Rethinking Baptism: Part 2

So, Why Get Baptized?

Let’s look to the source of Jesus’ command, found in Matthew 28:18-21

And Jesus came up and spoke to them, saying, “All authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth. “Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age.”

This has been broken down many times before, so I am not going to labor in completely deconstructing this popular passage. It does involve this: Jesus’ power and presence; going (really “as one goes along in life”); making disciples; baptizing, teaching.
I believe that when asking this question of baptism and why we are to do it, it comes directly from this passage and also from Jesus’ baptism found in the gospels.

After being baptized, Jesus came up immediately from the water; and behold, the heavens were opened, and he saw the Spirit of God descending as a dove and lighting on Him,
and behold, a voice out of the heavens said, “This is My beloved Son, in whom I am well-pleased. Then Jesus was led up by the Spirit into the wilderness to be tempted by the devil.
Matthew 3:16-4:1

What I want to direct our attention to is those who say, “We get baptized because Jesus did it?” The question comes in “Why was Jesus baptized and how does it relate to our baptism?”
This is the thrust of this paper.

1. We are baptized to show our new identity, as Jesus was

Jesus, from what we can gather from the Scriptures, was known merely as Joseph’s son, the carpenter’s son (Matt 13:55; Mark 6:3), few (Luke 2:25-34) knew him to be the coming Messiah, or God’s son. When Jesus came out of the water, God spoke this:

“This is My beloved Son, in whom I am well-pleased.”

This both speaks to a new, revealed identity (I am not saying Jesus wasn’t God’s Son before this, but this is where he is identified as such) and also to the fulfillment of Scripture that spoke of the coming one, the coming Messiah.

“I will surely tell of the decree of the Lord:
He said to Me, ‘You are My Son,
Today I have begotten You.
Psalm 2:7

“Behold, My Servant, whom I uphold;
My chosen one in whom My soul delights.
I have put My Spirit upon Him;
He will bring forth justice to the nations.
Isaiah 42:1

The same is said of us. We are now new creatures with a new identity. Instead of being a son of Adam, we become a son of God. Instead of being a servant of this world, we become a servant of the risen King. Instead of being filled with the power of our flesh being sent to fulfill the kingdom of the world, we are filled with the Spirit and become a sent one of the Kingdom of God.

We see this as we are given a new name in Matthew 28. We have a new Father, we have a new King, who is the Son of God and we have the new Spirit of God with his power abiding within us. So, as we are now disciples of Jesus, we are now sons & daughters, servants and sent ones. Baptism reveals this new identity.

2. We are commissioned to make disciples with this new power, as Jesus was.

Notice what happens in Jesus’ baptism. The Spirit of God descended upon him. We know that Jesus wasn’t “saved” at this point, nor was Jesus now officially deified, but why did the Spirit come down upon Jesus? I believe it is important to note what happened directly after this. After his baptism, the Spirit led him to the wilderness. Jesus’ public ministry started. He was now commissioned to make disciples. It was important for Jesus to start by resisting temptation (although he had been doing this in all the years leading up to this point as well), because he wasn’t making disciples of another, but of himself. So, part of his ministry was perfection for our sake so he could be our perfect high priest. After being led to the wilderness, Luke mentions this:

And Jesus returned to Galilee in the power of the Spirit, and news about Him spread through all the surrounding district.And He began teaching in their synagogues and was praised by all.
And He came to Nazareth, where He had been brought up; and as was His custom, He entered the synagogue on the Sabbath, and stood up to read. And the book of the prophet Isaiah was handed to Him. And He opened the book and found the place where it was written, “The Spirit of the Lord is upon Me, Because He anointed Me to preach the gospel to the poor. He has sent Me to proclaim release to the captives, And recovery of sight to the blind, To set free those who are oppressed, To proclaim the favorable year of the Lord.” And He closed the book, gave it back to the attendant and sat down; and the eyes of all in the synagogue were fixed on Him.
And He began to say to them, “Today this Scripture has been fulfilled in your hearing.”
Luke 4:14-21

You could say that he let the cat out of the bag. Luke starts this passage with, “in the power of the Spirit…” For whatever reason, after Jesus’ baptism, the Spirit descended and his ministry of making disciples started.

This is what I believe we’ve been missing from the reason we are to be baptized. When one repents and believes and then is baptized, something miraculous happens. It is not that they are saved, because upon belief they are sealed inwardly by the Spirit (Romans 6; Eph 1:13; 4:10) but the commissioning of making disciples under your new name and under your new power is established. Notice that Matthew 28:18-21 is bookended by Jesus’ authority and him always being with us as we go.

One might ask the obvious question, “But I know many who make disciples without ever being baptized, what is the consequence?” I’m not sure that we’ll ever know the consequence of not understanding this commissioning aspect of baptism. It is like asking the question, “If one believes that women shouldn’t be elders, yet the church is growing, where’s the consequence?” Sometimes these questions of disobedience aren’t so quick to reveal the consequences, but might be better understood as what would happen if the command and deeper truth was realized in that person’s life. It’s like one saying they are satisfied in looking at pictures of Hawaii, yet have never stepped foot on her beaches.

What I believe about baptism is that we should do it because:
- We are commanded
- Jesus did it
- It is a proclamation of our new identity

But, I also believe there is a deep connection of the Spirit’s power, because of the authority of Christ, for us to be commissioned to make disciples of our King.

This speaks clearly of why we see every instance of baptism of new disciples happening so quickly after they repent and believe. Those that repent and believe, those that are now followers of Jesus, given a new name, should be now baptized to receive this enormous gift given to us through baptism with water because they now have a new power and a new purpose.
So, yes, we are to be baptized because Jesus was, but if we miss why Jesus was baptized, we miss out on the fullness of us following in the ways and purposes of Jesus.

Read More......

Rethinking Baptism: Part 1

Before I start, I should begin by letting the reader know that I have always been a believer of credo baptism, or believer’s baptism. Meaning, I believe that baptism is administered only to those who repent and profess faith in Jesus because of his sinless life, his perfect death and powerful resurrection. So, this paper will not involve the discussions that have led to divisions between the paedo (child) and credo baptism crowd. This paper is to discuss the reasons why someone should be baptized and importance of it.

When growing up and seeking to understand baptism I was told many things about baptism and why we administer it within the church. Some of these reasons were this:

It’s a public proclamation of one’s faith
It’s a picture to show on the outside, what happened on the inside
We do it because Jesus did it and he commanded it and we want to be like Jesus
It’s to bring someone into the Christian community

I guess I want to question some of these and then add something I believe that has been missing from our thoughts on baptism, or at least missing from the communities that I have hung around in the past.

Public Proclamation

Many I know of believe that all baptisms should be done in the public of some sorts. What I find interesting is that it’s not public that they desire, but it actually happens within the church walls, where very little of the unbelieving public gather. What I find to be more consistent in the Scriptures is not that it had to happen in public, but it happened immediately with the one who repented and believed. We aren’t sure how much of the “public” were at some of these places (i.e. households, eunuch by his chariot, Lydia by the river with other women), but the seemingly solid stream of evidence points more to the immediacy of baptism, not the place or those present. So, while it may be a proclamation of sorts (so are many other things we do), I’m not sure this is the fullness of the “why” in getting baptized.

It’s A Picture

Although this might be true, there just isn’t a great deal of evidence that points to this fact. We can try and connect some dots between baptism in water with the baptism of the Spirit shown to us in Romans 6, but the actual evidence of this being the reason for water baptism, seems to be lacking. I believe the two are connected, but as you will see below, I believe they are connected much deeper than a mere picture.

We do it because Jesus did it and commanded us to

I don’t believe this is good enough, and as you speak to a postmodern world, they won’t believe this is good enough either. I’m not saying we shouldn’t do what God tells us to do, but as we explain baptism, we shouldn’t merely say, “Do it because God said so.” Our God is one that usually explains things to us, instead of “because I said so.” Now, I know that our parents have conditioned us to just do things because they said so, but this usually isn’t how God operates. There might be times where we do things God calls us to without knowing fully the “why” but most of the time, God operates as a Father who desires for his children to know the reason why he has a command, not merely “do what I say and deal with it.” Because of this, maybe we should ask the “why” Jesus did it and why he commanded it.

