For the Christian, drinking alcohol is only permitted as a medication, and then only when necessary.
Jesus did not drink, Timothy did not drink, and we are not to drink either.
How do we know Jesus did not drink? The Bible says so.
First, remember who Jesus is: He is the King of Kings, Lord of Lords, Our Great High Priest, Prince of Peace, The Holy One, Mighty God, The God-Man, and The Pure Lamb of God.
Jesus is perfect – always was, always will be.
As the King of Kings, and Prince of Peace Jesus was bound by:
“It is not for kings, O Lemuel, it is not for kings to drink wine; nor for princes strong drink:” Proverbs 31:4
As the Mighty God – Man, Jesus was bound by:
“Woe unto them that are mighty to drink wine, and men of strength to mingle strong drink:” Isaiah 5:22
As the All Wise God, Jesus was bound by:
“Wine is a mocker, strong drink is raging: and whosoever is deceived thereby is not wise.” Proverbs 20:1
As our Great High Priest, Jesus was bound by:
“And the LORD spake unto Aaron, saying, Do not drink wine nor strong drink, thou, nor thy sons with thee, when ye go into the tabernacle of the congregation, lest ye die: it shall be a statute for ever throughout your generations:” Leviticus 10:8-9
As the Holy One and the Pure Lamb of God:
“And that ye may put difference between holy and unholy, and between unclean and clean; And that ye may teach the children of Israel all the statutes which the LORD hath spoken unto them by the hand of Moses.” Leviticus 10:10-11
Look how Jesus is described in this office of Great High Priest from Hebrews:
“But this man, because he continueth ever, hath an unchangeable priesthood. Wherefore he is able also to save them to the uttermost that come unto God by him, seeing he ever liveth to make intercession for them. For such an high priest became us, who is holy, harmless, undefiled, separate from sinners, and made higher than the heavens;” Hebrews 7:24-26
As our Great High Priest, Jesus would also be bound by:
“Neither shall any priest drink wine, when they enter into the inner court.”
Ezekiel 44:21
Why?
“And they shall teach my people the difference between the holy and profane, and cause them to discern between the unclean and the clean.” Ezekiel 44:23
Jesus is not the only bound by the Leviticus law for the priests. We are a priesthood of believers:
“Ye also, as lively stones, are built up a spiritual house, an holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices, acceptable to God by Jesus Christ.” 1 Peter 2:5
“But ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people; that ye should shew forth the praises of him who hath called you out of darkness into his marvellous light:” 1 Peter 2:9
We are commanded to be holy.
“But as he which hath called you is holy, so be ye holy in all manner of conversation (behavior); Because it is written, Be ye holy; for I am holy.” 1 Peter 1:15-16
As a Priest in the Kingdom of God we are required to abstain from all alcoholic beverages. Timothy understood this requirement. Timothy did not drink alcohol. No wine. No mingled wine. No strong drink.
Timothy even refused to drink wine when there was a medical necessity. That is why Paul had to tell him:
“Drink no longer water, but use a little wine for thy stomach's sake and thine often infirmities.” 1 Timothy 5:23
Paul told him to use wine, but only permitted its use for medicinal purposes. Is there a reason Paul did not open the issue any further than he did? Yes. Paul did not support recreational drinking.
Here are further instructions:
"Who hath woe? who hath sorrow? who hath contentions? who hath babbling? who hath wounds without cause? who hath redness of eyes? They that tarry long at the wine; they that go to seek mixed wine." Proverbs 23:29-30
That was the observation – Here’s the command:
"Look not thou upon the wine when it is red, when it giveth his colour in the cup, when it moveth itself aright." Proverbs 23: 31
The command is don’t even look at wine with desire. Why?
"At the last it biteth like a serpent, and stingeth like an adder. Thine eyes shall behold strange women, and thine heart shall utter perverse things. Yea, thou shalt be as he that lieth down in the midst of the sea, or as he that lieth upon the top of a mast. They have stricken me, shalt thou say, and I was not sick; they have beaten me, and I felt it not: when shall I awake? I will seek it yet again." Proverbs 23:32-35
Are Christians permitted to drink socially or recreationally? No.
