Monday, March 31, 2008

Kandice Is Out of Surgery and Doing Great!

Kandice is out of surgery and appears to be doing great. There is no NG tube or catheter this time around and Kandice is very thankful for that. The best news is that the surgery appears to be a success. It will take some time to for her to get full functionality back and only time will tell just how well her j-pouch will function. But she is doing great and is in good spirits resting and relaxing at Mercy Hospital room 275.

Thanks for all your prayers!

To God Be The Glory!

David M.

Sunday, March 30, 2008

Kandice Has Surgery Tomorrow March 31st

We will arrive at Mercy Hospital about 5:30am for surgery prep that
should start around 7:30am. The surgery should last somewhere between
2-5 hours and provided everything goes well, Kandice will be in the
hospital about 5 days. Many of you have asked about visiting and when
to visit. Kandice loves visitors, but please refrain from visiting
tomorrow. The first 24 hours after surgery has always been very rough
and she simply will not be up for any visitors. Kandice has also
asked that if you were thinking of buying her flowers (not that she is
expecting that or anything) please buy her some Propel Fitness Water
instead. She likes all flavors. As funny as that may sound, Kandice
will be on an all-liquid diet and she would rather have something
really good to drink than something pretty to look at. After all, she
already has me, right? :) (That was bad, I know.) One other thing,
Kandice will have an NG tube during much of this process and talking
really irritates her throat. Talking can be difficult so please keep
that in mind.

If you could, please remember me in prayer, too. I started a
part-time job and it is going well, but time demands will be many this
week and I will need the energy to keep up and to stay strong for
Kandice. Above all, we know that God has a plan in all of this. Our
prayer is that God gets the glory in everything and especially this.
Kandice is an amazing woman and she has been through a lot (the story
is very long) and we are confident that this is yet another step in
the process of her getting her better.

I will update everyone tomorrow as soon as I can. Thanks again for everything.

David McDowell

Wednesday, March 26, 2008

Ron Paul's Long-Term Thinking in Dangerous Times

by Bonnie Alba

Ron Paul's Long-Term Thinking in Dangerous Times

March 20, 2008 11:00 AM EST

Ron Paul’s campaign for president has ended, but his “Revolution” has not. Paul’s message of liberty and change has resonated with citizens who were on the verge of abandoning any hope that our America could return to its roots, the U.S. Constitution, and what it means for our future as a sovereign nation.

Paul has stated that his campaign has not been one of winning the presidential nomination so much as “getting his message out to the people.” Igniting the minds of grassroots’ thinkers, filling hearts with hope of liberty, his message has reached into households across America spurring a conservative revolution which unites rather than divides.

Despite the media’s arrogance, ignoring Paul as a worthy candidate, there now exist small groups of supporters in every state of the Union. These citizens not only believe, they know, that the USofA cannot continue on its present and disastrous course of self-destruction.

In his March 6th message to his supporters, he emphasized that this is just the beginning of the “Revolution” and that it will occur, not at the top, but “from the bottom up.” Though he continues to deliver the message, he emphasizes that he is “just the messenger.”

Young supporters see the cause of liberty and what should be. Older (traditionally educated) supporters see what once was and should still be. As the more secular “enlightened” liberal educators took the helm to control education, revised books deleted the holistic history of the USA. From the 50s on, far from a classical, traditional education, children learned a watered-down, feel-good version of American History which has churned out adults who know not why they are Americans.

The present crowd of liberally educated elitists controlling government decisions and policies has practiced a whole range of enlightened ideas which goes against all common sense. Repeatedly hawked by the liberal media, we see a continuing rash of resolutions and laws enacted which make little sense to most Americans. “We the people” feel threatened by this continued lack of cohesion between “us and them.”

While Paul stressed that this is a contest between “two ideologies,” it boils down to either a nation under the U.S. Constitution or taking the course of all previously civilized nations --- to a form of graduated socialism which almost always ends in some form of totalitarianism.

He stated that these are “dangerous and exciting times” we live in. We see the “dollar crisis” the illegal immigration crisis tied to the idea of a North American Union much like the European Union; inflation, deflation, recession happening at the same time; America’s manufacturing base dwindling; manufacturers moving their factories and American jobs to unstable countries in all parts of the world; American education, compared to other countries, completely dumbed down.

Right this moment America stands at the bottom of a stored-up ocean of debt that encompasses the next hundred years. Leading to a nation without liberty and freedom, America will become a gigantic, tax and spend, socialist government.

As David Walker, former head of the U.S. Government Accountability Office, has stated, “We are mortgaging the future of our children and grandchildren at record rates, and that is not only an issue of fiscal irresponsibility, it’s an issue of immorality.”