It’s to bring someone into the Christian community

I agree to an extent with this statement, but I believe it to be much fuller than this. Meaning, if one believes that you should be baptized so you can be in a new community, this seems to lack in argument for why someone should desire this. If we are dealing with God and his ways, this has to be larger than a particular culture and a particular time we live in. The reason I say this is the mere fact that most don’t have to be baptized to be in community today and most understand within Protestant circles that baptism doesn’t save you. Because of this, if this is the reason why we get baptized, few will be persuaded. Most will show you the Christian community that they are in and have never been baptized. Although they might be kept from some membership rosters, few will care and actually be glad that they aren't considered members of particular churches, because it gets them out of going to business meetings. Not only that, but the Eunuch in Acts 8 didn’t return with Philip but continued in the life and occupation that God had given him to live. So maybe this is deeper than a mere physical community.

Next time we'll get into, "Then, why get baptized?"

Read More......

What Does it Mean to Make a Brother Stumble?

One of the things that always comes up when you speak of tattoos, smoking, drinking, et al is the issue of making a brother stumble to show why one should abstain from doing those things at all. When one proof texts and reads current culture into the passages, they seem to have a great point and one that kept me under a heavy yoke for some time. What actually ended up happening is that this so called "weaker brother" kept me under his yoke of conscience instead of me being able to seek out Christ and his easy yoke and burden that is light. I kept trying to refrain from certain things because I was always worried that I would make a brother stumble and was so consumed by this, my life was more about the weaker brother and his issues than the glorifying of God in my actions and actually loving the weaker brother.

We have extremes here that need to be pointed out. One extreme is like the one mentioned above, where we worry about everything, whether it is sin or not and abstain from it all. The other extreme is we say, "screw the weaker brother" and we do whatever we want without care. Like most orthopraxy, extremes suck and fly in the face of Christ and his cross and, so, we need to find the correct balance and test it to Scripture. I want to do some defining to search out how we should live within the context of the weaker brother and what it means to make him stumble.

First, what is a "weaker brother"?

We find the main passages concerning the weaker brother in 1 Corinthians 8 and 10 and also in Romans 14. The weaker brother is the one who wishes to abstain from certain things. They are not the mature in the body, but they are the weak needing care. These people would be those who abstain from things that are not sinful, such as smoking, drinking alcohol, getting tattoos and of course eating meat sacrificed to idols. But, if you know the context of 1 Corinthians 8, 10 and Romans 14 we are not speaking of people who have merely been told that these things were sinful, but have a deep bond that ties the conscience to them. The weaker brother would be someone who has been addicted to smoking or alcohol, or who has a family history of addiction to these things. The weaker brother would be someone who came from a tribe who used to tattoo themselves for the sake of their pagan gods. The weaker brother is one who was in an idolatrous nation that sacrificed meat to gods for worship. These things are deeply entrenched in who they are and what they are about. These things identify them with the "old self."

The weaker brother is NOT someone who has issue with these things because of their culture and how they were brought up. One is not a mere weaker brother because they have always been taught that smoking is a sin or that drinking alcohol is a sin. Paul goes much deeper than this and is found when he uses the term to "destroy" the weaker brother (which we will handle later).

Paul and Jerusalem Council are dealing with a much deeper issue than someone not liking meat sacrificed to idols, they were dealing with an issue that was deeply ingrained in the people that practiced idolatry in a way that was demonic and part of every day life that associated one with the devil. Again, it would be the same as getting a tattoo for the dead in Leviticus 19:28 to worship some pagan deity. This was binding on the conscience, not because it was "odd" to them, or they were uncomfortable with it, but they were dealing with demonic opposition and something that identified them with their old self when their father was the devil.

So, the weaker brother is not merely some nutcase that wants you to abstain from something they don't like, the weaker brother is someone who is coming from an old life in sin, that is dealing with those things associated directly with their sin. Again, think of pagan worship in sacrifices when thinking of 1 Corinthians 8,10 and Romans 14.

Making the Weaker Brother Stumble

Now that we see what is means to be a weaker brother, we need to look at making that brother stumble. This term stumble is used almost synonymously with Paul using the term "destroy". Paul isn't speaking of making someone look at you in a light that is odd. It isn't making someone uncomfortable, but it is literally making them stumble into sin. It would be like you handing someone a beer that you know is an alcoholic and telling them to drink. You, in your freedom, have made the weaker brother stumble or have destroyed them. The thought is putting something (a rock) in the road that they are walking on so that they will trip and severely hurt themselves.

People use this for all sorts of things, as though we must have a swivel on our heads to make sure people don't look at us and think we are sinning. This isn't what Paul is speaking on. If this is the case, then Jesus was a sinner. He did things all the time that made people think he was a sinner, but he didn't make them sin. Think of the Pharisees of those that wear suits to church, don't drink, don't smoke, don't play cards, don't watch certain movies, listen to certain music. They do this so that they "will not make someone stumble", but in reality are showing that your sanctification and righteousness comes in what you don't do instead of whom you trust in. Jesus was not for this. What is interesting is that the term "stumble" can be both positive and negative. You can make someone stumble into sin, or make them stumble into righteousness.

"See, I lay a stone in Zion,
a chosen and precious cornerstone,
and the one who trusts in him
will never be put to shame."Now to you who believe, this stone is precious. But to those who do not believe,
"The stone the builders rejected
has become the capstone,"and,
"A stone that causes men to stumble
and a rock that makes them fall."They stumble because they disobey the message—which is also what they were destined for.

1 Peter 2:6-8

This is the point that no one actually brings up. If someone is trying to be self righteous in their abstention, the best thing you can do is be a stumbling block to them so that they can see that Christ is the corner stone of their faith, not their abstention for self righteousness. This brother, that abstains for the sake of self righteousness (which none of them will admit) is not the weaker brother, but the prideful brother that needs to be shown their sinful acts. This is why Jesus didn't care if he drank in public, ate with the sinners and loved the hookers. He did it partly to show the self righteous Pharisees their stupidity. We find further evidence of this when Peter has his vision and then eats with the Gentiles. Notice what the self righteous Jews do:

So when Peter went up to Jerusalem, the circumcised believers criticized him and said, "You went into the house of uncircumcised men and ate with them."
Acts 11:2

Did Peter then decide to abstain from eating with them? No, he corrected their self righteous thoughts by telling them the vision of God and using this an opportunity to show the gospel to them. Here is the key. Someone who loves Jesus and not their self righteous deeds will react to this by not condemning the brother living in his freedom but will praise God.

When they heard this, they had no further objections and praised God, saying, "So then, God has granted even the Gentiles repentance unto life."
Acts 11:18

Could this have been a stone of stumbling for these Jews? Yes. Did Peter refrain, or teach? He taught. Their reaction is an insight to their heart towards the love of God. They reject their self righteousness and cling to their new found Saviour.

So, Now What?

How are we to handle this then? You will notice that Paul has a huge point that he makes when speaking of refraining, and it does not mean that he will refrain always, only when he is knowingly among those whom bears a conscience against meat sacrificed to idols. People like to use Paul's hyperbolic term to bear witness against this when Paul says, "Therefore, if food causes my brother to stumble, I will never eat meat again, so that I will not cause my brother to stumble." Paul is using this in speaking to someone he is directly in relationship with at all times, not for the sake of believers out there somewhere who have issues with this. Meaning, if Timothy had issues with this, Paul would never eat meat in fellowship with Timothy. He doesn't mean, he will literally never touch meat again. We see this clearly in the following:

If some unbeliever invites you to a meal and you want to go, eat whatever is put before you without raising questions of conscience. But if anyone says to you, "This has been offered in sacrifice," then do not eat it, both for the sake of the man who told you and for conscience' sake — the other man's conscience, I mean, not yours. For why should my freedom be judged by another's conscience? If I take part in the meal with thankfulness, why am I denounced because of something I thank God for? So whether you eat or drink or whatever you do, do it all for the glory of God.
1 Corinthians 10:27-31

Paul states to enjoy your freedom, but to refrain when among someone who has a conscience against something. So, if I am going to a nation of tribes who once used tattoos to worship their god, I will cover up my tattoos. I will do this because this is something that is personal to them and hard for them to take. I will also cover up my tattoos if I go into a home where I know tattoos used to be a way for the person to sin against God in rebellion and they are trying to refrain from such things. I do this with those I KNOWLINGLY have deep issues with certain things that is related and identified to their old life of sin. So is the case with having a vegan over to my house, an alcoholic or someone who was addicted to smoking.

