All Categories

Confronting Wrongs In The Church

9/20/2018

The Psalmist said, “Behold, how good and how pleasant it is for brethren to dwell together in unity” (Psa. 133:1). This principle is quite concentrated in the New Testament. Our goal is, “…being like-minded, having the same love, being of one accord, of one mind” (Phil. 2:2). While it is always our aim to never have strife, the reality is we all have times of weakness and ignorance which will cause issues. We must know how to confront such situations. I want to share three biblical principles which should help us to properly confront wrongs when they do occur.
   First, we must be sure not to follow the pattern of the Pharisees who were splitting hairs about some minor things while ignoring the weightier matters of God’s will (Mt. 23:23). Jesus called them “Blind guides, who strain out a gnat and swallow a camel” (Mt. 23:24). So, we must be sure we do not major in minors and minor in majors. This demands the ability to distinguish the two (Heb. 5:11-14). Put another way, we must make certain the wrongs we confront are truly wrongs.
   Second, we must not think we can overlook it and it simply go away. This is not the Jesus way. Jesus demonstrated willingness to confront (see the Pharisees above). We cannot simply avoid the one causing the problem. Paul gave instructions to the Galatian brethren that “…if a man is overtaken in any trespass, you who are spiritual restore such a one in a spirit of gentleness, considering yourself lest you also be tempted. Bear one another’s burdens, and so fulfill the law of Christ” (Gal. 6:1-2). James 5:19-20 says to turn back one who wanders from the truth is to “…save a soul from death and cover a multitude of sins.” Both passages deny us the option of avoiding the confrontation.
   Third, since we cannot shirk our responsibility to correct the wrong, we must avoid the attitude that seeks to bludgeon a brother or sister into submission. Once we have verified that a wrong has been committed, determined we are going to follow the biblical pattern and confront the issue, we must then be certain we go about the correction the right way. Thankfully, we have clear instructions as to how we are to conduct ourselves in confrontation of wrongs. In Colossians 4:6, Paul said to “Let your speech always be with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer each one.” This may vary from person to person.
   Christ did not speak to the religious leaders in the same way He did the common, misguided Jew. Because the Pharisees, Sadducees, scribes, and chief priests should have known better, Jesus was much more direct with them. Jude 22-23 speaks to this saying, “And on some have compassion, making a distinction; but others save with fear, pulling them out of the fire, hating even the garment defiled by the flesh.” Paul practiced this principle quite well in Acts 17:22-34 when he respectfully confronted a group of pagan philosophers. If we follow these principles, there should be no wrongs in the church we cannot correct.

Communing With Christ

9/13/2018

The apostle Paul wrote 1 Corinthians to address a wide range of deficiencies in the faith and practice of the brethren at Corinth. These issues ranged from divisions over who converted them (1:10-15; 3:1-9), sexual sin being practiced and overlooked (ch. 5), failure to have the wisdom to settle disputes without the help of pagan courts (6:1-8), misunderstandings about marriage (7:1-16), food sacrificed to idols (ch. 8), issues of authority among men, women, Christ, and God (11:2-16), perversion of the Lord’s supper (11:17-34), misuse of spiritual gifts (ch. 12-14), and some denying the bodily resurrection (ch. 15). With so many issues, many of our brethren today would not even bother to try and help a congregation such as this, but God would not give up so easily. That is why we have this book in our New Testament with all its powerful lessons to help us grow.
   I am convinced the solution to all these issues, as well as any we face today, is found in the concept of communion as described by Paul in 1 Corinthians 10:16-17. While it is specifically addressing the issue of the Lord’s supper, it describes the truth of what we enjoy being in Christ. As children of God in Christ, Paul said we enjoy the communion of the blood and body of Christ. The bread and fruit of the vine are mere symbols of the relationship we enjoy daily. The word translated communion is the Greek term koinonia which means fellowship, association, joint participation, partnership, etc. When I consider that my sins drove a wedge between me and my God, the fact of being able to commune with Him through the sacrifice of Christ is the most humbling honor I have ever pondered. This is the magnificence of reconciliation, and Paul spoke frequently of this concept. Think through some of these truths with me and see if it does not strengthen your resolve to overcome temptation.
   Without His blood we were “…dead in trespasses and sins”, but by His blood He “…made us alive together with Christ” (Eph. 2:1, 5). In Romans 5:1-11, Paul gives more color to what this means as he describes the peace we now have with God through Christ (vs. 1), the access to hope we now enjoy through faith (vs. 2), the love of God poured into our hearts by the Holy Spirit He gave to us (vs. 5), and the bewildering fact that the perfect, sinless Son of God did all this for weak, ungodly sinners who were actually His own enemies at the time He suffered such agony and shame (vv. 6-11).
   When describing the reconciliation of God in 2 Corinthians 5:11-21, Paul points out a few other important details such as the fact God actively pursued peace with us while we did not care for Him one way or the other (vv. 18-19), His placing our guilt upon the Christ (vs. 21; cf. Isa. 53:4-6, 11; 1 Pt. 2:24), and making a completely new creation of those who come to be in Christ through biblical faith (vs. 17). Knowing all these things should promote an attitude of gratitude towards the Christ who died to reconcile us to God, the Father who sent Him, and the Holy Spirit who revealed all these things to us. Paul says of this in 2 Corinthians 5:14-15, “For the love of Christs controls us, because we have concluded this: that one has died for all, therefore all have died; and He died for all, that those who live might no longer live for themselves but for Him who for their sake died and was raised.” This is the essence of communing with deity (ESV rendering).

Mayday, Mayday, Mayday

9/6/2018

This is the international distress signal in the event of an emergency. It is primarily used by aviators and mariners, but some police and firefighters also use the signal. If your aircraft or ship is going down, you send out this radio signal to seek help. While I am not trying to promote a spirit of doom and gloom, we must acknowledge that our ship is taking on water and will soon sink if we do not take the necessary measures to correct the problem. Numbers do not lie, and from the numbers we are in trouble. The Lord’s church in the United States is declining at an alarming pace. According to 21st Century Christian’s data compiled from 2003 to 2015, we lost 8.3% of our membership. Try to wrap your head around that for a moment. In a span of 12 years, we declined at a rate of 1 out of 12 members, nationwide. If this trend continues, in less than 150 years, the Lord’s church will cease to exist in these United States. Another alarming statistic is the fact that 50% of our children who leave for college become disassociated with the church, and of those who leave, only 33% ever come back. How did we get here, and how do we change this trend?
   There are many contributing factors in this. The effects of a postmodern culture which denies the existence of absolute truth adds difficulty to the work of evangelism. Atheism and agnosticism have brought our culture to the point where science is now a god. Islam and other world religions are leading many away from Christianity. (Anti-) Social media like Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, Snapchat, etc. have grossly undermined our communication skills as there is less and less human interaction. Add to this the general indifference to the Bible, and it is easy to see we face an uphill battle.
   It is my humble opinion that the real reason for our decline is not these external factors, but it is our internal reaction to these factors. Most of these issues existed before the church was founded. For instance, Pilate was a postmodernist over 1900 years before the birth of postmodernism. After Jesus told him He had come into the world to bear witness to the truth, Pilate said, “What is truth?” (Jn. 18:37-38). The Psalmist wrote of Atheism when he said, “The fool has said in his heart, ‘there is no God” (Psa. 14:1). A great example of philosophical meandering is found in Acts 17:16-34 in the city of Athens, Greece. They were said to spend all their time either hearing or telling some new thing (vs. 21). They worshipped every “god” man could invent, and when it came to the true and living God, they tabbed Him “the unknown god” (vs. 23). The work of evangelism has always been an uphill battle, However, they did not let these challenges slow the work of evangelism in the early church, so why have we let it stall out our work?
   I cannot speak for everyone, but I am convinced the difference is the level of buy-in they possessed versus the level we possess. In Acts 8:4, after Stephen was stoned to death and the disciples were scattered by a life-threatening persecution, all they did was run and tell someone else the gospel truth. Jesus was truly their everything, and nothing was going to shut their mouths. The only way we can keep this ship from sinking is to get rid of all the distractions and excuses we make, fix our eyes on Him and get on with the race He has given us to run (Heb. 12:1-2). We must no longer allow the sons of this world to be more shrewd than the sons of light (Lk. 16:8). We will have to answer if we let this ship sink.

