Commandments should not be followed ...

  • Thread starter Thread starter guanophore
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
My husband (privately) asked our pastor where in the Bible it says we are forbidden to drink alcohol (not get drunk-just have a drink). It was broadcast to the entire church that some “saved” person actually thought that the Bible didn’t forbid the drinking of alcohol! (Laughter and head shaking followed.) He next said “I can show you all over the Bible where it says so!” It took everything I had not to jump up and say, “well then-go ahead!”
The wedding at Cana completely rebukes this notion, which is simply a product of the temperance movement which was in full swing when Fundamentalism was born. When Scripture contradicts their tradition, they choose tradition over Scripture.

At the beginning of his earthly ministry, Christ turned water into wine. At the end, he transformed his blood into wine. This is very unfortunate for those who wish he’d worked these miracles backwards.

But don’t you dare call them Pharisaic for implementing such rules!
 
The wedding at Cana completely rebukes this notion, …
Not to mention the specific reference from Matthew’s Gospel:
“It is not what enters you (ie, wine) which defiles you, rather it is what comes out from within you(ie, the selfish desire to get drunk) which defiles you.”
 
40.png
ellammcg:
I don’t even know what you are talking about. Those terms are foreign to me. We have none of those things in the church of which I am a member. I am a Baptist (you would also call us fundamentalists). I am not refering to all Protestant churches by any means and I am sorry if it was taken that way. I apoplogize if I offended.
Forgive me; I never looked at your profile; I thought you were Catholic.:o
 
40.png
Philthy:
Lack of works? Where do you come up with such stuff! How about his repentance and his bearing true witness to his own guilt and Christ’s innocence? In this thread in particular, that latter work is relevant: he observed the Commandment: “Thou shalt not bear false witness”
What enabled him to observe that commandment, Phil? Was that truth revealed to him by flesh and blood, or someone else?
 
40.png
Philthy:
Assuming your point regarding “now I know” and your interpretation of James(an assumption I dont entertain!), the problem remains that your point is USELESS. The doctrine of salvation by faith alone remains useless with the limited exception that it has the capacity to alter someone who believes that they can be saved by works ALONE. No one here is of that belief. For the rest of us, what do we do with such a claim? Somehow rest in the knowledge that we are saved apart from works that we are expected to do anyhow to confirm our faith as being genuinely salvific?

Thats an illogical, useless message, IMHO. For example:

I respond to an alter call and accept Christ. I am taught the “Salvation is by faith alone” gospel. 2 weeks later I am tempted to commit adultery. I have been taught, and I believe that I am saved by faith alone - apart from avoiding this adulterous affair. The only problem is - and its a big problem - if I engage in the affair I will not know if I have genuine saving faith! And I would know this because you and MD taught me that James tells us that we are shown to be saved by our works (avoiding sin) and not by a faith which is alone, right? So guess what? I must do the very same thing that I would do if I believed that my actions afffected my salvation. Its a useless doctrine - in fact, worse than useless in that has the potential to fool those not in Gods grace into believing that they are. It was the same problem Paul faced from those who claimed that they should sin all the more so that Grace may abound.
Confess your sins.
40.png
Philthy:
My guess is that you know neither but that you would like to believe both and are playing loose with the word “certain”.
I’m certain I’ll find out.
 
What enabled him to observe that commandment, Phil? Was that truth revealed to him by flesh and blood, or someone else?
Anyone who keeps the commandments does so by grace, through faith. It is not possible to keep them otherwise. What enables Christians to keep the Commandment is God, who is at work within us to will and to do His good pleasure.
 
What enabled him to observe that commandment, Phil?
The Bible doesnt say, does it? My guess would be that his free will cooperating with Gods grace enabled him to observe that commandment.
Was that truth revealed to him by flesh and blood, or someone else?
Actually, in his case, it was flesh and blood and someone else - (ie, Christ in his fully human, fully divine). He was one of those who was able to fulfill the salvific conditional of “whoever hears my word and believes in the one who sent me”.
 
Where in Heb. 11 does it even mention Abraham’s justification?
Although my previous posts, as well as those made by others, should have been sufficient to establish the connection, I will make a final effort to explain to you how it is that Hebrews 11 speaks of Abraham’s justification.

Please note that I am going to show you a number of things that bring the evidence into focus. Please read over all of our previous posts on the three instances referring to Abraham being justified. These are enough evidence but what I will present even more here. Together they make a very persuasive case.

All of this will take some time so please be patient and read this all very carefully.

Let’s start with Genesis where Abraham’s faith is reckoned to him as righteousness. This faith pertains to the promise of off spring. At that point in time Abraham was still called Abram and his wife was still called Sarai. God then makes his covenant with Abraham.