But, it doesn't stop here. You don't just refrain when you see these people, but you take the opportunity to teach them. You must teach the weaker, and not allow them to "turn you" into their weaker conscience. This was huge for the ministry of Christ. He was the one teaching the weaker, the weaker were not teaching him to turn to their ways. So, we should deal with the gospel with these people and love and aid them to the grace and freedom found at the cross.

Refrain out of love and teach out of love so that they may be won to the victory of the cross. There is a balance here. But, to throw out the "you might make a brother stumble" has become another way to control the actions of others to make them think they are more righteous. This is sin and contrary to the gospel. Also, those who freely do whatever they want without taking consideration of the TRUE weaker brother and don't take the opportunity to teach them in word and action what the Gospel is truly about, also sin.

We must live and teach the gospel to others without allowing them to bound up our actions so that we find the gospel as a restrictive gospel instead of a freeing one.

"Take My yoke upon you and learn from Me, for I am gentle and humble in heart, and YOU WILL FIND REST FOR YOUR SOULS. For My yoke is easy and My burden is light."
Matthew 11:29-30

Read More......

How Should We Label Ourselves? Part 2

The Usage of Christian (Christianos) in the New Testament

Surprisingly, the term is only used 3 times in the New Testament. Also, one needs to note that it never says in the Scriptures that disciples of Christ ever actually called themselves, or labeled themselves as Christians. The Scriptures are silent on who actually labeled them as such and never tells us that Christ’s disciples accepted the term to use as normative for the church as a whole. History tells us that it was a term, not of endearment, but of disparagement and one that the church finally accepted as a label. From there, the term grew to label the whole of the church as a religion called “Christianity.” But, history and tradition are not enough to make something prescriptive and normative for the church for all time, but merely are helps to show how others before us were convicted by the Spirit of God in their context and cultures.

Here are the references:

and when he had found him, he brought him to Antioch. And for an entire year they met with the church and taught considerable numbers; and the disciples were first called Christians in Antioch.
Acts 11:26

Agrippa replied to Paul, “In a short time you will persuade me to become a Christian.”
Acts 26:28

but if anyone suffers as a Christian, he is not to be ashamed, but is to glorify God in this name.
1 Peter 4:16

One can see that the disciples were first called Christians at Antioch, but we are not told by whom they were called this. (I am not saying that this isn’t of historical importance, or that the term should NOT be used. The fact that both Jews and Gentiles were seen as one group and labeled as Christians is tantamount to their new identity seen by those in the secular world. But, this does not make the label prescriptive) King Agrippa, a Gentile, uses the term to describe Paul’s people and then we have Peter who simply says that if one suffers because of the use of this derogatory name of “Christian” to not be ashamed of it and to glorify God in this. Which would be very appropriate after Peter just got done telling the church universal the following:

Beloved, do not be surprised at the fiery ordeal among you, which comes upon you for your testing, as though some strange thing were happening to you;
1 Peter 4:12

The Usage of Follower (akoloutheo) in the New Testament

So, we have three verses that use the term and no prescriptive case in any of them for the term “Christian.” But what about the term “follower of Jesus.” Is there any Scriptural evidence to the fact that one can call themselves a “follower of Jesus”? I think that we have already proven this fact by the mere understanding of the closeness with the term “disciple” as discussed above, but I still want to drive home the point with every verse that Jesus and the Gospels use to show that those who follow Jesus will inherit eternal life, not those who follow a new found religion.

And He said to them, “Follow Me, and I will make you fishers of men.”
Matthew 4:19

Immediately they left their nets and followed Him.
Matthew 4:20

Immediately they left the boat and their father, and followed Him.
Matthew 4:22

Then a scribe came and said to Him, “Teacher, I will follow You wherever You go.”
Matthew 8:19

But Jesus said to him, “Follow Me, and allow the dead to bury their own dead.”
Matthew 8:22

When He got into the boat, His disciples followed Him.
Matthew 8:23

As Jesus went on from there, He saw a man called Matthew, sitting in the tax collector’s booth; and He said to him, “Follow Me!” And he got up and followed Him.
Matthew 9:9

“And he who does not take his cross and follow after Me is not worthy of Me.
Matthew 10:38


Then Jesus said to His disciples, “If anyone wishes to come after Me, he must deny himself, and take up his cross and follow Me.
Matthew 16:24

Jesus said to him, “If you wish to be complete, go and sell your possessions and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; and come, follow Me.”
Matthew 19:21

Then Peter said to Him, “Behold, we have left everything and followed You; what then will there be for us?”
Matthew 19:27

And Jesus said to them, “Truly I say to you, that you who have followed Me, in the regeneration when the Son of Man will sit on His glorious throne, you also shall sit upon twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel.
Matthew 19:28

Immediately they left their nets and followed Him.
Mark 1:18

As He passed by, He saw Levi the son of Alphaeus sitting in the tax booth, and He said to him, “Follow Me!” And he got up and followed Him.
Mark 2:14

And He summoned the crowd with His disciples, and said to them, “If anyone wishes to come after Me, he must deny himself, and take up his cross and follow Me.
Mark 8:34

John said to Him, “Teacher, we saw someone casting out demons in Your name, and we tried to prevent him because he was not following us.”
Mark 9:38

Looking at him, Jesus felt a love for him and said to him, “One thing you lack: go and sell all you possess and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; and come, follow Me.”
Mark 10:21

Peter began to say to Him, “Behold, we have left everything and followed You.”
Mark 10:28


When they had brought their boats to land, they left everything and followed Him.
Luke 5:11

After that He went out and noticed a tax collector named Levi sitting in the tax booth, and He said to him, “Follow Me.”
Luke 5:27
And he left everything behind, and got up and began to follow Him.
Luke 5:28

And He was saying to them all, “If anyone wishes to come after Me, he must deny himself, and take up his cross daily and follow Me.
Luke 9:23

John answered and said, “Master, we saw someone casting out demons in Your name; and we tried to prevent him because he does not follow along with us.”
Luke 9:49

And He said to another, “Follow Me.” But he said, “Lord, permit me first to go and bury my father.”
Luke 9:59

Another also said, “I will follow You, Lord; but first permit me to say good-bye to those at home.”
Luke 9:61

When Jesus heard this, He said to him, “One thing you still lack; sell all that you possess and distribute it to the poor, and you shall have treasure in heaven; and come, follow Me.”
Luke 18:22

Peter said, “Behold, we have left our own homes and followed You.”
Luke 18:28

Immediately he regained his sight and began following Him, glorifying God; and when all the people saw it, they gave praise to God.
Luke 18:43

One of the two who heard John speak and followed Him, was Andrew, Simon Peter’s brother.
John 1:40

The next day He purposed to go into Galilee, and He found Philip. And Jesus said to him, “Follow Me.”
John 1:43


Then Jesus again spoke to them, saying, “I am the Light of the world; he who follows Me will not walk in the darkness, but will have the Light of life.”
John 8:12

“My sheep hear My voice, and I know them, and they follow Me;
John 10:27
“If anyone serves Me, he must follow Me; and where I am, there My servant will be also; if anyone serves Me, the Father will honor him.
John 12:26

Now this He said, signifying by what kind of death he would glorify God. And when He had spoken this, He said to him, “Follow Me!”
John 21:19

Jesus said to him, “If I want him to remain until I come, what is that to you? You follow Me!”
John 21:22

These are the ones who have not been defiled with women, for they have kept themselves chaste. These are the ones who follow the Lamb wherever He goes. These have been purchased from among men as first fruits to God and to the Lamb.
Revelation 14:4


If this evidence isn’t overwhelming and one believes that we should unashamedly use every term associated with us in the Bible, there is one more thought to look into. It is one more term that is used more times in the Scriptures than “Christian” but is never used today because it stopped being used past the 1st Century, and today is a little known cult headquartered in New Knoxville, Ohio. It is the term “The Way” and is used 5 times in the following verses:

and asked for letters from him to the synagogues at Damascus, so that if he found any belonging to the Way, both men and women, he might bring them bound to Jerusalem.
Acts 9:2

But when some were becoming hardened and disobedient, speaking evil of the Way before the people, he withdrew from them and took away the disciples, reasoning daily in the school of Tyrannus.
Acts 19:9

About that time there occurred no small disturbance concerning the Way.
Acts 19:23

“But this I admit to you, that according to the Way which they call a sect I do serve the God of our fathers, believing everything that is in accordance with the Law and that is written in the Prophets;
Acts 24:14

But Felix, having a more exact knowledge about the Way, put them off, saying, “When Lysias the commander comes down, I will decide your case.”
Acts 24:22

Might have the early converts to Christianity used this term so that they were not culturally offensive? Who knows? We do know that it was a term used by Paul himself to describe the church. If we are to use every term described in the Bible, why not this one? Is it because we should allow those who are disciples of Jesus to ascribe the appropriate, culturally accepted, biblical term to themselves? I say yes. Why should we get angry at a Muslim who decides that a term that was used three times in the New Testament is too offensive to his fellow neighbor, when it has nothing to do with Jesus, but a Western religion?

