goodman [is] not at home, he is gone a long journey: He hath taken a bag of money with him, [and] will come home at the day appointed. With her much fair speech she caused him to yield, with the flattering of her lips she forced him. He goeth after her straightway, as an ox goeth to the slaughter, or as a fool to the correction of the stocks; Till a dart strike through his liver; as a bird hasteth to the snare, and knoweth not that it [is] for his life. Hearken unto me now therefore, O ye children, and attend to the words of my mouth. Let not thine heart decline to her ways, go not astray in her paths. For she hath cast down many wounded: yea, many strong [men] have been slain by her. Her house [is] the way to hell, going down to the chambers of death.” (Prov 7:10-14, 18-27)
“[It is] better to dwell in the wilderness, than with a contentious and an angry woman.” (Prov. 21:19)
“Such [is] the way of an adulterous woman; she eateth, and wipeth her mouth, and saith, I have done no wickedness.” (Prov 30:20)
SOME TEXTS TO BE EXPLAINED BY ABSTAINERS
In Jesus’ attendance at the Marriage at Cana of Galilee (John 2:1-11), one can affirm with certainty that Jesus did not marry anyone Himself or even make a positive comment concerning the ceremony. But the following evidences cannot be easily bypassed:
-- The text nowhere indicates that Jesus approved. Either way the argument is from silence.
-Indeed, Jesus attended but did not marry (John 2:1-11). Furthermore, He Himself taught that marriage was not the ideal that should be followed by His disciples (Matt 19:10-12).
-Celibacy is the ideal that God wishes upon the believer and particularly those called or seeking leadership positions in His church.
-Indeed, marriage is not God’s ideal because it ends at death and eternity (Rom 7:2, 3).
-It was only introduced by God in order to prevent immoral behavior (1 Cor 7:2, 9)
-Just as God allowed divorce because of the hardness men’s hearts (Matt 19:3-9), so also God allows marriage because of the hardness men’s hearts (Matt 19:10-12).
-- Paul advised the Corinthians to forsake marriage unless they felt they had no other choice (1 Cor 7:1-2, 8-9, 11, 26, 32-35, 40).
“[It is] good for a man not to touch a woman. Nevertheless, [to avoid] fornication, let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband.” (v. 1-2)
“I say therefore to the unmarried and widows, It is good for them if they abide even as I. But if they cannot contain, let them marry: for it is better to marry than to burn.” (v. 8-9)
“I suppose therefore that this is good for the present distress, [I say], that [it is] good for a man so to be.” (v. 26)
Paul is reluctantly allowing marriage only for the former pagans whose hearts are hardened and who cannot reach holiness. Though he does restate that God’s ideal is singleness and celibacy.
“But I would have you without carefulness. He that is unmarried careth for the things that belong to the Lord, how he may please the Lord: But he that is married careth for the things that are of the world, how he may please [his] wife. There is difference [also] between a wife and a virgin. The unmarried woman careth for the things of the Lord, that she may be holy both in body and in spirit: but she that is married careth for the things of the world, how she may please [her] husband. And this I speak for your own profit; not that I may cast a snare upon you, but for that which is comely, and that ye may attend upon the Lord without distraction.” (v. 32-35)
Paul further states how it is and abuse of Christian liberty for leaders to marry (1 Cor 9:5) and that, for leaders in the church, it is best that they not marry lest they cause a weak brother to stumble by use of their liberty (1 Cor 8:9).
SOME ADDED OBSERVATIONS
-In a world plagued by sexual immorality and failed marriages, the believer needs to set a higher example than the one permitted by the world.
-Problems inevitably follow the introduction of sex and marriage into the believer’s life.
-Such problems include:
• loss of service or even hindrance of service to God
• arguments and strife amidst married couples
• children who rebel
• divided priorities
• spousal abuse
• adultery
• divorce
• single parent children
• widows and widows
• bigamy
• polygamy
Can we marry? Yes. But should we marry? No.
It is better that weak brothers and sisters to marry in this life than to burn in the next.
Can I say it is always a sin to marry? No. Can I say it is almost always ill-advised? Yes, because it violates the biblical principles of holiness and purity.
As a pastor or church leader, would I demand celibacy for church membership? No, I would not. Would I demand it for leadership? Absolutely! The principle of Proverbs 6:24-30 is appropriately applied here,
“To keep thee from the evil woman, from the flattery of the tongue of a strange woman. Lust not after her beauty in thine heart; neither let her take thee with her eyelids. For by means of a whorish woman [a man is brought] to a piece of bread: and the adulteress will hunt for the precious life. Can a man take fire in his bosom, and his clothes not be burned? Can one go upon hot coals, and his feet not be burned? So he that goeth in to his neighbour's wife; whosoever toucheth her shall not be innocent. [Men] do not despise a thief, if he steal to satisfy his soul when he is hungry;”
The following conclusions may be safely and smugly drawn:
(1) Many of the most excruciating and debilitating events of history are associated with sex and marriage. The Bible has almost no good word about it and, in fact, usually associates tragedy and sin with sex and marriage. For example, after a life of exemplary behavior, Noah became a stumbling block to his own children, necessitating a curse on his grandson. If he had refrained from sex and marriage then he would have never been a stumbling block.
(2) To whatever extent Jesus allowed marriage, clearly it was in small quantities and either for weak believers or those who were already married prior to their decision to then leave a holy life and no longer be fornicators. Certainly this was not the ideal for believers. Certainly this disqualified one from leadership. Certainly no tragic institution was supported by marriage. This latter point is crucial for the believer. A believer in no way can justify sex and marriage if thereby he is contributing to the sustenance of an institution responsible for two-thirds of the single parent households, all divorces, adulteries and widows, and untold millions of dollars in lawyer fees. Such would violate all laws in the Bible, and especially the Corinthian principle on the effect of your choices and actions on you: “All things are lawful for me, but all things are not helpful: all things are lawful for me, but not all things edify” (1 Corinthians 10:23).
Let us state three categories -- the prohibited, the acceptable and God’s ideal. After the Fall of man, God originally allowed monogamy. For a while He tolerated polygamy, even working mightily through such men as Solomon and Abraham despite their polygamous marriages. But with the final revelation of God in Christ, polygamy, marriage and sex were once again clearly prohibited. The noticeable absence of any mention of sex prior to Adam and Eve might indicate that men and women, in their pristine state, were not drawn to sex. In any case, the fuller revelation in Christ, plus the development of superior forms of entertainment like Biblical exegesis and expository preaching, render the whole subject passé for the believer.
Even if a Christian wished to demur from the idea that to have sex is sin, strict biblical evidence establishes that marrying is not God’s ideal for the believer. The question then becomes: Can it be anything less than sin for a believer who is genuinely grateful for the atoning power of Christ in his life to pursue anything other than the highest -- God’s ideal -- the best that he can be for Christ?
Unless you have to get married or burn with passion then you are obviously not pastoral material and, thus, God’s ideal.
Seven Observations Concerning Alcohol Abstinence
1) Some who are advocating complete abstinence of alcohol consumption despite the teachings of Scripture, are upset that they are being accused of legalism. Let me ask everyone out there this question for you to answer on your own: what is legalism?
2) “No,” some are saying. “This isn’t about complete abstinence of alcohol consumption despite the teachings of Scripture for everyone, just complete abstinence of alcohol consumption despite the teachings of Scripture for SBC agency trustees and leadership in general.” In all frankness, such a distinction between laity and leadership is unscriptural (never mind the fact that this is an abstinent practice contrary to Scripture). In further frankness, to order complete abstinence of alcohol consumption means that certain NT Christian leaders could not have been SBC leaders: Paul, Timothy, the disciples and apostles, and even Jesus.
Yes, Jesus would not be able to be an SBC leader because of his own alcohol consumption. Now the Scriptures teach of a banquet in the next life where we shall drink wine with Jesus (of course, that is just what Scripture teaches and you know how iffy that can be). Perhaps when we get to heaven we should have an intervention for the Son of God.
Nevertheless, the leaders who wrote the NT books who made the necessary requirements for church leadership could not be leaders in the SBC and neither could those who they themselves chose for leadership positions. What does that say about our SBC leaders?
3) It is interesting that when the SBC leadership really really wants something that they will throw out their own hermeneutics for interpreting Scripture. Yes, the same hermeneutics which many liberals use to legitimate women as pastors, homosexual activity, various forms of sexual immorality, and religious inclusivity is now being adopted by out SBC leadership for the purposes of advocating complete abstinence of alcohol consumption despite the teachings of Scripture. How odd is this? The one group of people who championed inerrancy and sufficiency, warned our convention about the drifting towards liberalism, and fought so hard to expel all those who adopted a relativistic view of Scripture and its teachings, yes, they are now the ones who are advocating this particular form of interpreting Scripture for this specific purpose.
At least the liberals have an excuse: they always interpret Scripture this way. What excuse does the SBC leadership have for using such a liberal and postmodern view of Scripture just for this one issue? Or is it just this one view?
Oh, my friends! The convention, its agencies and its seminaries are drifting dangerously left! The current leadership is pushing the SBC further and further towards postmodernism and liberalism. God have mercy!