The miracle at Cana, Jesus being called a wine-bibber, and the fact that the general population of Israel drank intoxicating drinks can not change the facts presented above.
Since Scripture does not contradict itself, those events must be understood in light of these laws and not in ignorance of them.
Don’t Drink. Until Next Time: Keep Studying the Scriptures.
Monday, November 27, 2006
Tuesday, November 21, 2006
The Good Undershepherd
Once upon a time there was a shepherd. He was called an Undershepherd because he did not own the sheep, he reported to the Great Shepherd who owned the sheep. The Undershepherd did not work alone; he worked with other Undershepherds who also cared for the sheep. They all loved the sheep very much and they all worked very hard to take good care of them.
To make sure the job was done right, the Great Shepherd wrote out His instructions. He taught them exactly what to feed, and how to care for, the sheep. The Great Shepherd held his Undershepherds accountable for following His orders and delivered to them rewards or punishment based upon their performance.
The Undershepherd worked hard to memorize and follow the Great Shepherd’s instructions. There were the ordinary problems associated with caring for sheep. The sheep got sick, the sheep strayed, and the sheep were sometimes stubborn and did not want to go where they should. There was one more thing that was a danger to the sheep – wolves.
The Great Shepherd ordered the Undershepherds to feed the sheep a strict diet of grass, grain, and water. The Great Shepherd ordered the Undershepherds to keep the sheep moving toward the Kingdom. And the Great Shepherd ordered the Undershepherds to teach the sheep to recognize wolves and stay away from them.
The weird thing about these sheep was, they wanted to decide which orders their Undershepherds were to follow. They also wanted to decide which orders were to be taught to them.
The sheep liked to know where to eat the best grass, grain, and water. The sheep liked to hear about the Kingdom and what was waiting for them at the end of the trail. But the sheep became mad and irritated when the Undershepherd tried to teach the sheep about the danger of wolves, how to recognize wolves, or to stay away from wolves.
Do sheep need to learn about wolves? Do sheep need to recognize danger from wolves in sheep’s clothing? Should the Undersheperd obey the sheep or the Great Shepherd?
To make sure the job was done right, the Great Shepherd wrote out His instructions. He taught them exactly what to feed, and how to care for, the sheep. The Great Shepherd held his Undershepherds accountable for following His orders and delivered to them rewards or punishment based upon their performance.
The Undershepherd worked hard to memorize and follow the Great Shepherd’s instructions. There were the ordinary problems associated with caring for sheep. The sheep got sick, the sheep strayed, and the sheep were sometimes stubborn and did not want to go where they should. There was one more thing that was a danger to the sheep – wolves.
The Great Shepherd ordered the Undershepherds to feed the sheep a strict diet of grass, grain, and water. The Great Shepherd ordered the Undershepherds to keep the sheep moving toward the Kingdom. And the Great Shepherd ordered the Undershepherds to teach the sheep to recognize wolves and stay away from them.
The weird thing about these sheep was, they wanted to decide which orders their Undershepherds were to follow. They also wanted to decide which orders were to be taught to them.
The sheep liked to know where to eat the best grass, grain, and water. The sheep liked to hear about the Kingdom and what was waiting for them at the end of the trail. But the sheep became mad and irritated when the Undershepherd tried to teach the sheep about the danger of wolves, how to recognize wolves, or to stay away from wolves.
Do sheep need to learn about wolves? Do sheep need to recognize danger from wolves in sheep’s clothing? Should the Undersheperd obey the sheep or the Great Shepherd?
Wednesday, November 15, 2006
When Does Life Begin - Simplified
I recently received this comment:
So, you never actually took a stand... When does life begin? Conception? When the heart beats? When the brain has activity? Just wondering, since you never really stated.