Using a biblical phrase, Paul refreshingly depicted in his message, it is up to the “Remnant of true believers” to plan the next phase of the “Revolution” and spread the message.

The Remnant faces a long journey encompassing future generations. Of course we didn’t arrive at this point in time in a vacuum. Almost all the decisions of the past to the present have been short-term band aids to temporarily resolve problems of the day, not long term solutions. Unfortunately those band aids have accumulated over decades and threaten to destroy us.

Ron Paul has steered our embedded short-term thinking to long-term thinking. People are now considering “long-term solutions” and a “long revolution” which may incur much sacrifice and suffering along the way. America can regain her stance as a strong nation, with a strong business base and a strong workforce, an increased savings rate, and a constitutional government --- but it must start with us.

“We the people” sense that Ron Paul is right in so many ways about America. Ultra-strong on his economic sense, he understands what the majority of Congress, the President’s administration and the people fail to comprehend.

He knows in his heart that America must look to her own survival as a matter of course instead of following our present road to Hell.

My fellow Americans, it’s up to US!

© 2008 Bonnie Alba
tttalba@hotmail.com

"I Just Feel Badly About Quitting..." Ron Paul continues to trudge on

http://www.newsweek.com/id/124451

Wednesday, March 19, 2008

Do You Earnestly Desire Spiritual Gifts?

Do You Earnestly Desire Spiritual Gifts? Thoughts on 1 Corinthians 14.1
Sam Storms
Mar 19, 2008

I’ve been giving some thought to Paul’s exhortation in 1 Corinthians 14:1. There he writes, “Pursue love, and earnestly desire the spiritual gifts, especially that you may prophesy” (ESV). I’ve written on this somewhat extensively in my book Convergence (pp. 209-15), but would like to add a few comments below.

It would appear from this passage that it is not enough to be open to spiritual gifts and their operation in the local church. One must be zealous for them and earnestly desire their presence, especially the gift of prophecy (1 Cor. 14:1, 12, 26).

However, not everyone agrees with this interpretation. As I’ve thought about it, there appear to be several ways that one might respond to this exhortation. But first, two observations are in order.

(1) It’s important we remember that this is an exhortation, an imperative, a command, and not merely a statement of fact. In 1 Corinthians 12:31 Paul says, “earnestly desire the greater gifts.” The verb translated "earnestly [or eagerly] desire" (zeloute) is grammatically ambiguous (it can be either indicative or imperative). A few insist it is merely a statement characterizing the behavior of the Corinthians, hence "you are eager for the greater gifts." In other words, they take it to be a statement of fact concerning a state of affairs, not an exhortation to future action.

But the Corinthians were not, in fact, seeking the greater gifts. That was precisely their problem. They were placing far more emphasis on the gift of tongues, making it a mark of spirituality. In fact, the whole of chapter 14 is Paul’s attempt to encourage them to desire prophecy in their corporate gatherings rather than uninterpreted tongues, prophecy being the greater gift insofar as it, because intelligible, edifies others.

Also, the same verb form appears in 1 Corinthians 14:1 and 14:39 and is there unambiguously imperative (i.e., a command). It is difficult to believe that the same verb, in the same form, in the same context, would be used by Paul in two entirely different ways without some hint or contextual clue to that effect.

Consider also 14:12 where Paul writes, "So also you, since you are zealous of spiritual gifts [referring to their collective enthusiasm for tongues], seek [imperative] to abound for the edification of the church [in particular, the gift of prophecy, as the context demands].

(2) Some have pointed out, correctly, that the exhortation to "earnestly desire" spiritual gifts (1 Corinthians 12:31; 14:1) is in the plural. But they conclude from this, incorrectly, that Paul’s command is therefore directed not to individual believers but to the corporate church. They argue that this is grounds for rejecting the idea that individual Christians should seek any spiritual gift.

But of course the verb is plural, as are virtually all Paul's commands in letters other than those addressed to individuals (such as Philemon, Titus, and Timothy). Paul is writing to everyone in the church at Corinth, each of whom is responsible for individually responding to an exhortation that has validity for the entire church. In other words, what is the corporate church if not a collection of individuals on each of whom the obligation falls? The plural of this exhortation simply indicates that all believers in Corinth are to heed the apostolic admonition. It is a duty common to everyone. That includes us as well.

I can well imagine someone in Corinth (or today) responding to this attempt to evade Paul’s obvious intent by saying: “How can we as a church pursue spiritual gifts if none of us as individuals is allowed to?”

Now, those observations aside, there are six possible ways of responding to this exhortation.