What’s The Point?

8/29/2018

All my life, I have never been satisfied with knowing that something is the case without knowing why it is the case. Many people are perfectly content to simply hear the facts and move on, and sometimes I envy that position. The reality is we do not always have the necessary information to know why things are as they are. When you are like me, this can present a great deal of frustration. This issue got the best of me in my eighth-grade math class when my teacher demanded a very laborious method of “showing our work” when doing equations. In essence, each equation was a half-page written assignment which made no sense to me at all. In retrospect, I should have simply jumped through the hoops and succeeded in the class, but at thirteen years old, I was unwilling to jump. On the other hand, if the teacher had given me a reason why the work needed to be shown in this way, I would have likely been more motivated to do the work.
   Needing to know what the point is can likewise promote frustration over our curiosities surrounding the Bible and those questions for which God did not choose to reveal clear answers. There are three principles from the Bible I believe will help us overcome the frustration of not knowing all we wish to know about God, our nature, our purpose, our destiny, etc. The first of these principles is the fact that God’s thoughts and ways are exponentially greater than ours. In Isaiah 55:8-9 we read, “’For My thoughts are not your thoughts, nor are your ways My ways,’ says the Lord. ‘For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are My ways higher than your ways, and My thoughts than yours.’” The essential take away from this is so much of His will and ways are beyond the reach of our carnal minds. Much of the truth we could not bear (cf. Jn. 16:12).
   This truth brings us to the second key to contentment with God’s revelation, realizing our dependence upon God to reveal His higher thoughts and ways to us. Paul speaks at length of this reality in 1 Corinthians 2:6-16. Not thinking as He thinks is the reason the rulers of the day put Christ on the cross (vv. 6-8). Thankfully, God has revealed His wisdom to us, through the vehicle of the apostles and prophets (vv. 9-16; Eph. 3:1-5), thus enabling us to think as He thinks and live as He desires us to live. This revelation, however, is not exhaustive which brings us to the final piece of the puzzle of contentment with what God has shared with us.
   Think how big the volume of Scripture would be if God had revealed everything we collectively wish He had. Like John said of trying to just write everything Jesus did in His earthly life, if God satisfied all our curiosities in Scripture, “…if they were written one by one, I suppose the world itself could not contain the books that would be written” (Jn. 21:25). For this cause, we must be content to live within the framework of what is written (1 Cor. 4:6; 2 Jn. 9-11). To do this, we need to remember two passages concerning God’s selective revelation.
   First, “His divine power has given to us all things that pertain to life and godliness, through the knowledge of Him who called us by glory and virtue” (2 Pt. 1:3). So, while the revelation is not exhaustive of every possible question, it is absolutely all we need to please God and have eternal life (cf. 2 Tim. 3:15-17). Second, we need to internalize Deuteronomy 29:29 and know that “The secret things belong to the Lord our God, but those things which are revealed belong to us and to our children forever, that we may do all the words of this law.” God was and is not obligated to satisfy our curiosity. Thankfully, His immense love for us prompted Him to reveal what we need to be content in His service and granted access to the tree and water of life in the paradise He has prepared for the faithful (Rev. 22:1-2, 17). We simply must come eat and drink the life He gives!

Genie In A Bottle

8/24/2018

How grand would it be to have a genie in a bottle? Think about being able to hide your genie’s bottle until you desire something from him. Once a desire arises, you just pull out the bottle, rub it, wait for the genie to pop out, make your demands known, and the genie MUST fulfill your wishes. What would you ask for if you had one? How often do you suppose you might pull out the trusty old genie’s bottle to satisfy your wants and wishes? You may be wondering why in the world we are talking about a mythological bunch of nonsense like genies in bottles, but there is a real spiritual application I wish to make with this.
   So many people treat God like He is their personal genie, expected to keep quiet and out of sight until they need something from Him. Many worldly people never give a second thought to God until something goes wrong. A man hasn’t worshiped or served God in any way for fifty years, but the minute he finds out he or a loved one has an illness or some other hardship, he begins praying and seeking the prayers of others. Would the person treating God this way be compelled to act in favor of a person who treated him/her the same way? Perhaps you know that person who never calls or comes around until a need arises. Aren’t you just ecstatic to see him/her coming to take advantage of your benevolent nature? The same is true of God, and He leaves no question how He regards the prayers of these godless people (Job 27:8-9; Psa. 34:15-17; Prov. 15:29; Jer. 11:9-11; Mic. 3:4; 1 Pt. 3:10-12).
   If you are a Christian, you may be tempted to say, “But I would never treat God this way.” However, if we are honest with ourselves, we have probably been guilty of this at some point or other. How, you may be wondering. We do this by praying in ways which are not in keeping with God’s plan and purpose for our prayers. First, consider how often God desires to hear our prayers. In Luke 18:1-8, Jesus introduces us to a persistent widow who was relentless in her pursuit of justice from her adversary. The judge is described as one who “…did not fear God nor regard man” (vs. 2). Obviously, moving him to action was no easy task, but she was so persistent in her petition, he finally gave in. The implication concerning God is, if this unjust judge was moved to action by her persistence, God will be much more inclined to help His own. Jesus’ purpose in the parable is that “…men always ought to pray…” (vs. 1). Paul says “Pray without ceasing, in everything give thanks” (1 Th. 5:17-18). How often do we pray when we need nothing?
   Not only does God desire we pray often, but He demands we pray for the right reasons. We need to keep two elements in mind with our prayers: 1) our prayers should reflect our gratitude to God, and 2) our prayers must desire God’s will in all things. Woven into the teachings on prayer is the central thrust of giving thanks and extolling God (Mt. 6:9; Phil. 4:6; 1 Th. 5:18; 1 Tim. 2:1). The next time you pray, take inventory of how much of your prayer consists of petitions for favors from God versus giving of thanks to God. Furthermore, consider very carefully when asking for God’s favor what the true motivation is in the petition. After Jesus extolled God’s virtues, He immediately turned the prayer to seeking God’s kingdom (reign) and His will on the earth (Mt. 6:10). After a single material petition, daily bread, He turned to the desire that God’s will be done in the life of the individual (Mt. 6:12-15). Jesus desired God’s will be done more than He desired to be spared the agony of death (Mt. 26:39, 42). It is okay to pray for physical well-being (cf. 3 Jn. 2), but we must make the glory of God in our lives the central purpose of all our petitions. Let us be certain we treat God like our Lord not our personal genie.

