The posting of links does not constitute an endorsement of the blogs linked, and not necessarily even agreement with the posts linked.
Adultery and Fornication
A Statement on Divorce and Remarriage in the Life of Bethlehem Baptist Church
Divorce and Remarriage: Why Didn't We See This Before?
Divorce, Remarriage and Ministry: What Did Jesus Say?
How Jerks Define the Golden Life Culture and Politics - Sex and Culture
Must Marriage be Legal to be Blessed by God?
Should a Minister Officiate at the Weddings of Unbelievers?
Should All Women Submit to All Men?
The Husband of One Wife
What constitutes marriage according to the Bible?
Wednesday, March 14, 2012
Monday, March 12, 2012
Rank strangers
The song "Rank Strangers" reaches down to some lonely place in many of us, where we feel pilgrims and foreigners, outsiders in a strange place we used to know. But we hold the promise of a place we'll meet friends and loved, and even those we never knew are not strangers!
I wandered again to my home in the mountains.
Where in youth’s early dawn, I was happy and free.
I looked for my friends, but I never could find them.
I found they were all rank strangers to me.
Everybody I met seemed to be a rank stranger.
No mother nor dad, not a friend could I see.
They knew not my name, and I knew not their faces.
I found they were all rank strangers to me.
They’ve all gone away, said the voice of a stranger.
To a beautiful land by the bright crystal sea.
Some beautiful day, I’ll meet them in heaven.
Where no one will be a stranger to me.
I wandered again to my home in the mountains.
Where in youth’s early dawn, I was happy and free.
I looked for my friends, but I never could find them.
I found they were all rank strangers to me.
Everybody I met seemed to be a rank stranger.
No mother nor dad, not a friend could I see.
They knew not my name, and I knew not their faces.
I found they were all rank strangers to me.
They’ve all gone away, said the voice of a stranger.
To a beautiful land by the bright crystal sea.
Some beautiful day, I’ll meet them in heaven.
Where no one will be a stranger to me.
Sunday, March 11, 2012
Obligatory rant
On Sunday March 11, 2012, the Sun rose about 1 minute earlier than it rose on Saturday the 10th. But to hear our clocks tell it, the Sun rose 59 minutes later. Men scurried and worried. The buffalo continued to roam, and deer & antelope played as if nothing had changed.
Friday, March 09, 2012
Trust and thanks
“For all that has been, thank you. For all that is to come, Yes!” ― Dag Hammarskjöld, from Markings
Tuesday, March 06, 2012
What about free speech?
Last week Rush Limbaugh clearly opened his mouth wide and stuck his foot in it. He almost swallowed it whole! A Georgetown Law School student testified before the Democratic Steering and Policy Committee on Thursday February 23 about contraception and health care coverage. According to reports*, Limbaugh called her a “slut” and a “prostitute.”
The internet is covered up with this topic on blogs and forums. I don't want to directly address the views of Sandra Fluke (the law student), with which I disagree, or the tirade of Limbaugh, with which I also disagree. What has caught my attention is the reaction of opponents of Limbaugh, who have turned this into a crusade to get all his sponsors to drop him and have him fail so as to go off the air (or get kicked off). This brings to mind the question to me what these crusaders believe about free speech.
Should Limbaugh have called the lady these names? No. From what I read in her transcript she really didn't even speak for herself, but rather for others. Makes me wonder whether Rush even read or heard what she said?? But what about the mentality that is not satisfied to disagree with and condemn his speech, and even quit supporting those who sponsor him. No, they have launched a national campaign to pursue him until he is driven off the air. Perhaps I just can't comprehend it because I don't have a protest mentality. I'm not into "boycotting". There are plenty on the right that share this protest mentality with the left and also follow in hot pursuit whenever they smell blood in the water. Seems to me a more balanced view of free speech disagrees, debates -- maybe even sues if libel is involved -- but is not maniacally driven to see that someone's speech is completely shut down. Clearly those sharks pursuing Limbaugh now aren't just protecting and supporting Sandra Fluke -- they have an agenda and they hate Limbaugh's speech.
Or am I missing something?
[*Note: there is no question that he did so, I only word it this way because I didn't hear it myself.]
The internet is covered up with this topic on blogs and forums. I don't want to directly address the views of Sandra Fluke (the law student), with which I disagree, or the tirade of Limbaugh, with which I also disagree. What has caught my attention is the reaction of opponents of Limbaugh, who have turned this into a crusade to get all his sponsors to drop him and have him fail so as to go off the air (or get kicked off). This brings to mind the question to me what these crusaders believe about free speech.
Should Limbaugh have called the lady these names? No. From what I read in her transcript she really didn't even speak for herself, but rather for others. Makes me wonder whether Rush even read or heard what she said?? But what about the mentality that is not satisfied to disagree with and condemn his speech, and even quit supporting those who sponsor him. No, they have launched a national campaign to pursue him until he is driven off the air. Perhaps I just can't comprehend it because I don't have a protest mentality. I'm not into "boycotting". There are plenty on the right that share this protest mentality with the left and also follow in hot pursuit whenever they smell blood in the water. Seems to me a more balanced view of free speech disagrees, debates -- maybe even sues if libel is involved -- but is not maniacally driven to see that someone's speech is completely shut down. Clearly those sharks pursuing Limbaugh now aren't just protecting and supporting Sandra Fluke -- they have an agenda and they hate Limbaugh's speech.
Or am I missing something?
[*Note: there is no question that he did so, I only word it this way because I didn't hear it myself.]
Monday, March 05, 2012
Abortion statistics
Last Friday I posted some Readings on Abortion. To follow up, here are some facts on abortion.
The Center for Bio-Ethical Reform (CBER) gives a good bit of information. The statistics at their site "are derived from pro-abortion sources courtesy of The Alan Guttmacher Institute and Planned Parenthood's Family Planning Perspectives." The CBER is a pro-life group dedicated to ending abortion. Using Guttmacher/Planned Parenthood stats assures that we are not trying skew the numbers with pro-life "spin", as these numbers come from a pro-abortion industry.
The most recent statistics for annual abortions performed in the U.S. are from 2008. According to the Guttmacher Institute, 1.21 million abortions were performed in the United States in 2008. The CBER also notes: "1% of all abortions occur because of rape or incest; 6% of abortions occur because of potential health problems regarding either the mother or child, and 93% of all abortions occur for social reasons (i.e. the child is unwanted or inconvenient)."
This is interesting, because "rape, incest and the life of the mother" are the reasons for abortion used to gain pity from the general populace. Yet based on the abortion industry's own numbers, only 7% of abortions are performed for reasons of rape, incest or the life of the mother. Of the 1.21 million abortions performed annually, 1.12 million occur for "social reasons" that have nothing to do with the sympathetic trio that is put forward by abortionists.
The Center for Bio-Ethical Reform (CBER) gives a good bit of information. The statistics at their site "are derived from pro-abortion sources courtesy of The Alan Guttmacher Institute and Planned Parenthood's Family Planning Perspectives." The CBER is a pro-life group dedicated to ending abortion. Using Guttmacher/Planned Parenthood stats assures that we are not trying skew the numbers with pro-life "spin", as these numbers come from a pro-abortion industry.
The most recent statistics for annual abortions performed in the U.S. are from 2008. According to the Guttmacher Institute, 1.21 million abortions were performed in the United States in 2008. The CBER also notes: "1% of all abortions occur because of rape or incest; 6% of abortions occur because of potential health problems regarding either the mother or child, and 93% of all abortions occur for social reasons (i.e. the child is unwanted or inconvenient)."
This is interesting, because "rape, incest and the life of the mother" are the reasons for abortion used to gain pity from the general populace. Yet based on the abortion industry's own numbers, only 7% of abortions are performed for reasons of rape, incest or the life of the mother. Of the 1.21 million abortions performed annually, 1.12 million occur for "social reasons" that have nothing to do with the sympathetic trio that is put forward by abortionists.
Sunday, March 04, 2012
Most popular posts
For some reason, the post Who Can Baptize? has remained the most popular, most "hit" or searched for of all. I think it is not because of the post itself, but because of the frequency of Google searches about who can baptize or who is authorized to baptize. I hope this indicates a sincere interest in what the Bible says about the subject.
Another frequently hit post is Biblical Principles for Church Music (2) . And what seems curious to me is the number of times people link to read the short poem The Lone Wild Bird. Evidently lots of folks are curious about it. It rivals "Who Can Baptize" for most looked at post.
I don't know whether these posts are making any impact, but I find it interesting to see what folks are reading.
Another frequently hit post is Biblical Principles for Church Music (2) . And what seems curious to me is the number of times people link to read the short poem The Lone Wild Bird. Evidently lots of folks are curious about it. It rivals "Who Can Baptize" for most looked at post.
I don't know whether these posts are making any impact, but I find it interesting to see what folks are reading.
Saturday, March 03, 2012
Baptists and the Bible
Following are a number of Baptist confessions of faith describing their belief on the Word of God. Though there are variations, all state a high view of the Word of God, inspired and sufficient, “the sufficient rule of faith and practice.” They are generally ordered from newer to older. Scripture references were removed to save space.
Baptist Faith and Message, 2000 (Southern Baptist Convention)
I. The Holy Bible was written by men divinely inspired and is God's revelation of Himself to man. It is a perfect treasure of divine instruction. It has God for its author, salvation for its end, and truth, without any mixture of error, for its matter. Therefore, all Scripture is totally true and trustworthy. It reveals the principles by which God judges us, and therefore is, and will remain to the end of the world, the true center of Christian union, and the supreme standard by which all human conduct, creeds, and religious opinions should be tried. All Scripture is a testimony to Christ, who is Himself the focus of divine revelation.
Doctrinal Statement of the Missionary Baptist Association of Texas
1. We believe in the plenary verbal inspiration and inerrancy of the whole Bible as originally written, and that the Bible is the all-sufficient rule of faith and practice.
Doctrinal Statement of the Baptist Missionary Association of America
II. THE SCRIPTURES
A. The Scriptures are God's inerrant revelation, complete in the Old and New Testaments, written by divinely inspired men as they were moved by the Holy Spirit. Those men wrote not in words of human wisdom but in words taught by the Holy Spirit.
B. The Scriptures provide the standard for the believer's faith and practice, reveal the principles by which God will judge all, and express the true basis of Christian fellowship.
Articles of Faith of the General Association of Regular Baptists
I. Of the Scriptures
We believe in the authority and sufficiency of the Holy Bible, consisting of the sixty-six books of the Old and New Testaments, as originally written; that it was verbally and plenarily inspired and is the product of Spirit-controlled men, and therefore is infallible and inerrant in all matters of which it speaks.
We believe the Bible to be the true center of Christian unity and the supreme standard by which all human conduct, creed and opinions shall be tried.
Doctrinal Statement of the American Baptist Association
2. We believe in the infallible, verbal inspiration of the whole Bible and that the Bible is the all-sufficient rule of faith and practice.
Abstract of Principles of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, 1858
The Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments were given by inspiration of God, and are the only sufficient, certain and authoritative rule of all saving knowledge, faith and obedience.
New Hampshire Baptist Confession of Faith, 1833
1. Of the Scriptures We believe that the Holy Bible was written by men divinely inspired, and is a perfect treasure of heavenly instruction; that it has God for its author, salvation for its end, and truth without any mixture of error for its matter; that it reveals the principles by which God will judge us; and therefore is, and shall remain to the end of the world, the true center of Christian union, and the supreme standard by which all human conduct, creeds, and opinions should be tried.
Mississippi Baptist Association Articles of Faith, 1806
2. We believe the scriptures of the Old and New Testament were given by inspiration of God, are of Divine authority, and the only rule of faith and practice.
Kehukee Baptist Association articles, adopted 1777
II. We believe that Almighty God has made known His mind and will to the children of men in His word; which word we believe to be of Divine authority, and contains all things necessary to be known for the salvation of men and women. The same is comprehended or contained in the books of the Old and New Testaments as are commonly received.
Ketocton Association Articles Of Faith, 1766
That the Holy Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments are the word of God; that they were given by divine inspiration, and that this system of revelation comprehends everything necessary for us to know concerning God, and the direction of our obedience to Him. By this divine book, God hath made revelation of His gracious design in saving poor sinners, and pointing out the way through the mediation of the Lord Jesus; that through the instrumentality of this sacred word, that stubborn and obstinate sinners are brought into the ordinances of faith, and the incorrigible left without excuse; and that by this word of the Lord all men shall be judged in the last day.
Principles of Faith of the Sandy Creek Association, 1758
II. That Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments are the word of God, and only rule of faith and practice.
Carter Lane Declaration of Faith, 1757
We believe, That the Scriptures of the Old and New Testament, are the Words of God, and the only rule of faith and practice.