I am putting forth that the Muslim who denies calling himself a Christian, but adopts the term “follower of Jesus” is being far more specific and possibly adhering more to biblical principles than the Westerner who calls themselves “Christians.”

We should praise them for teaching us this and not ostracize them or tell them, and others, that they are denying their Christ who bought them. We are being petty and allowing tradition to trump the Scriptures when we do this.

May we, in the West, learn from our brothers and sisters in the East, and follow in their footsteps as they follow in the footsteps of Christ.

“He who loves father or mother more than Me is not worthy of Me; and he who loves son or daughter more than Me is not worthy of Me.
“And he who does not take his cross and follow after Me is not worthy of Me.
“He who has found his life will lose it, and he who has lost his life for My sake will find it.
Matthew 10:37-39

Read More......

How Should We Label Ourselves? Christian? Followers of Jesus? Part I

After watching the video from Christianity Today and The Lausanne Movement entitled, “Following Jesus” I was quite struck by the titles that were used within the video by those who we would call “Christians” in the West. Instead of calling themselves “Christians” it was obvious that they were being purposeful in using the term “followers of Jesus” instead. Now, being a Westerner myself, I first thought to myself that this seemed as though they were trying to hide something. It seemed as though they were being a little dishonest in who they truly were. But, I enjoyed the video and saw that these in the video truly were following Jesus to the best of their ability, but I still had some issue with this denial of the term Christian. It should also be noted that I posted this video on my blog and had some of the same reactions from others. But, others were not so forgiving and went to the extreme to say these “followers of Jesus” were in sin for trying to hide their true identity. The obvious verse that popped up in our conversations was simply this:

“They will be divided, father against son and son against father, mother against daughter and daughter against mother, mother-in-law against daughter-in-law and daughter-in-law against mother-in-law.”
Luke 12:53

Those that had issue with the silence on the term “Christian” used this verse to show that the silence was so that they would not be ostracized for the sake of Christ. This, at first, sounded like an interesting view point. So, I did what I always do when something like this is brought up: I went to the Scriptures. Not only this, but I also sought out the reason why the Muslim didn’t use the term “Christian” post conversion. But, even with a logical argument, the practical usage of this verse didn’t make sense, because I don’t know any Americans who would tell their fellow American to forsake (meaning leave and not associate with) their family, country and culture for Jesus, if it wasn’t necessary for their spiritual well being.

Why not use the term Christian as a Muslim?

This was my first question. It was obvious that the silence and abrogation of the term Christian for the sake of “follower of Jesus” was very intentional. But why? After doing some study on the term and what it meant to the Muslim, I could see why the term came with much turmoil. For the Middle Eastern, the term “Christian” does not mean “follower of Jesus” but really means, “a Westerner, a Zionist (protector of Israel), Colonizer and hater/killer of everything Muslim.” Actually, because of this definition, Jesus and the Bible have been put to the side in the Islamic faith even though the Qur’an has much praise for Jesus (mentioned approximately 100 times, all positive ), the people of the book and the Word of God. But, “Christians” have always done things in the name of Jesus to suppress and war against those in the Middle East. So, when a Muslim hears the term “Christian” it has little to do with Jesus and more to do with the politics and religion of the West that is very individual, self focused, prideful and boastful. Whereas, the Muslim is taught to be in community, hospitable and to keep integrity within the group/clan/village/community at large. Very little attention is given to the individual and his individual accomplishments. Instead, the individual is part of a community and his actions either greatly increase the integrity of the community or defame it. So, if one from a clan calls himself a “Christian” that means that he is now a Westerner, in as far as, politics, protection of Israel and colonization of the East into everything that is west. Which, in turn, means the destruction, at whatever the cost, of everything East. I quickly saw the issue that came up for the new convert to Jesus in calling himself/herself a “Christian.”

Is the term “Christian” Prescriptive?

After I had done some research on the subject , I could see how problematic this term was for the Muslim. But, I also wanted to understand whether the term “Christian” was prescriptive. The reason is that if it was prescriptive, then no matter the turmoil it might cause, it must be used. So, I went to the Bible to see what those who were among Christ and who wrote about Christ called themselves. The results were shocking. What I am going to put forth is every verse that puts forth “Christian” and every verse that puts forth some sort of understanding of “following Jesus.” With the term, “follow,” or “akoloutheo” in the Greek, the term has a two fold meaning.

One meaning is simply: to follow one who precedes, join him as his attendant, accompany him.

I tried to discern these and leave these out. So, when it says in Matthew 4:25 that, “large crowds followed him…” I knew that this was not necessarily speaking of believers, or the elect of God, but merely those who were following Jesus like he was a circus act. I have omitted these types of usage of the verb “akoloutheo” so that we can see the true meaning and usage of the term when speaking of the elect of God.

This brings us to the second type of usage of the verb, which means: to join one as a disciple, become or be his disciple. 2a side with his party.

This meaning struck me right away and put my mind straight on the “Great Commission” when Christ tells us to: make disciples of all the nations. There seemed to be a connection of one who follows Jesus and being a disciple of Jesus. Also note that to “make disciples” is prescriptive and normative for all cultures and all time for those who call themselves followers of Christ. Before I show every instance when “Christian” is used and when the term “akoloutheo” is used, I want to point out other terms that are associated with “followers of Jesus” or “Christians” .

Here is the format: English Term (Greek Term) (amount of times term used to denote one who follow Jesus or is a Christian): Strong’s definition (I left out the definitions of “bride/wife” and “sheep” as they are cross cultural and need no further explanation of their actual definition)

Disciples (mathetes) (269): a learner, pupil, disciple

Church (ekklesia) (114): an assembly of Christians gathered for worship in a religious meeting. 1d2 a company of Christian, or of those who, hoping for eternal salvation through Jesus Christ, observe their own religious rites, hold their own religious meetings, and manage their own affairs, according to regulations prescribed for the body for order’s sake. 1d3 those who anywhere, in a city, village, constitute such a company and are united into one body. 1d4 the whole body of Christians scattered throughout the earth. 1d5 the assembly of faithful Christians already dead and received into heaven

Elect/Chosen (eklektos) (18): chosen by God,. 1a1 to obtain salvation through Christ. 1a1a Christians are called “chosen or elect” of God. 1a2 the Messiah in called “elect”, as appointed by God to the most exalted office conceivable. 1a3 choice, select, i.e. the best of its kind or class, excellence preeminent: applied to certain individual Christians.

Sheep (probaton) (17)

Bride/Wife (numphe/gune) (6)

As one can see, with just the above study, there are numerous ways that the “followers of Jesus” labeled themselves. Overwhelming though is this thought of “disciple” which is very closely related to the term “follower” (akoloutheo). Even before we list the times that the terms “follow” and “Christian” is used in the New Testament one should know a pretty interesting fact. The term “Christian” (Christianos), as defined by Strong’s, means: Christian, a follower of Christ. How amazing is that?! If one desires to define what it means when one asks, “What does Christian mean?” They should follow up with the definition that it means to follow Jesus! So, even before we look to each instance, the case is close to closed as to whether using the term “Christian” is prescriptive or if “follow of Jesus” is an allowable description of oneself. But, let’s still take a look, which we'll do fully in the next post.

Read More......

Cussing for Christ: Finding Meaning in Words: Part II

My last post focused on the thoughts of our words and which ones we have on our lists of "good" and "bad" words and how Christ saw these. We found that Christ focused much more attention on the context, culture and intent, than merely the word itself. Again, when one looks at words how Christ saw words, it will cause you to be more conscience of what you say and how you say it, not less concerned. Every time I bring up that words matter far less than culture, context and intent I get the same list of verses for a defense of why certain words should never be used. This usually happens because the person has an answer for my thinking while not listening to what I spoke about concerning Christ and his stance on words. Instead of ignoring them, as they ignored my reasoning, I oblige and challenge them on their exegesis by using all of Scripture, instead of pulling out certain texts from their context to employ them for my personal yoke.

