The Devil's Delusion

I recently read David Berlinski's book, The Devil's Delusion, Atheism and its Scientific Pretensions. His academic background and mathematics and his ability to express himself with the written and spoken word are neither of which I profess for myself. This brief article is not intended as a review of his book. Berlinski wrote The Devil's Delusion in response to Richard Dawkins' own book, The God Delusion. Dawkins goes far and wide to do his best to inflict some notion of misery on believers by vomiting his vile contempt about God. I was neither fazed nor impressed or dismayed by it.

Berlinski has not said anything to me that I, and I hardly think I am alone, was not already aware on the pretensions of atheists, not just concerning God whom they do not know, but concerning those things of nature and the universe which they do profess to know. Berlinski, who identifies himself as agnostic, has taken it upon himself to speak favorably in defense of theists and our claims concerning God and the universe.

I have often noted about atheists that their reasoning, to be quite liberal with that term, is so very much like the same so-called fundamentalists, fundies, or believers whom they ridicule. In the same manner as some believers sprinkle liberally their speech with words such as faith, belief, atheists sprinkle their speech no less liberally with the words such as, logic and reason. Both seem to think that merely by so sprinkling their speech makes it so and makes it convincing. As a testimony of the similarities between these two I have noticed the embrace and an increase in the use by believers of the atheists' proprietary term, strawman. It is not uncommon now to hear this term bantered about by theists with theists. What can I say but that being human with all its trappings of pettiness and other human characteristics is inescapable for both.

This is a quotation which is attributed to David Berlinki specifically, from The Devil's Delusion. Unless I missed it, which is not likely as I was familiar with the quotation and expected to come across it as I read the book, the quotation does not appear in the paperback copy. I believe it may be in the jacket of the hardcopy.

“Has anyone provided proof of God’s inexistence? Not even close. Has quantum cosmology explained the emergence of the universe or why it is here? Not even close. Have our sciences explained why our universe seems to be fine-tuned to allow for the existence of life? Not even close. Are physicists and biologists willing to believe in anything so long as it is not religious thought? Close enough. Has rationalism and moral thought provided us with an understanding of what is good, what is right, and what is moral? Not close enough. Has secularism in the terrible 20th century been a force for good? Not even close, to being close. Is there a narrow and oppressive orthodoxy in the sciences? Close enough. Does anything in the sciences or their philosophy justify the claim that religious belief is irrational? Not even in the ball park. Is scientific atheism a frivolous exercise in intellectual contempt? Dead on.”

David Berlinski is to atheism (let's be specific and real, that's atheists) and their scientific pretensions what Penn and Teller are to magicians and E.H. Schumacher [1] was to his fellow economists. Every one of these have called to account their brethren whether it be in the arenas of entertainment, economics or cosmology and quantum physics. We might recognize these individuals, by any other term, as Whistleblowers. This is the term adhered to them either when they (sometimes boldly, other times imprudently) cry out to inform the public or when they are exposed either by their own or the media. I believe we can also readily recognize the same contempt, mockery and scorn with which every attempt is made to discredit them. Rarely is there anything offered and put forward for those who hear the cry of the Whistleblower to become otherwise fully informed by those who have been exposed. Usually contempt takes from and center.

Lastly, David Berlinski shares an interesting point concerning the increasing cascade of contempt by atheists against religion (faith being my own preferred term). Berlinski sees the origin of this as arising in the aftermath of 911 attack on America. The quick reaction by atheists against religion was, I would say, no less pretentious then their other claims to which Berlinski speaks. Some atheists, particularly those who attest to having been hardcore theists at some earlier time in their lives, have some knowledge about some things which, when they are heard out, it becomes blatantly apparent that they never understood when they professed to believe those things. Then they run with those mistaken notions and mix those together with their own freshly and newly owned scientific pretensions while they ran with that mix to make a bigger and ever bigger lump. This is what they, like Sisyphus, will roll around, maybe even uphill, not as punishment, but by their own making.

Read More

The standard of strictness

Generally, the perception by some Christians of the law of Moses is that of being the ultimate standard of strictness with no allowance or tolerance for any deviation. This is taken by some as a safe and true measure by which the church can gauge and tout its sound and faithful adherence to its message and practices. However these lofty notions have a way of taking on the form of yokes such as men are given to impose on the saints in Christ. One example of this is the observance of the Lord’s Supper, or communion, the breaking of the bread and the fruit of the vine compared with the Jewish observance of the Passover as the strict pattern to be followed and emulated.

The truth is just a casual reading of the Old Testament unravels these lofty notions with the example involving the observance of the Passover. The LORD God commanded the children of Israel that they were to observe the Passover beginning on the tenth day through the fourteenth day of the first month, that is, Nisan (Exodus 12:1-6).