First, I suppose someone might claim to be an agnostic on the subject of spiritual gifts and thus exempt themselves from having to respond. They just haven’t been able to make up their mind concerning the debate between continuationism and cessationism. In other words, they say, “I don’t know if prophecy and tongues and word of knowledge, for example, are still being given by God to the church, and until I do know I can’t be expected to obey an exhortation that might not be binding on my conscience.”

I understand this position, but if it is yours I would argue that you have a moral and spiritual obligation to resolve the matter as quickly as possible. On the one hand, if cessationism turns out to be true, you haven’t lost anything by ignoring the imperative. However, if continuationism is true, your failure to explore the issue and lingering uncertainty are depriving you of the benefits that you and your church could enjoy from the exercise of these gifts. And you, personally, are at minimum guilty of a sin of omission.

If this first option is where you find yourself today, by all means study and search out the Scriptures, come to a conclusion, and act accordingly. After all, if continuationism is true, and at the judgment seat of Christ the Lord inquires about your failure to obey his Word, I doubt if you’ll relish saying, “I’m sorry God, but I just couldn’t make up my mind!”

Second, there are those, like myself, who believe the New Testament explicitly affirms the on-going, contemporary validity of all spiritual gifts. For such, the command of 1 Corinthians 14:1 is morally binding and must be obeyed.

Third, there are those who believe the NT is explicit in its affirmation of the cessation of certain spiritual gifts in the first century. For them, the exhortation in 1 Corinthians 14:1 is therefore irrelevant. The most we can learn from it is what God desired for the early church, but it has no application to the body of Christ beyond the death of the last apostle. It is no more binding on Christians today than are the dietary regulations in the Law of Moses (although for different reasons).

Fourth, there are those who are cessationists, even though they do not believe the NT is explicit on the subject. In other words, they would say that whereas the NT doesn’t teach the cessation of certain spiritual gifts, they nevertheless believe it. Therefore, the command of 1 Corinthians 14:1 was binding on first-century believers but no longer is for us.

This is a somewhat dangerous stance to maintain, for it entails believing something without explicit biblical warrant, on the basis of which one justifies ignoring an exhortation that is explicit.

Fifth, I suppose someone might respond to 1 Corinthians 14:1 by saying, “I think some gifts, such as prophecy and tongues, have ceased. Therefore, I am not under obligation to earnestly desire or pray for them. But other spiritual gifts, such as teaching and mercy and giving are still operative today and I will happily pray that God might bestow such gifts on me or on the church at large.”

On this view, we have a selective obligation to obey Paul’s command. We can ignore his emphasis on prophecy (“especially that you may prophesy”) but must heed his exhortation when it comes to all other, so-called non-miraculous, gifts of the Spirit.

Sixth, there are those who don’t believe the NT teaches cessationism, who also believe that it is possible that all spiritual gifts are still valid for the church today, but who do not obey Paul’s command in 1 Corinthians 14:1. I would also include here those who believe it is definite that all spiritual gifts are still valid for the contemporary church, but they, too, fail to obey the Pauline imperative. This is the least viable of all positions.

If one believes either that it is possible or that it is definite that all gifts are still valid and important today, one must explore ways to obey Paul’s command. If the gifts are valid, God does not leave us the option of either seeking them or not seeking them.

One cannot respond to this text by saying, “Well, yes, there is no evidence that God has withdrawn the gifts and in fact there is evidence that they are still being bestowed by the Spirit, but that’s just not what we, as a church, are into. It’s not our style. It’s not our vision or contained in our mission statement, and to be perfectly honest, we are frightened by the possibility of such manifestations of the Spirit’s power and would prefer to fulfill the ministry given us by God without incorporating the pursuit of spiritual gifts and the mess that it would inevitably bring.”

This latter position, quite simply, is sin. To acknowledge the validity of spiritual gifts, and to acknowledge that God commands us to earnestly desire their manifestation, only then to refuse to do so, is sin.

Of course, whichever position one adopts we are all, in every age, responsible to “pursue love” (v. 1a), for without it, all gifts, whether teaching or tongues, whether prophecy or pastoring, are but a “noisy gong or a clanging cymbal” (1 Cor. 13:1).

How, then, will you respond to the apostolic imperative?

Sam

Visit My InJesus to manage your subscriptions, change your profile, or check out thousands of other great ministry groups.If you do not have access to the web, you can use these addresses to unsubscribe or subscribe:
Unsubscribe: EGM-unsubscribe@MyInJesus.com
Subscribe: EGM-subscribe@MyInJesus.com
To view this message in its entirety on the web, click here. For a printable version of this message, click here
About inJesus - Start Your Own Group - Save 15% when you process credit cards through Access - learn how...