I never stated, but the Scriptures did. Life begins before the heartbeat, before brain activity and even before movement.
Psalm 139:16 Thine eyes did see my substance, yet being unperfect; and in thy book all my members were written, which in continuance were fashioned, when as yet there was none of them.
Life begins at “substance” when the human is yet incomplete.
I guess it would be considered conception, whether naturally or by SCNT, the result is the same – growth and maturity. If either is implanted into a womb the result will be a baby.
The point is, either way, the baby is a human long before it breaths air.
Is that any clearer?
So, you never actually took a stand... When does life begin? Conception? When the heart beats? When the brain has activity? Just wondering, since you never really stated.
I never stated, but the Scriptures did. Life begins before the heartbeat, before brain activity and even before movement.
Psalm 139:16 Thine eyes did see my substance, yet being unperfect; and in thy book all my members were written, which in continuance were fashioned, when as yet there was none of them.
Life begins at “substance” when the human is yet incomplete.
I guess it would be considered conception, whether naturally or by SCNT, the result is the same – growth and maturity. If either is implanted into a womb the result will be a baby.
The point is, either way, the baby is a human long before it breaths air.
Is that any clearer?
Tuesday, November 14, 2006
When Does Life Begin?
Stem cell talk is everywhere. I want to approach this topic from another perspective. When does the Bible say life begins.
For those of you who don’t know – Somatic Cell Nuclear Transfer (SCNT) is when the egg of a female has it’s nucleus (the yolk of a chicken egg) removed and replaced with the nucleus of another like being.
For a human, the egg is taken from a woman. The nucleus of the egg is removed. The complete nucleus from another person is transferred to the egg. The now completed egg is stimulated to grow. If this SCNT egg is placed inside a woman’s womb – it produces a baby.
The supporters of SCNT do not place this completed egg back into the woman. Instead they incubate the egg while it divides and at some point in time (about 200 cells old) they tear apart the developing egg and inject them into an ailing person as a treatment.
You can read more about this at webmd:
http://www.webmd.com/content/article/90/100668.htm
Stem cell research is one thing. Cloning human babies is another. Yet the two issues are so mixed up, we risk the worst of both worlds.
There are all kinds of stem cells. But the ones from which we can learn the most are the cells that make up an early human embryo. They're formed in the first 14 days after a human egg is fertilized by sperm or when a human egg has its own DNA replaced by DNA from an adult cell.
Scientists call this latter technique somatic cell nuclear transfer or SCNT. It's also the first step in cloning.
Another site to read is PBS:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/miracle/stemcells.html
One way to do this might be to combine Thomson's stem cell work with the cloning technology developed by Ian Wilmut and his colleagues at the Roslin Institute. (In 1997, Wilmut and his team announced the birth of the cloned sheep Dolly, the first mammal cloned from the cell of an adult animal.) A somatic cell could be taken from the recipient individual, its nucleus inserted into an enucleated egg cell that is stimulated to begin dividing, and the resulting blastocyst-stage embryo then disaggregated to produce a histocompatible pluripotent stem cell line.
So far, everyone agrees how SCNT is done and what happens. Where they disagree is when is it considered living.
According to the supporters of this “therapy” life begins when the baby takes it’s first breath. If it has not breathed air– it is not a baby.
What does the Bible say?
Psalms 139:13-18
For thou hast possessed my reins: thou hast covered me in my mother's womb. I will praise thee; for I am fearfully and wonderfully made: marvellous are thy works; and that my soul knoweth right well. My substance was not hid from thee, when I was made in secret, and curiously wrought in the lowest parts of the earth. Thine eyes did see my substance, yet being unperfect; and in thy book all my members were written, which in continuance were fashioned, when as yet there was none of them. How precious also are thy thoughts unto me, O God! how great is the sum of them! If I should count them, they are more in number than the sand: when I awake, I am still with thee.
Human life begins long before the child starts breathing.