When Israel fell into apostasy they ceased to observe the Passover as they had been commanded and as they had observed it for many years. More precisely the observance of the Passover, it seems, was probably limited to the relatively small numbers of those who resided in Jerusalem and the surrounding area. It was King Hezekiah, who did right in the sight of the LORD God. He determined to restore the temple worship. He determined they were to observe the Passover. The Passover was also called the Feast of Unleavened Bread. Hezekiah decided to send out invitations near and far throughout Israel from Beersheba to Dan for the children of Israel to come observe the Passover. There were some who scorned and mocked the invitation, but some men humbled themselves. They accepted the invitation of King Hezekiah to come to Jerusalem for the observance of the Passover. So many people came to observe the Passover that there were not enough priests who had consecrated themselves. The Levites, who were more conscious then the priests, had consecrated themselves and assisted their brothers. Some of the people were unclean, yet they too observed the Passover. Hezekiah, who may not have had the book of the law to guide him, did have the Asaph the seer who know by divine revelation about when Moses himself consulted with the LORD in behalf of some men who were unclean. The knew they were unclean, but they didn't understand why they should miss out on the Passover. The response from the LORD to Moses was that those men could observe the Passover.

Here are five deviations and irregularities in Israel’s observance of the Passover under the command of King Hezekiah of which the scriptures testify was according to the commandment of the LORD God.

1 There is no starting or ending date, only the month, for the observance of the Passover.

2 There were many who had not consecrated, were unclean and had not purified

    themselves.

3 The Passover was observed in the second month (Iyar) of the year for seven days.

4 The people continued to celebrate for another seven days beyond what the law

   prescribed.

5 The hand of God was with the king and princes as commanded by the word of the LORD.

Clearly, King Hezekiah and the children of Israel rejoiced as they pleased and glorified the LORD God in their observance of the Passover.

conclusion

The Lord’s Supper, as observed by Christians, has its origin with Jesus, He ordained it on the night in which Jesus was betrayed and arrested. Even that observance (which was likely on a Friday, not a Saturday or Sunday) is not without some discussion and dissent between some saints in Christ. Some of those points of dissent include observing the Lord’s Supper in the evening only, as it is argued, it is a supper. Another point of contention is the frequency of the observance being limited to the first day of the week on Sunday only. Yet, the apostle Paul declared to the saints in Christ in the city of Corinth that “as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup” believers proclaim the Lord’s death until he comes (I Corinthians 11:23-26). The expression “as often” is hardly a law as to the frequency or day it was to be observed by the believers. It is hardly a law cast in concrete or written in stone anymore than to argue that the Passover could not be observed on the month of Nisan other than as it was ordained.

Would that when the saint in Christ had friends over for dinner or visit that they would observe the Lord's Supper and proclaim his death to their friends. A brief observance for their friends to witness can be powerful. Perhaps something like a two-part antiphony between wife and husband and children, "Jesus died" with the response "for your sins." Israel's observance of the Passover was not to include the alien or the sojourner unless these had been circumcised.

If we learn anything from Jesus it is that his invitation is not limited to his followers. There's no deception or compromise of faith here. Their observance is not to to be taught or allowed to be construed as the obedience of the gospel of Jesus as Lord and Savior. If there is anything we learn from the entirety of the revelation of the written will of God it is that our notions concerning a high standard of strictness is certainly there, it's just that it itself debunks the notions of man concerning such standards and the doctrines of men which they impose on the believers.

Read More

You were aliens

The words in the title of this article were a constant reminder to Israel of their slavery in Egypt. Later, Israel was reminded that they were still aliens in the land of Canaan in which they lived. There were various peoples who were displaced by Israel before Israel could settle in the land. Americans, too, were once aliens in the land in which they now live. They are still aliens. No, this is not a call for reparations or to leave the land. Those calls may sound good and play well, but they are hardly an authentic moral call to do the right thing and right the wrong. The starting point for such a supposedly high moral call would be to go back to the beginning of the immorality of sin. That is a point and a term which some who cry for reparations or for aliens are not about to give the time of day or expend their breath.

two-fold crisis

The recent ongoing flood of immigrants across America's borders has brought with it a two-fold crisis. What is for Americans a moral crisis is a survival crisis for immigrants. Americans are not alone in this crisis. Christians in America are just as much in crisis concerning their response to immigrants both in terms of a principle formed and shaped by the scriptures  and as much as a matter of law. Ostensibly, it would appear in the most superficial sense that one or both responses would solve the matter, namely, care for the immigrant or deport them. So, what's the problem, right? The problem is the unresolved moral bankruptcy crisis in the minds and hearts of Americans. This article attempts to identify at least two reasons for the moral bankruptcy crisis that plagues Americans. I suspect this moral tension with which Americans struggle may be just as true, with some minor word changes, of the struggles in Europe concerning immigrants, and, yes, nations of the world who are faced with aliens in their midst.