Reverend Jeremy Wright's Theology Exposed

http://www.agoravox.com/article.php3?id_article=7886

Reverend Jeremy Wright’s Theology Exposed

In a set of “talking points” on the Trinity United Church of Christ web site, Wright proclaims himself an exponent of “black liberation theology.” He cites James Cone, a distinguished professor at New York’s Union Theological Seminary, whom he credits for having “systematized” this strain of Christianity.

Here is a quote from Cone, explaining black liberation theology:

Black theology refuses to accept a God who is not identified totally with the goals of the black community. If God is not for us and against white people, then he is a murderer, and we had better kill him. The task of black theology is to kill Gods who do not belong to the black community. ... Black theology will accept only the love of God which participates in the destruction of the white enemy. What we need is the divine love as expressed in Black Power, which is the power of black people to destroy their oppressors here and now by any means at their disposal. Unless God is participating in this holy activity, we must reject his love.

Mr. Obama continues to reject the Rev. Wrights vitriolic sermons now that the evidence is out and plans a major speech tomorrow concerning race. We call this “Olympic Backpedaling” at it’s finest.

Rich Lowry at National Review writesbefore he ever thought he would have to deploy Clintonesque spin to try to get himself out of a campaign controversy, Barack Obama wrote (an achingly good) memoir. In the book, Obama makes it clear that Wright when he first got to know him was pretty much the same Wright we’re getting to know now (the one that Obama is at pains to say is on the verge of retirement).

Lowry furthernotes that Obama’s 1995 memoir, “Dreams of My Father,” cites a Wright sermon called “The Audacity of Hope,” the title of which Obama borrowed for his own campaign slogan. Without evident disapproval, Obama quotes a passage from that sermon in which Wright describes “a world ... where white folks’ greed runs a world in need,apartheid in one hemisphere, apathy in another hemisphere...That’s the world! On which hope sits!”

As we wrote in the post below, like the fisherman who lost the “big one” and retells his story over the years the fish grows bigger. Unfortunately for America and the people who believe in Mr. Obama’s promise of “hope and change” the story is a big lie. Stay tuned because this fish is about to grow bigger. Indeed!

"...The Enslaved Never Fight With The Same Passion As The Free."

"...Nonetheless, Republicans have a problem. It’s a shortage of individualists. We are not attracting people who have a vision for the way things should be, because we are not giving them a means to pursue a vision. What we have are collectivists who want nothing more than the security that comes with being popular, and who stifle visionaries for being too controversial.

The McCain campaign seeks to defy one simple rule that has reigned obstinately prevalent for a better part of the strife in history: The enslaved never fight with the same passion as the free."

http://www.nationalledger.com/artman/publish/article_272619518.shtml

The Thing That No One Seems To Get...

Why are we involved in a war that is costing millions of dollars when that money could be better spent domestically?

Ron Paul Understands Economics

By Matt Hutaff, Mar 18, 2008

While the American economy circles the drain, the only candidate who understands that is Ron Paul.

Remember Ron Paul? He's the other Republican presidential candidate, the one the media has done everything they could to ignore? Well, despite rumors to the contrary he's still in it to win it.

What does that mean? It means while Obama and Clinton argue over the venomous bile spewed from Barack's church pulpit, Paul decrys American monetary policy. Sure, it doesn't make for headlines the way going around in circles over which god is more racist and hate-filled, but it does show just why Paul is most suited for the office of president.

John McCain wasn't even aware of what the PPT (Plunge Protection Team) is or what it did. For those Republicans who savor this level of ignorance in their own lives, it's a private body that manipulates the stock market to keep it from dipping down into the recession we all know in our guts is coming. Ever wish you could do that to get the best return on your investment?

McCain Republicans want to borrow more so they can spend more. The Democrat front-runners are different; they want to tax more so they can spend more. Meanwhile, what does the average American see from this reckless spending? Hyperinflation and bank bailouts at taxpayer expense.

Ron Paul wants to limit spending. In a time where the federal government abdicates its sovereignty to buy debt from foreign interests, shouldn't we all look for a candidate that feels the same way?

Ron Paul Campaign Is Full of Right-Wing Conspiracy Nutjobs...but that doesn't mean that Ron Paul is one!

See my title. This has been my experience in dealing with some Ron Paul supporters which is why today I left a Ron Paul meetup online. Just too many conspiracy theorists. Unfortunately, they have really not helped Paul's cause. See this article below:

Ron Paul's campaign sabotaged

last updated: March 15, 2008 08:53:22 AM

external links

On The Hive: Editors Desk blog

The High Five

Most Emailed Stories

Stanislaus supervisor: No romance, just theft

Modesto man in fatal accident identified

Man shot in face, neck survives

Teen love caught hanging in the balance

Modesto man drowns, four injured during rescue attempt at Carmel beach

The High Five are the five most-read stories, updated hourly.