Most notably, the verses that are used most often are the following:

But immorality or any impurity or greed must not even be named among you, as is proper among saints; and there must be no filthiness and silly talk, or coarse jesting, which are not fitting, but rather giving of thanks.
Ephesians 5:3-4

Likewise urge the young men to be sensible; in all things show yourself to be an example of good deeds, with purity in doctrine, dignified, sound in speech which is beyond reproach, so that the opponent will be put to shame, having nothing bad to say about us.
Titus 2:6-8

Let no unwholesome word proceed from your mouth, but only such a word as is good for edification according to the need of the moment, so that it will give grace to those who hear.
Ephesians 4:29

But now you also, put them all aside: anger, wrath, malice, slander, and abusive speech from your mouth.
Colossians 3:8

Now, when someone reads these verses, most of the time a list of words start popping up in your mind that should never be used. That is fine, but that isn't getting to the root of the issue that is being spoken of here. If you look at these verses some things pop out right away when speaking of words:

Filthiness, silly talk, coarse jesting, sound in speech, unwholesome word and abusive speech.

Most of the time, this is what is focused on when someone tries to combat my thoughts on language. While these are things that definitely should not be overlooked, I keep digging deeper with the person. There has to be more in these verses than merely us making up a list of good and bad words to use in our everyday lives. The reason I say this is that if we follow the shallow exegesis often employed with these verses we actually start putting God, his prophets and his apostles to the test.

Here are some examples that I think would make some of us cringe if we heard a pastor or friend use. These examples would all be considered coarse and filthy to even the world...I will warn you...some of these are very hard to read:

Your works are like a dirty, bloody tampon (Isaiah 64:6)

You were a whore when you were young, having your breasts fondled and your virgin breasts and nipples handled (Ezekiel 23:3)

You would rather be an adulterer because you love men that have a huge penises like donkeys and come like horses (Ezekiel 23:20)

To make God angry you were such a whore that when the Egyptians came by lusting after you, you spread your legs for them (Ezekiel 16:25,26)

God loved you so much that when you were born and thrown out in the open to squirm in your blood and die, He saved you and called out for you to live (Ezekiel 16: 4-6)

I count all things as crap, or animal excretion, or literal sh#t, so that I may gain Christ (Phil 3:8)

In 1 Kings 18 while Elijah is on Mount Carmel, Elijah mocks the prophets of Baal and asks if their god is on the toilet (1 Kings 18:27) and so busy that he can't answer them. Which is interesting because Baal has a derivation (Beelzebub) where it means "Lord of Dung".

We could actually continue for a while on this, but I think you get my point. To just open your eyes to the way that God uses language to get to the heart of the matter, read Ezekiel 16 and 23 fully. The imagery is shocking, which is its intent, so that the hearers would see their sin and turn back to God.

When I read these, and other parts of Scripture, I then go back to the above mentioned verses on language and ask myself, "What is God trying to convey in these verses so that His glory is displayed to all people?" Further, to try and think this through, Ephesians 5 starts with an interesting verse: Therefore be imitators of God, as beloved children.

So, when thinking through the verses on language, we should see language as God sees language, not merely our culture. So, when someone like Phil Johnson asks, "If newscasters don't use coarse language to get the news across, why should we?" He is missing the point of language and being imitators of God and not man.

If we are shallow in our understanding of the verses mentioned in Ephesians, Titus and Colossians we would, once again, find God in sin. There has to be more.

Just as food, sex, money and alcohol can be used for God's glory, they can also be used for indulgence in sin if not used correctly. This is a heart matter. Words must be used how God desires, and not how we desire. Words must used exactly how Paul puts it: only such a word as is good for edification according to the need of the moment.

The moment is going to tell us what we should use and how we should use it. If we are speaking to a moralistic Pharisee who cannot see past their idolatry of good works, we might have to use some pretty crass words to pierce the heart as Ezekiel, Jeremiah, Isaiah, Jesus and Paul did. If we are speaking to someone caught up in sin, that has aborted a child and is struggling through the decision spiritually, we will use different words to show the forgiveness and grace of God. The moment is key! This is exactly how we see it through all of Scripture. Edification doesn't merely mean some sort of soft spoken Christian radio host telling you that everything will be okay and that God loves you. Sometimes people need to be awakened by a shout, where a whisper will just keep them in their slumber.

This elevates your language, it doesn't degrade it. It makes you really think which words will pierce the heart for the gospel and which ones will just fly by unnoticed.

You must know your audience, you must know the context, you must know the culture and you must speak Jesus straight to their hearts, where the Holy Spirit can thrust his knife of knowledge and split open their heart to see the King of Kings on His throne.

Do I believe that a Christian should carelessly use any word, in any context. No. That isn't the point of these posts. The point of these posts is that the words themselves are far less important than the intent and context which one finds themselves in.

The gospel, in the Scriptures, have been proclaimed in many different ways to many different contexts, cultures and peoples. Notice this and take the whole Bible as our guidance to God's glory, not just what makes you comfortable and not just what will make people like you. If you have a list of words you'll never use, you might want to check first with the Scriptures to make sure you aren't limiting the words that God wants you to use. I couldn't imagine if Ezekiel told God, "Sorry God, whore is not a word I am comfortable with, can we go with another one?"

I pray these posts will make us think more how to be biblical, edifying and God glorifying. I pray that we would desperately try and balance out the legalistic and antinomian in all of us and pray that God would continually make us more like him and less like our self made idols that we want ourselves to be like.

The Lord said to him, “Who has made man’s mouth? Or who makes him mute or deaf, or seeing or blind? Is it not I, the Lord? Now then go, and I, even I, will be with your mouth, and teach you what you are to say.”
Exodus 4:11-12

Read More......

How Do I Know If My Child is Saved?

Because of the discussion of communion, many usually start asking, "if we don't allow people to come to the table unless they are saved, how do we know if they are saved?" Usually this has more to do with our children than adults, even though I do not believe there to be much difference in repentance and faith. Do they look different? Sometimes, but the same ideals should be seen and put forth. This isn't a dumb question and one that should be asked by parents and sought to be answered. The problem with the answer, like many things in practical Christianity is there is no hard and fast rule. If you would like to read my thoughts on infants and heaven, you can read that here: Where do babies go when they die?

But, for those God has allowed to grace us with their presence, even though we as parents don't always see it that way, how do we know when they are saved and ready to be baptized and partake in communion? I am more liberal than some on this thought and desire that my sons be included into the New Covenant sooner upon profession than a continual questioning of their salvation. I just want to share how I am going to "test" whether or not my children are saved.

Confession and Repentance

When looking throughout Acts and the Gospels two things are clear: a disciple of Christ is a person who confesses Christ and repents of sins.

Martin Luther's first of his 95 theses states:

Our Lord and Master Jesus Christ, when He said Poenitentiam agite (or "repent ye"), willed that the whole life of believers should be repentance.

Both of these terms, confession and repentance, are in the present tense. Meaning, just as Luther points out, we should continually confess and repent as Christians. This does not mean that your child needs to then say a prayer of confession and repentance, fill out a card, check a box and walk down the aisle and consider himself saved from that nasty place called hell with that ugly beast called Satan. This isn't what the New Testament is trying to get across, although we will be saved from hell and the wrath of God.

Confession of Christ means just what the Bible continually points to. Confession, or faith in Christ, means that you believe that you are a grave sinner in need of a Saviour to save you. One must believe that their Saviour is found in Christ Jesus alone, on his works alone and that he rose from death, conquering our sin altogether. Can a child understand this fully? I would rather beg the question, "Can ANYONE understand this fully?" The depths of the cross and resurrection are so overwhelming that if anyone says they understand it, they are deceiving themselves. I would rather give the cross and resurrection liberally to the lost, including my children.

As they start to show this understanding as they continually seek its power, I will quickly affirm their belief, not belittle them.

Repentance is something that we as parents like to forget about. It really comes in the understanding of life change as well. Being that we are new creatures in Christ, we have to remember that this does not mean that we made ourselves new creatures because of our works, neither will we work out our sanctification solely on our works either. We must see this with our children.

Too many parents hold the sins over the heads of their children. Saying that they do not see the life change expected from a Christian, all while denying their own struggles with sin. Acting as if their life is holy and undefiled because they read and pray every morning before going to work while their child plays with Legos.