The Philadelphia Confession, 1742
1. The Holy Scripture is the only sufficient, certain, and infallible rule of all saving knowledge, faith and obedience; although the light of nature, and the works of creation and providence do so far manifest the goodness, wisdom, and power of God, as to leave men unexcusable; yet are they not sufficient to give that knowledge of God and His will, which is necessary unto salvation. Therefore it pleased the Lord at sundry times, and in divers manners to reveal Himself, and to declare that His will unto His church; and afterwards for the better preserving and propagating of the truth, and for the more sure establishment, and comfort of the church against the corruption of the flesh, and the malice of Satan, and the world, to commit the same wholly unto writing; which maketh the Holy Scriptures to be most necessary, those former ways of God's revealing His will unto His people being now ceased.
Goat Yard Declaration of Faith, 1729
I. We believe that the Scriptures of the Old and New Testament are the word of God, and the only rule of faith and practice.
London Baptist Confession, 1677/1689
1. The Holy Scripture is the only sufficient, certain, and infallible rule of all saving knowledge, faith, and obedience, although the light of nature, and the works of creation and providence do so far manifest the goodness, wisdom, and power of God, as to leave men inexcusable; yet are they not sufficient to give that knowledge of God and his will which is necessary unto salvation. Therefore it pleased the Lord at sundry times and in divers manners to reveal himself, and to declare that his will unto his church; and afterward for the better preserving and propagating of the truth, and for the more sure establishment and comfort of the church against the corruption of the flesh, and the malice of Satan, and of the world, to commit the same wholly unto writing; which maketh the Holy Scriptures to be most necessary, those former ways of God's revealing his will unto his people being now ceased.
London Baptist Confession of 1646
VIII. The rule of this knowledge, faith, and obedience, concerning the worship of God, in which is contained the whole duty of man, is (not men's laws, or unwritten traditions, but) only the word of God contained [viz., written] in the holy Scriptures; in which is plainly recorded whatsoever is needful for us to know, believe, and practice; which are the only rule of holiness and obedience for all saints, at all times, in all places to be observed.
London Baptist Confession of 1644
VII. The rule of this knowledge, faith, and obedience, concerning the worship and service of God, and all other Christian duties, is not man's inventions, opinions, devices, laws, constitutions, or traditions unwritten whatsoever, but only the word of God contained in the Canonical Scriptures.
John Spilsbury's Confession, circa 1643
6. I believe the holy Scriptures to be the word of God, and have the only authority to bind the conscience to the obedience of all therein contained, and are the all sufficient rule, by the Spirit of God to guide a man in all his obedience both to God and man.
Waldensian Confessions of Faith, 1520
3. We acknowledge for sacred canonical scriptures the books of the Holy Bible. (Here follows the title of each, exactly conformable to our received canon, but which it is deemed, on that account, quite unnecessary to particularize.)
Though the General Baptists diverge from Regular Baptists on certain doctrines, their statements on the Scriptures are consistent with the Regular Baptist confessions.
Treatise of the Faith and Practices of the Free Will Baptists, 1843
I. The Holy Scriptures
These are the Old and the New Testaments; they were written by holy men, inspired by the Holy Spirit, and are God's revealed word to man. They are a sufficient and infallible rule and guide to salvation and all Christian worship and service.
Since the Bible is the Word of God, it is without error in all matters upon which it speaks, whether history, geography, matters relating to science or any other subject.
Liberty Association Articles of Faith, 1824
That the Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments are the infallible word of God, and the only rule of faith and practice.
Interestingly, I found some older confessions of faith did not have a paragraph on the Scriptures. Yet even in these their position on the Scriptures is implied, because it is to the Scriptures they appeal to found all the doctrines in their articles. As for the Separate Baptists, the Bible was their confession of faith.
Baptist Faith and Message, 2000 (Southern Baptist Convention)
I. The Holy Bible was written by men divinely inspired and is God's revelation of Himself to man. It is a perfect treasure of divine instruction. It has God for its author, salvation for its end, and truth, without any mixture of error, for its matter. Therefore, all Scripture is totally true and trustworthy. It reveals the principles by which God judges us, and therefore is, and will remain to the end of the world, the true center of Christian union, and the supreme standard by which all human conduct, creeds, and religious opinions should be tried. All Scripture is a testimony to Christ, who is Himself the focus of divine revelation.
Doctrinal Statement of the Missionary Baptist Association of Texas
1. We believe in the plenary verbal inspiration and inerrancy of the whole Bible as originally written, and that the Bible is the all-sufficient rule of faith and practice.
Doctrinal Statement of the Baptist Missionary Association of America
II. THE SCRIPTURES
A. The Scriptures are God's inerrant revelation, complete in the Old and New Testaments, written by divinely inspired men as they were moved by the Holy Spirit. Those men wrote not in words of human wisdom but in words taught by the Holy Spirit.
B. The Scriptures provide the standard for the believer's faith and practice, reveal the principles by which God will judge all, and express the true basis of Christian fellowship.
Articles of Faith of the General Association of Regular Baptists
I. Of the Scriptures
We believe in the authority and sufficiency of the Holy Bible, consisting of the sixty-six books of the Old and New Testaments, as originally written; that it was verbally and plenarily inspired and is the product of Spirit-controlled men, and therefore is infallible and inerrant in all matters of which it speaks.
We believe the Bible to be the true center of Christian unity and the supreme standard by which all human conduct, creed and opinions shall be tried.
Doctrinal Statement of the American Baptist Association
2. We believe in the infallible, verbal inspiration of the whole Bible and that the Bible is the all-sufficient rule of faith and practice.
Abstract of Principles of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, 1858
The Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments were given by inspiration of God, and are the only sufficient, certain and authoritative rule of all saving knowledge, faith and obedience.
New Hampshire Baptist Confession of Faith, 1833
1. Of the Scriptures We believe that the Holy Bible was written by men divinely inspired, and is a perfect treasure of heavenly instruction; that it has God for its author, salvation for its end, and truth without any mixture of error for its matter; that it reveals the principles by which God will judge us; and therefore is, and shall remain to the end of the world, the true center of Christian union, and the supreme standard by which all human conduct, creeds, and opinions should be tried.
Mississippi Baptist Association Articles of Faith, 1806
2. We believe the scriptures of the Old and New Testament were given by inspiration of God, are of Divine authority, and the only rule of faith and practice.
Kehukee Baptist Association articles, adopted 1777
II. We believe that Almighty God has made known His mind and will to the children of men in His word; which word we believe to be of Divine authority, and contains all things necessary to be known for the salvation of men and women. The same is comprehended or contained in the books of the Old and New Testaments as are commonly received.
Ketocton Association Articles Of Faith, 1766
That the Holy Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments are the word of God; that they were given by divine inspiration, and that this system of revelation comprehends everything necessary for us to know concerning God, and the direction of our obedience to Him. By this divine book, God hath made revelation of His gracious design in saving poor sinners, and pointing out the way through the mediation of the Lord Jesus; that through the instrumentality of this sacred word, that stubborn and obstinate sinners are brought into the ordinances of faith, and the incorrigible left without excuse; and that by this word of the Lord all men shall be judged in the last day.
Principles of Faith of the Sandy Creek Association, 1758
II. That Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments are the word of God, and only rule of faith and practice.
Carter Lane Declaration of Faith, 1757
We believe, That the Scriptures of the Old and New Testament, are the Words of God, and the only rule of faith and practice.
The Philadelphia Confession, 1742
1. The Holy Scripture is the only sufficient, certain, and infallible rule of all saving knowledge, faith and obedience; although the light of nature, and the works of creation and providence do so far manifest the goodness, wisdom, and power of God, as to leave men unexcusable; yet are they not sufficient to give that knowledge of God and His will, which is necessary unto salvation. Therefore it pleased the Lord at sundry times, and in divers manners to reveal Himself, and to declare that His will unto His church; and afterwards for the better preserving and propagating of the truth, and for the more sure establishment, and comfort of the church against the corruption of the flesh, and the malice of Satan, and the world, to commit the same wholly unto writing; which maketh the Holy Scriptures to be most necessary, those former ways of God's revealing His will unto His people being now ceased.
Goat Yard Declaration of Faith, 1729
I. We believe that the Scriptures of the Old and New Testament are the word of God, and the only rule of faith and practice.
London Baptist Confession, 1677/1689
1. The Holy Scripture is the only sufficient, certain, and infallible rule of all saving knowledge, faith, and obedience, although the light of nature, and the works of creation and providence do so far manifest the goodness, wisdom, and power of God, as to leave men inexcusable; yet are they not sufficient to give that knowledge of God and his will which is necessary unto salvation. Therefore it pleased the Lord at sundry times and in divers manners to reveal himself, and to declare that his will unto his church; and afterward for the better preserving and propagating of the truth, and for the more sure establishment and comfort of the church against the corruption of the flesh, and the malice of Satan, and of the world, to commit the same wholly unto writing; which maketh the Holy Scriptures to be most necessary, those former ways of God's revealing his will unto his people being now ceased.
London Baptist Confession of 1646
VIII. The rule of this knowledge, faith, and obedience, concerning the worship of God, in which is contained the whole duty of man, is (not men's laws, or unwritten traditions, but) only the word of God contained [viz., written] in the holy Scriptures; in which is plainly recorded whatsoever is needful for us to know, believe, and practice; which are the only rule of holiness and obedience for all saints, at all times, in all places to be observed.
London Baptist Confession of 1644
VII. The rule of this knowledge, faith, and obedience, concerning the worship and service of God, and all other Christian duties, is not man's inventions, opinions, devices, laws, constitutions, or traditions unwritten whatsoever, but only the word of God contained in the Canonical Scriptures.
John Spilsbury's Confession, circa 1643
6. I believe the holy Scriptures to be the word of God, and have the only authority to bind the conscience to the obedience of all therein contained, and are the all sufficient rule, by the Spirit of God to guide a man in all his obedience both to God and man.
Waldensian Confessions of Faith, 1520
3. We acknowledge for sacred canonical scriptures the books of the Holy Bible. (Here follows the title of each, exactly conformable to our received canon, but which it is deemed, on that account, quite unnecessary to particularize.)
Though the General Baptists diverge from Regular Baptists on certain doctrines, their statements on the Scriptures are consistent with the Regular Baptist confessions.
Treatise of the Faith and Practices of the Free Will Baptists, 1843
I. The Holy Scriptures
These are the Old and the New Testaments; they were written by holy men, inspired by the Holy Spirit, and are God's revealed word to man. They are a sufficient and infallible rule and guide to salvation and all Christian worship and service.
Since the Bible is the Word of God, it is without error in all matters upon which it speaks, whether history, geography, matters relating to science or any other subject.
Liberty Association Articles of Faith, 1824
That the Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments are the infallible word of God, and the only rule of faith and practice.
Interestingly, I found some older confessions of faith did not have a paragraph on the Scriptures. Yet even in these their position on the Scriptures is implied, because it is to the Scriptures they appeal to found all the doctrines in their articles. As for the Separate Baptists, the Bible was their confession of faith.