Is it not dangerous when our leaders dismiss the Scriptures and their own much touted conservative hermeneutic only when they really really want something? That is more dangerous than to have a liberal hermeneutic at the outset.
4) Apparently Jesus Christ is no longer the full revelation of God and Who He is. Apparently, we can no longer look to Jesus as our example and teacher for how we should live or what we believe. Yes, Jesus did drink alcohol but he was very much a man of his time and could not forsee how his actions and teachings would effect later generations of believers. Better just not read the Bible anymore; its far too dangerous. Better to just allow your esteemed SBC leadership tell you who God is and what He expects of you.
5) Apparently, many if not most our current SBC agency trustees are a bunch of drunks. Apparently, they were out late at night boozing around and getting quite inebriated. Thus our esteemed SBC leadership believed that it was time to put their foot down and stop all of this drunkenness on the part of our SBC agency trustees. They must be drunks; look at some of their recent decisions.
6) A recent person noted:
“John the Baptist, touted by Jesus as “the greatest born among men,” was a total abstainer. He was evidently patterning his lifestyle after that of the Nazarite Law, and thereby expressing God’s prescription for what is the best for a godly man. In fact, the angelic announcement to Zacharias prohibited John the Baptist from using any wine (Luke 1:15). Here also is noted the first specific contrast between the fullness of the Spirit and the use of wine. This contrast occurs again at Pentecost in Acts 2, and again in Ephesians 5:18.”
Yes, we need to be full of the Spirit and not full of alcohol.
Remember: when the disciples at Pentecost began to speak in tongues, the people thought they were drunk. Now that we have removed alcohol no one will think we are drunk when we speak in tongues. … Of course, we have also gotten rid of speaking in tongues. So now no one will ever think we are ever drunk or filled with the Holy Spirit. Of course, no one will ever think the latter anyway, but this makes sure.
You can see the problem can you not? When the charismatics in the convention would get filled with the Spirit but, when caught, would claim they were drunk. When the drinkers in the convention would get filled with spirits but, when caught, would claim they were charismatic.
So this year we at the SBC have removed both tongue-speaking and tongue-drinking so no one will ever be able to give a reason why they are filled with the joy of the Lord. And in the SBC, that is how it should be.
7) A friend noted: "This dereliction of Scriptural teaching is all for your benefit, PC." "How do you mean?" "Abstinence makes the heart grow fonder."
2) “No,” some are saying. “This isn’t about complete abstinence of alcohol consumption despite the teachings of Scripture for everyone, just complete abstinence of alcohol consumption despite the teachings of Scripture for SBC agency trustees and leadership in general.” In all frankness, such a distinction between laity and leadership is unscriptural (never mind the fact that this is an abstinent practice contrary to Scripture). In further frankness, to order complete abstinence of alcohol consumption means that certain NT Christian leaders could not have been SBC leaders: Paul, Timothy, the disciples and apostles, and even Jesus.
Yes, Jesus would not be able to be an SBC leader because of his own alcohol consumption. Now the Scriptures teach of a banquet in the next life where we shall drink wine with Jesus (of course, that is just what Scripture teaches and you know how iffy that can be). Perhaps when we get to heaven we should have an intervention for the Son of God.
Nevertheless, the leaders who wrote the NT books who made the necessary requirements for church leadership could not be leaders in the SBC and neither could those who they themselves chose for leadership positions. What does that say about our SBC leaders?
3) It is interesting that when the SBC leadership really really wants something that they will throw out their own hermeneutics for interpreting Scripture. Yes, the same hermeneutics which many liberals use to legitimate women as pastors, homosexual activity, various forms of sexual immorality, and religious inclusivity is now being adopted by out SBC leadership for the purposes of advocating complete abstinence of alcohol consumption despite the teachings of Scripture. How odd is this? The one group of people who championed inerrancy and sufficiency, warned our convention about the drifting towards liberalism, and fought so hard to expel all those who adopted a relativistic view of Scripture and its teachings, yes, they are now the ones who are advocating this particular form of interpreting Scripture for this specific purpose.
At least the liberals have an excuse: they always interpret Scripture this way. What excuse does the SBC leadership have for using such a liberal and postmodern view of Scripture just for this one issue? Or is it just this one view?
Oh, my friends! The convention, its agencies and its seminaries are drifting dangerously left! The current leadership is pushing the SBC further and further towards postmodernism and liberalism. God have mercy!
Is it not dangerous when our leaders dismiss the Scriptures and their own much touted conservative hermeneutic only when they really really want something? That is more dangerous than to have a liberal hermeneutic at the outset.
4) Apparently Jesus Christ is no longer the full revelation of God and Who He is. Apparently, we can no longer look to Jesus as our example and teacher for how we should live or what we believe. Yes, Jesus did drink alcohol but he was very much a man of his time and could not forsee how his actions and teachings would effect later generations of believers. Better just not read the Bible anymore; its far too dangerous. Better to just allow your esteemed SBC leadership tell you who God is and what He expects of you.
5) Apparently, many if not most our current SBC agency trustees are a bunch of drunks. Apparently, they were out late at night boozing around and getting quite inebriated. Thus our esteemed SBC leadership believed that it was time to put their foot down and stop all of this drunkenness on the part of our SBC agency trustees. They must be drunks; look at some of their recent decisions.
6) A recent person noted:
“John the Baptist, touted by Jesus as “the greatest born among men,” was a total abstainer. He was evidently patterning his lifestyle after that of the Nazarite Law, and thereby expressing God’s prescription for what is the best for a godly man. In fact, the angelic announcement to Zacharias prohibited John the Baptist from using any wine (Luke 1:15). Here also is noted the first specific contrast between the fullness of the Spirit and the use of wine. This contrast occurs again at Pentecost in Acts 2, and again in Ephesians 5:18.”
Yes, we need to be full of the Spirit and not full of alcohol.
Remember: when the disciples at Pentecost began to speak in tongues, the people thought they were drunk. Now that we have removed alcohol no one will think we are drunk when we speak in tongues. … Of course, we have also gotten rid of speaking in tongues. So now no one will ever think we are ever drunk or filled with the Holy Spirit. Of course, no one will ever think the latter anyway, but this makes sure.
You can see the problem can you not? When the charismatics in the convention would get filled with the Spirit but, when caught, would claim they were drunk. When the drinkers in the convention would get filled with spirits but, when caught, would claim they were charismatic.
So this year we at the SBC have removed both tongue-speaking and tongue-drinking so no one will ever be able to give a reason why they are filled with the joy of the Lord. And in the SBC, that is how it should be.
7) A friend noted: "This dereliction of Scriptural teaching is all for your benefit, PC." "How do you mean?" "Abstinence makes the heart grow fonder."
Friday, July 07, 2006
The Nazarite Vow
-- The Nazarite (one who was especially separated unto God) was prohibited from the use of wine altogether (see Numbers 6:3; Judges 13:4-7, 13-14).
Also Nazarites are prohibited from using vinegar or any grape product (including grapes, theirs seeds or skins, grape juice). Furthermore, no hair-cutting and no touching of a corpse.
Also,
JESUS THE SON OF GOD DRANK ALCOHOL!!!!!
Also Nazarites are prohibited from using vinegar or any grape product (including grapes, theirs seeds or skins, grape juice). Furthermore, no hair-cutting and no touching of a corpse.
Also,
JESUS THE SON OF GOD DRANK ALCOHOL!!!!!
Gun Control vs. Alcohol Abstinence
There are many in the SBC who are quite adamant about abstaining from alcohol consumption and making sure that everyone else is forced to abandon this God-given gift and right despite what Jesus and the rest of the Scriptures so teach.
I began to think of all those Southern Baptists that I know who are all gung-ho about enforcing complete alcohol abstinence upon every living Christian leader, etc. What many of these particular Southern Baptists have a common interest: they all really like GUNS.
So I began to think about this: what are the arguments for Southern Baptist leaders, trustees, seminary presidents and professors, pastors and seminary students abstaining from the use and ownership of guns.
1) While the Bible mention that it is okay to use alcohol, the Bible does not say that it is okay to use guns.
2) While the Bible teaches that alcohol consumption should be done in moderation, the Bible and Jesus in particular are very clear that non-violence should be life of a Christian (Matt 5:38-39).
3) Of course, if alcohol is properly used then a person enjoys this natural gift from God. If a man-made gun is properly used the something either gets hurt or dies.
4) Jesus drank alcohol, but would Jesus carry a gun? Prince of Peace, anyone? (Isaiah 9:6)
5) In fact, the whole gospel message is antithetical to using guns. But that, of course, is just what the Bible says and, as we now know since the recent SBC in Greensboro, is a relative and cultural document which has very little to say about how we should behave today.
6) In a society torn apart by violence both in reality and in Hollywood films, shouldn’t Southern Baptists make a good example by abstaining from the use and ownership of guns?
7) Of course, the 2nd Amendment to the U.S. Constitution guarantees a right to have a gun (and for many Southern Baptists, that is a better source than the Bible if my recent experience at the Greensboro SBC is any indication). But, of course, the 21st Amendment to the U.S. Constitution guarantees a right to have a drink, so what are Southern Baptists to think?