Ecclesiastes 11:5
As thou knowest not what is the way of the spirit, nor how the bones do grow in the womb of her that is with child: even so thou knowest not the works of God who maketh all.
A bone is still a bone even while being formed in the womb.
Luke 1:39-44
And Mary arose in those days, and went into the hill country with haste, into a city of Juda; And entered into the house of Zacharias, and saluted Elisabeth. And it came to pass, that, when Elisabeth heard the salutation of Mary, the babe leaped in her womb; and Elisabeth was filled with the Holy Ghost: And she spake out with a loud voice, and said, Blessed art thou among women, and blessed is the fruit of thy womb. And whence is this to me, that the mother of my Lord should come to me? For, lo, as soon as the voice of thy salutation sounded in mine ears, the babe leaped in my womb for joy.
According to Scripture, Life begins before breathing.
It is morally wrong to intentionally take the life of one person to hopefully improve the life of another.
If you live in Missouri and you voted yes on Amendment 2, you are an accomplice to the murder of human life.
If you live in Missouri and you did not vote on Amendment 2, you are also an accomplice to the murder of human life. (If you don’t understand how not voting is really a vote, read the principle in action in Numbers 30:1-16.)
We will reap what we have sown. Work now to REPEAL AMENDMENT 2.
Until next time, Keep Studying The Scriptures.
For those of you who don’t know – Somatic Cell Nuclear Transfer (SCNT) is when the egg of a female has it’s nucleus (the yolk of a chicken egg) removed and replaced with the nucleus of another like being.
For a human, the egg is taken from a woman. The nucleus of the egg is removed. The complete nucleus from another person is transferred to the egg. The now completed egg is stimulated to grow. If this SCNT egg is placed inside a woman’s womb – it produces a baby.
The supporters of SCNT do not place this completed egg back into the woman. Instead they incubate the egg while it divides and at some point in time (about 200 cells old) they tear apart the developing egg and inject them into an ailing person as a treatment.
You can read more about this at webmd:
http://www.webmd.com/content/article/90/100668.htm
Stem cell research is one thing. Cloning human babies is another. Yet the two issues are so mixed up, we risk the worst of both worlds.
There are all kinds of stem cells. But the ones from which we can learn the most are the cells that make up an early human embryo. They're formed in the first 14 days after a human egg is fertilized by sperm or when a human egg has its own DNA replaced by DNA from an adult cell.
Scientists call this latter technique somatic cell nuclear transfer or SCNT. It's also the first step in cloning.
Another site to read is PBS:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/miracle/stemcells.html
One way to do this might be to combine Thomson's stem cell work with the cloning technology developed by Ian Wilmut and his colleagues at the Roslin Institute. (In 1997, Wilmut and his team announced the birth of the cloned sheep Dolly, the first mammal cloned from the cell of an adult animal.) A somatic cell could be taken from the recipient individual, its nucleus inserted into an enucleated egg cell that is stimulated to begin dividing, and the resulting blastocyst-stage embryo then disaggregated to produce a histocompatible pluripotent stem cell line.
So far, everyone agrees how SCNT is done and what happens. Where they disagree is when is it considered living.
According to the supporters of this “therapy” life begins when the baby takes it’s first breath. If it has not breathed air– it is not a baby.
What does the Bible say?
Psalms 139:13-18
For thou hast possessed my reins: thou hast covered me in my mother's womb. I will praise thee; for I am fearfully and wonderfully made: marvellous are thy works; and that my soul knoweth right well. My substance was not hid from thee, when I was made in secret, and curiously wrought in the lowest parts of the earth. Thine eyes did see my substance, yet being unperfect; and in thy book all my members were written, which in continuance were fashioned, when as yet there was none of them. How precious also are thy thoughts unto me, O God! how great is the sum of them! If I should count them, they are more in number than the sand: when I awake, I am still with thee.
Human life begins long before the child starts breathing.
Ecclesiastes 11:5
As thou knowest not what is the way of the spirit, nor how the bones do grow in the womb of her that is with child: even so thou knowest not the works of God who maketh all.