If We Love Jesus, Let’s Talk Bible

8/15/2018

The Purpose of This Article
Relativism and political correctness have stifled our desire to discuss the details of biblical teaching with those with whom we disagree. Though every believer in Christ longs for an end to the division in Christendom, most treat Jesus’ prayer for unity in John 17:20-21 as an idealistic fairytale with no potential in reality. Most religious people believe it matters not what one teaches as long as they are sincere.
This article is not intended to question anyone’s integrity or intelligence. However, it is an attempt to promote communication among those who hold opposing views of God’s word.
Why It Matters What One Teaches.
Consider a few passages which speak to the question at hand. Note the exclusivity of the kingdom as set forth in Matthew 7:13-23:

The way to life is narrow, and few people will find it (7:13-14).
False prophets are likened to a diseased tree which will be cut and thrown in the fire (7:15-20).
Many religious people will be sent from His presence (7:21-23).

Later, in Matthew 15:1-9, Jesus told the Pharisees their worship was vain because they were “…teaching as doctrines the commandments of men” (Matt. 15:9). Jesus’ teachings here are clearly at odds with the majority view. Who do we trust?

The apostle Paul left Timothy in Ephesus to, “…charge certain persons not to teach any different doctrine…” (1 Tim. 1:3). He was to “[k]eep a close watch on yourself and on the teaching. Persist in this, for by so doing you will save both yourself and your hearers” (1 Tim. 4:16). Later Paul told Timothy to “[f]ollow the pattern of sound words that you have heard from me, in the faith and love that are in Christ Jesus” (1:13).

One qualification of an elder is that he “…must hold firm to the trustworthy word as taught, so that he may be able to give instruction in sound doctrine and also to rebuke those who contradict it” (Tit. 1:9). Paul described those who contradicted sound doctrine as “…insubordinate, empty talkers and deceivers…” (1:10). He concluded such teachers “…must be silenced, since they are upsetting whole families by teaching for shameful gain what they ought not to teach” (1:11). These are not words of indifference to matters of teaching in the church.

Paul also warned the Roman Christians to “…watch out for those who cause divisions and create obstacles contrary to the doctrine that you have been taught, and avoid them” (Rom. 16:17). These statements firmly establish the truth that there is an objective body of truth bound upon us all. These passages prove God is not indifferent to the content of one’s message. So, how does this relate to the purpose of this article?

Opposing Gospels Spell Destruction
The significance of Galatians 1:6-9 cannot be overstated. According to this passage, there are only two possibilities when two people teach opposing doctrines:

Both parties teach a gospel that is contrary to the apostles; therefore, both are accursed.
One party teaches a gospel contrary to the apostolic gospel and is therefore accursed.

It would not be possible for two opposing gospels to be in keeping with the gospel the apostles taught at the same time. Is it reasonable to think the great number of opposing teachings in Christendom are acceptable to God?
Consider a tiny sample of contradictory teachings among believers in Christ:

Some say it matters not what one teaches; others say it does matter.
Some say salvation is by faith apart from obedience; others say biblical faith is obedient faith.
Some say one cannot fall from grace; others say one can so live as to fall from grace and be lost.
Some say baptism is an outward sign of salvation already possessed; others say baptism is the act of obedient faith putting one in Christ where salvation is.

As we have seen already, contradictory teachings from the Bible cannot both be acceptable. So, what are we to do about this?

Do We Care Enough To Talk?
What are we to do if we disagree? Most people are content to say nothing. Largely we are programmed not to question these things. However, I must contend that this is a most unloving choice to make. Consider the implications of what we have discussed.
If I am teaching things contrary to the gospel delivered by the apostles, then I am set apart for destruction. The only hope for such a one according to James 5:19-20 is for someone to bring him back to the truth. To do so is to save a soul from death. Furthermore, I make no claims of infallibility. This means I may well be teaching things contrary to the apostolic gospel, and therefore I may be accursed. Please know that this would be purely by way of ignorance on my part, not out of lack of respect for the Lord and His word.
Conversely, if I am teaching the gospel which the apostles taught, then the individual who teaches opposing doctrine is accursed according to Paul’s clear teaching. There is no third option. Hence, if I claim the love of God for humanity which He created in His image, every effort must be made to explain the way of God more clearly.
Friend, if you love the Lord, then you too must love every person created in His image. The clear implication is that you are obliged by the Great Commission of the Lord to “make disciples of all nations…teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you. And behold, I am with you always, to the end of the age” (Matt. 28:19-20). If you are convinced that I am teaching things contrary to the gospel the apostles preached, then please explain the way of God more perfectly to me.
I believe the best of everyone reading this article, whether you agree or not. Do you believe the same of me? If so, do not leave a lost soul to face the judgment at odds with the Lord. As the Savior made abundantly clear, “Not everyone who says to Me ‘Lord, Lord’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but the one who does the will of My Father who is in heaven” (Matt. 7:21). This is my plea that we love one another enough to take the time to try and help one another understand the way of the Lord more perfectly. “Little children, let us not love in word or talk but in deed and in truth” (1 John 3:18). Will you talk Bible with me?