8) Then there are the facts:
In the U.S. for 2001, there were 29,573 deaths from firearms, distributed as follows by mode of death: Suicide 16,869; Homicide 11,348; Accident 802; Legal Intervention 323; Undetermined 231. This makes firearms injuries one of the top ten causes of death in the U.S.
The number of non-fatal injuries is considerable--over 200,000 per year in the U.S. Many of these injuries require hospitalization and trauma care. A 1994 study revealed the cost per injury requiring admission to a trauma center was over $14,000. The cumulative lifetime cost in 1985 for gunshot wounds was estimated to be $911 million, with $13.4 billion in lost productivity.
The rates of firearms deaths in the U.S. vary significantly by race and sex. The U.S. national average was 10.3 deaths per 100,000 population in 2001. The highest rate was 34.5/100,000 for African-American males, more than double the rate of 16.3/100,000 for white males and well above the rate of 2.7/100,000 for white females.
In one survey, 10% of families admitted to having unlocked and loaded firearms within easy reach of children. Another study showed that two-thirds of accidental firearms injuries occurred in the home, and one-third involved children under 15. 45% were self-inflicted, and 16% occurred when children were playing with guns. A study from 1991-2000 showed that twice as many people died from unintentional firearm injuries in states in the U.S. where firearm owners were more likely to store their firearms loaded.
The issue of "home defense" or protection against intruders may well be misrepresented. Of 626 shootings in or around a residence in three U.S. cities revealed that, for every time a gun in the home was used in a self-defense or legally justifiable shooting, there were four unintentional shootings, seven criminal assaults or homicides, and 11 attempted or completed suicides. Over 50% of all households in the U.S. admit to having firearms. It would appear that, rather than being used for defense, most of these weapons inflict injuries on the owners and their families.
Hunting accidents with firearms, despite the large gun ownership in this country and numerous game seasons in most states, remain relatively rare and do not appear to be increasing. A study in Sweden indicated a rate of 0.074/100,000 and that, when hunting big game, most accidents resulted from a mistaken target. When hunting small game, accidents occurred most frequently as a result of mishandling the gun. Hunting accidents did not increase with increasing gun ownership or numbers of hunters.
9) Certainly guns are far more dangerous that alcohol. Those millions of people who died in WWI, WWII, the Korean and Vietnam Wars, Desert Storm, the Cold War, the Killing Fields of Cambodia and in Rwanda did not die of one too many gin and tonics.
10) Certainly no tragic industry was supported by the selling and buying of swords. This latter point is crucial for the believer. A believer in no way can justify gun-ownership if thereby he is contributing to the sustenance of an industry responsible for two-thirds of the violent deaths, most crimes, and untold millions of dollars in damage to private property. Such would violate all laws in the Bible, and especially the Corinthian principle on the effect of your choices and actions on you: “All things are lawful for me, but all things are not helpful: all things are lawful for me, but not all things edify” (1 Corinthians 10:23).
God has called us to be set apart, to be bringers of peace. How can we claim to be followers of the Prince of Peace in a world of gun violence when we will not even lay down our own weapons?
I submit that we Southern Baptists (who are Scripturally obliged to consume alcoholic beverages) should seek to abstain from using or even possessing guns (which we are not Scripturally obliged to use or own).
I challenge anyone to show me the superior wisdom of using or owning guns as opposed to not using or owning guns at all. This is not legalism but love. This is not being anti-biblical but pro-brother and sister. This is not working for evil but for good. Given the world in which we live, I believe such a lifestyle honors the Lord Jesus. I believe it pleases Him. Without question, it is the wise thing to do.
Remember:
“A violent man enticeth his neighbour, and leadeth him into the way that is not good.” (Pro 16:29)
"You send rain on the mountains from your heavenly home, and you fill the earth with the fruit of your labor. You cause grass to grow for the cattle. You cause plants to grow for people to use. You allow them to produce food from the earth; wine to make them glad, olive oil as lotion for their skin, and bread to give them strength." (Ps 104:13-15)
I began to think of all those Southern Baptists that I know who are all gung-ho about enforcing complete alcohol abstinence upon every living Christian leader, etc. What many of these particular Southern Baptists have a common interest: they all really like GUNS.
So I began to think about this: what are the arguments for Southern Baptist leaders, trustees, seminary presidents and professors, pastors and seminary students abstaining from the use and ownership of guns.
1) While the Bible mention that it is okay to use alcohol, the Bible does not say that it is okay to use guns.
2) While the Bible teaches that alcohol consumption should be done in moderation, the Bible and Jesus in particular are very clear that non-violence should be life of a Christian (Matt 5:38-39).
3) Of course, if alcohol is properly used then a person enjoys this natural gift from God. If a man-made gun is properly used the something either gets hurt or dies.
4) Jesus drank alcohol, but would Jesus carry a gun? Prince of Peace, anyone? (Isaiah 9:6)
5) In fact, the whole gospel message is antithetical to using guns. But that, of course, is just what the Bible says and, as we now know since the recent SBC in Greensboro, is a relative and cultural document which has very little to say about how we should behave today.
6) In a society torn apart by violence both in reality and in Hollywood films, shouldn’t Southern Baptists make a good example by abstaining from the use and ownership of guns?
7) Of course, the 2nd Amendment to the U.S. Constitution guarantees a right to have a gun (and for many Southern Baptists, that is a better source than the Bible if my recent experience at the Greensboro SBC is any indication). But, of course, the 21st Amendment to the U.S. Constitution guarantees a right to have a drink, so what are Southern Baptists to think?
8) Then there are the facts:
In the U.S. for 2001, there were 29,573 deaths from firearms, distributed as follows by mode of death: Suicide 16,869; Homicide 11,348; Accident 802; Legal Intervention 323; Undetermined 231. This makes firearms injuries one of the top ten causes of death in the U.S.
The number of non-fatal injuries is considerable--over 200,000 per year in the U.S. Many of these injuries require hospitalization and trauma care. A 1994 study revealed the cost per injury requiring admission to a trauma center was over $14,000. The cumulative lifetime cost in 1985 for gunshot wounds was estimated to be $911 million, with $13.4 billion in lost productivity.
The rates of firearms deaths in the U.S. vary significantly by race and sex. The U.S. national average was 10.3 deaths per 100,000 population in 2001. The highest rate was 34.5/100,000 for African-American males, more than double the rate of 16.3/100,000 for white males and well above the rate of 2.7/100,000 for white females.
In one survey, 10% of families admitted to having unlocked and loaded firearms within easy reach of children. Another study showed that two-thirds of accidental firearms injuries occurred in the home, and one-third involved children under 15. 45% were self-inflicted, and 16% occurred when children were playing with guns. A study from 1991-2000 showed that twice as many people died from unintentional firearm injuries in states in the U.S. where firearm owners were more likely to store their firearms loaded.
The issue of "home defense" or protection against intruders may well be misrepresented. Of 626 shootings in or around a residence in three U.S. cities revealed that, for every time a gun in the home was used in a self-defense or legally justifiable shooting, there were four unintentional shootings, seven criminal assaults or homicides, and 11 attempted or completed suicides. Over 50% of all households in the U.S. admit to having firearms. It would appear that, rather than being used for defense, most of these weapons inflict injuries on the owners and their families.
Hunting accidents with firearms, despite the large gun ownership in this country and numerous game seasons in most states, remain relatively rare and do not appear to be increasing. A study in Sweden indicated a rate of 0.074/100,000 and that, when hunting big game, most accidents resulted from a mistaken target. When hunting small game, accidents occurred most frequently as a result of mishandling the gun. Hunting accidents did not increase with increasing gun ownership or numbers of hunters.
9) Certainly guns are far more dangerous that alcohol. Those millions of people who died in WWI, WWII, the Korean and Vietnam Wars, Desert Storm, the Cold War, the Killing Fields of Cambodia and in Rwanda did not die of one too many gin and tonics.
10) Certainly no tragic industry was supported by the selling and buying of swords. This latter point is crucial for the believer. A believer in no way can justify gun-ownership if thereby he is contributing to the sustenance of an industry responsible for two-thirds of the violent deaths, most crimes, and untold millions of dollars in damage to private property. Such would violate all laws in the Bible, and especially the Corinthian principle on the effect of your choices and actions on you: “All things are lawful for me, but all things are not helpful: all things are lawful for me, but not all things edify” (1 Corinthians 10:23).
God has called us to be set apart, to be bringers of peace. How can we claim to be followers of the Prince of Peace in a world of gun violence when we will not even lay down our own weapons?
I submit that we Southern Baptists (who are Scripturally obliged to consume alcoholic beverages) should seek to abstain from using or even possessing guns (which we are not Scripturally obliged to use or own).
I challenge anyone to show me the superior wisdom of using or owning guns as opposed to not using or owning guns at all. This is not legalism but love. This is not being anti-biblical but pro-brother and sister. This is not working for evil but for good. Given the world in which we live, I believe such a lifestyle honors the Lord Jesus. I believe it pleases Him. Without question, it is the wise thing to do.