In Gen 17:4-8 it says:
“Behold, my covenant is with you, and you shall be the father of a multitude of nations. No longer shall your name be Abram, but your name shall be Abraham; for I have made you the father of a multitude of nations. I will make you exceedingly fruitful; and I will make nations of you, and** kings shall come forth from you**. And I will establish my covenant between me and you and your descendants after you throughout their generations for an everlasting covenant, to be God to you and to your descendants after you. And I will give to you, and to your descendants after you, the land of your sojournings, all the land of Canaan, for an everlasting possession; and I will be their God.”

In Gen 17:15-16 it says this:
"And God said to Abraham, “As for Sarai your wife, you shall not call her name Sarai, but Sarah shall be her name. I will bless her, and moreover I will give you a son by her; I will bless her, and she shall be a mother of nations; kings of peoples shall come from her.”

Scripture always speaks through the idea of fatherhood and Abraham is no exception. Even though Sarah is not mentioned as having her faith reckoned as righteousness we can easily see that this is the case. She receives the same blessings and a name change just as Abraham did. This demonstrates God’s favor and approval along with the covenant relationship established with Sarah in the same fashion as it is established with Abraham. Sarah, like Abraham believed God and believed his promise concerning offspring.

Hebrews 11:11 specifically mentions this about Sarah by stating:
“By faith Sarah herself received power to conceive, even when she was past the age, since she considered him faithful who had promised.”

This is exactly the same thing that Abraham did and the connection is unmistakeable when Paul says in Romans 4:3-13 that:

“For what does the scripture say? ‘Abraham believed God, and it was reckoned to him as righteousness.’ … We say that faith was reckoned to Abraham as righteousness…How then was it reckoned to him?..The promise to Abraham and his descendants, that they should inherit the world, did not come through the law but through the righteousness of faith.”

Clearly, both Abraham and Sarah were justified by faith and their belief that God would keep his promises concerning them parenting many off spring and many nations, and that kings would come from them.

Hebrews 11:1-2 says:
“NOW FAITH is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen. For by it the men of old received divine approval.”

Henry’s Concise Commentary, a non-Catholic source, says this about Hebrews chapter 11.

“Text: - Ver. 1-3 Faith always has been the mark of God’s servants, from the beginning of the world. Where the principle is planted by the regenerating Spirit of God, it will cause the truth to be received, concerning justification by the sufferings and merits of Christ. And the same things that are the object of our hope, are the object of our faith. It is a firm persuasion and expectation, that God will perform all he has promised to us in Christ.”

Further proof that Hebrews chapter 11 refers to justification comes from cross referencing the comments in verse 33 about Rahab’s faith in helping the Jewish spies with the comments about Rahab in James 2:25. Both passages speak of the same instance in Rahab’s life and James 2:25 says:

“…was not also Rahab the harlot justified by works when she received the messengers and sent them out another way?”

In all of this we have shown that:

Sarah was justified in Genesis along with Abraham.

Rahab was justified per James chapter 2.

Henry’s Concise Commentary recognizes that Hebrews Chapter 11 is talking about the justifying faith of the patriarchs, prophets, and martyrs of the Old Testament.

It is now quite clear that Hebrews 11 is talking about faith and justification.

Hebrews 11:8-10 says this about Abraham:
“By faith Abraham obeyed when he was called to go out to a place which he was to receive as an inheritance; and he went out, not knowing where he was to go. By faith he sojourned in the land of promise, as in a foreign land, living in tents with Isaac and Jacob, heirs with him of the same promise. For he looked forward to the city which has foundations, whose builder and maker is God.”

This is a reference to Abraham being justified. This reference pertains to events in Genesis 12 and shows that Abraham was justified on more than one occassion.
 
40.png
Philthy:
Not to mention the specific reference from Matthew’s Gospel:
“It is not what enters you (ie, wine) which defiles you, rather it is what comes out from within you(ie, the selfish desire to get drunk) which defiles you.”
Paul’s command is that one should not be a drunk (Eph 5:18), and Proverbs warns of that
as well.

The prohibition is not against drinking, but drinking in excess.
40.png
Philthy:
The Bible doesnt say, does it? My guess would be that his free will cooperating with Gods grace enabled him to observe that commandment.
OK; my point being, he was regenerate when he spoke both to the other thief, and to Christ; his admonition to the other thief was not the cause of his regeneration; neither would he any greater a child of Christ’s kingdom for having hung longer on the tree, then he would be had died immediately after the Lord’s words to him; wouldn’t you agree?
 
gaunophore:
I am referring to subtracting things that are meant to go together, like subtracting v. 10 from Eph. 2:8-10.

Or subtracting love and hope from faith, so as to try to make faith stand “alone”.