Saving Faith

8/15/2018

One of the most central teachings of Christianity is the concept of faith. The significance of biblical faith cannot be overstated. As the Hebrews writer put it, “without faith it is impossible to please Him…” (Heb. 11:6). [All Scripture references will come from the ESV unless otherwise noted] With that said, every Bible student ought to give serious thought to the biblical meaning of faith. Sadly, there is scarcely a more misunderstood and disputed concept in all the Bible than saving faith. It seems that a God “who desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth” (1 Tim. 2:4) and who “…shows no partiality” (Acts 10:34b) would reveal such a vital truth as saving faith clearly enough that all men should be able to fully understand it. This writer contends that He did.
   The goal of this article is to set forth the biblical definition of saving faith and to cut through the muddy waters surrounding this essential tenet of salvation in Christ. In order to do so, we will 1) establish the fact that salvation in Christ is only achievable by faith in the name of Christ, 2) allow the Bible to clearly define said faith, and 3) consider the relationship of faith to works as set forth in the New Testament to determine if the recipient of salvation must do anything in order to be saved from sin and enter into the kingdom of God (e.g. repentance, confession, baptism, holy living).
   As for the means of one’s salvation, this author affirms that salvation is a free gift from God obtained by grace, through faith (Eph. 2:8-9). Furthermore, this gift of salvation is for all who believe in Jesus as the Son of God (John 3:16). It is likewise true that no man may ever do enough good deeds to earn his salvation (Eph. 2:9). For this cause, we must fully agree with Paul’s assessment of things in Romans 3:28 that “…one is justified by faith apart from works of the law” (Rom. 3:28). Therefore, no one has any grounds of boasting in anything but the cross of Christ (Gal. 6:14).
   At this point, bible interpreters disagree as to what this means in terms of the need for obedience on the part of Christians. Does the truth that salvation is by grace through faith and not of works mean those who teach that the Bible demands obedience to receive the gift of salvation are in opposition to God’s will? In the minds of many, it does. The question is, does the Bible sustain this contention? To answer this question, we turn to the most influential faith only advocate, the sixteenth century German theologian, Martin Luther.
   Luther took Paul’s teachings in Romans 3-4 further than Paul did. In his German translation, Luther added the word “alone” in Romans 3:28 although it was not in the Greek text. Due to this belief, he relegated the book of James to an appendix and called it a “right strawy epistle.” The reason was that Luther felt James’ insistence on salvation by faith in conjunction with works was contradictory to Paul’s teachings in Romans and Galatians. We will discuss the idea of faith versus works later. For now, this introduction to the idea is sufficient to help us understand what Luther and others mean by the term “faith.” Luther’s definition of faith is a mere mental assent or acknowledgment that Jesus is Christ. Is this the biblical concept of faith?
   To define the biblical concept of faith, we must consider a couple of interpretive principles. First, we must honor the context of every passage of Scripture. This means 1) the specific statement (in this instance that justification is by faith apart from works of the law), 2) the immediate context (the verses immediately before and after the statement), 3) the context of the biblical book, and 4) the remote context which is the entirety of the Bible. Second, and related to the first principle is the law of non-contradiction which means we never pit one passage of Scripture against another. If two biblical statements appear to contradict one another, then our interpretation of one or both must be faulty because God knows everything (1 John 3:20) and He never lies (Tit. 1:2).
   If Luther’s definition of faith is true, then the epistle of James is uninspired and must be rejected. Most people who hold a faith only position are not willing to take this plunge, and this author rejects the notion outright. Therefore, whatever Paul taught in Romans 3-4 about faith apart from works of the law cannot mean what Luther concluded. For this cause, we turn to the context of Romans 3-4 for answers.
   First and foremost, we must understand the specific law Paul had in mind. From the previous section in Romans 2:12-3:20, we may confidently conclude that the law under consideration is Moses’ Law and particularly the rite of circumcision (cf. Jn. 7:22). Judaizing teachers plagued the early church with attempts to impose circumcision and keeping Moses’ Law on Gentile converts to Christ (cf. Acts 15). Furthermore, the conclusion of Paul’s argument for justification apart from law was that Abraham was justified before being circumcised. The reason was that he believed God concerning his promises. Paul contrasted his faith with working for a wage (Rom. 4:4). The clear implication is that Abraham’s works did not obligate God to justify him. God did this by His grace based on the faith of Abraham. When we consider everything the Bible says about the faith of Abraham, we cannot conclude that the faith mentioned was a mere mental assent. It was clearly an active, obedient faith.
   A further observation from the context of the book of Romans is Paul’s purpose statements found in Romans 1:5 and 16:26. In Romans 1:5, Paul sets forth a very clear objective for the grace and apostleship they had received. By inspiration he said it was “…to bring about the obedience of faith for the sake of His name among all the nations.” In his closing statements in Romans 16:25-26, Paul doubled back on this statement, and this time he connected it with the gospel and preaching Christ. The gospel had been kept secret for long ages, “…but has now been disclosed and through the prophetic writings has been made known to all nations, according to the command of the eternal God, to bring about the obedience of faith.”
   One last teaching from Romans 2:6-11 is worth mentioning just here. Paul, within the same context as Romans 3-4, left no room to question the events of the great Day of Judgment. According to the apostle, God will “render to each one according to his works: to those who by patience in well-doing seek for glory and honor and immortality, He will give eternal life; but for those who are self-seeking and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness, there will be wrath and fury. There will be tribulation and distress for every human being who does evil, the Jew first and also the Greek, but glory and honor and peace for everyone who does good, the Jew first and also the Greek. For God shows no partiality.” Paul contrasted faith and the lack thereof. However, he did so in terms of obedience and disobedience, good works and evil works. So, we are talking about that which biblical faith produces. We now turn our attention to another popular passage among faith only advocates to further define biblical faith.
   Perhaps the most widely known passage in all of Scripture is John 3:16. It has been called, and for good reason, the golden text of the Bible. The faith only advocate teaches that John 3:16 is the sum total of the plan of salvation. While it is truly a capsule of the gospel, this verse like all the rest, does not stand in isolation. It must be viewed in context as well. Truly this verse teaches that eternal life is extended to all who believe in the only begotten Son of God. If kept in isolation, it is possible to draw the conclusion that simply believing that Jesus is God’s Son is all there is to salvation. However, when we consider the rest of Jesus’ words in John 3:16-21, we see that the condemnation of those who do not believe (vs. 18) is due to their unwillingness to come to the light because of their evil deeds.
   If this evidence is not compelling enough, in John 3:36, the apostle John clarifies Jesus’ teachings, and in the process, defines biblical belief for us. The statement in this verse is that “He who believes in the Son has everlasting life; and he who does not believe the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God abides on him” (NKJV/KJV). This passage is straight forward that the key element in salvation is belief or faith. It is true that faith is the determining factor, but the translation in the KJV and NKJV is lacking.
   The verb translated “believes” in John 3:16, 36 is the Greek verb pisteuo. It’s basic meaning is to believe, trust, or be convinced of a thing. When one believes in the Son of God, he is convinced of His truthfulness. He places his confidence in Him. In the Greek language, like the English language, a term such as pisteuo may be negated with the addition of the Greek prefix alpha represented by the English letter a-. This is equivalent to the English prefix un-. So, if the apostle intended to negate the word belief, as the KJV/NKJV translations appear to support, one would expect to find the Greek term apisteuo underlying the term “does not believe.”
However, the term that is translated “does not believe” here is another word entirely. The Greek term is apeitho which is correctly translated “does not obey” in the ASV/NASB/ESV and other translations. The obvious conclusion is that John, by inspiration of the Holy Spirit, contrasted belief in Jesus with disobedience to Him. If disobedience is the opposite of belief, then the only proper conclusion is that belief equals obedience. If there remains any doubt at this point, we turn to another passage that uses these terms in the same manner.
In Hebrews 3, the writer reminds his readers of the rebellion of Israel when the spies returned from viewing the land of Canaan. In Hebrews 3:18-19, the writer concludes his argument with two statements pertaining to those with whom the Lord was angry. In 3:18, he says “And to whom did He swear that they would not enter His rest, but to those who were disobedient (apeitho)? So we see that they were unable to enter because of unbelief (apistia).” The same comparison is made in Hebrews 4:2, 6. These instances lead to but one conclusion: biblical faith (i.e. saving faith) is obedient faith. This conclusion is unavoidable because in all three examples, belief is contrasted with disobedience, and disobedience and disbelief are used interchangeably. None of this supports earned salvation in any way, but it does disprove the notion that saving faith is a mere mental acknowledgment of the facts about Jesus.
To further solidify the truth of obedient faith as the only kind the Bible knows, consider the words of our Lord in Matthew 7:21-23 where He says outright that many people who think they have been working on His behalf will be surprised to learn that He never knew them. The reason given was that “Not everyone who says to me Lord, Lord will enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father in heaven.” The faith only advocate is at a loss to explain how or better yet why one who gave no mental assent to Jesus as God’s Son would say to Him Lord, Lord and continue to describe their many efforts to work on His behalf.
A similar passage that connects obedience to salvation is Hebrews 5:9 which says that Christ became the source of eternal salvation to all who “obey Him.” When we take this alongside John 14:15, we learn that those who obey Him are those who love Him. 1 John 2:3 gives keeping His commandments as the litmus test to determine if we know Him. Later in 1 John 2:29, John connects working righteousness with being born of Him. This is in perfect harmony with Peter’s words in 1 Peter 1:22-25 where he told those Christians they had purified their souls in obeying the truth through the Spirit, and were therefore born again through the word of God that lives and abides forever. Notice he did not say they had purified their souls by merely believing the truth through the Spirit.
Therefore, the only way to reconcile these passages that clearly teach obedience to the will of Christ with the teachings of John 3 and Romans 3-4 is to understand that biblical faith is obedient faith. With this biblical definition of faith in mind, we turn our attention to the final question we seek to answer. Do works of any sort play a part in man’s salvation?
First, we must take note that the term “believes” in John 3:16 and Romans 4:3 are active verbs, meaning the believing set forth is actually something the individual does. Therefore, faith itself is a work of some kind as Jesus clearly said “This is the work of God, that you believe in Him whom He sent.” Jesus plainly called faith a work. Second, if faith and works are opposed to one another, the Hebrews writer penned the silliest description of faith ever written in Hebrews 11. Every example held up says by faith such and so did… Yet this is precisely the position Luther and other faith only advocates espouse. Does Paul’s description of faith and works in Romans 3-4 contradict James’ description of the two in James 2? Could it be that each writer wrote the truth about faith and works, but they used the term works in two different senses? We must remember that to prove a contradiction, we must prove that the two statements are talking about the same object, at the same time, and in the same sense.
This writer is convinced that Paul and James were discussing two different types of works in their respective writings, and therefore both are absolutely correct in their assessment. If that is the case, then we have reconciled the above statements pertaining to salvation, and the only thing left to do is determine what is the Lord’s will (e.g. belief, repentance, confession, baptism, holy living) and faithfully obey it. This is the only faith the Bible knows.