Remember:
“A violent man enticeth his neighbour, and leadeth him into the way that is not good.” (Pro 16:29)
"You send rain on the mountains from your heavenly home, and you fill the earth with the fruit of your labor. You cause grass to grow for the cattle. You cause plants to grow for people to use. You allow them to produce food from the earth; wine to make them glad, olive oil as lotion for their skin, and bread to give them strength." (Ps 104:13-15)
Oinos: Yes, It Actually Means "Wine"
There are some in the evangelical world who are under the self-imposed delusion that the “wine” that was drunk in the NT by Jesus and the rest of the early Church was not really wine but either “grape juice” or “wine mixed with water”. This complete false notion helps them (they believe) to harmonize the New Testament teachings on alcohol consumption with their own personal preferences.
This is a totally incorrect and completely false idea without ANY shred of evidence. Conservative evangelical scholarship is in complete agreement that the wine that was drunk by the Son of God and the early NT Church is the same as that which is made today.
While no serious NT scholar takes the “grape juice” or “wine mixed with water” claim seriously, the recent burst of “tee-total or ta-ta” expressionism in the SBC has lead many believers to swarm the conservative scholarly world in order to find some one, somewhere, and sometime who can justify their own personal preferences on how believers should behave against the revealed truth in Scripture.
In fact, much of the recent articles I have read about this issue from popular pastors makes one wonder the state of SBC leadership and its Scriptural cognizance. How can such men and women with such doctorates make such ludicrous and glaring mistakes? Now, I have met pastors with doctorates who have told me the most ludicrous explanation of why they believe there was no alcohol in the “wine” that Jesus drank, but these doctoral pastors were not writing for the general public and making a case on the pages of the BP. What excuse does a doctorate have when such a mistake is made? He or she is either ignorant or disingenuous.
So let me say this for all to read and research concerning the Greek word oinos.
1) Oinos does not mean “grape juice” or “wine mixed with water”. It just doesn’t. Look it up in any Greek-English dictionary. It means “wine” just like the English word “wine” means oinos.
2) There is a Greek word that means “unfermented grape juice”, and that word is trux. That word does not used anywhere in the NT, nowhere. If the NT writers had meant “unfermented grape juice” they would have used trux but they did not. When we in English mean “wine”, we say “wine”. When those in the NT meant “wine”, they used oinos. When we in English mean “grape juice”, we say “grape juice”. When those in the NT meant “grape juice”, they usedtrux. There is absolutely zero evidence anywhere in reality that oinos means “grape juice” or “wine mixed with water”.
3) The Hebrew word for “wine”, yayin, certainly doesn’t mean “grape juice” or “wine mixed with water”.
4) Even if in some parallel universe there is a reality where oinos means “grape juice”, why would NT writers warn people not to drink too much of it? If it was only “grape juice” then there would be no fear of getting drunk. The command would be pointless. It would be like them saying do not drink to much water because you might get drunk.
5) The same is true with “wine mixed with water”. Even if in some parallel universe there is a reality where oinos means “wine mixed with water”, then it would still be something could be abused to drunkenness. If one could not abuse the “wine mixed with water” and could not get drunk then the NT warning would be pointless.
6) But let us assume for the moment that the God-Man and NT Church did drink “wine mixed with water”. What then is the NT teaching on alcohol? “You can drink alcohol but only if you put a lot of water in it and not drink too much so you get drunk.” Even then, one ends up back at the plain, literal, inerrant, sufficient teachings of Scripture on alcohol: “Drink alcohol but do so in moderation and do not get drunk,” which is the point that those of us who actually disagree with alcohol abstinence have been arguing all along.
No matter how one looks at this issue (if you actually believe the Scriptural teachings), the Scriptures say that a believer most certainly can drink alcohol.
So will you people who call yourselves conservative evangelical Christians please actually read the Bible and abide by its teachings instead of preferring your own version of what God wants.
This is a totally incorrect and completely false idea without ANY shred of evidence. Conservative evangelical scholarship is in complete agreement that the wine that was drunk by the Son of God and the early NT Church is the same as that which is made today.
While no serious NT scholar takes the “grape juice” or “wine mixed with water” claim seriously, the recent burst of “tee-total or ta-ta” expressionism in the SBC has lead many believers to swarm the conservative scholarly world in order to find some one, somewhere, and sometime who can justify their own personal preferences on how believers should behave against the revealed truth in Scripture.
In fact, much of the recent articles I have read about this issue from popular pastors makes one wonder the state of SBC leadership and its Scriptural cognizance. How can such men and women with such doctorates make such ludicrous and glaring mistakes? Now, I have met pastors with doctorates who have told me the most ludicrous explanation of why they believe there was no alcohol in the “wine” that Jesus drank, but these doctoral pastors were not writing for the general public and making a case on the pages of the BP. What excuse does a doctorate have when such a mistake is made? He or she is either ignorant or disingenuous.
So let me say this for all to read and research concerning the Greek word oinos.
1) Oinos does not mean “grape juice” or “wine mixed with water”. It just doesn’t. Look it up in any Greek-English dictionary. It means “wine” just like the English word “wine” means oinos.
2) There is a Greek word that means “unfermented grape juice”, and that word is trux. That word does not used anywhere in the NT, nowhere. If the NT writers had meant “unfermented grape juice” they would have used trux but they did not. When we in English mean “wine”, we say “wine”. When those in the NT meant “wine”, they used oinos. When we in English mean “grape juice”, we say “grape juice”. When those in the NT meant “grape juice”, they usedtrux. There is absolutely zero evidence anywhere in reality that oinos means “grape juice” or “wine mixed with water”.
3) The Hebrew word for “wine”, yayin, certainly doesn’t mean “grape juice” or “wine mixed with water”.
4) Even if in some parallel universe there is a reality where oinos means “grape juice”, why would NT writers warn people not to drink too much of it? If it was only “grape juice” then there would be no fear of getting drunk. The command would be pointless. It would be like them saying do not drink to much water because you might get drunk.
5) The same is true with “wine mixed with water”. Even if in some parallel universe there is a reality where oinos means “wine mixed with water”, then it would still be something could be abused to drunkenness. If one could not abuse the “wine mixed with water” and could not get drunk then the NT warning would be pointless.
6) But let us assume for the moment that the God-Man and NT Church did drink “wine mixed with water”. What then is the NT teaching on alcohol? “You can drink alcohol but only if you put a lot of water in it and not drink too much so you get drunk.” Even then, one ends up back at the plain, literal, inerrant, sufficient teachings of Scripture on alcohol: “Drink alcohol but do so in moderation and do not get drunk,” which is the point that those of us who actually disagree with alcohol abstinence have been arguing all along.
No matter how one looks at this issue (if you actually believe the Scriptural teachings), the Scriptures say that a believer most certainly can drink alcohol.
So will you people who call yourselves conservative evangelical Christians please actually read the Bible and abide by its teachings instead of preferring your own version of what God wants.
Thursday, July 06, 2006
KEEP YOUR HANDS TO YOURSELF (PART ONE): The Case For Hand-Raising Abstinence
Jun 30, 2006
By Art Ritus
Baptist Pravda
I readily confess to a personal bias when it comes to the issue of “hand-raising”.
My auntie Costal and her husband Pente have a son who was raising hands in public and was assaulted by people who thought he was a double-neo-Nazi.
-- There are more than 4 million hand-raisers in America. Many of them in public schools.
-- Hand-raising is the number one practice among charismatics.
-- One in three American families suspects that one or more family members is a charismatic.
-- Misuse of hand-raising costs our convention $100 thousand a year in court costs.
Because of these experiences and many more, I often have said that even if I were not a Christian I would have nothing to do with hand-raising. There is simply too much sorrow and heartache connected to it. Avoiding this devastating practice is simply the wise thing to do.
This year at our convention we again passed a resolution calling for avoidance of hand-raising. The resolution passed overwhelmingly, but it did generate significant debate both during and after the annual meeting. Some have accused those supporting the resolution of being pharisaical and legalistic, traditionalist and anti-biblical, that we fail to understand Christian liberty and freedom, and that we even stand against Jesus.
These are strong accusations from fellow brothers and sisters in Christ. However, are they correct? Are those like myself who believe hand-raising to be anti-Christian actually guilty of these charges?
Let me respond as graciously and kindly as I possibly can, explaining why I hold the position I do. I share my heart with no malice or ill will toward anyone, but from a desire to honor the Lord Jesus, and to protect others from the evils hand-raising has visited on so many.
We should remember from a Baptist perspective that there are historical precedents for denouncing hand-raising.
In 1996, Southern Baptists issued their first resolution on hand-raising. Since then, at least 2 additional corporate statements have addressed the risk of hand-raising and the wisdom of avoiding charismatic tendencies. For 10 years, Southern Baptists have made clear their stand on this issue.
Individual Baptists no doubt continue to hand-raise as some had before 1996, but the Southern Baptist Convention as a consensus whole has been crystal clear on where it stands for a long time. I am confident that our forefathers understood the issue of Christian liberty as they passed these resolutions. I am grateful for this tradition. I believe we should continue it. I was the one who first proposed the resolution.