If we really want to get to the crux of the life of the Christian it is one where we desire Christ and his cross so much more because we see how clearly we, in our flesh, continually sin. We seek to understand how a God, infinite and holy, can love and die for a wretched sinner as I.

We don't then try and understand this and hold it over our child's head on why their life doesn't look "Christian". This sounds a lot like the unmerciful servant in Matthew 18, whose debt was paid and then strangled someone who owed him so much less. Do our children sin? Yes. Will they continue to sin and disappoint us? Yes. Do we forgive them for this? Yes. But we must remember that they didn't sin against us, but against God. We have to remember that we don't sin against others, but against God. If God can forgive us for sinning against a holy and infinite One, why can he not forgive our children of the same thing?

So, How Do I Know if My Child Is Saved?

I will seek to see when my child is repentant and loves the cross more than his sin. My sons currently, at the ages of 6 and 3, know the facts of the cross, but are showing little signs of repentance. Although I see other signs in my kids that make my heart cry out in joy, I don't see sons that desire forgiveness through the cross. They do not need to know all the facts of the Bible, they don't need to know how to debate the substitutionary theory of the atonement or prove that Christ was born of a virgin. What they need to know though is that Christ died for them (which is in fact substitutionary) and that they will continually sin in this life, but forgiveness waits for those who are repentant. This doesn't mean that they will desire to sin, but will desire to live for Jesus. This doesn't mean that they will be sinless, but will know who to go to for forgiveness when they don't share, fight, lie or call their siblings dumb.

As soon as I see this in my child's life, I will baptize them and allow them to partake of the table. I pray that this life starts sooner than later, but I will not wait for my child to be close to sinless for this to happen, but will seek out sons who love Jesus and love that he did all the work and they are helpless without him.

Parents, be careful that you don't become a heretic in waiting for a sinless child to kill themselves on the altar. Christ paid for their sins, just as he paid for yours. Don't be the unmerciful servant, but be the servant that tells the wonders of the great and merciful one who waits and desires for your child to be welcomed into the family of God.

Then some children were brought to Him so that He might lay His hands on them and pray; and the disciples rebuked them. But Jesus said, “Let the children alone, and do not hinder them from coming to Me; for the kingdom of heaven belongs to such as these.”
Matthew 19:13-14

The principal difficulty of children in coming to Christ frequently lies in their friends. Their parents or their other relatives think they are too young, and discourage them. Oh, that we all had a right idea of the possibility of the conversion of little children; nay, not only of the possibility, but that we looked for it, watched for it, and encouraged young children to come to Christ! You know that, in the parable I am going to read presently, we are told that the householder “went out early in the morning to hire laborers into his vineyard.” What a privilege it is to be Brought to Christ early in the morning,—that is, while we are yet children.

Spurgeon, Charles H.: Spurgeon's Sermons: Volume 43. electronic ed. Albany, OR : Ages Software, 1998 (Logos Library System; Spurgeon's Sermons 43)

Read More......

The Ins and Outs of Communion: Introduction

For whatever reason, the past year I have been thinking a lot about communion. For all my life I have only been a member in churches where communion was celebrated once a month with the reason always given that we don't want to make it just a repetitive event with no meaning. I always thought that made sense, until I really started to understand what worship meant. I always thought worship happened on Sunday, in the "sanctuary", with someone's grandma playing the organ or an ex-hippie playing the guitar and us singing songs (I have enjoyed both). This is what I thought worship was reduced to. Not much thought was put on the fact that every part of the weekly gathering was worship and that every day of my life was worship. When my eyes were opened to this reality, the questioning of communion started to really come into full view.

I started to think. If communion is a part of worship, why do we only do it once a month, whereas we collect an offering once a week? Can't giving become repetitive and meaningless? But, since we have to pay the bills at church, giving has always been given much more credence than communion. Once I started to question the amount of times communion was practiced, every other part of communion started to be put up for Scriptural testing. I will be honest, my historical viewpoint of communion is very weak. What I desire to put forth, and will lean on history buff's to aid, is the ins and outs of communion. Such as:

What is Communion? Am I a cannibal?

Who should practice communion?

What should I do during, before and after communion?

How often should we practice communion?

Where should it be practiced?

What elements should be used? i.e. Is wine appropriate?

Who should administer the elements?

All of these will be discussed at some point and hope that you will join in the discussion of understanding this very important part of our worship. Please also comment on other things that you would like to see a post on in regards to communion. Much discussion and killing has happened throughout the church ages on the different convictions of communion so I don't expect to "solve" those differences. What I would like to do is get a firmer grasp on what I believe and why and I invite you to join in the discussion and wonder if you will also actually challenge yourself through the Scriptures and not continue to observe communion the way you have always done it because "daddy told me this is how it should be done."

My tag line for this blog from the beginning that surprisingly has never changed (unlike my header picture) has been,

a blog dedicated to understanding how to live out theology. Always questioning tradition according to Scripture and never leaving Scripture out of the discussion.

This is what I hope to do once again with these posts on communion.

I will leave this first post with Calvin's comments on 1 Corinthians 10:16

Is not the cup of blessing which we bless a sharing in the blood of Christ? Is not the bread which we break a sharing in the body of Christ?
1 Corinthians 10:16

16. The cup of blessing. While the sacred Supper of Christ has two elements — bread and wine — he begins with the second. He calls it, the cup of blessing, as having been set apart for a mystical benediction. For I do not agree with those who understand blessing to mean thanksgiving, and interpret the verb to bless, as meaning to give thanks. I acknowledge, indeed, that it is sometimes employed in this sense, but never in the construction that Paul has here made use of, for the idea of Erasmus, as to supplying a preposition, is exceedingly forced. On the other hand, the meaning that I adopt is easy, and has nothing of intricacy.

To bless the cup, then, is to set it apart for this purpose, that it may be to us an emblem of the blood of Christ. This is done by the word of promise, when believers meet together according to Christ’s appointment to celebrate the remembrance of his death in this Sacrament. The consecration, however, which the Papists make use of, is a kind of sorcery derived from heathens, which has nothing in common with the pure rite observed by Christians. Everything, it is true, that we eat is sanctified by the word of God, as Paul himself elsewhere bears witness, (1 Timothy 4:5;) but that blessing is for a different purpose — that our use of the gifts of God may be pure, and may tend to the glory of their Author, and to our advantage. On the other hand, the design of the mystical blessing in the Supper is, that the wine may be no longer a common beverage, but set apart for the spiritual nourishment of the soul, while it is an emblem of the blood of Christ.

Paul says, that the cup which has been in this manner blessed is κοινωνίαν — the communion of the blood of the Lord. It is asked, in what sense? Let contention be avoided, and there will be nothing of obscurity. It is true, that believers are united together by Christ’s blood, so as to become one body. It is also true, that a unity of this kind is with propriety termed κοινωνία(communion.) I make the same acknowledgment as to the bread. Farther, I observe what Paul immediately adds, as it were, by way of explanation — that we all become one body, because we are together partakers of the same bread. But whence, I pray you, comes that κοινωνία (communion) between us, but from this, that we are united to Christ in such a way, that

we are flesh of his flesh, and bone of his bones? (Ephesians 5:30.)

For we must first of all be incorporated (so to speak) into Christ, that we may be united to each other. In addition to this, Paul is not disputing at present merely in reference to a mutual fellowship among men, but as to the spiritual union between Christ and believers, with the view of drawing from this, that it is an intolerable sacrilege for them to be polluted by fellowship with idols. From the connection of the passage, therefore, we may conclude, that (κοινωνίαν) the communion of the blood is that connection which we have with the blood of Christ, when he engrafts all of us together into his body, that he may live in us, and we in him.

Now, when the cup is called a participation, the expression, I acknowledge, is figurative, provided that the truth held forth in the figure is not taken away, or, in other words, provided that the reality itself is also present, and that the soul has as truly communion in the blood, as we drink wine with the mouth. But Papists could not say this, that the cup of blessing is a participation in the blood of Christ, for the Supper that they observe is mutilated and torn: if indeed we can give the name of the Supper to that strange ceremony which is a patchwork of various human contrivances, and scarcely retains the slightest vestige of the institution of our Lord. But, supposing that everything else were as it ought to be, this one thing is at variance with the right use of the Supper — the keeping back of the whole of the people from partaking of the cup, which is the half of the Sacrament.