Paul was clearly discussing works of merit in Romans 3-4 because he says as much in Romans 4:4. Paul’s entire point was that no man may keep the law in such a way as to bring God into his debt to save him. He points out that if a man could merit his salvation by law keeping, it would no longer be a gift, and Jesus would have died for no reason. Yet, in the conclusion of another favorite faith only passage, Paul proclaims forthright that we are created in Him for good works (Eph. 2:10). Hence, the reason He saved us by grace through faith was to bring us to walk in the good works He prepared beforehand for us to do.
This notion harmonizes quite well with Paul’s charge to the Philippians to “work out your own salvation with fear and trembling” (Phil. 2:12). Again, this is not meritorious work of which Paul speaks, unless he is contradicting himself. Thus, we clearly see that Paul uses the term works in multiple ways. If we can grant that Paul does so, why can we not conclude the same about James? It seems that some are uncomfortable with James’ assessment because it places obligations on the recipient of the gift. However, this should not pose a problem.
We have all received gifts from our fellow man. We all know that when a person gives us a gift, we have not earned that gift in any way. We likewise fully understand that until we reach out our hand and open or receive the gift, we do not enjoy the benefits intended by the giver. The same is true of salvation in Christ. The truth is we are saved by grace (the gift) through faith (opening the gift). Grace is God’s part; faith is man’s part. This does not in any way contradict the biblical message of faith. Indeed, it upholds it perfectly.
The point in James’ epistle is that faith prompts action. In its simplest form, faith means trust. Faith is achieved by hearing God’s word (Rom. 10:17). Thus, when anyone reads (hears) God’s word, if they have faith in it, this means they trust that it is true. The only way to demonstrate such faith is when the things spoken are put into practice. For instance, by faith we may know with certainty that God requires repentance on the part of all (Luke 13:3; Acts 17:30; 2 Pet. 3:9). By faith we may also confidently conclude that confessing Christ before men is necessary if we hope for salvation (Matt. 10:32-33; Acts 8:37; Rom. 10:9-10). By faith we may also conclude that God demands continued faithfulness, even if it costs us our earthly lives (Heb. 10:26-29; Rev. 2:10).
If pressed on these points, most faith only advocates will agree that repentance and confession are essential parts of the plan. Yet, when we come to the notion of baptism in water, which is clearly commanded throughout the New Testament, this is labeled a work and rejected from God’s plan of salvation. This writer contends that faith, repentance, and confession are more of a work on man’s part than baptism, but all of the above are necessary for entry to the body of Christ. To demonstrate, we turn our attention to some of the passages concerning baptism.
To begin, we consider the Great Commission given the apostles directly from the Lord Jesus. In Mark 16:15-16, Jesus declared who will receive the blessings of salvation. Here He commanded the apostles to go into all the world preaching the gospel. He then named two conditions for the reception of salvation: belief and baptism. Some quibble that in His negative statement about those who would be lost He only names those who do not believe. This in no way negates the coordinate conjunction He used to join belief and baptism in the positive statement concerning salvation. This conjunction places belief and baptism on par in the statement made. As for His negative statement, if one does not believe, he/she certainly will not be baptized, so there was no need to name them specifically.
In Matthew 28:18-20, Jesus gave one imperative/command (make disciples) connected to three participles (go, baptizing, teaching). An interesting aspect of participles is that they get their time element and their force from the connecting verb, in this case “make disciples.” Also, the participles describe the way to accomplish the command given. So, we have the command to make disciples (converting the lost), and three participles that give the way to accomplish this command (going, baptizing, teaching). If we leave out any of the three participles, we cannot complete the command to make disciples.
A short time after Jesus’ ascension back to heaven, He sent the Holy Spirit to guide the apostles into all truth, just as He promised He would (John 14:26; 15:26-27; 16:12-15). The first full gospel sermon recorded for our learning is found in Acts 2. Here we learn what it means to preach Jesus. Upon hearing an airtight case for the deity of Christ and the truth that they had killed the long-awaited Messiah, Peter’s audience arrived at the kind of faith that saves. They were cut to the heart and asked what they had to do to correct their sin problem. Peter’s answer was to “repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins” (Acts 2:38).
Here again we have the inspired record placing equal value on two actions leading to forgiveness or salvation. In Mark 16:16, it was belief and baptism; here it is repentance and baptism. What we learn from this is that in every conversion account, God starts where people are. In this case, they already believed (had faith) so much so that they were cut to the heart. No one is cut to the heart by that which they do not believe. It is noteworthy that both repent and be baptized are in the imperative mood or the mood of command. Again, the coordinate conjunction “and” places both elements on par. To argue against the essentiality of baptism is to argue against the plain teaching of the inspired apostle.
Another passage to consider is Acts 22:16 where Saul of Tarsus is commanded to be baptized. To understand this passage, we must turn to Acts 9 for further details. After encountering the Christ on the road to Damascus, a humbled Saul sought redemption from his guilt. The Lord told him to go into the city and receive instruction on what he must do (9:5-6). From this point, he was blinded for three days and neither ate nor drank (9:9). In verse 11, we learn another important point in this narrative; Saul was praying. So, at this point Saul had demonstrated belief (he asked what to do), repentance (did not eat for three days), and prayer over these events. By the testimony of the faith only advocate, Saul should have been cleared already, yet Ananias gave him something further to do.
If Saul was forgiven at the point of his faith, why then did Ananias command Saul to “arise, be baptized, and wash away your sins?” Peter already gave the answer earlier when he declared that they should repent and be baptized “for the forgiveness of sin.” In 1 Peter 3:20-21, Peter comes right out and says that baptism saves us. Lest Peter be dubbed a legalist or pharisee, he explained that the external washing had nothing to do with said salvation. Indeed, it was an appeal to God for a good conscience. This is in perfect harmony with Ananias’ instruction to Saul. Recall that he told him to “arise and be baptized and wash away your sins, calling on the name of the Lord” (Acts 22:16).
In this context, we have two imperatives (be baptized and wash away sins) and one participle (calling on the name of the Lord). If we remember the use of participles correctly, the calling on the name of the Lord happens at the same time as the imperatives to which it connects. When we consider the teaching of Acts 2:21 and Romans 10:13 that “whoever calls on the name of the Lord shall be saved”, this passage sheds a new light on what that means. This is the only way to reconcile the idea of calling on His name for salvation with Jesus’ statement that not everyone who says “Lord, Lord” (isn’t that calling on His name?) shall enter the kingdom.
These passages leave no room to claim that God did not command baptism as a part of the plan of salvation. Those who decry baptism as a work and therefore relegate it to the realm of the non-essential have overlooked some important matters in these texts. In the passages where believing is attached to salvation, the subject is active (Jn. 3:16, 36; Mk. 1:15; 16:16; Rom. 3:22; 4:24; 6:8; 10:9, 11, 14; 1 Cor. 1:21; Phil. 1:29; 1 Thess. 2:13; 1 Tim. 1:16; Heb. 11:6). Likewise, in the passages which connect repentance with salvation the subject is active (Acts 2:38; 3:19; 8:22; 17:30; 26:20; Lk. 15:7; Rev. 2:5, 16, 21; 3:3, 19). And again, in the passages that relate confession to salvation the subjects are again active (Mt. 10:32; Lk. 12:8; Rom. 10:9; 1 Jn. 4:2-3). However, in the passages where baptism is commanded for forgiveness, the subject is passive (Mk. 16:16, Acts 2:38; 8:36; 10:48; 22:16; Rom. 6:3; Gal. 3:27; Col. 2:12). Add all of this up, and baptism is the least work of them all. Perhaps God saw this belief system coming?
If the commandment of our Lord is insufficient to convince the faith only advocate of the necessity of baptism, perhaps a closer look at the mechanics of baptism will be helpful. In Romans 3:24, Paul leaves no question that the redemption of which he speaks based on faith in Jesus Christ is found in Christ. This is congruent with his statement in Ephesians 1:3 which places all spiritual blessings in Christ. This universal affirmative means that absolutely no spiritual blessings may be enjoyed outside of Christ. Hence, if the Bible student may know that which puts one in Christ, he/she may be assured of salvation. This is because they have biblical faith in the divine record. Stated another way “they have believed God and it is counted to them as righteousness” just the same as Abraham.
Again, the biblical record speaks in no uncertain terms as to the means of being placed in Christ. In Romans 6:1-7, Paul emphasized the absurdity of continuing in sin because we are under a system of grace and faith. His contention is that upon becoming a Christian, we die to sin. Literally we put to death our sinful self. In verses 3-4, he gives the mechanics of the process. He said “Do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into His death? We were buried therefore with Him by baptism into death, in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, we too might walk in newness of life.”
Galatians 3:26-27 teaches the same truth. It is through faith that we become children of God in Christ Jesus (3:26). In verse 27, Paul says “for as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ.” We should look closely at the term “for.” The Greek term here translated is gar. One Greek scholar defines gar as “A causative particle standing always after one or more words in a clause and expressing the reason for what has been before, affirmed or implied.” To break that down, Paul is saying the reason we are children of God through faith in Jesus Christ is because (causative particle) we were baptized into Christ.
The implication of these two passages is quite clear. If we leave the creeds, manuals, and catechisms of men out of our interpretive work and let the Bible interpret itself, we will conclude baptism is the work of faith (not merit) that places the previously alien sinner in Christ where all spiritual blessings, including salvation, are found.
As for it being a work of man, the only active participants in the process are the ones immersing the individual and God Almighty. The one immersing has no other role than assisting the passive recipient with doing that which they cannot do for themselves. Colossians 2:12 clearly demonstrates that it is God who is the active party in Scriptural baptism. The subject of baptism is “buried with Him (passive-TH) in baptism, in which you were also raised with Him (passive-TH).” The catalyst of the whole thing is “through faith in the powerful working of God, who raised Him from the dead.”
Thus, the only proper conclusion to draw from our study is that saving faith, as defined by the Bible is obedient faith. As such, the only faith that saves is the faith that searches God’s will and humbly seeks to obey the commandments given. This includes believing, repenting, confessing Christ, being baptized into Christ, and walking in newness of life.
It is difficult to grasp the militant desire of so many to refuse such a clear command of God as that of the submissive act of baptism. The Scriptures are scarcely clearer on any subject than they are on this one. If one desires to treat baptism as a work and discount it based on Romans 3-4, they must first demonstrate that it is a work of merit found within the Law of Moses of which Paul writes in this great book. That this is not the case, all freely admit. If then, one still desires to consider baptism a work of merit, let us not forget that the subject in baptism is passive (i.e. they are not earning anything). On the contrary, when one believes in Jesus, they are active (they are working). The same is true of repentance, confession, and holy living. These things truly are works, yet no one seems ready to cast these aside and call them the devices of a band of legalists. Biblically speaking there is no tension between faith and works. Works of merit and works of the flesh are at odds with biblical faith. But works of faith, such as belief, repentance, confession, and yes even baptism are built in to the biblical term faith. This truth is everywhere evident in the New Testament.
The evidence is clear on these matters. God has spoken. The only question left to answer is, do you have faith in God’s will, or is your faith in a humanly devised scheme of redemption. Paul was equally clear that when two people teach different gospels, they cannot both be in good standing with the Lord (Gal. 1:6-9). Won’t you believe the good news and place your trust in Him?