There are moral reasons for denouncing hand-raising. John Poper teaches the wisdom of abstaining from hand-raising because it can be a spirit-altering ritual, and it can be addictive; it does not help one in doing the will of God and can genuinely be a hindrance. He points to “the carnage of charismatic abuse” to support his choice to boycott churches who allow such practices. He also reasons, “Is it really so prudish, or narrow to renounce a church-killer, a home destroyer, and a worship eradicator?”
Some questions are in order and deserve an answer. Does hand-raising make me a better person? Does hand-raising draw me closer to God? Does hand-raising help me run the race faithfully to the end (Heb. 12:1-2)?
Today, we Christians are constantly confronted by the abuses of the charismatic movement who claim to have found a “holier” practice in such things as “tongue speaking” and “hand-raising”. Yet, there is nothing in the Bible that says those who practice charismatic practices are any “holier” than the next believer.
The Bible is very clear that charismatic practices are contrary to Scripture (1 Cor 14:6), being intelligible and vain (1 Cor 14:9), barbarous (1 Cor 14:11), non-edifying (1 Cor 14:17), and is a serious damage to evangelism (1 Cor 14:22-23).
We need to be holy to others and the world and abstain from such practices.
I am in total agreement with my spiritual hero Hadrian Wallgers who said, “Tolerance is not the cure for the hand-raising problem. Tolerance is the cause of the hand-raising problem. Becoming a hand-raiser does not begin with the last hand-raising, it always begins with the first. Just don’t do it.”
My friend Lame Merit wisely says, “It is impossible to be bitten by a snake that you never play with.”
Hand-raising cannot strike unless given the opportunity. That potential becomes real with the first hand one raises.
There are biblical reasons for not practicing hand-raising:
Those who advocate the unbridled use of hand-raising are fond of citing 1 Timothy 2:8.
“I desire therefore that the men pray everywhere, lifting up holy hands, without wrath and doubting;”
Yet, the Bible is clear in teaching that the hand-raising practice that was practiced in the New Testament is not the same hand-raising practiced by charismatics. Indeed, this reference in 1 Timothy refers not to literal hand-lifting but is figurative of not looking weak. We can see this by reading the book of Hebrews.
"Therefore lift up the hands which hang down, and the feeble knees; And make straight paths for your feet, lest that which is lame be turned out of the way; but let it rather be healed.” (Hebrews 12:12-13)
In the Bible, the raising of hands does not signify the praise and worship but anguish, suffering and lament.
“For I have heard a voice as of a woman in travail, and the anguish as of her that bringeth forth her first child, the voice of the daughter of Zion, that bewaileth herself, that spreadeth her hands, saying, Woe is me now! for my soul is wearied because of murderers.” (Jer 4:31)
People in the Bible only raised hands when they were suffering, usually because of persecution.
We, however, are not suffering such persecution and it is Biblically inappropriate to do so. In worship, we acknowledge the mercy and blessings bestowed upon us.
In the Song of Songs (which everyone knows is about the proper loving relationship between God and His people) the bridegroom exhibits the proper practice God expects in a loving relationship.
“I rose up to open to my beloved; and my hands dropped with myrrh, and my fingers with sweet smelling myrrh, upon the handles of the lock.” (Sgs 5:5)
Indeed, the Biblical writers are quite clear on what is the appropriate practice of worshipping God.
“Therefore shall all hands be faint, and every man's heart shall melt.” (Isa 13:7)
Furthermore, hand-raising hinders the work of the church and the labour of man.
“And labour, working with our own hands: being reviled, we bless; being persecuted, we suffer it:” (1 Cor 4:12)
“Let him that stole steal no more: but rather let him labour, working with his hands the thing which is good, that he may have to give to him that needeth.” (Eph 4:28)
“And that ye study to be quiet, and to do your own business, and to work with your own hands, as we commanded you;” (1 Thess 4:11)
How can man work when his arms are raised?
Regardless, Sunday is a time of rest when man focuses not upon his own work but the work of God.
Yet still many “believers” in our convention would rather focus on their own freedom in Christ even to the point of causing another weak brother to stumble (1 Cor 8:9). In worship services, hand-raising causes others to be concerned with the hand-raiser and not God.
“And the harp, and the viol, the tabret, and pipe, and wine, are in their feasts: but they regard not the work of the LORD, neither consider the operation of his hands.” (Isa 5:12)
We are to consider the work of the hands of God, not our own hands or the hands of others in the worship service. Yet many in the charismatic movement see fit to disregard God’s commandments in this area, preferring a man-centered worship devoid of God.
Indeed, God considers “hand-raising” a form of idolatry.
“Their land also is full of idols; they worship the work of their own hands, that which their own fingers have made:” (Isa 2:8)
“Thy graven images also will I cut off, and thy standing images out of the midst of thee; and thou shalt no more worship the work of thine hands.” (Mic 5:13)
Furthermore, when worshippers raise their hands, God is no longer present among the worshippers.
“And when ye spread forth your hands, I will hide mine eyes from you: yea, when ye make many prayers, I will not hear” (Isa 1:15)
But God promises to punish those who hand-raise.
“Render unto them a recompence, O LORD, according to the work of their hands.” (Lam 3:64)
“Zion spreadeth forth her hands, and there is none to comfort her: the LORD hath commanded concerning Jacob, that his adversaries should be round about him.” (Lam 1:17)
It is sad that so many “believers” would rather endanger themselves, their families, their church, and their convention by practicing idolatry during worship time as God excuses Himself threatening to punish such blasphemy. Obviously, these individuals think their freedom in Christ is more important than their fellow brothers and sisters in Christ.
Let me conclude with some practical considerations:
--Can we raise hands in worship? No. But even if we could raise hands in worship, should we? Again, no. What these hand-raisers will not admit is that regardless of whether or not Scripture says that we can raise hands, we still shouldn’t.
-- Should those who practice hand-raising look down on those who do not? The answer is an unqualified no. Biblically we can but practically we should not. That is pride and therefore is sin. It is true that hand-raising has contributed to many going to hell, but pride, no doubt, has done so in even greater numbers. A smug, prideful non-hand-raiser without Jesus is just as lost as the poor hand-raiser who is always in search of another charismatic service. Those who believe in not hand-raising should be gracious and humble, kind and caring, loving and patient. Where else will hand-raisers get any sympathy?
-- As a pastor or church leader, would I demand abstaining from hand-raising for church membership? No, I would not. Would I demand it for leadership? Absolutely!
The principle of Proverbs 17:18 is appropriately applied here, “A man void of understanding striketh hands, and becometh surety in the presence of his friend.” Hand-raising is evidence of a lack of wisdom and understanding in a person and such a person is not fit for leadership.
-- I agree with Park MacArthur. Can I say it is always a sin to hand-raise? No. Can I say it is almost always ill-advised? Yes, because it violates the biblical principles of wisdom and witness.
One of America’s leading pastors is Laurel Stanley. He wrote a book titled, The Best Seller Ever. The question is this, “What is the wise thing for me to do?”
I challenge anyone to show me the superior wisdom of hand-raising, as opposed to not hand-raising at all. This is not legalism but love. This is not being anti-biblical but pro-brother and sister. This is not working for evil but for good. Given the world in which we live, I believe such a lifestyle honors the Lord Jesus. I believe it pleases Him. Without question, it is the wise thing to do. Scouts honor!
We need to pursue proper doctrine which edifies. As the apostle Paul wrote, “Of the doctrine of baptisms, and of laying on of hands, and of resurrection of the dead, and of eternal judgment.” (Heb 6:2; see also Acts 28:8; 1 Tim 4:14; 5:22; 2 Tim 1:6)
We are called to doctrines of “laying on of hands” and not to any supposed doctrine of “lifting hands”. How can we lay hands on another when they are lifted up in the air? The laying on of hands is symbolic of the Christian love and concern for healings and blessings. What will the world think of us if they walk into our worship services and see Christians with hands lifted up? They’ll think: “They have their hands in the air like they just don’t care.”
By Art Ritus
Baptist Pravda
I readily confess to a personal bias when it comes to the issue of “hand-raising”.
My auntie Costal and her husband Pente have a son who was raising hands in public and was assaulted by people who thought he was a double-neo-Nazi.
-- There are more than 4 million hand-raisers in America. Many of them in public schools.
-- Hand-raising is the number one practice among charismatics.
-- One in three American families suspects that one or more family members is a charismatic.
-- Misuse of hand-raising costs our convention $100 thousand a year in court costs.
Because of these experiences and many more, I often have said that even if I were not a Christian I would have nothing to do with hand-raising. There is simply too much sorrow and heartache connected to it. Avoiding this devastating practice is simply the wise thing to do.
This year at our convention we again passed a resolution calling for avoidance of hand-raising. The resolution passed overwhelmingly, but it did generate significant debate both during and after the annual meeting. Some have accused those supporting the resolution of being pharisaical and legalistic, traditionalist and anti-biblical, that we fail to understand Christian liberty and freedom, and that we even stand against Jesus.
These are strong accusations from fellow brothers and sisters in Christ. However, are they correct? Are those like myself who believe hand-raising to be anti-Christian actually guilty of these charges?