Wednesday, February 29, 2012
Baptist historical documents on the web
Some online Baptist history documents resources, in “random order”:
Missions
Works by, about or associated with William Carey
A Public Address to the Baptist Society by Daniel Parker
Thoughts on Missions by John Taylor (1819)
Black Rock Address (1832)
Origins
Did They Dip? by John T. Christian
A Welsh Succession of Primitive Baptist Faith and Practice by Michael N. Ivey
A Critique of the English Separatist Descent Theory in Baptist Historiography by Philip R. Bryan
A Vindication of the Continued Succession of the Primitive Church of Jesus Christ (Now Scandalously Termed AnaBaptists) From the Apostles to the Present Time by John Spittlehouse & John More
Anabaptist Primary Documents
Critical Issues Relating to the Origin of the Baptists by Philip R. Bryan
The Kiffin Manuscript (c. 1640)
Geographical
History of Landmark Baptists of California
Baptist Annals of Oregon
Faith and Practice
Notes on the Principles and Practices of Baptist Churches by Francis Wayland
Remarks on Church Discipline by Daniel Parker
What is it to Eat and Drink Unworthily? by J. R. Graves
Baptized In The Spirit by B. H. Carroll
The Anabaptist View of the Church by T. D. Williams
A Short Treatise Concerning a True and Orderly Gospel Church (1743)
Miscellaneous
The Old School Particular Baptist Library
History of Clear Creek Church, and Campbellism Exposed by John Taylor
Exposition of the Views of Baptists, Relative to the Coloured Population in the United States by Richard Furman
The writings of the late Elder John Leland: including some events in his life (Google books)
The writings of the late Elder John Leland: including some events in his life (Archive.org)
The McPherson-Bogard Debate on “Miraculous Divine Healing”
From “Funnymentalist” to friend: the evolving relationship of Ben M. Bogard and J. Frank Norris
Plan of Union between Separate Baptists and Regular Baptists (1801)
Baptist History Homepage
Missions
Works by, about or associated with William Carey
A Public Address to the Baptist Society by Daniel Parker
Thoughts on Missions by John Taylor (1819)
Black Rock Address (1832)
Origins
Did They Dip? by John T. Christian
A Welsh Succession of Primitive Baptist Faith and Practice by Michael N. Ivey
A Critique of the English Separatist Descent Theory in Baptist Historiography by Philip R. Bryan
A Vindication of the Continued Succession of the Primitive Church of Jesus Christ (Now Scandalously Termed AnaBaptists) From the Apostles to the Present Time by John Spittlehouse & John More
Anabaptist Primary Documents
Critical Issues Relating to the Origin of the Baptists by Philip R. Bryan
The Kiffin Manuscript (c. 1640)
Geographical
History of Landmark Baptists of California
Baptist Annals of Oregon
Faith and Practice
Notes on the Principles and Practices of Baptist Churches by Francis Wayland
Remarks on Church Discipline by Daniel Parker
What is it to Eat and Drink Unworthily? by J. R. Graves
Baptized In The Spirit by B. H. Carroll
The Anabaptist View of the Church by T. D. Williams
A Short Treatise Concerning a True and Orderly Gospel Church (1743)
Miscellaneous
The Old School Particular Baptist Library
History of Clear Creek Church, and Campbellism Exposed by John Taylor
Exposition of the Views of Baptists, Relative to the Coloured Population in the United States by Richard Furman
The writings of the late Elder John Leland: including some events in his life (Google books)
The writings of the late Elder John Leland: including some events in his life (Archive.org)
The McPherson-Bogard Debate on “Miraculous Divine Healing”
From “Funnymentalist” to friend: the evolving relationship of Ben M. Bogard and J. Frank Norris
Plan of Union between Separate Baptists and Regular Baptists (1801)
Baptist History Homepage
Sunday, February 26, 2012
Three-fold church cord
A three-fold cord is not easily broken (Cf. Ecclesiastes 4:12). Three strong strands of the woven church cord are:
1. Orthodoxy – right belief
Believing the Bible and being faithful to its doctrines of the faith is a requirement of God's people. Who can say he loves God and not believe & keep His words? The word of God is given by inspiration of God (II Tim 3:16-17). The faithful Christian believes it and studies to show himself approved of God (II Tim 2:15). All doctrines and teachings are brought to its mirror to see whether these things are so (Acts 17:11).
2. Orthopraxy – right practice
The work of the church is summed up in what is best known as the Great Commission (Matt. 28:18-20). This summary is displayed fully in the New Testament in the recorded outworkings of the Holy Spirit through His church. New Testament Christianity means New Testament practice (I Cor. 11:2; 14:33). The faithful representing of Christ and the gospel to the world is faithful to the Word of God in the New Testament, which is our only rule of faith and practice (Acts 20:2027-28; II Tim. 4:2).
3. Orthokardy – right heart
If the heart of the matter is not right, our doctrine and practice is merely a noisy racket that is annoying and unappealing (I Cor. 13:1-3). A supreme evidence of genuine Christianity is the love of brothers and sisters in Christ (John 13:35; I John 3:14). The “local church” (gathered congregation) is not just an important doctrine -- it is a functioning reality. The true heart of love spills out in committed fellowship for and blessed unity with one another.
Too often we try to make the cord with one strand, or two at the most. May God help us not weave amiss.
[Note: “orthokardy” suggested by Francis Shaeffer's “orthokardia of community” via Trevin Wax.]
1. Orthodoxy – right belief
Believing the Bible and being faithful to its doctrines of the faith is a requirement of God's people. Who can say he loves God and not believe & keep His words? The word of God is given by inspiration of God (II Tim 3:16-17). The faithful Christian believes it and studies to show himself approved of God (II Tim 2:15). All doctrines and teachings are brought to its mirror to see whether these things are so (Acts 17:11).
2. Orthopraxy – right practice
The work of the church is summed up in what is best known as the Great Commission (Matt. 28:18-20). This summary is displayed fully in the New Testament in the recorded outworkings of the Holy Spirit through His church. New Testament Christianity means New Testament practice (I Cor. 11:2; 14:33). The faithful representing of Christ and the gospel to the world is faithful to the Word of God in the New Testament, which is our only rule of faith and practice (Acts 20:2027-28; II Tim. 4:2).
3. Orthokardy – right heart
If the heart of the matter is not right, our doctrine and practice is merely a noisy racket that is annoying and unappealing (I Cor. 13:1-3). A supreme evidence of genuine Christianity is the love of brothers and sisters in Christ (John 13:35; I John 3:14). The “local church” (gathered congregation) is not just an important doctrine -- it is a functioning reality. The true heart of love spills out in committed fellowship for and blessed unity with one another.
Too often we try to make the cord with one strand, or two at the most. May God help us not weave amiss.
[Note: “orthokardy” suggested by Francis Shaeffer's “orthokardia of community” via Trevin Wax.]
Friday, February 24, 2012
Readings on Abortion
The posting of links does not constitute an endorsement of the blogs linked, and not necessarily even agreement with the posts linked.
“Abortion is as American as Apple Pie” — The Culture of Death Finds a Voice
A Non-Religious Argument Against Abortion
Map: Record Number of State Abortion Laws in 2011
Marking Four Decades of Abortion Politics
The Case Against Abortion: Abortion Techniques
True Story of a Baby Saved from Abortion
“Abortion is as American as Apple Pie” — The Culture of Death Finds a Voice
A Non-Religious Argument Against Abortion
Map: Record Number of State Abortion Laws in 2011
Marking Four Decades of Abortion Politics
The Case Against Abortion: Abortion Techniques
True Story of a Baby Saved from Abortion
Thursday, February 23, 2012
Readings about infants and children
The posting of links does not constitute an endorsement of the blogs linked, and not necessarily even agreement with the posts linked.
These readings offer a wide variety of subjects and opinions on the subjects of infant salvation, infant baptism, child baptism and so forth. Read them with thoughtfulness and reflection, an open mind and a Berean spirit.
How Are Our Children Saved?
How do you discern the conversion of a child?
Infant salvation
John The Baptist: Saved in the Womb?
Letter to a friend about Matt 19.14 and infant salvation
On Calvinism and Infant Salvation: A Brief Proposal
On Calvinism and Infant Salvation: A Brief Proposal, II
Romanian Forum: On the Baptism of Small Children
Should We Baptize Small Children?
The Age of Accountability
The Age (or State) of Accountability
The Baptism of Children
What happens to Infants and Children Who Die?
These readings offer a wide variety of subjects and opinions on the subjects of infant salvation, infant baptism, child baptism and so forth. Read them with thoughtfulness and reflection, an open mind and a Berean spirit.
How Are Our Children Saved?
How do you discern the conversion of a child?
Infant salvation
John The Baptist: Saved in the Womb?
Letter to a friend about Matt 19.14 and infant salvation
On Calvinism and Infant Salvation: A Brief Proposal
On Calvinism and Infant Salvation: A Brief Proposal, II
Romanian Forum: On the Baptism of Small Children
Should We Baptize Small Children?
The Age of Accountability
The Age (or State) of Accountability
The Baptism of Children
What happens to Infants and Children Who Die?
Wednesday, February 22, 2012
The Astonishing Savior from McInnis
HE is an “astonishing SAVIOR” because HE:
Despised the “righteous” (i.e.; in their own eyes) and companied with sinners. (Cf. Matt. 9:10-13)
Gained HIS greatest victory by dying. (Cf. Col. 2:14-15)
Was wounded in the house of HIS friends and died to save HIS enemies (i.e.; in their own minds). (Cf. Rom. 5:7-10)
Embraced death and destroyed it in one fell swoop. (I Pet. 1:3)
Excerpts from "The Astonishing Savior" by Mike McInnis | Grace Gazette, Volume X, Issue 4
Despised the “righteous” (i.e.; in their own eyes) and companied with sinners. (Cf. Matt. 9:10-13)
Gained HIS greatest victory by dying. (Cf. Col. 2:14-15)
Was wounded in the house of HIS friends and died to save HIS enemies (i.e.; in their own minds). (Cf. Rom. 5:7-10)
Embraced death and destroyed it in one fell swoop. (I Pet. 1:3)
Excerpts from "The Astonishing Savior" by Mike McInnis | Grace Gazette, Volume X, Issue 4
Monday, February 20, 2012
Question for President's Day
Why is the current president called the 44th President of the United States if only 43 men have served this country as President?
Saturday, February 18, 2012
Five senses of our Saviour
The Lord who made our bodies gave us five senses for function and pleasure. With our eyes we see. With our ears we hear. With our nose we smell. With our tongue we taste. With our hands we feel. The senses keep us from danger, direct us to good, and enrich our lives. We see and feel and move in the physical realm. Through these "gates" we experience life. In the corresponding spiritual realm, by five spiritual senses we experience God.
Hear. The senses function in the living and are silent in death. Only God can speak so that the dead can hear. John 5:25, John 11, John 10:16,27
Taste. There is no comparable experience to describe what we taste. If we have not tasted a thing, no amount of descriptions can mediate that knowledge to us. Taste and you will see His fruit is sweet. Psalm 34:8, Song 2:3
Smell. The sacrifice of Christ is a sweet smelling offering to God, and also becomes such to those who trust in Him. Ephesians 5:2, Song 1:3, II Cor. 2:14, Job 27:3
Touch. God is not far from all that wish to feel for Him. There is power in His touch. Acts 17:27, Luke 6:19, Mark 3:10, 5:30-31
See. He is the light, and gives sight to the blind that they may see Him. Oh, that we might see Jesus only! John 9:5-7, Psalm 119:18, Matt. 17:8, Heb. 12:14
May our spiritual senses be heightened to take in a blessed experience of God, that we might know Him.
O, taste and see, o, taste and see,
The Lord is good, is good to me;
His taste is rich, flavor divine:
Sweeter than honey, stronger than wine.
O, taste and see, the Lord is good:
Thirst-quenching drink; soul-building food.
His food sustains me from the first;
Drinking from His well, I never thirst.
Hear. The senses function in the living and are silent in death. Only God can speak so that the dead can hear. John 5:25, John 11, John 10:16,27
Taste. There is no comparable experience to describe what we taste. If we have not tasted a thing, no amount of descriptions can mediate that knowledge to us. Taste and you will see His fruit is sweet. Psalm 34:8, Song 2:3
Smell. The sacrifice of Christ is a sweet smelling offering to God, and also becomes such to those who trust in Him. Ephesians 5:2, Song 1:3, II Cor. 2:14, Job 27:3
Touch. God is not far from all that wish to feel for Him. There is power in His touch. Acts 17:27, Luke 6:19, Mark 3:10, 5:30-31
See. He is the light, and gives sight to the blind that they may see Him. Oh, that we might see Jesus only! John 9:5-7, Psalm 119:18, Matt. 17:8, Heb. 12:14
May our spiritual senses be heightened to take in a blessed experience of God, that we might know Him.
O, taste and see, o, taste and see,
The Lord is good, is good to me;
His taste is rich, flavor divine:
Sweeter than honey, stronger than wine.
O, taste and see, the Lord is good:
Thirst-quenching drink; soul-building food.
His food sustains me from the first;
Drinking from His well, I never thirst.
Thursday, February 16, 2012
Readings on politics and politicians
The posting of links does not constitute an endorsement of the blogs linked, and not necessarily even agreement with the posts linked.
Evangelical Leader Dr. Jim Linzey Appeals to Americans to Support Ron Paul for President in 2012
Newt Gingrich & Evangelicals: Strange Bedfellows
The Third Party Interest: Religion on the Campaign Trail
Which GOP candidate gets the Baptist vote?
Why I Am Not A Libertarian
Why Ron Paul?
Why this Southern Baptist Cannot Support Mitt Romney for President
10 reasons religious conservatives love Rick Santorum
Evangelical Leader Dr. Jim Linzey Appeals to Americans to Support Ron Paul for President in 2012
Newt Gingrich & Evangelicals: Strange Bedfellows
The Third Party Interest: Religion on the Campaign Trail
Which GOP candidate gets the Baptist vote?
Why I Am Not A Libertarian
Why Ron Paul?