The bread which we break. From this it appears, that it was the custom of the ancient Church to break one loaf, and distribute to every one his own morsel, in order that there might be presented more clearly to the view of all believers their union to the one body of Christ. And that this custom was long kept up appears from the testimony of those who flourished in the three centuries that succeeded the age of the Apostles. Hence arose the superstition, that no one dared to touch the bread with his hand, but each one had it put into his mouth by the priest.

17. For we are one bread. I have already stated above, that it was not Paul’s particular design here to exhort us to love, but he mentions this by the way, that the Corinthians may understand that we must, even by external profession, maintain that unity which subsists between us and Christ, inasmuch as we all assemble together to receive the symbol of that sacred unity. In this second part of the statement, he makes mention only of the one part of the Sacrament, and it is the manner of Scripture to describe by Synecdoche the entire Supper by the breaking of bread. It is necessary to warn my readers, in passing, as to this, lest any less experienced person should be put off his guard by the foolish cavil that is brought forward by certain sycophants — as if Paul, by mentioning merely the bread, had it in view to deprive the people of the one half of the Sacrament.

Calvin, John: Calvin's Commentaries: 1 Corinthians. electronic ed. Albany, OR : Ages Software, 1998 (Logos Library System; Calvin's Commentaries), S. 1 Co 10:16

Read More......

Is Drinking Alcohol a Sin?

I have been having a little discussion with James in my post on the 10 Steps to Become a Legalist. He is doing well with the 10th point of becoming a legalist. He is following it well and even trying to state his case on why he is allowed to be a legalist in this area. Instead of answering his questions in the combox, I decided to make a post answering his last questions. You can check that post to see our discussion, but I wanted to get these answers to these common objections to drinking alcohol in post form. Again, I want to stress that if you have a conviction to not drink yourself, more power to you, I respect your decision. My problem comes when someone calls it sin or then tries to put that yoke on others. Below is the Q and A that we have been discussing. Sounds like a lot of my readers will be reading it while drinking and smoking a good cigar. Hope they both go down well.

James: Ok, here we go Seth:

I start with this verse.
Wine is a mocker, strong drink is raging: Whosoever is deceived thereby is not wise
Proverbs 20:1

Seth: This verse is one that is not that difficult when you look at its intent. The reason is that the first part of the verse gives the conclusion to what happens in the first part. Wine can become a mocker and strong drink is raging if someone is "deceived" or better put in what the original Hebrew is getting across, the NASB states that these things happen, when you are "intoxicated" by it. Here is how the NASB reads: Wine is a mocker, strong drink a brawler, And whoever is intoxicated by it is not wise. Which I agree with, don't get drunk with wine or strong drink because then you become mocked and beyond angry.

James: There was a day & time when it was commonplace for Christians of all denominations to abide by the Biblical conviction that no person should drink alcohol. In recent years, the radical grace movement, with it's extreme teachings concerning Christian liberty, has spread across America. With this self-centered view of Christianity many Christians have left behind their convictions concerning intoxicating drinks. The sale of Alcoholic beverages has risen by 40 percent, in the last 25 years, which is an epidemic problem that has made it's way into our churches.

Seth: This is almost a completely made up statement. History tells us that most Christians, for 2000 years, have always drank wine, beer, etc. It is only since the prohibition where people started to go against it, which they should have not taken drinks when it was illegal.

James: Leaders should avoid alcohol.
Proverbs 23:31 says,Look thou not upon the wine when it is red, when it giveth it's color in the cup, When it moveth itself aright. (fermenting) It says NOT to.

Seth: I wonder if you read context. The reason that it says to stay away from it, is because of the previous verses of those who misuse alcohol. Who get drunk with it. He just got done talking about those who "linger" over it. And then afterwards talks about wine making people see strange things, uttering perverse things, etc. Meaning that the person is drunk, not merely drinking some wine. The term "do not look at it when it is red" is speaking of it being inticing to a drunk that can't wait to get his hands on the drink. This comes from the most respected Hebrew scholars in Keil and Delitzsch. It could be this or just the use of hyperbole, because the context is clearly speaking of a drunk. Think of when Paul says in 1 Corinthians 8:13 that he would never eat meat again if it were to make his brother stumble.

James: There are many spiritual leaders who abstained from drink.
1. Nazarines (Nazarite vow) Numbers 6:1-4
2. John The Baptist (He followed the Nazarite vowel.) Luke 1:15

Seth: Are you going to also never cut your hair, pledge not to touch a dead animal or eat locusts and wear camel hair? Or can we be more knowledgeable and try and understand that the Nazarite vow is no longer a vow to be followed and John the Baptist was a special prophet among God's people? If not, can I be the first to buy a ticket to your circus in the desert while you wear camel hair, eat bugs and drink grape juice?

James: 3. Deacons/I Timothy 3:8

Seth: This verse says that deacons shouldn't be addicted to wine. What is your point? You can drink wine without being addicted.

James: Leaders should not encourage others to drink. (Habakkuk 2:15-16)

Seth: Did you read this verse? It is speaking of drunkenness. I don't remember the last time I saw someone sip on some wine at dinner and then get naked. Maybe our experiences have been different.

James also lists off Isaiah 5:11 & Proverbs 31:4,5

Seth:

1. Isaiah 5:11
Again, this is speaking of pursuing strong drink and being inflamed with wine, both showing an uncontrollable urge with drinking instead of fearing the Lord. Again, context. Look at verse 12...these people cared more about getting drunk than keeping the deeds of the Lord.

2. Proverbs 31:4-5

Again, keep reading. I never have known people to forget what they have said, when drinking in moderation. This again, is speaking of the dangers of getting drunk. Verse 5 speaks of someone forgetting what is decreed and perverting the rights of the afflicted. Again, drunk, not simply drinking.

James: * in ancient times, wine (as we would call it) was mixed with water in an eight-to-one mixture for purification purposes. The Bibles word wine does not have the same connotation as alcoholic beverages. When water purification was a problem, people would add crushed composites of a grape-type syrup called wine for the purpose of purifying water from parasites. When the Bible talks about wine it is not talking about intoxicating substance at all; it is speaking of treated water in some instances.

Seth: Where did you find this material? I have heard this to try and be explained, but just read the Bible to find it to be false. Because I find it interesting that you keep saying that the wine was not intoxicating, yet you just listed off many verses that speak of wine being intoxicating, making one forget, perverting justice, being a mockery, etc. So, which is it? Intoxicating or not?

James: In reference to spiritual leaders read I Timothy 3:3- Not given to wine...

Seth: Do you know what "given" means? It is the Greek word "paroinos" which means addicted or drunk. So, this isn't speaking of abstinence either.

James: More of what scripture says:
1. Condemns drunkenness/Eph. 5:18

Seth: We are speaking of drinking alcohol at all, not getting drunk. I agree that to get drunk is wrong.

James: 2. Warning/Pro. 23:19-21

Seth: Be consistant. It also speaks of gluttons here. So, are you going to abstain from food too? Just because some abuse it doesn't mean that you MUST abstain. Your logic is very flawed at this point.

James: 3. Recommended to go ahead and drink wine. Don't think this is a loop-hole. I Timothy 5:23- In this verse where wine is mentioned it is commended for medicinal use. Because of the condition of the water in that day, it is believed that Timothy suffered from infirmities relating to his stomach and intestines. so Paul told Timothy to use a little wine for his stomachs sake. Again, this instruction was related to the syrupy grape juice mixed in with water for purification and medicinal purposes.

Seth: This does nothing for your point. This same term of "oinos" which is the same term that people could get drunk on in Ephesians 5:18. Again, I will trust the original Greek instead of your thoughts on the matter.

James: Scripture warns of Alcohols dangers.
1. It hastens ruin/Pro. 23:31-32
2. It enflames lust/Pro. 23:33
3. Destroys families/Genesis 9:20-25

Seth: Correction. This isn't the dangers of alcohol, this is the dangers of the abuse of alcohol. There are also dangers of eating too much and overindulging in money as well (greed) are we supposed to abstain from these as well? How do you get around this?

James: Is today's wine the same as Bible times?
1. No it is not. The majority of the O.T. usages of the word wine comes from a Hebrew word that means "boiling up". Does that sound like intoxicating beverages, yes it does. But that is not what it means. "Boiling up" comes from the idea of boiling grape juice into heavy syrup to use as a mixture in water.