Let me respond as graciously and kindly as I possibly can, explaining why I hold the position I do. I share my heart with no malice or ill will toward anyone, but from a desire to honor the Lord Jesus, and to protect others from the evils hand-raising has visited on so many.
We should remember from a Baptist perspective that there are historical precedents for denouncing hand-raising.
In 1996, Southern Baptists issued their first resolution on hand-raising. Since then, at least 2 additional corporate statements have addressed the risk of hand-raising and the wisdom of avoiding charismatic tendencies. For 10 years, Southern Baptists have made clear their stand on this issue.
Individual Baptists no doubt continue to hand-raise as some had before 1996, but the Southern Baptist Convention as a consensus whole has been crystal clear on where it stands for a long time. I am confident that our forefathers understood the issue of Christian liberty as they passed these resolutions. I am grateful for this tradition. I believe we should continue it. I was the one who first proposed the resolution.
There are moral reasons for denouncing hand-raising. John Poper teaches the wisdom of abstaining from hand-raising because it can be a spirit-altering ritual, and it can be addictive; it does not help one in doing the will of God and can genuinely be a hindrance. He points to “the carnage of charismatic abuse” to support his choice to boycott churches who allow such practices. He also reasons, “Is it really so prudish, or narrow to renounce a church-killer, a home destroyer, and a worship eradicator?”
Some questions are in order and deserve an answer. Does hand-raising make me a better person? Does hand-raising draw me closer to God? Does hand-raising help me run the race faithfully to the end (Heb. 12:1-2)?
Today, we Christians are constantly confronted by the abuses of the charismatic movement who claim to have found a “holier” practice in such things as “tongue speaking” and “hand-raising”. Yet, there is nothing in the Bible that says those who practice charismatic practices are any “holier” than the next believer.
The Bible is very clear that charismatic practices are contrary to Scripture (1 Cor 14:6), being intelligible and vain (1 Cor 14:9), barbarous (1 Cor 14:11), non-edifying (1 Cor 14:17), and is a serious damage to evangelism (1 Cor 14:22-23).
We need to be holy to others and the world and abstain from such practices.
I am in total agreement with my spiritual hero Hadrian Wallgers who said, “Tolerance is not the cure for the hand-raising problem. Tolerance is the cause of the hand-raising problem. Becoming a hand-raiser does not begin with the last hand-raising, it always begins with the first. Just don’t do it.”
My friend Lame Merit wisely says, “It is impossible to be bitten by a snake that you never play with.”
Hand-raising cannot strike unless given the opportunity. That potential becomes real with the first hand one raises.
There are biblical reasons for not practicing hand-raising:
Those who advocate the unbridled use of hand-raising are fond of citing 1 Timothy 2:8.
“I desire therefore that the men pray everywhere, lifting up holy hands, without wrath and doubting;”
Yet, the Bible is clear in teaching that the hand-raising practice that was practiced in the New Testament is not the same hand-raising practiced by charismatics. Indeed, this reference in 1 Timothy refers not to literal hand-lifting but is figurative of not looking weak. We can see this by reading the book of Hebrews.
"Therefore lift up the hands which hang down, and the feeble knees; And make straight paths for your feet, lest that which is lame be turned out of the way; but let it rather be healed.” (Hebrews 12:12-13)
In the Bible, the raising of hands does not signify the praise and worship but anguish, suffering and lament.
“For I have heard a voice as of a woman in travail, and the anguish as of her that bringeth forth her first child, the voice of the daughter of Zion, that bewaileth herself, that spreadeth her hands, saying, Woe is me now! for my soul is wearied because of murderers.” (Jer 4:31)
People in the Bible only raised hands when they were suffering, usually because of persecution.
We, however, are not suffering such persecution and it is Biblically inappropriate to do so. In worship, we acknowledge the mercy and blessings bestowed upon us.
In the Song of Songs (which everyone knows is about the proper loving relationship between God and His people) the bridegroom exhibits the proper practice God expects in a loving relationship.
“I rose up to open to my beloved; and my hands dropped with myrrh, and my fingers with sweet smelling myrrh, upon the handles of the lock.” (Sgs 5:5)
Indeed, the Biblical writers are quite clear on what is the appropriate practice of worshipping God.
“Therefore shall all hands be faint, and every man's heart shall melt.” (Isa 13:7)
Furthermore, hand-raising hinders the work of the church and the labour of man.
“And labour, working with our own hands: being reviled, we bless; being persecuted, we suffer it:” (1 Cor 4:12)
“Let him that stole steal no more: but rather let him labour, working with his hands the thing which is good, that he may have to give to him that needeth.” (Eph 4:28)
“And that ye study to be quiet, and to do your own business, and to work with your own hands, as we commanded you;” (1 Thess 4:11)
How can man work when his arms are raised?
Regardless, Sunday is a time of rest when man focuses not upon his own work but the work of God.
Yet still many “believers” in our convention would rather focus on their own freedom in Christ even to the point of causing another weak brother to stumble (1 Cor 8:9). In worship services, hand-raising causes others to be concerned with the hand-raiser and not God.
“And the harp, and the viol, the tabret, and pipe, and wine, are in their feasts: but they regard not the work of the LORD, neither consider the operation of his hands.” (Isa 5:12)
We are to consider the work of the hands of God, not our own hands or the hands of others in the worship service. Yet many in the charismatic movement see fit to disregard God’s commandments in this area, preferring a man-centered worship devoid of God.
Indeed, God considers “hand-raising” a form of idolatry.
“Their land also is full of idols; they worship the work of their own hands, that which their own fingers have made:” (Isa 2:8)
“Thy graven images also will I cut off, and thy standing images out of the midst of thee; and thou shalt no more worship the work of thine hands.” (Mic 5:13)
Furthermore, when worshippers raise their hands, God is no longer present among the worshippers.
“And when ye spread forth your hands, I will hide mine eyes from you: yea, when ye make many prayers, I will not hear” (Isa 1:15)
But God promises to punish those who hand-raise.
“Render unto them a recompence, O LORD, according to the work of their hands.” (Lam 3:64)
“Zion spreadeth forth her hands, and there is none to comfort her: the LORD hath commanded concerning Jacob, that his adversaries should be round about him.” (Lam 1:17)
It is sad that so many “believers” would rather endanger themselves, their families, their church, and their convention by practicing idolatry during worship time as God excuses Himself threatening to punish such blasphemy. Obviously, these individuals think their freedom in Christ is more important than their fellow brothers and sisters in Christ.
Let me conclude with some practical considerations:
--Can we raise hands in worship? No. But even if we could raise hands in worship, should we? Again, no. What these hand-raisers will not admit is that regardless of whether or not Scripture says that we can raise hands, we still shouldn’t.
-- Should those who practice hand-raising look down on those who do not? The answer is an unqualified no. Biblically we can but practically we should not. That is pride and therefore is sin. It is true that hand-raising has contributed to many going to hell, but pride, no doubt, has done so in even greater numbers. A smug, prideful non-hand-raiser without Jesus is just as lost as the poor hand-raiser who is always in search of another charismatic service. Those who believe in not hand-raising should be gracious and humble, kind and caring, loving and patient. Where else will hand-raisers get any sympathy?
-- As a pastor or church leader, would I demand abstaining from hand-raising for church membership? No, I would not. Would I demand it for leadership? Absolutely!
The principle of Proverbs 17:18 is appropriately applied here, “A man void of understanding striketh hands, and becometh surety in the presence of his friend.” Hand-raising is evidence of a lack of wisdom and understanding in a person and such a person is not fit for leadership.
-- I agree with Park MacArthur. Can I say it is always a sin to hand-raise? No. Can I say it is almost always ill-advised? Yes, because it violates the biblical principles of wisdom and witness.
One of America’s leading pastors is Laurel Stanley. He wrote a book titled, The Best Seller Ever. The question is this, “What is the wise thing for me to do?”
I challenge anyone to show me the superior wisdom of hand-raising, as opposed to not hand-raising at all. This is not legalism but love. This is not being anti-biblical but pro-brother and sister. This is not working for evil but for good. Given the world in which we live, I believe such a lifestyle honors the Lord Jesus. I believe it pleases Him. Without question, it is the wise thing to do. Scouts honor!
We need to pursue proper doctrine which edifies. As the apostle Paul wrote, “Of the doctrine of baptisms, and of laying on of hands, and of resurrection of the dead, and of eternal judgment.” (Heb 6:2; see also Acts 28:8; 1 Tim 4:14; 5:22; 2 Tim 1:6)
We are called to doctrines of “laying on of hands” and not to any supposed doctrine of “lifting hands”. How can we lay hands on another when they are lifted up in the air? The laying on of hands is symbolic of the Christian love and concern for healings and blessings. What will the world think of us if they walk into our worship services and see Christians with hands lifted up? They’ll think: “They have their hands in the air like they just don’t care.”
A Quick Thought
Apparently, Jesus never carried a Bible with him where he went. The Gospels never record Him having scrolls of the Old Testament, either in Hebrew or Greek. Why is that? Apparently, if He did have a set of Scriptures to carry with Him, the Gospel writers did not think it was very important to record it.