Why this Southern Baptist Cannot Support Mitt Romney for President
10 reasons religious conservatives love Rick Santorum
Wednesday, February 15, 2012
Everlasting Father by Royce Smith
I understand the reluctance of some to accept the phrase the everlasting father (Isa. 9:6) in reference to our Lord Jesus Christ because it seems to confound Him with God the Father. Does the fact God is called Spirit in John 4:24 confound Him with the Holy Spirit who is often called the Spirit? Or must we confine the reference in John 4:24 to the Holy Spirit because this name might confound the persons of the Father and Holy Spirit?
Let me cite two passages which refer to our Lord Jesus Christ as having children. Psalm 45:16 quotes the Father as saying to our Lord Jesus Christ, "Instead of thy fathers shall be thy children, whom thou mayest make princes in all the earth." Hebrews 2:13 quotes our Lord Jesus Christ as saying, "And again I will put my trust in him, and again, Behold I and the children which God hath given me." The phrase "Behold, I and the children which God hath given me" is a quotation from the Hebrew text of Isaiah 8:18. Now, if our Lord Jesus Christ has children given to Him, then He must be a Father to them. Since they were given to Him in the everlasting covenant, wouldn't He be an everlasting Father? In my simple way of thinking, it seems better to interpret the phrase everlasting Father of our Lord Jesus on the basis of the statements in Psalm 45:16, Hebrews 2:13, and Isaiah 8:18 than to cast doubt on the validity of the Hebrew text. -- By Royce Smith, Bethel Baptist Church, Choctaw, OK
Let me cite two passages which refer to our Lord Jesus Christ as having children. Psalm 45:16 quotes the Father as saying to our Lord Jesus Christ, "Instead of thy fathers shall be thy children, whom thou mayest make princes in all the earth." Hebrews 2:13 quotes our Lord Jesus Christ as saying, "And again I will put my trust in him, and again, Behold I and the children which God hath given me." The phrase "Behold, I and the children which God hath given me" is a quotation from the Hebrew text of Isaiah 8:18. Now, if our Lord Jesus Christ has children given to Him, then He must be a Father to them. Since they were given to Him in the everlasting covenant, wouldn't He be an everlasting Father? In my simple way of thinking, it seems better to interpret the phrase everlasting Father of our Lord Jesus on the basis of the statements in Psalm 45:16, Hebrews 2:13, and Isaiah 8:18 than to cast doubt on the validity of the Hebrew text. -- By Royce Smith, Bethel Baptist Church, Choctaw, OK
Saturday, February 11, 2012
After that he may drink wine
The Nazarite vow is often mentioned as an example for abstinence today, because of its restriction of drinking wine and strong drink. The entire context of the Nazarite is a separation while under his vow from things that were otherwise allowable. In addition to wine and strong drink, the Nazarite was prohibited from grapes, raisins, grape juice (“liquor of the grape”, KJV), grape vinegar – in fact any product of the grapevine (“nothing that is made of the vine tree”, KJV). Separation from “all things grape” was not the only restriction, however. The Nazarite must not cut his hair but rather allow his locks to grow. He also could not touch a dead body, even an immediate member of his family. (Under the law even a priest could become unclean for the death of an immediate family member.) The Nazarite would fulfill the number of days of his vow (apparently determined by the one making the vow), make the proper offerings, “and after that the Nazarite may drink wine.” Here “may drink wine” is a figure of speech, a synecdoche in which “wine” stands for being released from the entire vow. Being released, they may drink wine, strong drink and the liquor of grapes; eat grapes, raisins, and other products of the grapevine. Restrictions concerning hair and dead bodies default to the regular customs prior the vow.
That the Nazarite was commanded to abstain from the consumption of wine and strong drink while under his vow shows that he normally drank (or could drink) these products. After the vow is completed the Nazarite “may drink wine.” This is clear to the casual observer (and the not so casual!). It allows for the use of wine as a beverage. The Nazarite vow is devastating to the case for prohibition, unless one can prove that wine and strong drink do not here stand for a fermented beverage of the vine tree. Interestingly, in his exhaustive work on wine in the Old Testament, Robert Teachout tries to blunt the effect of this by translating wine (yayin) as “grape juice” in Numbers 6:20: “and afterward the Nazirite may drink grape juice.” Unless the release is only to “drink grape juice” the effort is nullified. The statement represents the fulfillment of the vow and return to normalcy. Teachout translates “wine and strong drink” (yayin and shekar) as “intoxicating wine” in verse 3. Is the Nazarite only released to drink grape juice, while remaining under all the other restrictions of the vow, or does Numbers 6:20 mean the Nazarite is released from the restrictions of the entire vow after its duration ends and offerings are made? The answer is obvious, and should give pause to the abstentionist and prohibitionist.
That the Nazarite was commanded to abstain from the consumption of wine and strong drink while under his vow shows that he normally drank (or could drink) these products. After the vow is completed the Nazarite “may drink wine.” This is clear to the casual observer (and the not so casual!). It allows for the use of wine as a beverage. The Nazarite vow is devastating to the case for prohibition, unless one can prove that wine and strong drink do not here stand for a fermented beverage of the vine tree. Interestingly, in his exhaustive work on wine in the Old Testament, Robert Teachout tries to blunt the effect of this by translating wine (yayin) as “grape juice” in Numbers 6:20: “and afterward the Nazirite may drink grape juice.” Unless the release is only to “drink grape juice” the effort is nullified. The statement represents the fulfillment of the vow and return to normalcy. Teachout translates “wine and strong drink” (yayin and shekar) as “intoxicating wine” in verse 3. Is the Nazarite only released to drink grape juice, while remaining under all the other restrictions of the vow, or does Numbers 6:20 mean the Nazarite is released from the restrictions of the entire vow after its duration ends and offerings are made? The answer is obvious, and should give pause to the abstentionist and prohibitionist.
Thursday, February 09, 2012
Readings on Christians and Controversy
The posting of links does not constitute an endorsement of the blogs linked, and not necessarily even agreement with the posts linked.
Contentious Christians: How should we handle controversy?
Exposing False Doctrine
Is It Right: To Judge, To Expose Error, & To Call Names?
Is there a Biblical warrant to engage in debates with non-believers
No Truth Without Love, No Love Without Truth
Why point out attacks on truth?
Yes, Christians Need to Debate
Contentious Christians: How should we handle controversy?
Exposing False Doctrine
Is It Right: To Judge, To Expose Error, & To Call Names?
Is there a Biblical warrant to engage in debates with non-believers
No Truth Without Love, No Love Without Truth
Why point out attacks on truth?
Yes, Christians Need to Debate
Monday, February 06, 2012
A Murderous Game
“We favor safe, helpful athletics in our schools, but to say the least, our Christian colleges are going far astray when they lend their influence to the training of boys to kick and trample their fellow students to death. We are against the murderous game (football), root and branch...If some of our over-enthusiastic youths that attend Baylor are bound to test their kicking abilities, let them cross legs with a burro. It will be fully as civilized and much less dangerous.”
J. B. Cranfill in The Baptist Standard, 1899
I wonder what Cranfill would think about a Baylor student winning the Heisman trophy; or churches turning out their services to watch a Super football game?? Now I’ve been known to watch a game or two, and even root against the dark side. But I think our old-fogey Baptist fathers had a point or two that we need to consider as well.
Sunday, February 05, 2012
New Research on the Fall of the United States
Dear Dr. Jones,
I pledge you my great respect for your exhaustive history of Europe. As you know, the most recent research in which I have been involved is the fall of the United States of America. We have known for several years that is was overtaken in February 2014, but recent excavations in New Jersey have revealed why. It fell during the celebration of the Suprabolus festival, at the end of two weeks of worship of the god of Ball. Suprabolus was a winter festival begun in the last century of U.S. history to celebrate the god of pleasure. I expect future studies will reveal that Ball was a derivative of the Canaanite deity Baal. By the time of the country's fall, the U.S. was wholly given over to these idolatrous practices. It is hard to pinpoint exact dates, because the country began to number its calendar to coincide with the Suprabolus Festival. The United States government banned all holy days of its Christian past and reorganized its calendar around the major festivals of the pleasure deity.
The location of the Suprabolus festival moved from year to year, each annual mecca sold to the highest bidder. Travel, except festival related, was suspended the day of the main worship. Worship services were beamed to every corner of the nation for those unable to physically attend. Everything shut down. Lesser deities (sometimes called "role-models") played before Ball while worshipers cheered, jeered, screamed, drank themselves silly, and otherwise worked themselves into an emotional frenzy. Rioting in the streets was commonplace, and human sacrifice was occasionally practiced. Corruption of government, lack of work ethic, immorality and such like were not the true reasons for America's fall, but merely symptoms of a decadent people who were lovers of Pleasures more than lovers of God!
Please purchase and read my upcoming book, Suprabolus: the beginning of the end of the United States of America. Only my theory can accurately explain why that, after years of fending off terrorism, on a cold day in February three construction workers from Los Angeles overthrew an entire nation.
Sincerest regards,
Barrius Hyperbole, Th.D.
I pledge you my great respect for your exhaustive history of Europe. As you know, the most recent research in which I have been involved is the fall of the United States of America. We have known for several years that is was overtaken in February 2014, but recent excavations in New Jersey have revealed why. It fell during the celebration of the Suprabolus festival, at the end of two weeks of worship of the god of Ball. Suprabolus was a winter festival begun in the last century of U.S. history to celebrate the god of pleasure. I expect future studies will reveal that Ball was a derivative of the Canaanite deity Baal. By the time of the country's fall, the U.S. was wholly given over to these idolatrous practices. It is hard to pinpoint exact dates, because the country began to number its calendar to coincide with the Suprabolus Festival. The United States government banned all holy days of its Christian past and reorganized its calendar around the major festivals of the pleasure deity.
The location of the Suprabolus festival moved from year to year, each annual mecca sold to the highest bidder. Travel, except festival related, was suspended the day of the main worship. Worship services were beamed to every corner of the nation for those unable to physically attend. Everything shut down. Lesser deities (sometimes called "role-models") played before Ball while worshipers cheered, jeered, screamed, drank themselves silly, and otherwise worked themselves into an emotional frenzy. Rioting in the streets was commonplace, and human sacrifice was occasionally practiced. Corruption of government, lack of work ethic, immorality and such like were not the true reasons for America's fall, but merely symptoms of a decadent people who were lovers of Pleasures more than lovers of God!
Please purchase and read my upcoming book, Suprabolus: the beginning of the end of the United States of America. Only my theory can accurately explain why that, after years of fending off terrorism, on a cold day in February three construction workers from Los Angeles overthrew an entire nation.
Sincerest regards,
Barrius Hyperbole, Th.D.
Saturday, February 04, 2012
The proper use of perfume, and other quotes
"Compliments are like perfume; you can smell them, just don’t drink them." -- late SBC pastor Adrian Rogers
"As the providence of God greatly appeared in favour of Israel, by causing a dread to fall on their enemies, that they durst not sally out of the city and attack them; so it showed great faith in Joshua, and the Israelites, to administer circumcision at this time, just as they were landed in an enemy's country; and when the waters of Jordan were returned, and there was no going back, and if they could, as they were not in a condition to fight, so not to flee." -- English Baptist John Gill, from his commentary on Joshua 5
"What indeed has Athens to do with Jerusalem? What has the Academy to do with the Church? What have heretics to do with Christians? Our instruction comes from the porch of Solomon, who had himself taught that the Lord should be sought in simplicity of heart. Away with all attempts to produce a Stoic, Platonic, and dialectic Christianity! We want no curious disputation after possessing Christ Jesus, no inquisition after receiving the gospel! When we believe, we desire no further belief. For this is our first article of faith, that there is nothing which we ought to believe besides." -- Tertullian, Heretics, 7 (Stevenson, 166-167)
"If there is a fence and you don’t know its purpose, don’t just assume there isn’t one and tear it down. Find out what the fence is intended to accomplish. You might see it needs to stay." -- Jerry Vines
"The greatest criminals are religious criminals." -- Baptist preacher J.B. Moody
"The gospel preacher is not a 'spiritual obstetrician' appointed to supervise the new birth." -- Iain Murray
"As the providence of God greatly appeared in favour of Israel, by causing a dread to fall on their enemies, that they durst not sally out of the city and attack them; so it showed great faith in Joshua, and the Israelites, to administer circumcision at this time, just as they were landed in an enemy's country; and when the waters of Jordan were returned, and there was no going back, and if they could, as they were not in a condition to fight, so not to flee." -- English Baptist John Gill, from his commentary on Joshua 5
"What indeed has Athens to do with Jerusalem? What has the Academy to do with the Church? What have heretics to do with Christians? Our instruction comes from the porch of Solomon, who had himself taught that the Lord should be sought in simplicity of heart. Away with all attempts to produce a Stoic, Platonic, and dialectic Christianity! We want no curious disputation after possessing Christ Jesus, no inquisition after receiving the gospel! When we believe, we desire no further belief. For this is our first article of faith, that there is nothing which we ought to believe besides." -- Tertullian, Heretics, 7 (Stevenson, 166-167)
"If there is a fence and you don’t know its purpose, don’t just assume there isn’t one and tear it down. Find out what the fence is intended to accomplish. You might see it needs to stay." -- Jerry Vines
"The greatest criminals are religious criminals." -- Baptist preacher J.B. Moody
"The gospel preacher is not a 'spiritual obstetrician' appointed to supervise the new birth." -- Iain Murray
Friday, February 03, 2012
In the News
The breast-cancer charity Susan G. Komen for the Cure withdrew funding for breast-cancer screenings at Planned Parenthood. This created a large furor among PP supporters. The truth of the matter is that this is the right decision for the Komen foundation. Planned Parenthood is the U.S.'s largest abortion provider and any other arenas they enter are miniscule attempts at legitimacy in those areas. According to Americans United for Life President Charmaine Yoest, Planned Parenthood doesn't actually do mammograms. Apparently they only act as a "middleman". American politicians, decrying the Komen Foundation's politicizing of women's health care, forcefully took to politicizing the issue themselves. Today the Foundation quickly reversed their right decision with a wrong one, bowing to lots of pressure. Sad.