A bone is still a bone even while being formed in the womb.
Luke 1:39-44
And Mary arose in those days, and went into the hill country with haste, into a city of Juda; And entered into the house of Zacharias, and saluted Elisabeth. And it came to pass, that, when Elisabeth heard the salutation of Mary, the babe leaped in her womb; and Elisabeth was filled with the Holy Ghost: And she spake out with a loud voice, and said, Blessed art thou among women, and blessed is the fruit of thy womb. And whence is this to me, that the mother of my Lord should come to me? For, lo, as soon as the voice of thy salutation sounded in mine ears, the babe leaped in my womb for joy.
According to Scripture, Life begins before breathing.
It is morally wrong to intentionally take the life of one person to hopefully improve the life of another.
If you live in Missouri and you voted yes on Amendment 2, you are an accomplice to the murder of human life.
If you live in Missouri and you did not vote on Amendment 2, you are also an accomplice to the murder of human life. (If you don’t understand how not voting is really a vote, read the principle in action in Numbers 30:1-16.)
We will reap what we have sown. Work now to REPEAL AMENDMENT 2.
Until next time, Keep Studying The Scriptures.
Tuesday, November 07, 2006
A Comment on a Comment
I received a brave comment from a Mr. (or Miss) Anonymous. I thought it may represent the thought of others too so I will address it here. Here is the unedited message:
Anonymous has left a comment on your post "Cutting to the Chase": “http://home.bluemarble.net/~heartcom/capturedbytongues.html The man who wrote this article is a Seventh Day Adventist which most traditional Southern Baptists believe to be a cult. Why don't you list some reliable resources for your research instead of this cult. Southern Baptists are traditional cessasionists - the sign gifts were available at the time of the Apostles, but ceased with their death and the close of the canon. You completely misterpreted 1 Corinthians 14 - the supernatual gift of tongues (speaking in a language unknown to the speaker) was available at the time Paul was writing to the Corinthians but by the time Hebrews was written we see evidence that the "sign gifts" were rare or completely gone. You really should look at what reliable Southern Baptists have to say on this matter since you claim to be affiliated with a Southern Baptist Church. Jerry Vines, two time president of the SBC, wrote several books on this subject.”
First – I do not know if bluemarble.net is SDA or not but if a SDA says Jesus is God in the Flesh, I am going to agree with them. I do not choose to agree or disagree with someone based upon their denomination, I look at whether or not they agree with Scripture. On this topic of Tongues, this person is worthy of quoting.
Second – I do not agree with any SBC just because they are SBC. I have in my False Doctrines collection material printed by the SBC which say ecstatic utterance is a scriptural form of tongues. I like Jerry Vines and I am sure he is very knowledgeable. Jerry Vines, and Jerry Falwell for that matter, would agree with the concept of the Priesthood of the Believer. I am responsible to God, directly. Jerry Vines will not be standing up for me in judgment. I, and you, are responsible to be obedient to the command:
2Timothy 2:15-16
Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth. But shun profane and vain babblings: for they will increase unto more ungodliness.
We are not to rely on the scholarship of others. We can read them, study them, and evaluate them, but the ultimate responsibility for showing ourselves approved to God is us. Just because Jerry Vines, or any one else has said this or that does not make it equal to Scripture. If what I am saying lines up with Scripture, and I try to make sure it does, wonderful, but you are ultimately responsible for testing and trying it against the Scriptures.
Acts 17:10-11
And the brethren immediately sent away Paul and Silas by night unto Berea: who coming thither went into the synagogue of the Jews. These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so.
Since ecstatic utterance was not a part of either Acts or Corinthians, then they could not have been included in Corinthians 13 to cease. Ecstatic Utterance is Pentecostal, it is Charismatic, but it is not Scriptural.
Until next time, Keep Studying the Scriptures.