Wednesday, July 05, 2006
Hubris In The Pulpits: 14 Problems With Advocating Complete Abstinence Of Alcohol Consumption
It is quite obvious that those who are advocating complete abstinence on the consumption of alcohol have absolutely no foundation for their belief in this matter and very well know it. It is becoming quite obvious that they do not care whether Scripture teaches their position or not. Thus, I am seriously considering abandoning my exposition of this issue. Why? The continuous bombardment of Scriptural teachings contrary to their position is causing many to have their hearts hardened. In order to persist with their beliefs in this matter they are forced to adopt a liberal position on the nature of the Scriptures. Those who are advocating complete abstinence on the drinking of alcohol standing on the wrong side of the Word of God and that is an unpleasant position to be in, especially for conservative Christians. One wonders to what extremes these people will go to in order to persist in this un-Scriptural position.
Some people on either side of this issue may be wondering why this issue is such a bog deal at all. Now I myself am far more concerned about the “tongues” doctrine because it is far more important than the “alcohol” doctrine. True, both doctrinal issues concern the inerrancy and sufficiency of Scripture and both concern the a group of believers enforcing their preference upon other believers to abstain from a practice encouraged in Scripture; but the “tongues” doctrine involves the primary issue of a believers God-given right to worship his or her Creator while the “alcohol” doctrine merely involves the rejection of the liberty of the Christian to practice his or her Faith. Both are important but the “alcohol” doctrine is mere legalism when compared to the heinous and blasphemous manner by which believers in the IMB have set themselves up as the medium by which man communes with God.
But this difference does not mean that the rejection of the “alcohol” doctrine by the SBC is a minor matter in of itself; it is very important. Unfortunately, most believers are virtually ignorant of much that is generally important about the Faith. This general ignorance appears to escalate once a person gets a seminary education and climbs into positions of leadership within an ecclesiastical body. What becomes important is positional polity and public appearance, even to the detriment of one’s faith. In the common polity of the Church, the general consensus of the majority is based upon the most common denominator which is often mere surface cognizance and the results of “the tyranny of first beliefs”. Thus, individual believers do not give serious consideration to either the bases or consequences of their ignorant and obstinate false beliefs. And, unfortunately, the leaders of these ignorant believers instead of preaching the Word to their flock and correcting such “heresy” prefer either to overlook such “heterodoxy” in order to avoid criticism or to add stoke the fires of such “heterodoxy” in order to attain praise. Regardless, these “pastors” are deficient in their calling and ignorant of the serious hubris they are inflicting upon their flock’s faith.
What is the hubris to which I am referring?
Advocating complete abstinence of alcohol consumption is ...
1) Contrary to Scriptural teachings. This is a point that no one has seriously denied with any credibility. In fact, the arguments being made for such abstinence are conspicuously lacking in Scriptural teachings. This should not be surprising because any argument based upon Scriptural teachings runs the risk of being overwhelmed by Scripture itself. Thus, in order to avoid such a risk, Scripture is avoided.
2) Contrary to the principle of Christ as our example. This is no small point. Prior Southern Baptist confessions of faith held that Jesus was the criterion on which Scripture should be interpreted. This meant that the believer can separate commands of the OT which conflict with commands of the NT by the example of Jesus. Thus the command to honor the Sabbath is based upon Christ’s example and His interpretation of the command and not our own. Thus the dietary commands of Leviticus are negated by Christ’s proclamations of making all animals “clean”. However, the 2000 BFM removed this hermeneutic point.
If we actually believe that Jesus Christ is the fullest presentation of God in His example of word and action, then we must agree that what Jesus did in His earthly life as recorded in Scripture is an example by which we ourselves can live. Thus, Jesus drank alcohol, Jesus created alcohol, Jesus offered alcohol to others, and Jesus drank alcohol with others. Of course, the Pharisees criticized Jesus for doing these things. By requiring believers to abstain from alcohol, one is denying that Christ is our perfect example and the Word of God and siding with the Pharisees in this matter.
3) Adding to the Scriptures. The Bible is very clear about the dangers of adding to the teachings of Scripture. Furthermore, both Jesus and Paul spend a lot of time teaching against holding up the traditions of men on the level of the teachings of God. Read Luke-Acts and Galatians, in particular; the Judaizers that Luke and Paul are denouncing were attempting to force their cultural prerogatives upon Gentile believers. The Judaizers were so determined that every believer should honor Jewish cultural distinctives that were continually breaking fellowship with those who didn’t conform. Sound familiar?
4) A denial of “our freedom in Christ”. The believer has freedom to drink and eat despite the cultural conditions of man. This is a teaching taught by Jesus, Paul, Luke, Peter and James. Despite the blithering ignorance and demagoguery of many in the SBC, no one is abusing “our freedom in Christ” by following Christian teachings. One can abuse “our freedom in Christ” by acting in a manner contrary to Scripture or in a manner which the Scriptures are explicitly silent on, but no one can abuse “our freedom in Christ” by acting in accordance with both Scripture and the example set by Christ. Those who make this accusation are Judaizing.
5) A misinterpretation and misapplication of the doctrine of avoiding “stumbling blocks to them that are weak”. While the Scriptures are clear about avoiding stumbling blocks for weak brothers it does not give the “weak brother” carte blanche to enforce his personal preference upon other believers, particularly with regards to that which is advocated in Scriptural teachings. If a weak brother could stumble by consuming alcohol in his presence, then do not consume alcohol in his presence (1 Cor 8:7-13). However, this doctrine does not mean that one is to abstain from drinking alcohol even when a weak brother is absent. If that was the case, then both Jesus, the disciples, Paul and Timothy sinned when they advocated and consumed alcohol.
6) An abuse of the “holiness” doctrine. Some are arguing that to drink alcohol does not make one “holy”. Neither drinking alcohol nor not drinking alcohol is considered “holy” in Scripture. To say that total abstinence makes one appear more holy is to set up a false standard of what it means to be holy. If this was even remotely true, then Jesus is not “holy”.
7) Against the cultural traditions of our national culture. Some have argued that consuming alcohol is contrary to our culture. First, Scripture is above culture. Second, abstaining from alcohol is a recent addition to Christian culture which began in the early 1800s. Even then, it began as a movement to moderate drinking (which is Scriptural) and not eliminate it. Only later did Baptists (in the South) move beyond and contrary to the teachings of Scripture and advocate total abstinence. Third, it is largely the very recent traditions of fundamentalists and Baptists in the Southern part of the United States which insists upon total abstinence. The rest of Christendom only insists upon moderation and non-intoxication which, again, is Scriptural. To claim that total abstinence is the cultural tradition of our culture is not true.
8) Presenting to the world a false view of our Faith. To insist upon total abstinence is to present to the non-Christian world a false picture of the Christian Faith. The Christian Faith and the Scriptures on which it is based does not advocate total abstinence on drinking alcohol. To do so adds to the gospel message. To do so adds practices contrary to discipleship. To do so publicly dismisses and negates true Scriptural commands and prohibitions regarding the consumption of alcohol. To do so cheapens our claim to follow the teachings of Christ and the Scriptures.
9) Dismissing and negating true Scriptural commands and prohibitions regarding the consumption of alcohol. By advocating additional commands to the Scriptural teachings, its true teachings of moderation, non-intoxication and avoiding the stumbling of a weak brother becomes irrelevant matters of no importance.
10) Denying the inerrancy of the Scriptures. To insist upon total abstinence is to make the practical claim that the Scriptures are incorrect when teaching upon this issue. Thus the authority of the Scripture is diminished and made irrelevant.
11) Denying the sufficiency of the Scriptures. To insist upon total abstinence is to make the practical claim that the teachings of Scripture is not sufficient in matters of the Faith and that extra-Biblical teachings are required to make the man of God may be perfect. Thus the authority of the Scripture is diminished and made irrelevant.
12) Hypocritical. Many who advocate total abstinence argue that we need to present a “holy” outward appearance. This is a hypocritical stance denounced in Scripture because neither drinking alcohol nor not drinking alcohol is considered “holy” in Scripture. To say that total abstinence makes one appear more holy is to set up a false standard of what it means to be holy and then present oneself as meeting that standard. This is hypocrisy.
13) Avoids the actual problem those who advocate total abstinence seek to address. All of the problems that those advocate who total abstinence seek to address (alcohol dependency, physical and sexual abuse, destroyed families, etc.) are not caused by using alcohol but by abusing alcohol. The social and spiritual problems that need to be addressed by the Church need to be addressed in the manner taught by Scripture and not by a manner of man’s own devising. It is the height of man’s arrogance to think that we can address the problems of man better than God. In His Scriptures, God has dealt with the abuse of alcohol and given His command on how its abuse should addressed by the Church. Do we believe that we know more than God? Do we believe that God has not sufficiently addressed this problem? To apply the teachings of man over and against the teachings of God is to doom both individuals and a culture to their sin while we avoid the actual problem.
14) Selfish. Those who advocate total abstinence are being selfish. How so?
a. They are elevating their own personal preference to the level of Scripture and, thus, claiming it to be the Word of God.
b. They are forcing the minority of believers to conform to their un-Scriptural prerogatives in order to maintain both fellowship and service in the Church.