Doctors from the University of California at San Francisco study are claiming that "sugar is as damaging and addictive as alcohol or tobacco." They suggest we begin taxing "added sugar". Another inanimate thing will quickly go from neutral according to how it is used to evil, if we bow to peer pressure once again. I'm sure the politicians will love this study. Most of them have never met a tax they didn't like. Sad again.
Doctors from the University of California at San Francisco study are claiming that "sugar is as damaging and addictive as alcohol or tobacco." They suggest we begin taxing "added sugar". Another inanimate thing will quickly go from neutral according to how it is used to evil, if we bow to peer pressure once again. I'm sure the politicians will love this study. Most of them have never met a tax they didn't like. Sad again.
Wednesday, February 01, 2012
The "gospel" in the stars
I first encountered the spurious idea of "the gospel in the stars" several years ago on the Baptist Board. The presenter of the idea there was also co-author of the internet article Signs in the Stars. Once in awhile others mention the subject and question it. So I thought I'd post this statement on the matter.
After reading Signs in the Stars by Lambert Dolphin, Malcolm Bowden, Barry Setterfield and Helen Fryman, I felt strongly that this "Gospel in the Stars" idea is based on finding something outside the Bible and then looking for proof-texts in the Bible to prop it up. "Surely" we must know that since God named the stars and gave them for signs, since the constellations and Zodiac are mentioned in the Bible, and since the wise men followed a star, and so forth, then it follows that God has written the story of Jesus Christ in the Zodiac!? However you approach it, there is a long road of "ifs" to tread to reach the destination.
After looking over the totality of the references given, it is my understanding that the weight of their argument rests on Genesis 15 coupled with Galatians 3, and Psalm 19 coupled with Romans 10.
According to this theory, since Abram was told to count the stars, and Paul said the seed was Christ, then it "must" follow that God wrote the gospel in the stars.!?
Genesis 15:1-6 - After these things the word of the LORD came unto Abram in a vision, saying, Fear not, Abram: I am thy shield, and thy exceeding great reward. And Abram said, Lord GOD, what wilt thou give me, seeing I go childless, and the steward of my house is this Eliezer of Damascus? And Abram said, Behold, to me thou hast given no seed: and, lo, one born in my house is mine heir. And, behold, the word of the LORD came unto him, saying, This shall not be thine heir; but he that shall come forth out of thine own bowels shall be thine heir. And he brought him forth abroad, and said, Look now toward heaven, and tell the stars, if thou be able to number them: and he said unto him, So shall thy seed be. And he believed in the LORD; and he counted it to him for righteousness.
Galatians 3:5-18 - He therefore that ministereth to you the Spirit, and worketh miracles among you, doeth he it by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith? Even as Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness. Know ye therefore that they which are of faith, the same are the children of Abraham. And the scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the heathen through faith, preached before the gospel unto Abraham, saying, In thee shall all nations be blessed. So then they which be of faith are blessed with faithful Abraham. For as many as are of the works of the law are under the curse: for it is written, Cursed is every one that continueth not in all things which are written in the book of the law to do them. But that no man is justified by the law in the sight of God, it is evident: for, The just shall live by faith. And the law is not of faith: but, The man that doeth them shall live in them. Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us: for it is written, Cursed is every one that hangeth on a tree: That the blessing of Abraham might come on the Gentiles through Jesus Christ; that we might receive the promise of the Spirit through faith. Brethren, I speak after the manner of men; Though it be but a man's covenant, yet if it be confirmed, no man disannulleth, or addeth thereto. Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises made. He saith not, And to seeds, as of many; but as of one, And to thy seed, which is Christ. And this I say, that the covenant, that was confirmed before of God in Christ, the law, which was four hundred and thirty years after, cannot disannul, that it should make the promise of none effect. For if the inheritance be of the law, it is no more of promise: but God gave it to Abraham by promise.
There are several incorrect assumptions and some left out information. It is noted in the section "God’s Promise to Abraham" on the linked page that we must be very careful to separate two incidents where God speaks of the stars to Abraham (Gen. Chapters 15 & 22). Nevertheless, the author was not careful to address some other things (or was careful not to). It is mentioned that God preached the gospel to Abraham (Gal. 3:8), and then Gal. 3:6 is given to build the context for the star discussion being Genesis 15 only. Yet the reference of Galatians 3:8 to Genesis 12:3 (which stands between in the discussion) is skipped over: "And the scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the heathen through faith, preached before the gospel unto Abraham, saying, In thee shall all nations be blessed." [cf. Gen. 12:3 - "...in thee shall all families of the earth be blessed."] So God preaching the gospel to Abraham is not associated chronologically by Paul with Gen. 15, but with Gen. 12. Also, Paul does not bring up the fact that the seed is singular to address some imagined gospel in the stars, but to explain God’s covenant with Abraham and to explain how the promise is by faith and not law. The inheritance was by confirmed in Christ, some 400 years before the law was given, and the law cannot cancel it. The point of the promise to the seed (singular) Christ does not contradict the fact that Abraham would have an innumerable seed, but in fact shows how it is fulfilled spiritually. In the seed Christ there is a great multitude which no man can number, of all nations, tongues and people.
Galatians 3:26-29 For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus. For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ. There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus. And if ye be Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise.
When one plugs the gospel in the stars idea back into Genesis 15:5, it comes out something like this: "And God brought Abram outside and said, Look up in the sky and tell the story of the zodiac, if you’re able to tell it: and God said to him, So shall Christ be. And Abram believed what God told him about Christ in the stars; and God counted it to him for righteousness."
There are a number of problems with this. It is interesting that the "gospel in the stars" theorists point out that words for constellations and the zodiac are mentioned in the Bible, but fail to point out they are not used here. Here God told Abram to look at the stars (kokab). Constellations are stars, but stars are not necessarily constellations. There is a difference in the Hebrews words translated "count" (or "number" in the KJV). But any assumption that "caphar" cannot mean to number or count as in making a census is incorrect. And "manah" (used in Genesis 13) can mean "tell".
Genesis 12:3 - And I will bless them that bless thee, and curse him that curseth thee: and in thee shall all families of the earth be blessed. 13:16 - And I will make thy seed as the dust of the earth: so that if a man can number the dust of the earth, then shall thy seed also be numbered. 15:5 - And he brought him forth abroad, and said, Look now toward heaven, and tell the stars, if thou be able to number them: and he said unto him, So shall thy seed be. 17:16 - And I will bless her, and give thee a son also of her: yea, I will bless her, and she shall be a mother of nations; kings of people shall be of her. 22:17 - That in blessing I will bless thee, and in multiplying I will multiply thy seed as the stars of the heaven, and as the sand which is upon the sea shore; and thy seed shall possess the gate of his enemies;
Hebrews 11:12 - Therefore sprang there even of one, and him as good as dead, so many as the stars of the sky in multitude, and as the sand which is by the sea shore innumerable.
Psalm 19:1-6 - The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament sheweth his handywork. Day unto day uttereth speech, and night unto night sheweth knowledge. There is no speech nor language, where their voice is not heard. Their line is gone out through all the earth, and their words to the end of the world. In them hath he set a tabernacle for the sun, Which is as a bridegroom coming out of his chamber, and rejoiceth as a strong man to run a race. His going forth is from the end of the heaven, and his circuit unto the ends of it: and there is nothing hid from the heat thereof.
Romans 10:12-21 - For there is no difference between the Jew and the Greek: for the same Lord over all is rich unto all that call upon him. For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved. How then shall they call on him in whom they have not believed? and how shall they believe in him of whom they have not heard? and how shall they hear without a preacher? And how shall they preach, except they be sent? as it is written, How beautiful are the feet of them that preach the gospel of peace, and bring glad tidings of good things! But they have not all obeyed the gospel. For Esaias saith, Lord, who hath believed our report So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God. But I say, Have they not heard? Yes verily, their sound went into all the earth, and their words unto the ends of the world. But I say, Did not Israel know? First Moses saith, I will provoke you to jealousy by them that are no people, and by a foolish nation I will anger you. But Esaias is very bold, and saith, I was found of them that sought me not; I was made manifest unto them that asked not after me. But to Israel he saith, All day long I have stretched forth my hands unto a disobedient and gainsaying people.
While some may think the Psalm/Romans reference is so explicit that there is no getting around that this is a rather direct reference to the Gospel being written in the signs of the zodiac, that interpretation actually contradicts some obvious things about the passage.
The "gospel in the stars" is told or taught and passed down from generation to generation, therefore only available to those who have been taught it. But whatever the Psalmist and Paul speak of is universal.
It is universal geographically (through all the earth), but it is my understanding that all the constellations are not visible from all places in the world. Whether they are or not, the "gospel in the stars" has not been passed down to every single individual through all the earth who has ever lived. Such is historical nonsense.
It is universal chronologically (Day unto day...and night unto night), but the "gospel in the stars" is limited by time – the time it takes to tell it and pass it on chronologically from generation to generation (or fail to pass it on). [I would also note that the so-called "gospel in the stars" is only visible at night time.]
World Book @ Nasa states, "Some constellations can be seen only during certain seasons due to the earth's annual revolution around the sun. The part of the sky visible at night at a particular place gradually changes as the earth moves around the sun. Also, observers at different latitudes see different parts of the sky. An observer at the equator can view all the constellations during the course of a year, but an observer at the North or the South Pole can see only a single hemisphere of constellations."
It is universal, according to context, to all people of all times, while – even if true – the "gospel in the stars" is limited to only those of whatever time and geography who have been told it.
Anyone who believes the Genesis creation account will not be surprised that some forms of the truth have survived in different cultures, since we all descended from Adam (and later, Noah). Nevertheless, the "gospel in the stars" as presented on the above linked page neither came from Adam nor existed in all different cultures. I don't buy it.
After reading Signs in the Stars by Lambert Dolphin, Malcolm Bowden, Barry Setterfield and Helen Fryman, I felt strongly that this "Gospel in the Stars" idea is based on finding something outside the Bible and then looking for proof-texts in the Bible to prop it up. "Surely" we must know that since God named the stars and gave them for signs, since the constellations and Zodiac are mentioned in the Bible, and since the wise men followed a star, and so forth, then it follows that God has written the story of Jesus Christ in the Zodiac!? However you approach it, there is a long road of "ifs" to tread to reach the destination.
After looking over the totality of the references given, it is my understanding that the weight of their argument rests on Genesis 15 coupled with Galatians 3, and Psalm 19 coupled with Romans 10.
According to this theory, since Abram was told to count the stars, and Paul said the seed was Christ, then it "must" follow that God wrote the gospel in the stars.!?
Genesis 15:1-6 - After these things the word of the LORD came unto Abram in a vision, saying, Fear not, Abram: I am thy shield, and thy exceeding great reward. And Abram said, Lord GOD, what wilt thou give me, seeing I go childless, and the steward of my house is this Eliezer of Damascus? And Abram said, Behold, to me thou hast given no seed: and, lo, one born in my house is mine heir. And, behold, the word of the LORD came unto him, saying, This shall not be thine heir; but he that shall come forth out of thine own bowels shall be thine heir. And he brought him forth abroad, and said, Look now toward heaven, and tell the stars, if thou be able to number them: and he said unto him, So shall thy seed be. And he believed in the LORD; and he counted it to him for righteousness.