Seth: According to actual scholars in this area, which I quoted to you before, you are not correct here. The Hebrew word that is used speaks of being drunk with wine...again, how do you get drunk from grape juice? I mean, you just quoted a lot of OT verses where people get drunk, is this supposed to be people overindulging in grape juice? Just wondering. Also, for your information, the noun used in the Septuigant for the Hebrew word for "wine" was translated into the Greek as...yep...oinos. The same that is used throughout the NT.

James: Proverbs 23:30- They that tarry long at the wine; they go to seek mixed wine.

According to this verse, some people would drink to much of this mixture deliberately seeking to become intoxicated; but the original intent was for water purification. The second Greek word used for wine simply means "nonintoxicating syrup". We often read about wine in the Bible. When Jesus turned the water into wine, I do not believe that he turned the water into rotten grape juice(fermented wine)that would intoxicate any who drank it. He turned the water into a safe, purified, and refreshing beverage that was non alcoholic. I believe in John 2 when the scripture speaks of Jesus' good wine, it speaks of the drinks mildness as a water like substance. In ancient times the process of fermentation may have begun because of lack of refrigeration. Today's wines, beers, and mixed drinks are highly intoxicating and very dangerous for families, and they are processed to be such. This is definitely different from what the Bible refers to when it teaches about wine.

I hope this enough scripture and evidence for you Seth.
James

Seth: This is completely unfounded with what we find in the Scriptures. The original Greek could not be more clear in this area. Context and the many usages of wine speak of us enjoying wine in heaven (Isaiah 25:6-9; Jeremiah 31:12-14), that wine was given to us for our joy (Judges 9:13; Zechariah 10:7; Ecc 10:19) and that Christ drank this wine at the Last Supper and turned the water into wine at Cana. The warning is that this same wine, this same "oinos", if overindulged is a sin and is very dangerous. We see this in many other ways in the Bible with food, sex, money, anger and the tongue. But we are not told to abstain from eating, sex, making money, righteous anger or talking. Why do you think it is okay to present a double standard where your logic is completely fallacious? If you think it is wrong to drink because it leads to drunkenness, which is exactly what all of the verses you listed are saying, you then better live consistantly and stop having sex with your wife, stop eating, making money or talking.

At least be consistant.

Read More......

10 Steps to Become a Legalist: Step 10

Well this is the last of the steps. I am sure there are many more steps one could take, but these are the ones that I could think of as I have lived my life and watched others live theirs with angry scowls at me as I don't live the way they want me to. This post is one that is going to require you to have a sense of humor, especially if you abstain from alcohol. I will say that the people that I am writing about today are not those who abstain because of their own conviction, but those who not only abstain, but try and convert others to become hall of famers with Welch's Grape Juice alongside them. I will be following this post up with a conclusion, but this will be the last of the steps.

This last step is "People need to abstain from everything...well except food and money"

To be a good legalist, you really have to major on the minors and minor on the majors. If you are scratching your head in confusion because you don't understand the last phrase, your tie is on too tight and you need to put down your King James Bible. Maybe if I said, "If thou desireth to becometh a good legalist, make sureth you overemphasizeth the smalleth things and underemphasizeth the largest of things." Got it? Alright good. For sure this is what will take place as look to how to become a legalist in our last step.

To be a good legalist, find something to abstain from. Whether it be alcohol, smoking or for most of you, sinners. Find something to abstain from, and don't just abstain from them but be a good legalist and find converts for the cause of yourself. You could be the yoke around their neck...errrr...I mean banner of love over them that brings them from sinner to saint. To do this you will have to take verses that speak to certain points and overemphasize them to show that you are right and everyone else is wrong. You will have to take verses and outlaw every use of things to make them sin by just participating instead of what the verse is meant, which is to be careful of over consumption or overuse.

One of the most popular things to abstain from is alcohol. Now, those people that merely abstain for personal conviction are not true legalists, and the reason that you are reading this is not to become a person of conviction, but a person with yokes to hand out. So, take the verses that speak of drunkenness and make it so that it speaks of consumption in any way. Come up with theories that speak of the wine in the biblical times of being watered down and more like grape juice than today's wine. Find these things and harp on them. Make them the center of your ministry and make sure that those who go to taverns, bars or those type of dirty sinful establishments understand that they are going to the den of thieves and robbers. These places are merely the gates to hell. It is your duty to stand on your stool outside, yelling through your bull horn while handing out tracts with the flames of hell on them.

Remember, because the Bible only speaks of drunkenness being wrong, you must take those verses and make them sound like drinking of any kind is sin. Not only do you have to do this but you must make up some very good stories of why we will be drinking wine in heaven, why it was made for our joy, why Jesus drank wine and why he made water into wine as his first miracle. This can get tedious, but if you're desire is to be a good legalist and you have followed the first 9 steps, you should be well on your way of speaking out of both sides of your mouth while proof texting your 1611 King James Bible.

If this isn't going to be your soap box there are many more things that you can abstain from. Smoking is a good one as well. Although smoking is never mentioned in the Bible, don't people know that their bodies are the temple of God? Never mind the passage is dealing with prostitution, remember ignore that and focus on the "temple of God" part. If you quote it enough with a scowl and a finger pointed at people, anything can sound right. Especially if you throw in a "don't be like the world" at people. Just be careful because they might point a certain finger right back at you.

Speaking of "don't be like the world" this comes to the next thing that you can really set your life apart with. Abstain from sinners. Now, you can preach at them, and casually talk to them at the bus stop, but don't let them be your friends. Because if you are friends with them, people might think you are just like them. I mean, what would Pharisees, oops, I mean your congregation, think if they saw you with sinners. Abstain from the sinner, don't let them corrupt you and your family. You are to be holy, not like them or with them. To do this you will have to ignore that most of the apostles were gross sinners and most of those that Christ hung out with and befriended were the worst of sinners. But hey, you have become just like Thomas Jefferson at this point, just cut out those parts of the Bible that do not fit within your new found Christianity. You might have miracles and Jesus in your Bible, but you will have to cut out all the people that were affected by the miracles. No big deal though, God doesn't do miracles anymore anyways, he has you, why would he need miracles?

So, find something to abstain from. Whether it be alcohol, smoking or sinners, find something. Preach on it like Benny Hinn does on money. He might not be in a dark suit, but he could really teach all us legalist how to focus on one thing and make it our ministry.

Alright, enough of the actual post and a little more thoughts on the issue as a whole. I find it interesting that people abstain from alcohol and smoking (I have some close friends abstain, but they aren't legalist in their convictions) don't use the same logic with other things that are spoken of in the Bible. If we are to abstain from alcohol because someone might stumble if they see us drinking, why don't we stop eating around fat people? Why don't we stop spending money in front of people that struggle with greed? You see gluttony and greed are actually named as sin in the Bible where merely drinking and smoking are not. But, what I find is more people have conviction over alcohol and smoking than they do with those things that are mentioned far more often and actually named as sinful. This is a huge deal that is overlooked. What is usually pretty funny is that it is fat preachers, in pin stripe suits, with big houses that tell you that you shouldn't drink or smoke.

Not only are most legalist saying that you must not drink or smoke in front of those who struggle with it, but you must abstain completely even when you are not with those who struggle. So you are to never smoke or drink. Again, take this same logic with those that struggle in other ways. Am I to never eat, because my brother that struggles with gluttony? Am I to never make money or spend it because my brother struggles with greed? Am I never to have sex with my wife because my brother struggles with lust and sex? People need to use some logic here. What about this. I have a neighbor who is a vegetarian. He is not saved, but when they come over, we always eat vegetarian with them. They have told us it is no big deal, but we want to make sure that we are being a good witness of brotherly love. Does this mean though, that I never eat meat? No, but I do it as a witness to them when they come over.

In the end, what seems to happen is that the overuse of anything becomes sin. For whatever reason people have chosen to really harp on smoking and alcohol. Some say it is because they have had some personal experience in dealing with its affects. I have to ask again, "do we do things and put yokes on others because of experience or the Scriptures?" We have to remember that some people have had their lives ruined with money and parents dying because of overeating and heart attacks. Does this mean we have a campaign against eating and money? This would never happen. Historically, drinking alcohol has been a part of life for everyone, but since the prohibition, it seems as though this "sin" has been elevated to an extreme part in people's ministry as they forget the other parts of the Bible.

I have no problem if someone has a personal conviction to abstain from anything. I just beg the question, "Why do you have to put that on others?" Use your own logic with other things and you will find that your personal conviction is just that...personal.

Read More......