Preamble and Constitution

A person may or may not view or consider themselves as being a person of faith, that is, as one who thinks and acts in accordance with the tenets of their faith. However this is not the sole determining factor concerning a response to immigrants or aliens in America. The terms immigrant and alien are used interchangeably in this article to refer to the same group of people. Americans have the precedent and background of two dominant sources of influence and authority. These are the Preamble of the Constitution of the United States of America and the Bible. The scriptures, that is, the Bible is commonly referred to as the Old Testament (Tanakh) and the New Testament. The former of these, the Tanakh, (or as it is known by Christians, the Old Testament only) being the oldest source of authority among the Jewish people. The latter, the New Testament, being the authority for Christians with the Old Testament being for Christians, as the apostle Paul wrote, "for our learning." This raises the question how true Americans and Christians are being to those sources of authority. Does what we were given to saying and what we heard, at least in times past, reflect the convictions of our hearts as humans on this same earth with the those who may be less fortunate of lesser means?

Briefly, it is in the Preamble of our Constitution that these words were penned by our Founding Fathers:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed, by their Creator, with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness.

The scriptures speak to the Jews, but to Christians as well, directly and by way of example:

18 "He executes justice for the orphan and the widow, and shows His love for the alien by giving him food and clothing. 

19 "So show your love for the alien, for you were aliens in the land of Egypt.

There is the example of Jesus responding to plea for help from a Canaanite woman. Ironically, the Canaanites were one of the peoples who were displaced by Israel from the land which God promised Abraham that He would give to the Israel, the children of Abraham in Matthew 15:21-28.

25 But she came and began to bow down before Him, saying, "Lord, help me!" 

26 And He answered and said, "It is not good to take the children's bread and throw it to the dogs." 

The apostle Peter refers to Christians who were scattered throughout Asia as aliens, but he also quotes the same words of Moses to Israel and applies those words to Christians.

obligation and law

This is the point where the discussion usually runs like quicksilver to any one of different hot spots either to diffuse or dilute the obligation towards the alien. There is the cry concerning disease, economics, terrorism, and human trafficking to name just a few. Although this is the cry heard about aliens it is really not one which is pinned on the alien. The truth is that to pin these on aliens may be as awkward and discomforting as to have the words of the Preamble and the scriptures pinned on those who cry out against aliens. Instead, there is a the safe harbor of the law. (Safe harbor: a provision of a statute or a regulation that specifies that certain conduct will be deemed not to violate a given rule [wikipedia]). The implementation, at least at the personal conscious level is that _ it's the law. It brings the relief: Wish there was something I could do, but even if I wanted to, well, it's the law.

The single greatest difference concerning aliens between the Preamble and the scriptures and modern law is that the former two do not categorize or classify the alien as a criminal simply because he is an alien. Modern law makes the alien a criminal simply by entering the country.

conclusion

The point of this article is not to suggest that we dismiss or abolish the law. It is the law. If it is to be changed it is by Congress. Americans are certainly able to call for our elected officials to change or create any law. There is no argument about the law. This is not a call (like that preposterous favorite cry) to blindly allow or accept the criminal actions by aliens. The point is that law does not absolve the individual of being true to the words of, either the Preamble or the scriptures. Furthermore, to rail and rant against individuals or organizations, agencies or government does not equate with and is not synonymous with either the care for the alien or the work of the righteousness of God. Such behavior plays well for the media and selfies and a good-feeling sense of superior moral righteousness, but it's mostly a carnival spectacle.

The unexpected, and perhaps still unseen or unacknowledged effect of aliens, is that it has exposed even as we might not like to look at what some Americans and some Christians have forgotten about what they profess to believe and uphold.

Read More

King David, divorce, and the gift of God

King David, divorce, and the gift of God

by Gilbert Torres

And I say to you, whoever divorces his wife, except for immorality, and marries another woman commits adultery.

Divorce is not always an amicable parting between two people. Divorce often lives on as an unhealed wound in children and adults, too. Sometimes divorce is an ugly ordeal over custody of children and the division of property. Yet there is life after divorce. Live is a gift. It is the gift given as much for those who have caused the hurt of divorce as for those who have been hurt by divorce. It is a gift for those who may feel they do not deserve a gift. It is a gift for those who are reminded and assured by others that they are undeserving of any gift from God. The idea that the one who is hurt and the one causes the hurt should receive a gift is not something which fills our hearts with warm and wonderful feelings. However the truth is neither the one who gives gifts nor the recipient of that gift who accepts the gift require a third party to approve the giving or receiving of that gift. The purpose of this article is to present the scriptures as the reader is able to read those scriptures for themselves on the matter of divorce. It is hoped that you will gain understanding, confidence and joy in the LORD especially if you or a loved one have been affected by divorce directly or indirectly. You are invited to comment here on my blog or if you wish you can click here to be directed to my Facebook page to post your comment.