Galatians 3:5-18 - He therefore that ministereth to you the Spirit, and worketh miracles among you, doeth he it by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith? Even as Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness. Know ye therefore that they which are of faith, the same are the children of Abraham. And the scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the heathen through faith, preached before the gospel unto Abraham, saying, In thee shall all nations be blessed. So then they which be of faith are blessed with faithful Abraham. For as many as are of the works of the law are under the curse: for it is written, Cursed is every one that continueth not in all things which are written in the book of the law to do them. But that no man is justified by the law in the sight of God, it is evident: for, The just shall live by faith. And the law is not of faith: but, The man that doeth them shall live in them. Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us: for it is written, Cursed is every one that hangeth on a tree: That the blessing of Abraham might come on the Gentiles through Jesus Christ; that we might receive the promise of the Spirit through faith. Brethren, I speak after the manner of men; Though it be but a man's covenant, yet if it be confirmed, no man disannulleth, or addeth thereto. Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises made. He saith not, And to seeds, as of many; but as of one, And to thy seed, which is Christ. And this I say, that the covenant, that was confirmed before of God in Christ, the law, which was four hundred and thirty years after, cannot disannul, that it should make the promise of none effect. For if the inheritance be of the law, it is no more of promise: but God gave it to Abraham by promise.
There are several incorrect assumptions and some left out information. It is noted in the section "God’s Promise to Abraham" on the linked page that we must be very careful to separate two incidents where God speaks of the stars to Abraham (Gen. Chapters 15 & 22). Nevertheless, the author was not careful to address some other things (or was careful not to). It is mentioned that God preached the gospel to Abraham (Gal. 3:8), and then Gal. 3:6 is given to build the context for the star discussion being Genesis 15 only. Yet the reference of Galatians 3:8 to Genesis 12:3 (which stands between in the discussion) is skipped over: "And the scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the heathen through faith, preached before the gospel unto Abraham, saying, In thee shall all nations be blessed." [cf. Gen. 12:3 - "...in thee shall all families of the earth be blessed."] So God preaching the gospel to Abraham is not associated chronologically by Paul with Gen. 15, but with Gen. 12. Also, Paul does not bring up the fact that the seed is singular to address some imagined gospel in the stars, but to explain God’s covenant with Abraham and to explain how the promise is by faith and not law. The inheritance was by confirmed in Christ, some 400 years before the law was given, and the law cannot cancel it. The point of the promise to the seed (singular) Christ does not contradict the fact that Abraham would have an innumerable seed, but in fact shows how it is fulfilled spiritually. In the seed Christ there is a great multitude which no man can number, of all nations, tongues and people.
Galatians 3:26-29 For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus. For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ. There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus. And if ye be Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise.
When one plugs the gospel in the stars idea back into Genesis 15:5, it comes out something like this: "And God brought Abram outside and said, Look up in the sky and tell the story of the zodiac, if you’re able to tell it: and God said to him, So shall Christ be. And Abram believed what God told him about Christ in the stars; and God counted it to him for righteousness."
There are a number of problems with this. It is interesting that the "gospel in the stars" theorists point out that words for constellations and the zodiac are mentioned in the Bible, but fail to point out they are not used here. Here God told Abram to look at the stars (kokab). Constellations are stars, but stars are not necessarily constellations. There is a difference in the Hebrews words translated "count" (or "number" in the KJV). But any assumption that "caphar" cannot mean to number or count as in making a census is incorrect. And "manah" (used in Genesis 13) can mean "tell".
Genesis 12:3 - And I will bless them that bless thee, and curse him that curseth thee: and in thee shall all families of the earth be blessed. 13:16 - And I will make thy seed as the dust of the earth: so that if a man can number the dust of the earth, then shall thy seed also be numbered. 15:5 - And he brought him forth abroad, and said, Look now toward heaven, and tell the stars, if thou be able to number them: and he said unto him, So shall thy seed be. 17:16 - And I will bless her, and give thee a son also of her: yea, I will bless her, and she shall be a mother of nations; kings of people shall be of her. 22:17 - That in blessing I will bless thee, and in multiplying I will multiply thy seed as the stars of the heaven, and as the sand which is upon the sea shore; and thy seed shall possess the gate of his enemies;
Hebrews 11:12 - Therefore sprang there even of one, and him as good as dead, so many as the stars of the sky in multitude, and as the sand which is by the sea shore innumerable.
Psalm 19:1-6 - The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament sheweth his handywork. Day unto day uttereth speech, and night unto night sheweth knowledge. There is no speech nor language, where their voice is not heard. Their line is gone out through all the earth, and their words to the end of the world. In them hath he set a tabernacle for the sun, Which is as a bridegroom coming out of his chamber, and rejoiceth as a strong man to run a race. His going forth is from the end of the heaven, and his circuit unto the ends of it: and there is nothing hid from the heat thereof.
Romans 10:12-21 - For there is no difference between the Jew and the Greek: for the same Lord over all is rich unto all that call upon him. For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved. How then shall they call on him in whom they have not believed? and how shall they believe in him of whom they have not heard? and how shall they hear without a preacher? And how shall they preach, except they be sent? as it is written, How beautiful are the feet of them that preach the gospel of peace, and bring glad tidings of good things! But they have not all obeyed the gospel. For Esaias saith, Lord, who hath believed our report So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God. But I say, Have they not heard? Yes verily, their sound went into all the earth, and their words unto the ends of the world. But I say, Did not Israel know? First Moses saith, I will provoke you to jealousy by them that are no people, and by a foolish nation I will anger you. But Esaias is very bold, and saith, I was found of them that sought me not; I was made manifest unto them that asked not after me. But to Israel he saith, All day long I have stretched forth my hands unto a disobedient and gainsaying people.
While some may think the Psalm/Romans reference is so explicit that there is no getting around that this is a rather direct reference to the Gospel being written in the signs of the zodiac, that interpretation actually contradicts some obvious things about the passage.
The "gospel in the stars" is told or taught and passed down from generation to generation, therefore only available to those who have been taught it. But whatever the Psalmist and Paul speak of is universal.
It is universal geographically (through all the earth), but it is my understanding that all the constellations are not visible from all places in the world. Whether they are or not, the "gospel in the stars" has not been passed down to every single individual through all the earth who has ever lived. Such is historical nonsense.
It is universal chronologically (Day unto day...and night unto night), but the "gospel in the stars" is limited by time – the time it takes to tell it and pass it on chronologically from generation to generation (or fail to pass it on). [I would also note that the so-called "gospel in the stars" is only visible at night time.]
World Book @ Nasa states, "Some constellations can be seen only during certain seasons due to the earth's annual revolution around the sun. The part of the sky visible at night at a particular place gradually changes as the earth moves around the sun. Also, observers at different latitudes see different parts of the sky. An observer at the equator can view all the constellations during the course of a year, but an observer at the North or the South Pole can see only a single hemisphere of constellations."
It is universal, according to context, to all people of all times, while – even if true – the "gospel in the stars" is limited to only those of whatever time and geography who have been told it.
Anyone who believes the Genesis creation account will not be surprised that some forms of the truth have survived in different cultures, since we all descended from Adam (and later, Noah). Nevertheless, the "gospel in the stars" as presented on the above linked page neither came from Adam nor existed in all different cultures. I don't buy it.
Monday, January 30, 2012
New singing location in Nacogdoches
We will be singing Sacred Harp in Nacogdoches on Monday night February 6th, from 6:30 pm to 8:30 pm. We will sing this month in a new location, Westminster Presbyterian Church at 903 North Street. North St. is the main north/south street through the heart of Nacogdoches. The church building is located on the corner of North and Powers Streets and there is a stoplight at that intersection. Turn west onto Powers and then park in the big lot behind the church. Singing will be in the fellowship hall – Westminster Hall. The fellowship hall is up the sidewalk and stairs from the parking lot, next to the iron fence and trash cans. Singing will be from the Cooper and Denson Revisions of The Sacred Harp.
For a map and directions, click HERE.
Y'all come!
For a map and directions, click HERE.
Y'all come!
Sunday, January 29, 2012
Readings around blogdom
The posting of links does not constitute an endorsement of the blogs linked, and not necessarily even agreement with the posts linked.
Advice for Bloggers 25 Tips for Bloggers: Established, New, and Pondering
Does Calvinism Make God a “Moral Monster”?
Filled with the Spirit: Reading Acts in Light of Luke
How to Defend Pro-Life Views in 5 Minutes
The Design Argument in a Little Under Four Minutes
Why the Genealogy of Jesus Matters
Advice for Bloggers 25 Tips for Bloggers: Established, New, and Pondering
Does Calvinism Make God a “Moral Monster”?
Filled with the Spirit: Reading Acts in Light of Luke
How to Defend Pro-Life Views in 5 Minutes
The Design Argument in a Little Under Four Minutes
Why the Genealogy of Jesus Matters
Thursday, January 26, 2012
Coming to Consensus
In his article Congregational Government is from Satan, James MacDonald asserts that congregational voting is not biblical. Certainly he is correct if we are looking in the New Testament for the traditional motion & second, all in favor and the majority rules; Robert's Rules of Order and all that. But does congregational participation have to look like that? Can it take some other form and that form be found in the Bible? If so, then this strike against congregationalism falls. Does "voting" (congregational decision-making) exist in some other form? Consider the following examples and whether there is "a shred of biblical evidence".
Acts chapter 1. The Lord has ascended to heaven. The church is waiting in an upper room. Peter, a leader and an apostle, posits replacing the suicidal Judas with one who has been with them from the baptism of John. "They" -- the men and brethren to whom he was speaking, the 120 disciples, appointed two to set before God, and "they" (the same group) gave forth their lots. The lot was cast into the lap, and the disposing of it was by God.
Acts chapter 6. A problem had arisen concerning fair distribution to the Grecian widows. The apostles called the multitude (church/congregation) together. They were exhorted to select seven men to appoint over this distribution to see that it was done equably. The "whole multitude" was pleased and they came to an agreement together, choosing seven men to set before the apostles.
Acts chapter 10. Peter was sent of God to preach at the house of Cornelius, a Gentile. He had to be convinced through a vision to go. As he preached the Holy Spirit fell on the hearers, demonstrating God's approval. Though an apostle with authority to baptize, Peter still sought the consensus of those he brought with him, asking, "Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized..."
Acts chapter 13. The church at Antioch is unified in sending Paul and Barnabas to wherever God called them. They receive the message of the Holy Spirit and act upon it together. They send them forth with spiritual, moral and (sometimes) material support.
Acts chapter 15. First we find a church in Antioch disturbed by a doctrinal deviation. Yet by consensus they send Paul, Barnabas and others to Jerusalem, and even provided for their journey ("brought them on their way"). The church at Jerusalem came together to consider what certain brethren who went out from them (v. 24) were teaching in other places regarding salvation and circumcision. Paul and Barnabas were present from Antioch and testified of Lord's work among the Gentiles. Peter recounted his calling to preach to the Gentiles at Cornelius's house. James offered his counsel. Together "with the whole church" a solution was reached and a statement made.
I Corinthians chapter 5. A wicked act of fornication is reported in the church, and Paul exhorts them to put away this wicked person from their congregation, to be done by consensus "when ye are gathered together." (Cf. Matt. 18:17; II Cor. 2:6-8)
Congregational consensus is found in these places, a process of coming together in agreement by effective communication. Consensus decision-making fits well with the New Testament concepts of unity and one-anothering, regenerate church membership, servant leadership, individual accountability, the church as a body of gifted members, as well as the use of the word "ekklesia," a called-out assembly. The workings of New Testament congregations confirm the example of "congregational government" (i.e. congregational involvement in decision making). This must be understood within its context. Christ in the head of the church, and the church is governed by Him mediated through His word, which is inspired, profitable, and sufficient for faith and practice. The elders are the preachers and teachers of the word, and the church should judge "whether those things are so (Cf. I Cor. 14:23,27-31; Gal. 1:3-10)." In modern practice, congregationalism is sometimes extreme and at odds with the biblical revelation. But extremism should be corrected to the center of God's word, without going to some other extreme.
Within the purview of the congregation we find them involved in exercising discipline (I Cor. 5:3-5), selecting officers (Acts 1:23; 6:5), providing doctrinal and practical clarification (Acts 15:22-29), sending messengers (cf. Acts 11:22; 15:2,22), affirming the call of God (cf. Acts 13:1-3) and receiving Christian itinerants, ministers and members (II John 10; Acts 9:26; Rom. 16:1-2; Gal. 6:1). Sometimes congregations use their idea of "congregationalism" to step outside their purview (or to just revel in the flesh), such as usurping the role of the Spirit in sending His ministers. The churches did not tell Paul and others where to preach. They acknowledged and affirmed the call of God and left them to be guided by the Spirit. They did not tell the apostles and elders what to preach. They preached the Word, the whole counsel of God (Acts 20:2027-28; II Tim. 4:2). They did not tell them how to preach -- they are to teach doctrine, reprove, rebuke, exhort. A congregation has no right to step into the sphere of what the Spirit and Word directs (though they are to use discernment of what is being preached).