1 Cor 13:13
3 And now faith, hope, and love abide, these three; and the greatest of these is love.

If one can only be saved by “faith alone”, why didn’t paul say that this was the greatest?
Faith doesn’t have to be the greatest thing to be the most important thing. One cannot engage in the greater love until one has been justified by the lesser faith, which makes the lesser faith more important; no?

Love is the greater because love is eternal; faith and hope, for the believer, are temporal, and will be no longer needful for him once he “sleeps.”
 
Paul’s command is that one should not be a drunk (Eph 5:18), and Proverbs warns of that
as well.

The prohibition is not against drinking, but drinking in excess.
And yet many a Fundamentalist community prohibits drinking AT ALL, and some even go so far as to alter the Scripture reading while distributing bread and grape juice to refer to “juice” and not wine.

Do you agree that such practices are unScriptural?
OK; my point being, he was regenerate when he spoke both to the other thief, and to Christ; his admonition to the other thief was not the cause of his regeneration; neither would he any greater a child of Christ’s kingdom for having hung longer on the tree, then he would be had died immediately after the Lord’s words to him; wouldn’t you agree?
But that was on the far side of the Cross; by Moondweller’s logic above it doesn’t count and provides no doctrinal information.

Do you disagree with Moondweller?
 
Paul’s command is that one should not be a drunk (Eph 5:18), and Proverbs warns of that
as well.

The prohibition is not against drinking, but drinking in excess.

OK; my point being, he was regenerate when he spoke both to the other thief, and to Christ; his admonition to the other thief was not the cause of his regeneration; neither would he any greater a child of Christ’s kingdom for having hung longer on the tree, then he would be had died immediately after the Lord’s words to him; wouldn’t you agree?
Was the thief only justified or justified and regenerated?
 
40.png
Teflon93:
And yet many a Fundamentalist community prohibits drinking AT ALL, and some even go so far as to alter the Scripture reading while distributing bread and grape juice to refer to “juice” and not wine.
I have no first-hand experience of that; however, they have no reason to refer to “grape juice,” as the accounts say that He took “a cup,” and said, “Drink from it all of you.” So to read the Scripture account and to refer to the wine as “wine” is incorrect as well.
40.png
Teflon93:
Do you agree that such practices are unScriptural?
If Scripture prohibits the prohibiting of drinking alcohol, it is unscriptural.
40.png
Teflon93:
But that was on the far side of the Cross; by Moondweller’s logic above it doesn’t count and provides no doctrinal information.

Do you disagree with Moondweller?
The New Covenant went into effect at the time of Christ’s death; He died before the other two, according to John.

Nevertheless, even if He hadn’t died first, His statement to the thief was truthful—He’s God, and He does as he pleases.
 
I have no first-hand experience of that; however, they have no reason to refer to “grape juice,” as the accounts say that He took “a cup,” and said, “Drink from it all of you.” So to read the Scripture account and to refer to the wine as “wine” is incorrect as well.
Grape juice not existing until Welch invented pasteurization in the 1830s is a problem.

Are you now claiming that Christ didn’t offer wine at the Last Supper?
If Scripture prohibits the prohibiting of drinking alcohol, it is unscriptural.
The prohibition of alcohol is not Scriptural, Christ having turned water into wine at Cana and offered wine at the Last Supper. Christ cannot therefore be claimed to oppose us drinking wine.

And yet Fundamentalists do, because they elevate their manmade tradition over Scripture, and mercilessly enforce it.
The New Covenant went into effect at the time of Christ’s death; He died before the other two, according to John.
Nevertheless, even if He hadn’t died first, His statement to the thief was truthful—He’s God, and He does as he pleases.
His statement to the rich man was truthful as well, and we have no indications the rich man died before the thief did, do we?
 
Paul’s command is that one should not be a drunk (Eph 5:18), and Proverbs warns of that
as well. The prohibition is not against drinking, but drinking in excess.
A very long winded way of agreeing with me! It is only sola scriptura adherents who remain confused on this point.
OK; my point being, he was regenerate when he spoke both to the other thief, and to Christ; his admonition to the other thief was not the cause of his regeneration; neither would he any greater a child of Christ’s kingdom for having hung longer on the tree, then he would be had died immediately after the Lord’s words to him; wouldn’t you agree?
It’s a pointless speculation motivated by a personal agenda IMHO. Scripture doesnt reveal the the thief’s status, the content of his faith, whether he had ever been baptized or any other compelling details which might explain the significance of recording the event. Not particularly fruitful ground for discussion - wouldn’t you agree?
 
Confess your sins.
This makes no sense as a response to my comment regarding the uselessness of the doctrine of sola fide among Christians. Did you have nothing coherent to say or did you simply quote the wrong post?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top