Read More

Baby spit backwash, more marvelous than baby's breath

My wife and I are very joyful and rejoicing in the recent birth of our first grandchild, Ruby to our daughter and son-in-law. I am a regular listener of NPR Fresh Air with Terry Gross. This is her interview with journalist and mother Angela Garbes.

If you love baby's breath, I do, (the real thing, not the flowers) you'll love the marvel of baby spit backwash. It is truly remarkable how the human female body can modify her breast milk according to what receptors in her breast analyze from her baby's spit backwash on her nipple.

The first link is the audio and transcript of the interview. The second link is Angela Garbes new book. The third link is her article to which reference is made in the interview.

New Book Explores The Science Of Pregnancy 'Like A Mother'

Like A Mother: A Feminist Journey Through The Science And Culture Of Pregnancy

The more I learn about breast milk, the more amazed I am

Read More

The magic of physics and the resurrection of Jesus

Perhaps you have heard this assertion: the grave is the end. There is nothing beyond the grave. Perhaps you have heard this other assertion: the resurrection is a scientific impossibility. However, this is as much as to say physics is just as much magic as is the resurrection.

These assertions, when they are heard in discussions, are often heavily colored with choice expletives and cursing perhaps to create and enhance the impression of credibility. This is nothing unlike what Peter did in a frantic effort to boost his credibility after he had denied three times that he knew Jesus and no one believed him, right? You might say it's almost like a magic act when the magician utters the magic word abracadabra on his trick to make it seem real and true. Generally, the sole value of the other side of that two-fold cascade of expletives and cursing is nothing more substantive than to mock and deride the belief in the concept of an extension of life beyond the grave such as the resurrection from the dead. Christians, but also Jews, Muslims and even Hinduism with its cyclical reincarnation, all fall under the same derision, aspersion and mockery, not only from atheists, but between their respective interfaith beliefs.

Indeed. Is this true? Are those who make that assertion, scientists and atheists typically, being true to the claims of science with respect to their assertions about the resurrection being a scientific impossibility? The reality is that scientists and atheists are not much different than Christians and other theists in that one group peppers their speech heavily with claims of logic and reason and the other group with claims about faith, respectively. More often than not they both make the same or very similar claims and arguments in support of those arguments, but ego can be as blinding as staring long and directly at the sun.

what would you rather be

There is no need to subject oneself to such a painful and damaging experience as staring at the distant sun. One need only look at a nearby rock. Can a rock be subjected to such extreme pressure and heat until it disappears out of human sight, that is, that it ceases to exist as though it never existed? Basic physics tells, both the scientist and non-scientist alike that regardless of whether or not they understand it, believe it or accept it, that, yes, a rock can be made to disappear seemingly into thin air as though it never existed.

However, scientists also inform us that the subatomic makeup of the rock, that is, its stored, static energy matter can not be destroyed. It can only be changed into dynamic energy. Theoretically, the subatomic makeup of the rock -now in its changed state of dynamic energy- can be gathered together to compose the rock again. This is not physics magic. It is not a theological mystery. It is neither obscure nor convoluted. It neither suggests nor does it require that one believe or accept the concept of afterlife, heaven or the resurrection. It is basic, fundamental physics.

So how is it that an inanimate rock without any intelligence fares differently, so as not to say better, than a human being with all the knowledge that a human being amasses, its complex DNA information, and last but perhaps least of all _ the human being's physical body, subatomic makeup of stored energy matter? Literally, the skin, flesh and bones. What so-called scientific logic and reason does the scientist and atheist offer to account for such an inconsistency concerning the changing of the stored energy matter of a rock and the stored energy matter of a human being? If what, according to scientists and atheists, is true of a human being one should understandably rather choose (not that one has a choice) to be a rock, right? One can assert or hope (?) as did Stephen Hawking that one never existed. Ravi Zacharias (video time stamp, 3 min 40 sec) relates how Hawking at Lady Mitchell Hall at the University of Cambridge in Cambridge England in 1990 declared that since he, as a human being has been predetermined and is without freedom of choice he might as well not be. Hawking was not the first to utter that cry which, kind of like magic, is made null and void if for no other simple reason than that the person who utters that cry is, that is, the person by the name of the late Stephen Hawking exists. Regardless of whether or not one believes or accepts predetermination the fact is the individual exists and is alive to think and talk about his life condition and make his or her choice as to how he or she will respond to their life.

ain't it cool?