Anonymous has left a comment on your post "Cutting to the Chase": “http://home.bluemarble.net/~heartcom/capturedbytongues.html The man who wrote this article is a Seventh Day Adventist which most traditional Southern Baptists believe to be a cult. Why don't you list some reliable resources for your research instead of this cult. Southern Baptists are traditional cessasionists - the sign gifts were available at the time of the Apostles, but ceased with their death and the close of the canon. You completely misterpreted 1 Corinthians 14 - the supernatual gift of tongues (speaking in a language unknown to the speaker) was available at the time Paul was writing to the Corinthians but by the time Hebrews was written we see evidence that the "sign gifts" were rare or completely gone. You really should look at what reliable Southern Baptists have to say on this matter since you claim to be affiliated with a Southern Baptist Church. Jerry Vines, two time president of the SBC, wrote several books on this subject.”
First – I do not know if bluemarble.net is SDA or not but if a SDA says Jesus is God in the Flesh, I am going to agree with them. I do not choose to agree or disagree with someone based upon their denomination, I look at whether or not they agree with Scripture. On this topic of Tongues, this person is worthy of quoting.
Second – I do not agree with any SBC just because they are SBC. I have in my False Doctrines collection material printed by the SBC which say ecstatic utterance is a scriptural form of tongues. I like Jerry Vines and I am sure he is very knowledgeable. Jerry Vines, and Jerry Falwell for that matter, would agree with the concept of the Priesthood of the Believer. I am responsible to God, directly. Jerry Vines will not be standing up for me in judgment. I, and you, are responsible to be obedient to the command:
2Timothy 2:15-16
Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth. But shun profane and vain babblings: for they will increase unto more ungodliness.
We are not to rely on the scholarship of others. We can read them, study them, and evaluate them, but the ultimate responsibility for showing ourselves approved to God is us. Just because Jerry Vines, or any one else has said this or that does not make it equal to Scripture. If what I am saying lines up with Scripture, and I try to make sure it does, wonderful, but you are ultimately responsible for testing and trying it against the Scriptures.
Acts 17:10-11
And the brethren immediately sent away Paul and Silas by night unto Berea: who coming thither went into the synagogue of the Jews. These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so.
Since ecstatic utterance was not a part of either Acts or Corinthians, then they could not have been included in Corinthians 13 to cease. Ecstatic Utterance is Pentecostal, it is Charismatic, but it is not Scriptural.
Until next time, Keep Studying the Scriptures.
Monday, November 06, 2006
Cutting to the Chase
Recently my Pastor started reading a book. He liked it so much that he bought one for each of the staff. I’m still in the process of reading it but it has changed several of my methods. The book is, “Why Men Hate Going to Church” by David Murrow. Currently it is only 13.99 from Lifeway.
To cut to the chase, it says I write too much. I agree. So I’ve decided to cut to the chase on a few issues. The number of words may have scared off some people so I’m going to be brief.
First, the root of the articles on Calvinism is: You are either a Calvinist or you are not. Hyper-Calvinism is a myth. Hyper-Calvinism is really, plain, old, authentic Calvinism. If you embrace all the points of Calvinism – you are a Calvinist. If you embrace any of the points (even just one) you must embrace them all. Each point of Calvinism is inseparably linked to each of the others. You can say you are a four point Calvinist but to embrace the reality and doctrine of the four points forces you to also embrace any of the other points you do not wish to embrace.
Secondly, Calvinists are always claiming to be based on Scriptures Alone. This is a lie. They base their doctrine and theology on a combination of the Bible AND Creeds AND Confessions AND Catechisms. If you don’t believe me just ask them about non-elect infants burning in hell if they die as an infant. That is not based on the Scriptures Alone.