There is no need to defend modern practice. Let us abide by New Testament example. Congregationalism that ignores godly leadership, biblical exhortation, wise counsel, and the office of the eldership is only a distant cousin to what is found in the inspired revelation. Church government that consigns congregational consensus to the devil is no cousin at all. A church government model that puts its authority in the "staff" (many of which are not biblical offices) is a model of practicality and expediency rather than orthodoxy and orthopraxy.
Some verses are claimed to be at odds with what the New Testament congregations practiced, and so nullify the practice. That is bad interpretation. James and others may think that it is impossible to reconcile congregational decision making with scriptures like Hebrews 13:17 ("Obey them that have the rule over you"). Au contraire. The scriptures reconcile them whether we can figure it out or not. They never needed reconciling! The "at odds" is in our interpretation, not the Bible. The scriptures indicate that those thus commanded also participated in the decision-making process. Go thou, and do likewise.
Acts chapter 1. The Lord has ascended to heaven. The church is waiting in an upper room. Peter, a leader and an apostle, posits replacing the suicidal Judas with one who has been with them from the baptism of John. "They" -- the men and brethren to whom he was speaking, the 120 disciples, appointed two to set before God, and "they" (the same group) gave forth their lots. The lot was cast into the lap, and the disposing of it was by God.
Acts chapter 6. A problem had arisen concerning fair distribution to the Grecian widows. The apostles called the multitude (church/congregation) together. They were exhorted to select seven men to appoint over this distribution to see that it was done equably. The "whole multitude" was pleased and they came to an agreement together, choosing seven men to set before the apostles.
Acts chapter 10. Peter was sent of God to preach at the house of Cornelius, a Gentile. He had to be convinced through a vision to go. As he preached the Holy Spirit fell on the hearers, demonstrating God's approval. Though an apostle with authority to baptize, Peter still sought the consensus of those he brought with him, asking, "Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized..."
Acts chapter 13. The church at Antioch is unified in sending Paul and Barnabas to wherever God called them. They receive the message of the Holy Spirit and act upon it together. They send them forth with spiritual, moral and (sometimes) material support.
Acts chapter 15. First we find a church in Antioch disturbed by a doctrinal deviation. Yet by consensus they send Paul, Barnabas and others to Jerusalem, and even provided for their journey ("brought them on their way"). The church at Jerusalem came together to consider what certain brethren who went out from them (v. 24) were teaching in other places regarding salvation and circumcision. Paul and Barnabas were present from Antioch and testified of Lord's work among the Gentiles. Peter recounted his calling to preach to the Gentiles at Cornelius's house. James offered his counsel. Together "with the whole church" a solution was reached and a statement made.
I Corinthians chapter 5. A wicked act of fornication is reported in the church, and Paul exhorts them to put away this wicked person from their congregation, to be done by consensus "when ye are gathered together." (Cf. Matt. 18:17; II Cor. 2:6-8)
Congregational consensus is found in these places, a process of coming together in agreement by effective communication. Consensus decision-making fits well with the New Testament concepts of unity and one-anothering, regenerate church membership, servant leadership, individual accountability, the church as a body of gifted members, as well as the use of the word "ekklesia," a called-out assembly. The workings of New Testament congregations confirm the example of "congregational government" (i.e. congregational involvement in decision making). This must be understood within its context. Christ in the head of the church, and the church is governed by Him mediated through His word, which is inspired, profitable, and sufficient for faith and practice. The elders are the preachers and teachers of the word, and the church should judge "whether those things are so (Cf. I Cor. 14:23,27-31; Gal. 1:3-10)." In modern practice, congregationalism is sometimes extreme and at odds with the biblical revelation. But extremism should be corrected to the center of God's word, without going to some other extreme.
Within the purview of the congregation we find them involved in exercising discipline (I Cor. 5:3-5), selecting officers (Acts 1:23; 6:5), providing doctrinal and practical clarification (Acts 15:22-29), sending messengers (cf. Acts 11:22; 15:2,22), affirming the call of God (cf. Acts 13:1-3) and receiving Christian itinerants, ministers and members (II John 10; Acts 9:26; Rom. 16:1-2; Gal. 6:1). Sometimes congregations use their idea of "congregationalism" to step outside their purview (or to just revel in the flesh), such as usurping the role of the Spirit in sending His ministers. The churches did not tell Paul and others where to preach. They acknowledged and affirmed the call of God and left them to be guided by the Spirit. They did not tell the apostles and elders what to preach. They preached the Word, the whole counsel of God (Acts 20:2027-28; II Tim. 4:2). They did not tell them how to preach -- they are to teach doctrine, reprove, rebuke, exhort. A congregation has no right to step into the sphere of what the Spirit and Word directs (though they are to use discernment of what is being preached).
There is no need to defend modern practice. Let us abide by New Testament example. Congregationalism that ignores godly leadership, biblical exhortation, wise counsel, and the office of the eldership is only a distant cousin to what is found in the inspired revelation. Church government that consigns congregational consensus to the devil is no cousin at all. A church government model that puts its authority in the "staff" (many of which are not biblical offices) is a model of practicality and expediency rather than orthodoxy and orthopraxy.
Some verses are claimed to be at odds with what the New Testament congregations practiced, and so nullify the practice. That is bad interpretation. James and others may think that it is impossible to reconcile congregational decision making with scriptures like Hebrews 13:17 ("Obey them that have the rule over you"). Au contraire. The scriptures reconcile them whether we can figure it out or not. They never needed reconciling! The "at odds" is in our interpretation, not the Bible. The scriptures indicate that those thus commanded also participated in the decision-making process. Go thou, and do likewise.
Wednesday, January 25, 2012
Readings from Blogdom
The posting of links does not constitute an endorsement of the blogs linked, and not necessarily even agreement with the posts linked.
A Forgotten Text? Why is that, I wonder?
Congregational Government is From Satan*
Does Jesus Hate Religion?
Grace, the Gospel, and Role Expectations in Titus 2
How to Build Unity in Your Church
*Note: My intention is generally to post these links without comment, but be forewarned that this post might make you angry. Nevertheless, it has some points that need to be thought about.
A Forgotten Text? Why is that, I wonder?
Congregational Government is From Satan*
Does Jesus Hate Religion?
Grace, the Gospel, and Role Expectations in Titus 2
How to Build Unity in Your Church
*Note: My intention is generally to post these links without comment, but be forewarned that this post might make you angry. Nevertheless, it has some points that need to be thought about.
Saturday, January 21, 2012
The Nazarite Vow
Similarities between Nazarites and priests (cf.
esp. Numbers 6 and Leviticus 21)
Nazarite
|
Similarity
|
Priest
|
Num. 6:2
|
Separated unto God
|
Lev. 22:2, Num. 8:14,
Deut. 10:8
|
Num. 6:3-4
|
Restrictions on their
drink
|
Lev. 10:9
|
Num. 6:5
|
Restrictions on their
head
|
Lev. 10:6, 21:5,10
|
Num. 6:6-9
|
Restrictions on their
touch
|
Lev. 21:1-4, 11
|
Num. 6:8
|
Holy unto the Lord
|
Lev. 21:6
|
These similarities gave me these thoughts – not
exegesis of scripture, but meditations. The first thought that came to me was
priesthood of believers. The priesthood of believers as we know it is a New
Testament revelation, as First Peter 2:9 and other passages. Obviously the
Nazarites were not priests, but persons under a vow to the Lord. But in their
vow and separation they had a little taste of the priestly separation to the
Lord. Perhaps that foreshadows a priesthood of all believers?
The Nazarite separated from all products of the grapevine, whereas the priests separated only from wine and strong drink while serving as priests. But both would experience the separation from wine and strong drink. The separation of the Nazarite has strong connections to the previous nomadic lifestyle of their fathers Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, as well as their wandering in the wilderness (note Jer. 35 for another connection of the nomadic lifestyle and abstinence from wine). The wandering in the wilderness calls to mind the sustaining power of God when He provided for them through those years though they had “not eaten bread, neither have you drunk wine or strong drink.” (Deut. 29:6) Israel’s existence and prosperity was intimately associated with the grapevine, where every man would dwell “under his vine and under his fig tree” (cf. Micah 4:4 and I Kings 4:25). It was “a land of corn and wine, a land of bread and vineyards” (II Kings 18:32). Figuratively the Nazarite gave up his identity, existence and sustenance to God. Projecting forward we might see that New Testament identity, existence and sustenance in our behavior under the power of the Holy Spirit: “And be not drunk with wine, wherein is excess; but be filled with the Spirit” (Eph. 5:18).
For the period of his vow and separation, the Nazarite could put no razor to the hair of his head, but rather had to allow it to grow. This separated him from the public norm, long hair on women and cut hair on men. The priest did not bear the same restriction as the Nazarite, but had some restrictions regarding his hair and bread. The high priest was to cover his head (Lev. 21:10). The lack of attention to the hair (and especially the beard) could be a sign of trouble or affliction (II Sam. 19:24). The Nazarite bore the reproach of God, as he separated himself from customary grooming. If “a man have long hair” and “it is a shame unto him” (I Cor. 11:14), then there is a sense of bearing shame. May we likewise “go forth” bearing our Lord’s reproach.
Both the priests and the Nazarites were restricted in touching the dead. Touching the dead resulted in ceremonial uncleanness. The priests in service could only become unclean for their very closely kin (father, mother, etc.). The high priest could not at all, neither could the Nazarite during the time of the separation of his vow. This reminds us of putting God first – above father, mother, sister, brother – letting the dead bury the dead and taking up our cross and following Him.
Praise God, our high priest Jesus Christ has touched the dead and made us spiritually alive!
Both the priest and the Nazarite was separated unto God. They were called unto holiness. As spiritual “Nazarites” and a priesthood of believers, let us “come out from among them” and be separate. Let us not touch the unclean thing. Sanctify yourselves therefore, and be ye holy: for I am the LORD your God. (Lev. 20:7).
But as he which hath called you is holy, so be ye holy... I Peter 1:15
Thursday, January 19, 2012
Readings around blogdom
The posting of links does not constitute an endorsement of the blogs linked, and not necessarily even agreement with the posts linked.
Divine Sovereignty & Human Responsibility
How Christians are rethinking Abortion and Gay Marriage
Is Debating the Finer Points of Theology Important?
Rethinking Baptism: Part 1
Rethinking Baptism: Part 2
Divine Sovereignty & Human Responsibility
How Christians are rethinking Abortion and Gay Marriage
Is Debating the Finer Points of Theology Important?
Rethinking Baptism: Part 1
Rethinking Baptism: Part 2
Sunday, January 15, 2012
Joseph's bones
Hebrews 11:22 By faith Joseph, when he died, made mention of the departing of the children of Israel; and gave commandment concerning his bones.
When my meditating mind wanders to the great faith chapter of the Bible -- Hebrews 11 -- it is likely to survey the "highlights". Perhaps Abel, who offered a more excellent sacrifice than Cain. Enoch, who did not die. Or Abraham who when called by God went out, though not knowing where he went, or offered up his son Isaac. There's Moses, who chose to suffer the affliction of the people of God rather than the pleasures of sin and Pharaoh's house. But how often do I meditate on a man and his bones?
The man perhaps best known for his coat of many colors lived to the age of 110. In his dying day he gave a curious commandment concerning his bones. The Bible says it was an act of faith.
Joseph was the son of Jacob and Rachel, and first saw the light of day in the land of Haran while Jacob was serving Laban as payment for marrying his daughters. His father came into the land of Canaan, where Joseph lived with his family until he was 17 years old. Because of the preference of Jacob for this son of his preferred bride, the brothers of Joseph sold him into slavery. This resulted in his descent into Egypt, first in bondage as a slave, and then in bondage as a prisoner. Through the providence of God, when Joseph was 30 years old, he was not only released from prison but also exalted to second ruler in Egypt, only beneath the Pharaoh himself. By his God-given wisdom he saved the people of Egypt and strengthened their position among the surrounding nations. After a time in which Joseph's separation from his father and brethren exceeded the length of time he had lived with them, they were reunited. During a world-wide famine, the entire people of Israel (Jacob) came to dwell in Egypt. The days of the lives of Jacob and Joseph (and beyond), they lived and grew and prospered there.