If the theory involving the changing of the stored energy matter of a rock into dynamic energy is true, and I have no doubt nor do I question that it is true, why do scientists not see, or reject, the same law as concerns, not just inanimate objects, but animate objects, too? Actually, the theory concerning the change of energy from one state to another is proved for us. It is not to be dismissed, as non-scientists are prone to do, as a theory or as not having been proved. We can see in H2O the outward substantive change with our own eyes quite routinely and regularly without human hands or human intervention or sophisticated, high technology gadgetry.

The stored energy in ice, when it is subjected to a small increase in temperature changes into the stored energy of water. If it is heated a few degrees more it will disappear into the dynamic energy of vapor, like magic, out of human sight. Then, not theoretically or virtually, but quite actually the vapor cools (with or without human involvement) and reverts back into water and then back to the stored energy state of ice. This is not magic. It's not just cool. It is not convoluted or concocted. It is simple basic physics.

the singularity

The change of energy such as from a stored state to a dynamic state involves a vastly different form of the energy which has been changed. One does not look and point to where the rock once was and say, see the rock! One does not look and point in the area where the water vapor was last seen and say, see the water, or see the ice! One can no longer see, not because of blindness, but because the stored energy has been changed into dynamic energy.

the transformation, not change, of death

After all the vast leaps in technology what should be the pinnacle, the high point feat of the Singularity? The leap is akin to a Microsoft software service pack, that is, it's nothing major like a new version. The Singularity being that near-future point at which computer technology capability exceeds that of human capability thinks, not only to circumvent death, but to defy basic physics. The change envisioned for human beings by Ray Kurzweil and Singularitians is not even the more radical transformation of human life through death, but it is the vast, but no less a whimper of change of energy like that of a rock or or like that of ice. The longing of Singularitians involves the physical uploading of human consciousness unto physical hardware so as to enable the individual to continue to life in perpetuity, or at least as long as the hardware can last.

Alas! This is the grand scheme of Singularitians to turn a deaf ear to the law of the conservation of energy and of basic physics to avoid the transformation of death? It may not be the fear of death, but it may be at the very least an obstinate flat-earth mentality akin to defying gravity in a mockery of nature and the reality of death, the ancient, ultimate nemesis of mankind.

the form of a man
The scriptures reveal the origin of death. One need not believe or accept that ancient account in the scriptures and still acknowledge the reality of death. Although the scriptures speak of death in various and different terms the only one which pertains to this discussion is the bodily, physical death of an individual who is laid into the ground. One need not believe or accept that an individual by the name of Jesus took on the form of a man to live and die among us. One need only be mindful that the life and death of Jesus was not extraordinarily different than that of any human being. He possessed an outward appearance, which according to human standards, was the form of a man. Definitely, and at the very least, his physical makeup was a mass of stored energy, but also a vast possession of knowledge. Muslims make the right and critical observation that what Jesus did, that is, the miracles, was not anything which had not been done by various prophets in Israel. Specifically, what they are referring to his the raising of the dead by Jesus. They are correct.

the actual transformation of the resurrection
What this critical observation fails to take into account is that the claims which Jesus made about himself went far beyond raising dead people. Jesus applied what He and the prophets did towards the raising of the dead to Himself. In other words, He claimed that He would lay down His life willfully and die. Then, He would take up His life from the dead again without human hands or human involvement.

This is nothing convoluted. It is not obscure. It is basic physics. It reflects what scientists have observed and informed us about the same law of the conservation of energy. It reflects the same transformation as of the energy in ice into water then vapor _ without human hands or human involvement. It reflects the similar predetermined, calculated plans of Singularitians, but with the critical difference that Jesus submitted to the virtual transformation of energy through death -not by circumventing death as is the grand scheme of Singularitians for man's eternal posterity- and then to the actual transformation (reversal) of energy through the resurrection.

conclusion
One would think the modern age of high technology is completely the sole accomplishment of twentieth century man. It is easy for scientists and technologists to acknowledge the thought and knowledge discoveries of ancient men from Aristotle to Galileo, Copernicus, Newton and others. It is not as easy to acknowledge the claims and fulfillment of the claims made by Jesus concerning his death and his resurrection. These claims and the observation of the fulfillment of those claims is no less than the required criteria of science on nature.

One need not like it, accept it or understand the law of the conservation of energy, but that does not invalidate or nullify the claims and the reality in the change of energy matter and the transformation of the resurrection from the dead. Mockery and denial may sound good and play well, but it may reveal either an ignorance of basic physics or a obstinate unwillingness to observe the same law at work in the conservation of energy as in the resurrection.