In essence and to sum all of this up, this is hubris on the grandest scale possible by a sincere believer. Those who advocate total abstinence are rejecting Scripture and elevating their own cultural preferences as the Word of God. In reality, they are standing on the wrong side of the Word of God and teaching a gospel contrary to that which was proclaimed by Christ (Gal 1:6-13).
Some people on either side of this issue may be wondering why this issue is such a bog deal at all. Now I myself am far more concerned about the “tongues” doctrine because it is far more important than the “alcohol” doctrine. True, both doctrinal issues concern the inerrancy and sufficiency of Scripture and both concern the a group of believers enforcing their preference upon other believers to abstain from a practice encouraged in Scripture; but the “tongues” doctrine involves the primary issue of a believers God-given right to worship his or her Creator while the “alcohol” doctrine merely involves the rejection of the liberty of the Christian to practice his or her Faith. Both are important but the “alcohol” doctrine is mere legalism when compared to the heinous and blasphemous manner by which believers in the IMB have set themselves up as the medium by which man communes with God.
But this difference does not mean that the rejection of the “alcohol” doctrine by the SBC is a minor matter in of itself; it is very important. Unfortunately, most believers are virtually ignorant of much that is generally important about the Faith. This general ignorance appears to escalate once a person gets a seminary education and climbs into positions of leadership within an ecclesiastical body. What becomes important is positional polity and public appearance, even to the detriment of one’s faith. In the common polity of the Church, the general consensus of the majority is based upon the most common denominator which is often mere surface cognizance and the results of “the tyranny of first beliefs”. Thus, individual believers do not give serious consideration to either the bases or consequences of their ignorant and obstinate false beliefs. And, unfortunately, the leaders of these ignorant believers instead of preaching the Word to their flock and correcting such “heresy” prefer either to overlook such “heterodoxy” in order to avoid criticism or to add stoke the fires of such “heterodoxy” in order to attain praise. Regardless, these “pastors” are deficient in their calling and ignorant of the serious hubris they are inflicting upon their flock’s faith.
What is the hubris to which I am referring?
Advocating complete abstinence of alcohol consumption is ...
1) Contrary to Scriptural teachings. This is a point that no one has seriously denied with any credibility. In fact, the arguments being made for such abstinence are conspicuously lacking in Scriptural teachings. This should not be surprising because any argument based upon Scriptural teachings runs the risk of being overwhelmed by Scripture itself. Thus, in order to avoid such a risk, Scripture is avoided.
2) Contrary to the principle of Christ as our example. This is no small point. Prior Southern Baptist confessions of faith held that Jesus was the criterion on which Scripture should be interpreted. This meant that the believer can separate commands of the OT which conflict with commands of the NT by the example of Jesus. Thus the command to honor the Sabbath is based upon Christ’s example and His interpretation of the command and not our own. Thus the dietary commands of Leviticus are negated by Christ’s proclamations of making all animals “clean”. However, the 2000 BFM removed this hermeneutic point.
If we actually believe that Jesus Christ is the fullest presentation of God in His example of word and action, then we must agree that what Jesus did in His earthly life as recorded in Scripture is an example by which we ourselves can live. Thus, Jesus drank alcohol, Jesus created alcohol, Jesus offered alcohol to others, and Jesus drank alcohol with others. Of course, the Pharisees criticized Jesus for doing these things. By requiring believers to abstain from alcohol, one is denying that Christ is our perfect example and the Word of God and siding with the Pharisees in this matter.
3) Adding to the Scriptures. The Bible is very clear about the dangers of adding to the teachings of Scripture. Furthermore, both Jesus and Paul spend a lot of time teaching against holding up the traditions of men on the level of the teachings of God. Read Luke-Acts and Galatians, in particular; the Judaizers that Luke and Paul are denouncing were attempting to force their cultural prerogatives upon Gentile believers. The Judaizers were so determined that every believer should honor Jewish cultural distinctives that were continually breaking fellowship with those who didn’t conform. Sound familiar?
4) A denial of “our freedom in Christ”. The believer has freedom to drink and eat despite the cultural conditions of man. This is a teaching taught by Jesus, Paul, Luke, Peter and James. Despite the blithering ignorance and demagoguery of many in the SBC, no one is abusing “our freedom in Christ” by following Christian teachings. One can abuse “our freedom in Christ” by acting in a manner contrary to Scripture or in a manner which the Scriptures are explicitly silent on, but no one can abuse “our freedom in Christ” by acting in accordance with both Scripture and the example set by Christ. Those who make this accusation are Judaizing.
5) A misinterpretation and misapplication of the doctrine of avoiding “stumbling blocks to them that are weak”. While the Scriptures are clear about avoiding stumbling blocks for weak brothers it does not give the “weak brother” carte blanche to enforce his personal preference upon other believers, particularly with regards to that which is advocated in Scriptural teachings. If a weak brother could stumble by consuming alcohol in his presence, then do not consume alcohol in his presence (1 Cor 8:7-13). However, this doctrine does not mean that one is to abstain from drinking alcohol even when a weak brother is absent. If that was the case, then both Jesus, the disciples, Paul and Timothy sinned when they advocated and consumed alcohol.
6) An abuse of the “holiness” doctrine. Some are arguing that to drink alcohol does not make one “holy”. Neither drinking alcohol nor not drinking alcohol is considered “holy” in Scripture. To say that total abstinence makes one appear more holy is to set up a false standard of what it means to be holy. If this was even remotely true, then Jesus is not “holy”.
7) Against the cultural traditions of our national culture. Some have argued that consuming alcohol is contrary to our culture. First, Scripture is above culture. Second, abstaining from alcohol is a recent addition to Christian culture which began in the early 1800s. Even then, it began as a movement to moderate drinking (which is Scriptural) and not eliminate it. Only later did Baptists (in the South) move beyond and contrary to the teachings of Scripture and advocate total abstinence. Third, it is largely the very recent traditions of fundamentalists and Baptists in the Southern part of the United States which insists upon total abstinence. The rest of Christendom only insists upon moderation and non-intoxication which, again, is Scriptural. To claim that total abstinence is the cultural tradition of our culture is not true.
8) Presenting to the world a false view of our Faith. To insist upon total abstinence is to present to the non-Christian world a false picture of the Christian Faith. The Christian Faith and the Scriptures on which it is based does not advocate total abstinence on drinking alcohol. To do so adds to the gospel message. To do so adds practices contrary to discipleship. To do so publicly dismisses and negates true Scriptural commands and prohibitions regarding the consumption of alcohol. To do so cheapens our claim to follow the teachings of Christ and the Scriptures.
9) Dismissing and negating true Scriptural commands and prohibitions regarding the consumption of alcohol. By advocating additional commands to the Scriptural teachings, its true teachings of moderation, non-intoxication and avoiding the stumbling of a weak brother becomes irrelevant matters of no importance.
10) Denying the inerrancy of the Scriptures. To insist upon total abstinence is to make the practical claim that the Scriptures are incorrect when teaching upon this issue. Thus the authority of the Scripture is diminished and made irrelevant.
11) Denying the sufficiency of the Scriptures. To insist upon total abstinence is to make the practical claim that the teachings of Scripture is not sufficient in matters of the Faith and that extra-Biblical teachings are required to make the man of God may be perfect. Thus the authority of the Scripture is diminished and made irrelevant.
12) Hypocritical. Many who advocate total abstinence argue that we need to present a “holy” outward appearance. This is a hypocritical stance denounced in Scripture because neither drinking alcohol nor not drinking alcohol is considered “holy” in Scripture. To say that total abstinence makes one appear more holy is to set up a false standard of what it means to be holy and then present oneself as meeting that standard. This is hypocrisy.
13) Avoids the actual problem those who advocate total abstinence seek to address. All of the problems that those advocate who total abstinence seek to address (alcohol dependency, physical and sexual abuse, destroyed families, etc.) are not caused by using alcohol but by abusing alcohol. The social and spiritual problems that need to be addressed by the Church need to be addressed in the manner taught by Scripture and not by a manner of man’s own devising. It is the height of man’s arrogance to think that we can address the problems of man better than God. In His Scriptures, God has dealt with the abuse of alcohol and given His command on how its abuse should addressed by the Church. Do we believe that we know more than God? Do we believe that God has not sufficiently addressed this problem? To apply the teachings of man over and against the teachings of God is to doom both individuals and a culture to their sin while we avoid the actual problem.
14) Selfish. Those who advocate total abstinence are being selfish. How so?
a. They are elevating their own personal preference to the level of Scripture and, thus, claiming it to be the Word of God.
b. They are forcing the minority of believers to conform to their un-Scriptural prerogatives in order to maintain both fellowship and service in the Church.
In essence and to sum all of this up, this is hubris on the grandest scale possible by a sincere believer. Those who advocate total abstinence are rejecting Scripture and elevating their own cultural preferences as the Word of God. In reality, they are standing on the wrong side of the Word of God and teaching a gospel contrary to that which was proclaimed by Christ (Gal 1:6-13).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)