Turning Against Reason

8/9/2018

In almost every facet of life, people follow the law of rationality which demands we gather all available evidence about any given subject, reason about that evidence, and draw only such conclusions as are demanded by the evidence. We naturally do so as we are created in the image of a rational God, and we received this trait as part of our general makeup. It is imperative that we apply this God-given trait in our daily affairs because it is the only way we may perceive the cause and effect relationships in our lives, thus keeping us from harming ourselves in various ways.
   Sadly, when it comes to the evidences surrounding Christ and His divine nature, people are often blinded by the light He came to shed on our world (Jn. 1:4-10). As the atheistic philosopher David Hume once wrote, “When reason is against a man, he will soon turn against reason.” The point he was making is that no one shirks the law of rationality unless the truth in view threatens his/her preconceptions or predisposition to act in certain ways. Sadly, Mr. Hume did just this with the evidences for the Christ. This was also the case with Jesus’ enemies in His day. Several examples of this are easily identified in Scripture, so we will consider a sampling to avoid making the same mistakes and being blinded by the light of Christ and His word.
   Our first example comes from Matthew 12:22-32 where Jesus casts a demon out of a man and thereby heals the man of his blindness and muteness. Any rational person would see this awesome display as the work of God. No human possesses such power, and no one can reasonably deny that what Jesus did was truly a gracious, benevolent, and upright action. A great many in the crowd made the proper assessment of the evidence and identified Jesus as the Son of David (Messiah) who was to come (vs. 23). They reasoned properly about the evidence. The Pharisees, on the other hand, were affected in the exact opposite way as they accused Jesus of being possessed by Satan and casting out the demon by his power. They turned against reason.
   Another example of such blindness is in Mark 3:1-6 when the Pharisees sought to accuse Jesus of Sabbath breaking for healing a man with a withered hand. Knowing their thoughts, He called the man to Himself and asked them if it was lawful to do good and save life on the Sabbath, or if it were better to be indifferent and cause harm (vs. 4). They refused to answer the question because the reasonable answer would have indicted them for their hardness. Such callousness angered the Lord, so He immediately healed the man in their presence. Rather than praise God for this display of His power and kindness, they consorted with the Herodians to devise a plan to destroy Jesus. They made many attempts to kill Jesus for good deeds done.
   After He raised Lazarus in John 11, they plotted how to kill Him to stop the growth of His following (Jn. 11:45-53). In John 12:9-11, the chief priests set their sights on Lazarus to destroy him for being raised by Jesus because he was walking, talking proof of Jesus’ deity. For this, many of the Jews were leaving the Jewish elites and believing in Jesus (vs. 11). This is where the truth of their motives is revealed. John 3:19-21 tells us that people reject His light (turn against reason) because their deeds are evil, they prefer darkness to light, and they do not wish to have their evil exposed.    This is precisely why the scribes, Pharisees, and chief priests hated Jesus. He threatened their power and prestige. He unmasked their hypocrisy (cf. Mt. 23). Pomp, pride, position, and power were their primary concerns (Jn. 11:47-48). So, they turned against reason because it was against their selfish desires. Your selfish desires and mine are likely different, but we still face the same question they did. Will we accept the evidence or turn against reason?