Read More

Wine and the Spirit

Let me begin with a sober and clear declaration. This article will focus on the topic of drinking, whether beer, wine or strong drink, by the saints in Christ. I have used the term wine in a general sense to refer to or include all the above terms. I am mindful that there is no disclaimer sufficient here which would prevent any distortion or rash, wild and outlandish comparisons between one sin and another by some brothers and sisters. This may or may not be to discredit this article. Your substantive response from the written word of God is much welcome.

No one is edified simply through dilution of this message with a multitude and a barrage of barely cohesive or connectable questions and speculations concerning the matter of drinking. This article is no more a hearty call or a commandment for anyone to drink anymore than it is a warning, threat or a condemnation for anyone to abstain from drinking. These tactics may be familiar to some of you. The desired intent of this article is that the saints understand and be edified concerning wine as well as the Spirit because it is the Spirit whose words are life in the Son.

There is a history of men of God who lost or forgot their way and confidence with the people whom they led. Moses lost his way momentarily which led to some serious consequences, namely, God informed Moses that he would not lead Israel into the promise land. Even as Moses reproved the children of Israel for being rebels at the waters of Meribah the LORD himself was quick to reprove Moses immediately afterward for his own rebellion against God. Moses had failed to honor God. The transgression of Moses was not, as the saints have often heard, that Moses (Numbers 20:10) struck when the LORD had told him to speak to the rock, but rather that Moses took the honor for himself and Aaron saying, “Shall we bring forth water for you out of this rock?” See Moses’ own reflective commentary on his actions at Meribah (Deuteronomy 8:15) and who was the one who brought water out of the rock for the children of Israel. King Saul lost his confidence before the people when he, too, rebelled against God (I Samuel 15:25, 30). The point of the lesson concerning Moses and Saul for those who lead, teach and preach is to be mindful of self and pride even as they cast the judgment and condemnation of sin upon those who choose to drink wine, even worse when they are mistaken on those judgments and condemnations against their brothers and sisters.

tactics

There are some tactics with which some saints are familiar on discussions concerning matters of faith. These include, but are not limited to, the standard original language single word definitions in isolation, of course, with the call to be mindful of the context. The word definition is presented, but also, too, other possible meanings of the word. There is also the abundant quotations of one man after another and what each one has to say on the matter that is favorable to the message of the speaker. And, for as much as the saints hear that “we are not under the law” there is an abundance of references to the Old Testament scriptures which are presented in a light that is favorable to the message of the speaker. There are the standard favorites for and against drinking and such as Proverbs 20:1 and Ephesians 5:18 and I Timothy 5:23. There is also the abundance of national statistics of deaths in automobile accidents involving alcohol. There is the call to abstain from drinking as a matter of common sense as though common sense were a guide for the saints in Christ and as though it were on par with the holy commandment of the word of God. Lastly, there is the personal appeal by the speaker that he doesn’t drink and he doesn’t see why any Christian would have the need to drink. Generally, these things tactics have the desired effect of impressing listeners. They represent a concoction, convolution and obscurity of what is not that difficult to understand much less for the saints to read for themselves in the scriptures. There is no doubt that word definitions and original language studies as well as exegesis and hermeneutics have scholarly merit, but (perhaps not unlike the misuse of wine?) often these are merely to display and to flaunt in discussions. Those in one-on-one discussions who may not have a background in those areas or the saints in the assembly who also may not have a background in those areas are simply bedazzled, lost and out of luck

I will not expend time and energy in the futility of those things which are in abundance and to which readers can readily obtain access either online or paper and ink copies at the local library even from a Christian university through inter-library book loans. I believe, you, the reader, can see and read in plain English in your preferred version of the scriptures these matters and make a determination for yourself. Assuming you come to an understanding of this matter in a way in which you have not known before this will not remove the struggle and tug of the emotions of the heart on you. Will you allow yourself to be guided or held captive by the fickle emotions of the heart, or will you choose to trust in the word of the Lord which the Spirit has given for our understanding and edification?

playing it safe

You have heard this one before, right? “Why drink and risk being seen by a non-believer?” This seems and may be harmless and may well be for the individual Christian to exercise. But, just where or how did the saints ever come to adopt such a strategy for living in the Spirit and living for Jesus in the world? These may be the notions dispensed by some who lead, teach and preach instead of building up the saints with a solid understanding of the word of God. There are a couple instances which come to mind of those who thought to play it safe, the servant who received one talent from his master (Matthew 25:24-28) and hid it lest he lose it while attempting to multiply it for his master. There is the safe response of the disciples to the teaching of Jesus on marriage and divorce which they did not understand. They said, “If the relationship of the man with his wife is like this, it is better not to marry” (Matthew 19:10). Jesus was quick to respond incisively and powerfully to the disciples to debunk such mistaken notions of playing it safe.