Third, now we come to Speaking in Tongues. Again let me cut to the chase on the issue: ecstatic utterance as found in Pentecostal and Charismatic churches is not scriptural. Nowhere in scripture do we find even one instance of ecstatic utterance. Compare the events in Acts. Compare the instructions in the TOTAL chapter of 1Corinthians 14. Ecstatic utterance has no history in the church. Even books about Azusa Street confirm that ecstatic utterance was brought into the church from the outside. In the 1600’s, 1500’s, 1400’s, 1300’s, and so on, where do you find this ecstatic utterance? An interesting article is found here: http://home.bluemarble.net/~heartcom/capturedbytongues.html . It agrees, as do several other sources, that before ecstatic utterance was in the church it was in Satanic Worship but never in the Scriptures.
Fourth, 1Corinthians 13:8-11 is claimed by a group of people who do not accept ecstatic utterance in the church, who say they are cessationists. A cessationist is a person who agrees with the ecstatic utterance view of tongues but uses this passage to say it is no longer in existence. I have news for you, it never did exist in the church at that time or in the Scriptures. If it never existed in the church it could not have ceased. This passage speaks of things existing today that will cease when Jesus comes. I believe the Scripture to be the inerrant, infallible, plenary, Word of God. But the Bible is not what this passage is referring to when it says, “When that which is perfect is come…” knowledge has not vanished, neither has languages, neither has prophecy (last I checked, Revelation has not happened yet, no matter what Hank says.)
These four summaries should help you understand the roots of my other longer articles. I will try to not be so verbose in the future so you don’t have to wade through a bunch of stuff before finding the root of the issue. Until next time, Keep Studying the Scripture.
To cut to the chase, it says I write too much. I agree. So I’ve decided to cut to the chase on a few issues. The number of words may have scared off some people so I’m going to be brief.
First, the root of the articles on Calvinism is: You are either a Calvinist or you are not. Hyper-Calvinism is a myth. Hyper-Calvinism is really, plain, old, authentic Calvinism. If you embrace all the points of Calvinism – you are a Calvinist. If you embrace any of the points (even just one) you must embrace them all. Each point of Calvinism is inseparably linked to each of the others. You can say you are a four point Calvinist but to embrace the reality and doctrine of the four points forces you to also embrace any of the other points you do not wish to embrace.
Secondly, Calvinists are always claiming to be based on Scriptures Alone. This is a lie. They base their doctrine and theology on a combination of the Bible AND Creeds AND Confessions AND Catechisms. If you don’t believe me just ask them about non-elect infants burning in hell if they die as an infant. That is not based on the Scriptures Alone.
Third, now we come to Speaking in Tongues. Again let me cut to the chase on the issue: ecstatic utterance as found in Pentecostal and Charismatic churches is not scriptural. Nowhere in scripture do we find even one instance of ecstatic utterance. Compare the events in Acts. Compare the instructions in the TOTAL chapter of 1Corinthians 14. Ecstatic utterance has no history in the church. Even books about Azusa Street confirm that ecstatic utterance was brought into the church from the outside. In the 1600’s, 1500’s, 1400’s, 1300’s, and so on, where do you find this ecstatic utterance? An interesting article is found here: http://home.bluemarble.net/~heartcom/capturedbytongues.html . It agrees, as do several other sources, that before ecstatic utterance was in the church it was in Satanic Worship but never in the Scriptures.
Fourth, 1Corinthians 13:8-11 is claimed by a group of people who do not accept ecstatic utterance in the church, who say they are cessationists. A cessationist is a person who agrees with the ecstatic utterance view of tongues but uses this passage to say it is no longer in existence. I have news for you, it never did exist in the church at that time or in the Scriptures. If it never existed in the church it could not have ceased. This passage speaks of things existing today that will cease when Jesus comes. I believe the Scripture to be the inerrant, infallible, plenary, Word of God. But the Bible is not what this passage is referring to when it says, “When that which is perfect is come…” knowledge has not vanished, neither has languages, neither has prophecy (last I checked, Revelation has not happened yet, no matter what Hank says.)
These four summaries should help you understand the roots of my other longer articles. I will try to not be so verbose in the future so you don’t have to wade through a bunch of stuff before finding the root of the issue. Until next time, Keep Studying the Scripture.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