God sent Joseph to Egypt as his ambassador (Gen 45:7-8). Joseph lived all his adult life in Egypt. He got his wife in Egypt. He raised his sons in Egypt. He was respected in Egypt. When he died at age 110, he had spent about 93 years there -- 80 of them as a ruler. Yet when he was dying, he took an oath of his family "ye shall carry up my bones from here." Yes, bury me in a place I know by faith and not by sight!
Soon after his demise, there arose a king that knew not Joseph. Though this king knew not Joseph, when God delivered His people from Egypt the people remembered Joseph! Moses removed his bones, his coffin, for the exodus from Egypt to the promised land. Though many an Israelite fell in the wilderness, their bones to mingle with the dust and sands of the places their feet trod, Joseph's bones continued on, steady, hasting toward the goal. When God had given rest to the people of God in the land of Canaan, Joseph's bones were laid to rest in a piece of land Jacob had bought in Shechem, completing the arduous journey from Canaan to Egypt and back again.
By his commandment, Joseph identified himself with God's people rather than the people of Egypt. 93 years in Egypt and he had not forgotten where he came from! He was "of the stock of Israel, an Hebrew of the Hebrews". He had not forgotten God's covenant with Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, and that was his birthright. Joseph had no superstitious regard for the place of burial. Like Moses, by the grace of God he chose Israel over Egypt and would be identified forever thus.
By his commandment, Joseph signified his faith in God's promise. He reminded the people of Jacob, "God will surely visit you." Some of the younger members of the family had never lived in Canaan. Yet their promise lay in the land of promise, not in Egypt. Joseph had no doubt. What God had promised he was able also to perform.
When my meditating mind wanders to the great faith chapter of the Bible -- Hebrews 11 -- it is likely to survey the "highlights". Perhaps Abel, who offered a more excellent sacrifice than Cain. Enoch, who did not die. Or Abraham who when called by God went out, though not knowing where he went, or offered up his son Isaac. There's Moses, who chose to suffer the affliction of the people of God rather than the pleasures of sin and Pharaoh's house. But how often do I meditate on a man and his bones?
The man perhaps best known for his coat of many colors lived to the age of 110. In his dying day he gave a curious commandment concerning his bones. The Bible says it was an act of faith.
Joseph was the son of Jacob and Rachel, and first saw the light of day in the land of Haran while Jacob was serving Laban as payment for marrying his daughters. His father came into the land of Canaan, where Joseph lived with his family until he was 17 years old. Because of the preference of Jacob for this son of his preferred bride, the brothers of Joseph sold him into slavery. This resulted in his descent into Egypt, first in bondage as a slave, and then in bondage as a prisoner. Through the providence of God, when Joseph was 30 years old, he was not only released from prison but also exalted to second ruler in Egypt, only beneath the Pharaoh himself. By his God-given wisdom he saved the people of Egypt and strengthened their position among the surrounding nations. After a time in which Joseph's separation from his father and brethren exceeded the length of time he had lived with them, they were reunited. During a world-wide famine, the entire people of Israel (Jacob) came to dwell in Egypt. The days of the lives of Jacob and Joseph (and beyond), they lived and grew and prospered there.
God sent Joseph to Egypt as his ambassador (Gen 45:7-8). Joseph lived all his adult life in Egypt. He got his wife in Egypt. He raised his sons in Egypt. He was respected in Egypt. When he died at age 110, he had spent about 93 years there -- 80 of them as a ruler. Yet when he was dying, he took an oath of his family "ye shall carry up my bones from here." Yes, bury me in a place I know by faith and not by sight!
Soon after his demise, there arose a king that knew not Joseph. Though this king knew not Joseph, when God delivered His people from Egypt the people remembered Joseph! Moses removed his bones, his coffin, for the exodus from Egypt to the promised land. Though many an Israelite fell in the wilderness, their bones to mingle with the dust and sands of the places their feet trod, Joseph's bones continued on, steady, hasting toward the goal. When God had given rest to the people of God in the land of Canaan, Joseph's bones were laid to rest in a piece of land Jacob had bought in Shechem, completing the arduous journey from Canaan to Egypt and back again.
By his commandment, Joseph identified himself with God's people rather than the people of Egypt. 93 years in Egypt and he had not forgotten where he came from! He was "of the stock of Israel, an Hebrew of the Hebrews". He had not forgotten God's covenant with Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, and that was his birthright. Joseph had no superstitious regard for the place of burial. Like Moses, by the grace of God he chose Israel over Egypt and would be identified forever thus.
By his commandment, Joseph signified his faith in God's promise. He reminded the people of Jacob, "God will surely visit you." Some of the younger members of the family had never lived in Canaan. Yet their promise lay in the land of promise, not in Egypt. Joseph had no doubt. What God had promised he was able also to perform.
Thursday, January 12, 2012
Advertisements
"BIBLE BELIEVING." This is easy to say, hard to practice. We almost laugh when we see this on numerous church signs. No one ever says, "Here, we DO NOT believe the Bible." That would be too blatant. We had rather craftily say that we do believe it. But, again, is not this false advertising? Does a church have to say that it believes the Bible? Come on. True church = Bible believing! Don't we prove this by what we teach and how we live? Ever seen any restaurant advertise that they have "Bad Food Here"? They may indeed have such, but they always advertise, "Good Food Here." The truthfulness of the statement is only in the eating! So it is with a church. Labels and names mean absolutely nothing. The proof is in the teaching, experience, and practice of the Christian people themselves, not in any thing they advertise. See I John 2:3-6 for "proofs" of true Christian love and character. -- From Deception AKA False Advertisements, by W. F. Bell (October 13, 2006)
Tuesday, January 10, 2012
Readings around Blogdom
The posting of links does not constitute an endorsement of the blogs linked, and not necessarily even agreement with the posts linked.
Are We Required to Attend Church on Sunday?
Editorial On Abusing Matthew 18
Speaking of Preaching...
The return to religion
The United States Eugenics Movement: Outrage and What We Can Learn
Are We Required to Attend Church on Sunday?
Editorial On Abusing Matthew 18
Speaking of Preaching...
The return to religion
The United States Eugenics Movement: Outrage and What We Can Learn
Saturday, January 07, 2012
Good read -- Primetime Propaganda
Here's a book you should read. Ben Shapiro takes on (and exposes) the Hollywood establishment in his book Primetime Propaganda: The True Hollywood Story of How the Left Took Over Your TV.
Promotional blurb:
"In this thoroughly researched and detailed history of the television industry, conservative columnist and author Ben Shapiro argues that left-leaning entertainment kingpins in Los Angeles and New York have leveraged—and continue to use—their positions and power to push liberal messages and promote the Democratic Party while actively discriminating against their opponents on the right. According to Shapiro, television isn't just about entertainment—it's an attempt to convince Americans that the social, economic, and foreign policy shaped by leftism is morally righteous."
A lot of grass roots folks talk about bias in the media. Most often they mean news coverage. But it is there in most every bit of "entertainment" that is available.
Promotional blurb:
"In this thoroughly researched and detailed history of the television industry, conservative columnist and author Ben Shapiro argues that left-leaning entertainment kingpins in Los Angeles and New York have leveraged—and continue to use—their positions and power to push liberal messages and promote the Democratic Party while actively discriminating against their opponents on the right. According to Shapiro, television isn't just about entertainment—it's an attempt to convince Americans that the social, economic, and foreign policy shaped by leftism is morally righteous."
A lot of grass roots folks talk about bias in the media. Most often they mean news coverage. But it is there in most every bit of "entertainment" that is available.
Wednesday, January 04, 2012
How does the Bible define drunkenness?
The thoughts on this post began with a pastor asking the question, "Would you mind telling me how I as a pastor can know when a member of my flock is guilty of drunkenness?" The Bible-believing Christian must answer this the same way regardless of his or her position on drinking in moderation or abstention. Go to the Bible and find out what it says about drunkenness. We won't find a fine dividing line that we can determine with a breathalyzer. That is a secular and legal approach. In our state we legally define that point with blood alcohol level -- 0.08 blood alcohol concentration (at least while driving).1 BUT the question now before us is how the Bible, our rule of faith and practice, defines it. There we will find guidance. Inspired, inerrant guidance at that!
Please consider the following points from Scripture.
There is a point at which one passes from "drinking wine" to drunkenness; that is, these are two different states. For examples, Genesis 9:21 "And he drank of the wine, and was drunken..." Deuteronomy 29:19 "And it come to pass, when he heareth the words of this curse, that he bless himself in his heart, saying, I shall have peace, though I walk in the imagination of mine heart, to add drunkenness to thirst:"
The Bible speaks of "drunken" but also of an exceeding state of that: 1 Samuel 25:36 "And Abigail came to Nabal; and, behold, he held a feast in his house, like the feast of a king; and Nabal's heart was merry within him, for he was very drunken" The "very drunken" state is most obvious, but drunken might not be quite as readily observable.
Certain actions, states or physical signs are often associated with drunkenness in the Bible, such as staggering, shaking and vomiting. Psalm 107:27 They reel to and fro, and stagger like a drunken man, and are at their wit's end. (Cf. Jer. 23:9, Isa. 19:14; Prov. 23:29). [We understand other things can also cause these signs, such as sickness.]
Actions or states unrelated to alcohol sometimes are mistaken for drunkenness. 1 Samuel 1:13 "Now Hannah, she spake in her heart; only her lips moved, but her voice was not heard: therefore Eli thought she had been drunken." (Cf. Acts 2:15)
Drunkenness is associated with loss of control of one's senses or actions. Sometimes "loss of control" can be in a good way -- being controlled by the Spirit. Ephesians 5:18 "And be not drunk with wine, wherein is excess; but be filled with the Spirit;" There are also other figures in the Bible that speak of being "drunk" on something other than wine/strong drink that seem to generally share the meaning of not being in control or possession of one's faculties. (Cf. Job 12:24-25; Lam. 4:21; Rev. 17:2)
Drunkenness is caused by an excess of wine. Compare Eph. 5:18 and I Peter 4:3. For the time past of our life may suffice us to have wrought the will of the Gentiles, when we walked in lasciviousness, lusts, excess of wine, revellings, banquetings, and abominable idolatries:
This may be simplistic. Perhaps it does not draw as exact a line as you may want. But looking at these verses are a starting place for a BIBLICAL definition of drunkenness.
1. I'm not sure if it is proper to say this defines drunkenness legally so much as to say it is the point where driving becomes illegal. For example, I don't think BAC has anything to do with "public intoxication" in Texas, which appears to be at a law officer's discretion.
Please consider the following points from Scripture.
There is a point at which one passes from "drinking wine" to drunkenness; that is, these are two different states. For examples, Genesis 9:21 "And he drank of the wine, and was drunken..." Deuteronomy 29:19 "And it come to pass, when he heareth the words of this curse, that he bless himself in his heart, saying, I shall have peace, though I walk in the imagination of mine heart, to add drunkenness to thirst:"
The Bible speaks of "drunken" but also of an exceeding state of that: 1 Samuel 25:36 "And Abigail came to Nabal; and, behold, he held a feast in his house, like the feast of a king; and Nabal's heart was merry within him, for he was very drunken" The "very drunken" state is most obvious, but drunken might not be quite as readily observable.
Certain actions, states or physical signs are often associated with drunkenness in the Bible, such as staggering, shaking and vomiting. Psalm 107:27 They reel to and fro, and stagger like a drunken man, and are at their wit's end. (Cf. Jer. 23:9, Isa. 19:14; Prov. 23:29). [We understand other things can also cause these signs, such as sickness.]
Actions or states unrelated to alcohol sometimes are mistaken for drunkenness. 1 Samuel 1:13 "Now Hannah, she spake in her heart; only her lips moved, but her voice was not heard: therefore Eli thought she had been drunken." (Cf. Acts 2:15)
Drunkenness is associated with loss of control of one's senses or actions. Sometimes "loss of control" can be in a good way -- being controlled by the Spirit. Ephesians 5:18 "And be not drunk with wine, wherein is excess; but be filled with the Spirit;" There are also other figures in the Bible that speak of being "drunk" on something other than wine/strong drink that seem to generally share the meaning of not being in control or possession of one's faculties. (Cf. Job 12:24-25; Lam. 4:21; Rev. 17:2)
Drunkenness is caused by an excess of wine. Compare Eph. 5:18 and I Peter 4:3. For the time past of our life may suffice us to have wrought the will of the Gentiles, when we walked in lasciviousness, lusts, excess of wine, revellings, banquetings, and abominable idolatries:
This may be simplistic. Perhaps it does not draw as exact a line as you may want. But looking at these verses are a starting place for a BIBLICAL definition of drunkenness.
1. I'm not sure if it is proper to say this defines drunkenness legally so much as to say it is the point where driving becomes illegal. For example, I don't think BAC has anything to do with "public intoxication" in Texas, which appears to be at a law officer's discretion.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)