grape juice and wine

Much has been made by men to create a distinction between grape juice and wine as for instance what Jesus created at the wedding at Cana. More specifically, grape juice and wine, are designated, correctly I will note, as new wine or good wine versus wine, that is, grape juice which has turned to fermented wine. There is an instance in which Moses gave instruction to the children of Israel as to what they could do, not that they had to, if the journey to Jerusalem (or, “the place the LORD your God will choose” Deuteronomy 14:23-27) was too far for them to make with family and animals. Read the passage online or below. The LORD God did not leave it for the children of Israel to wonder or to scrutinize word definitions to determine between wine and strong drink as Christians do when they struggle to make a distinction between grape juice and wine. Typically, the default response to the passage in Deuteronomy is to evoke the cry that we are not under the law of the Old Testament, this, while citing multiple passages from that same source such as, wine is a mocker from the book of Proverbs. Hence, in this manner the inconsistency in the handling the whole of the written word of the Lord is maintained. Moses said,

23 Eat the tithe of your grain, new wine and olive oil, and the firstborn of your herds and flocks in the presence of the LORD your God at the place he will choose as a dwelling for his Name, so that you may learn to revere the LORD your God always. 

24 But if that place is too distant and you have been blessed by the LORD your God and cannot carry your tithe (because the place where the LORD will choose to put his Name is so far away), 

25 then exchange your tithe for silver, and take the silver with you and go to the place the LORD your God will choose. 

26 Use the silver to buy whatever you like: cattle, sheep, wine or other fermented drink, or anything you wish. Then you and your household shall eat there in the presence of the LORD your God and rejoice. 

27 And do not neglect the Levites living in your towns, for they have no allotment or inheritance of their own.

I anticipate the distortions, but I will note the following from the word of the Lord. The passage in Deuteronomy was not a commandment from the LORD for the children of Israel to drink. The wine and strong drink were options included along with the cattle and sheep which they could buy. The LORD stated, “buy whatever you like” and very importantly, “you and your household shall eat there in the presence of the LORD your God and rejoice.” Then or today, the Lord does not command anyone to drink, but neither does the Lord condemn those who choose to drink and rejoice. This was the instruction of the LORD to the children of Israel as they were en route to worship the LORD! How much more so at a wedding celebration in which not only was the LORD Jesus present, but he gifted the wedding guests with an abundance of wine for them to continue in their celebration and rejoicing!

I have often stated over the years that what you think and what you feel is not the same as what the word of the Lord declares. There are things in the assembly of the saints which I anticipate might make make me uneasy and stir my emotions. I have also stated that I recognize those emotions of the heart and that I will not be governed by the emotions of the heart, but by my understanding and confidence in the word of the Lord. There is little need for fear or anger about these things mainly because this is neither what makes for understanding and peace in their heart nor for the edification of the saints in Christ. Indeed, if perfect love casts out fear [1] and the punishment which it involves there is no quarter for anger alongside love.

wine and being filled with the Spirit

Despite all of the apostle Paul’s efforts to instruct and build up the confidence of the saints through their understanding of the will of the Lord he was keenly aware of the reality and the struggles among the saints to attain and sustain such confidence in the Lord. Those struggles represented then and now opportunities where men impose their mistaken notions of piety and for those who allow such men to defraud them through the imposition of things that “have, to be sure, the appearance of wisdom in self-made religion . . .[2]” Note that the apostle Paul concedes “to be sure” about the false appearance of piety in these notions of men who impose and men who allow these things to be imposed on them. In other words, those things sound good, they play well, they might even make one feel good about the yoke they have allowed to be imposed on them rather than taking on the yoke of the teaching of Jesus. It was the apostle Paul, a servant of the Lord Jesus, who declared side by side both the admonition to not be drunk with wine and the exhortation to be filled with the Spirit.

a travesty

There is a telling and significant claim which is made by brothers and sisters who wage great efforts to impose or falsely and mistakenly warn their brothers and sisters about the dangers of drinking. The claim goes like this: “one drink makes you one drink drunk.” The apostle Paul's words come to mind, “to be sure,” this sounds good and it plays well as is the intended effect. What this claim reveals is the similar measure by which some saints have been led to believe by those who profess to lead, teach and preach that like as one drink makes one drunk so, too, having the Holy Spirit means you are filled with the Holy Spirit. [3] [4] [the indwelling of deity in Jesus] However, the avoidance and abstinence of wine and not drinking no more defaults to the believer being filled with the Holy Spirit anymore than the Holy Spirit fills the believer simply because the Holy Spirit dwells in the believer. When the thirst for living water is such that there are no rivers of living water flowing freely from the believer’s innermost being there is no shortage of men with gimmicks for splashing water as a sham for the appearance of flowing rivers of living water and being filled with the Spirit.