The Grind

8/2/2018

We have all likely heard the expression “back to the old grind” with reference to one’s labors. When I worked in production, I often heard this or similar expressions at the end of a break when it was time to get back to work. As a sports fan, I have heard athletes of every kind talk about “the grind” when they speak about training camp or the long season of games in their respective sports. When speaking of a failure in a game or how they intend to improve a weakness in their game, they will often say, “I’m just going to keep grinding.” What, you may wonder, does this have to do with my Christian walk? That is a good question, and to answer, we look to the origin of the phrase to see if it resembles what the day to day Christian life is like.
The original concept, so far as my research has uncovered, is the idea of steady, monotonous, laborious, hard work of a dull or boring nature. If you work or have worked a job wherein you do the exact same things all day long, this phrase will take on a much deeper meaning to you. It is easy to become bored, complacent, and even weary of the monotony of such labors. There is often a great deal of turnover in these jobs as people just want to do something new and different. This is where we find the connection to Christianity.
The reality is that all of life can become monotonous. Most people have some semblance of a routine in their lives: wake up, make coffee, eat breakfast, brush teeth, feed the dog/cat/iguana/etc., get showered and dressed, drive to work (using the exact same route), work the same old job, come home (using the exact same route), catch up the household chores, eat supper, clean up, get ready for bed, sleep, wake up, rinse and repeat. Another expression to consider just here is, “Idle hands are the devil’s playground.” Therefore, we must never view our Christian walk and “the old grind” as burdensome. Boredom or high pressure will likely breed dissatisfaction, and this is a prime time for Satan to present the Christian with a shiny new temptation. We must not let Satan catch us in a state of boredom or weariness in our service to Christ.
An Old Testament example of what this can look like is found in the book of Malachi. In the first chapter, we learn that the children of Israel were going through the motions of worshipping God with their sacrifices. Sadly, they did so with improper attitudes and profane gifts (Mal. 1:7-8). We learn why in verse 13 where God says, “You also say, ‘Oh, what a weariness!’ And you sneer at it,” Says the LORD of hosts. “And you bring the stolen, the lame, and the sick; Thus you bring an offering! Should I accept this from your hand?” Says the LORD.” Communing with God and seeking His favor in worship ought to breed awe, wonder, and enthusiasm. Instead, they viewed it merely as a burdensome obligation and began to offer vain worship, which God will never accept (Mt. 15:8-9). Instead of responding in this way, we ought to echo David’s sentiments in Psalm 122:1: “I was glad when they said to me, ‘Let us go into the house of the Lord.”’
Pressure from opponents can also promote “the old grind” view of Christianity. It is difficult to swim against the current but swim we must. Remember when the returned exiles quit building the temple in Ezra 4 because of resistance from their opponents? God refused to let the story end there, so He sent Haggai and Zechariah to rekindle their fire and embolden them to finish the work (Ezra 5:1-2). They had to view the work God gave them as greater than “the grind” necessary to bring about its completion. Genuine Christianity will be met with opposition (Jn. 15:18-21), but God has empowered us to keep grinding until the job is done (2 Tim. 1:7-12). Like the athlete we must look to the prize and “keep grinding” to obtain the prize (Heb. 12:1-3).

WINKING AT DRINKING “What The Bible Says About The Consumption Of Alcohol As A Beverage” (Proverbs 20:1)

7/30/2018

Introduction:
1. If the consumption of alcohol as a beverage is an action that is Scriptural, we certainly do not want to “spy out the liberty” of other Christians (Galatians 2:4).
2. But if on the other hand, the consumption of alcohol as a beverage is unscriptural, we want to resolutely stand and speak out against it.
3. It also needs to be clear that we are discussing in this outline, the use of alcohol as a beverage, not a medicine or remedy. a. I believe that we would all agree that the remedial or therapeutic use of some substances does not argue for their recreational or social use.
4. In this outline, we want to examine:
a. Several common misconceptions about alcohol.
b. Arguments often used in an effort to support alcoholic consumption.
c. Positive arguments against the drinking of alcoholic beverages.
I. Common Misconceptions About The Bible & Alcohol
A. When “Wine” Is Mentioned In The Bible, It Is Always Intoxicating.
1. Such a view is simply not accurate.
2. If all wine were the same, it would make the Bible sound nonsensical. a. It is a blessing (Ps. 104:15) - and a cursing (Hab. 2:15). b. It is sanctioned (Jn. 2:1-11) - and condemned (Prov. 4:17). c. It brings cheer (Judges 9:13) - and is a mocker (Prov. 20:1). d. It is a spiritual blessing (Is. 55:1) - and brings divine wrath (Ps. 60:3).
3. There are 24 Greek and Hebrew terms in the Bible that have reference to the product of grapes. a. Four of these terms have no reference to anything you would drink (raisin cakes [singular & plural], preserves, and wine-presses). b. Of the twenty terms that are left, only one must refer to an intoxicating beverage. c. Eight terms refer to non-intoxicating beverages. d. And the rest denote beverages that may or may not be intoxicating.
4. In most cases, context must determine whether we are dealing with an intoxicating beverage or a non-intoxicating beverage.
5. Thus, it is incorrect to think that every time you read the word “wine” in the Bible, you are reading about what we exclusively use the term wine to denote today.