As big a travesty as there is involving the man-made measure as to what constitutes being drunk the greater travesty against the saints is how they are similarly led by those who profess to lead, teach and preach to deceive the saints that they are filled with the Holy Spirit simply because the Holy Spirit dwells in them.

the interpretation of seeming contradictions and inconsistencies

All this is hardly a matter of understanding the original language of a single word definition in isolation. Even less it is hardly a matter of what an impressive list of scholars have to say on the matter. It is about the matter of the interpretation of the scriptures. Of course, even here the same tactics and drama spin out in fits, not of anything that would lead one to believe a certain individual is in the Spirit or walking in the Spirit. It is not hard to see the blatant inconsistencies of what is touted and supposedly a sound handling of the written revelation of the word of God. Much time is expended in reading, not the word of the Lord, but _ one word labels which we pin on ourselves, and mutually and respectively, the labels that we pin on others as so-called conservative and so-called liberal.

As an example of interpretation, many saints can readily (even if poorly) account with some explanation from their English language Bible to terse conclusion that if you believe in Jesus you are saved. The statement is as true. So, too, is the response of Peter to his listeners to be baptized for the forgiveness of their sins. Peter never mentioned or called on his listeners to believe in the Lord Jesus. What is paraded as a contradiction and inconsistency in the scriptures is not that difficult to understand. It is a totally different matter to accept what we understand.

Assuredly, no one thinks there is a contradiction or inconsistency between these words spoken by Jesus, "I judge no one" and "for judgment I have come into the world" or "I have many things to judge concerning you." It does not call for the standard original language single word definitions in isolation or the exhortation to heed the context. It does not call for a heap of national statistics on wrong judgments handed down by judges. We understand and accept the cohesive consistency of these words spoken by Jesus. Could it be that any discussion on the topic of Jesus and judging does not rise nor does it foment the sensual and carnal desires for the spectacle as does the subject of drinking, bearing arms, homosexuality or abortion?

This is precisely what happens concerning the matter of drinking in the scriptures, namely, that we understand the matter that is not difficult to understand, it's just the acceptance part that is too much for some saints. As much as there are the admonitions against being drunk there are the words of merriment, rejoicing and drinking wine. The difficulty which some experience between this seeming contradiction and inconsistency in the scriptures is for the simple reason that they stop short.

They hold back from applying the same diligence as concerns belief and baptism. A man with whom I'd been engaged in study was at a loss when I replied to him, what, then does the believer need not repent of his sins or life of sin because, after all, John 3:16 says nothing about repentance? Of course, he went here and there in the scriptures to show  me the importance of repentance in the believer. How is it then, I asked, that you can readily do this on the matter of repentance or openly and unabashedly confessing one's faith in Jesus, but when it comes to baptism you throw out as being meaningless and insignificant. Similarly, how is it that some brothers and sisters can readily discern, interpret and apply the scriptures through diligence on various matters, but seem at a loss as concerns the drinking of wine by the saints in Christ?

conclusion

People do not thirst where there is water. Where there is no water the danger is, if we have learned anything from Moses and Meribah, that even as we, like Moses, accuse others of being rebels we ourselves might be in rebellion against God. The danger is that we will resort to gimmicks and appearances of piety, but all these things are simply man-made mistaken notions of improving the commandment of the Lord and which are nothing new. The appearance of piety in such notions may deceive some saints, they do not deceive all the saints, and they definitely do not deceive the Lord.

Whether a brother or sister chooses to exercise their freedom in Christ to drink is solely for them to do so. If that were to trouble me I readily recognize this as the emotions of the heart and I will neither be guided by those emotions nor will I place those emotions in place of or on par with the commandment of the word of the Lord. The Lord no more commanded my brother and my sister to drink anymore than he commanded them to abstain from drinking.

Yes, the reality and danger of sin is always present and our adversary roars around us seeking whom he may devour. However, man-made notions of piety and the appearance of piety so as to improve on the commandment of God are as mistaken as Israel’s notions of piety to stop saying and writing the name of God. Do you think the LORD our God was concerned so to instruct Moses not to declare his name aloud to Pharaoh? Any attempt which purports to make that determination for a brother or sister is as much as to gauge and measure out the quantity of their drink. It is as presumptuous and falsely misleading as to tell a brother or sister that they are filled with the Holy Spirit simply because the Holy Spirit dwells in them. This is the same reasoning by which some brother will judge and condemn others as being drunk on the basis of a first drink. It is an indictment on those who lead, teach and preach that while they may not be able to teach the indwelling of the Spirit, they will not hesitate to expound on what the apostle Paul called “fleshly indulgence” and the appearance of piety such as in the exercise of their abstinence from wine. Do not neglect the weightier matters.

My prayer is for your understanding and edification in Jesus our Lord and Savior. Amen.

Read More