B. The Ancients Had No Way To Prevent Fermentation.
1. This is also an unfounded belief.
2. The people who lived in Bible times did have, and employed methods to
prevent fermentation.
3. Several of the methods they employed were:
a. Boiling.
1) Fermentation could not take place without the presence of
water.
2) Grape juice boils at 212 degrees, and ethyl alcohol evaporates at 172 degrees. 3) Thus, boiling the grapes removed the alcohol. 4) The thick syrup that remained could be preserved up to a year. b. Filtration.
1) By pouring the juice through several filters, the glutton, or the fermentable substance, could be strained out, thus separating the intoxicating properties. c. Sulphur Fumigation.
1) Wine cannot ferment without oxygen.
2) To prevent fermentation, the ancients would fumigate the wine with sulphur which absorbed the oxygen, thus arresting fermentation. d. Air Exclusion.
1) Another method of preventing fermentation by removing oxygen was to line their containers with pitch, making them air tight.
2) Then they would pour the fresh juice into the containers and
seal them and often sink them in water.
3) It was said that juice preserved in this manner could remain
sweet for a whole year. e. Temperature Reduction.
1) If grape juice can be kept below forty degrees, it will not ferment.
2) They would accomplish this by placing their wine in cold
streams.
3. The contention that the ancients had to have drunk intoxicating wine is simply not true.
II. Passages Which Supposedly Support The Drinking Of Alcohol
A. (John 2:1-10).
1. It is argued that Jesus made intoxicating wine, therefore drinking in moderation
must be acceptable.
2. However, such a statement assumes the very thing that must be proved.
3. If this was intoxicating wine, Jesus would have been guilty of sin (Hab. 2:15).
4. The phrase, “well drunk” (methusthosin) simply has a generic reference to being full or filled, without reference to the kind of liquid used. It does not imply a state of drunkenness, but a state of fullness (Ps. 23:5).
5. It is also supposed by some that the “good wine” was intoxicating wine.
a. It is common knowledge that in antiquity, men regarded wine, in an unfermented state, as of a higher quality than any other. b. Pliny, Plutarch, and Horace all mention that the best wine was that which was destitute of spirit. B. (Luke 7:31-35).
1. In this passage, the enemies of Jesus accused him of being a winebibber.
2. However, in this same passage they also accused him of gluttony and charged John the Baptist with having a demon. Are we to believe these charges as well?
3. These are trumped up charges by the enemies of Jesus.
4. The admission that Jesus came “drinking wine” has no reference to the nature of this wine, but is simply a contrast to John, the Nazerite, who was forbidden to partake of any form of the fruit of the vine (Numbers 6:1-4). C. (Acts 2:13).
1. The apostles were accused of drunkenness when they began to speak in tongues on the day of Pentecost.
2. In response, Peter did not argue that they were sober upon the basis that they didn’t drink alcoholic beverages, but he argued that it was too early in the morning to be drunk.
3. However, consider this point: The fact that “a” reason is given for abstaining from a particular activity, does not necessarily indicate that there are not other reasons for abstaining.
4. If I told you that Jesus came to earth in order to show us what God was like, would that exclude all other reasons for His coming, such as to die for man? D. (Colossians 2:16).
1. It is argued that we have no right to judge another person in regards to what they eat or drink.
2. This is true if kept in context.
a. Paul was talking about Gnostic asceticism that placed a large number of regulations upon people concerning what they could or could not eat or drink. b. In the context of these man made rules, Paul said to let no one judge you in such matters - these matters were not binding upon them.
3. However, to remove this passage from its context and then apply it to social drinking is careless and irresponsible with the text. a. What if we used this same approach with Romans 14:13.
1) The context has reference to matters of opinion.
2) Divorce this passage from that context and one may argue for
no condemnation of sinful acts and people.

E. (I Timothy 3:8; Titus 2:3).
1. It is argued that since deacons and older women are not to be given to “much” wine, they may imbibe in moderate amounts.
2. To view the word “much” in contrast with “little” rather than as a superlative
is incorrect and misses the point. a. (Ecc. 7:17) Be not overly wicked. b. (James 1:21) Putting off all overflowing of wickedness. c. (I Peter 4:4) Same excess of riot. d. (I Timothy 3:8) Not greedy of filthy lucre. 3. Elders are forbidden to partake of wine.
a. Are elders held to a higher moral standard than anyone else? b. If it is morally reprehensible for an elder to do something, would it not also be morally reprehensible for any Christian to do the same thing? c. Do God’s moral standards differ from person to person? F. (I Timothy 5:23).
1. It is argued that since Paul instructed Timothy to drink some wine, we must be permitted to do so today as well.
2. Such an appeal is really grasping for straws for at least two reasons:
a. The use of this wine is clearly medicinal in nature and has nothing whatsoever to do with imbibing wine as a beverage. 1) If my pharmacist recommended codeine for some ailments I had, could I then assume that social or recreational use of that same substance is permissible? b. It is an assumption that the wine spoken of in this context is an intoxicating wine. 1) Pliny, Columella, and Philo all stated that wines which were destitute of all strength were exceedingly wholesome and useful to the body. 2) Pliny stated that wines most adapted to the sick were wines that had their forces broken by the strainer.
III. Positive Prohibitions Against The Consumption Of Alcohol As A Beverage
A. The Bible condemns drunkenness.
1. (Ephesians 5:18).
2. (Galatians 5:21).
3. Those who uphold “social drinking” do so with the idea of condemning
drunkenness, not moderation. a. The implication is that there is a clear distinction to be made between drunkenness and moderation.
4. However, this cannot merely be assumed, it must be proven.
5. The American Medical Association has stated that “There is no minimum blood alcohol concentration which can be set at which there will be absolutely no effect.”
6. The drunk and the social drinker differs only in degree, not in kind.
B. The meaning of the word “drunkenness.”
1. The word “drunkenness” (methuo) which is used in Ephesians 5:18 denotes more than what many realize.
2. W.E. Vine - “To make drunk, or to grow drunk, marking the process of the state expressed, to become intoxicated.
3. Young & Haynes - “To begin to be softened.”
4. E.W. Bullinger - “To grow drunk.”
5. Thayer - “To get drunk, to become intoxicated.” C. (Romans 14:21).
1. If drinking in moderation were an optional matter (which I am not willing to
concede) it would have to be governed and prohibited by Romans 14:21.
2. There is no debate concerning the harm one’s influence could have upon others if they drank alcoholic beverages.
D. Realism.
1. I have yet to talk to someone who claims to be a social drinker who hasn’t, at some point in their drinking life, admitted to getting a “buzz.”
2. I am forced to wonder if the social drinker who never gets drunk is not a mirage. Does such a creature really exist?
Conclusion:
1. Having weighed the evidences, I am convinced that the Bible as well as medical science state that drunkenness is a process that begins with the first drink and continues to worsen with each subsequent drink.
2. Alcohol, used as a drug has its use; but as a beverage it is abused.
3. Alcohol as a beverage deprives, destroys, deceives, and eventually will damn
those who flirt with it.
4. (Proverbs 20:1).
“If when you say alcohol, you mean the devil’s brew, the poison scourge, the bloody monster that defiles innocence, deadens reason, destroys homes, creates misery and poverty; if you mean the drink that ruins righteous living, creates despair, shame, and helplessness, and kills thousands every year, then certainly, I am against it with all my power!
“However, if when you say alcohol, you mean the oil of conversation, the philosophic wine, the drink that makes hearts merry and puts laughter on one’s lips; if you mean the drink that celebrates Christmas cheer, puts a spring in your walk, and stimulates conversation between good old fellows; if you mean the drink, the sale of which provides
money for crippled children, the aged, the building of highways, hospitals, and schools, then certainly, I stand firmly in favor of it!
“This is my stand on alcohol, and I simply refuse to compromise!”
“Bible Wines: Laws Of Fermentation And Wines Of The Ancients” by William Patton (Star Bible
Publications, 1981).
“The Bible And Social Drinking” by W.D. Jeffcoat (Robinson Typesetting, 1987).
By Steve Higginbotham

<<Previous