There is a reason why Ron Paul will not be president. It has nothing to do with fraud or Diebold machines. The reason why he lost is that a small but vocal minority of lunatic fringe elements (particularly Holocaust deniers and 9/11 "truthers," people who believe 9/11 was an inside job done on behalf of a larger Jewish conspiracy) used Ron Paul's campaign as a vehicle for the dissemination of their propaganda.

They had their own agenda and they didn't care if it hurt Ron Paul's chances. Their public statements and antics gave the establishment media the ammunition to unfairly link Paul and his real supporters to the subversive views of a tiny handful of malodorous cranks. Even after Paul made it abundantly clear that their views were not his, they continued to hang around his neck like the dead albatross, scaring away people who otherwise would have voted for him. The 9/11 "truthers" and Holocaust deniers should be expecting a thank you note from the Democrats very soon for sabotaging the presidential run of the only man who could have beaten them in November.

CHARLES BYRD

Modesto

Senator Backs Televangelist Probe

By ERIC GORSKI – Mar 12, 2008

DENVER (AP) — The Democratic chairman of the Senate Finance Committee has thrown his support behind an investigation of allegations of lavish spending and lax oversight at a half-dozen "prosperity gospel" Christian ministries.

Sen. Max Baucus of Montana joined with Iowa Republican Sen. Charles Grassley in urging cooperation from four ministries. According to a statement from Grassley's office Wednesday, the four ministries have not responded to questions he posed in early November.

Follow-up letters the two senators have sent to the three ministries that have refused to answer Grassley's questions give a March 31 deadline for turning over the requested information. A fourth ministry has indicated it will cooperate.

Having Baucus on board is crucial for any potential bid to seek subpoenas forcing answers from uncooperative ministries. Grassley critics, including Creflo Dollar, one of the ministers not cooperating, have portrayed the senator as a renegade who has no real power because his party is in the minority.

The follow-up letters do not mention subpoenas specifically, but express hope that the requested information can be obtained "without resorting to compulsory process."

Some ministries have said Grassley's inquiries about private planes, oceanside mansions, board oversight and involvement in for-profit businesses should be handled by the Internal Revenue Service, but the latest letters cite the Finance Committee's jurisdiction measuring the effectiveness of tax-exempt policy, saying that role is distinct from the IRS job of enforcing existing law.

"This ought to clear up any misunderstanding about our interest and the committee's role," Grassley said. "We have an obligation to oversee how the tax laws are working for both tax-exempt organizations and taxpayers."

All the targeted ministries say they follow IRS rules governing churches.

So far only one ministry, led by St. Louis-area author and speaker Joyce Meyer, has "cooperated substantially" and turned over information, Grassley's office said.

Another, headed by Texas-based faith healer Benny Hinn, has indicated cooperation but so far has answered just five of 28 questions, Grassley's office said. Neither Meyer nor Hinn were among those receiving the follow-up letters.

The follow-up letters were sent to Dollar and Bishop Eddie Long, both of the Atlanta area, and Kenneth Copeland whose ministry is based at Newark, Texas.

All three have pledged to fight what they portray as an attack on their religious freedom. Some have expressed worry that private information, including salaries and the donors' identities, would be made public.

The letters from Baucus and Grassley say the committee is willing to work with them to protect confidential information.

A fourth letter went to Paula and Randy White of Tampa, who recently divorced and have said little publicly. Grassley's office said representatives of the Whites have indicated they will cooperate and their letter does not set a deadline for a response.

While Grassley has emphasized he is not interested in theology, Copeland and Dollar in particular have questioned whether he is targeting the ministries' shared prosperity theology. That teaching says that God wants people to flourish financially and spiritually.

The investigation has divided the broader evangelical community, with some worrying about the potential for stricter regulations on all religious nonprofits. Others praise it as an overdue check on a corner of the movement that preys on the vulnerable and thrives despite years of negative publicity.

"It's Not Over..."

Ron Paul: 'No, it's not over'

Moments ago on CNN's American Morning, Rep. Ron Paul had this to say about his campaign for the White House: "No, no, it's not over."

The Republican congressman conceded that he's not going to get the GOP presidential nomination, but said he will continue to seek votes in upcoming primaries in a bid to win more delegates and have some influence on the campaign debate.

Last Thursday, Paul issued a message to his supporters in which he never quite said he was dropping out of the race -- but that some in the media interpreted that way.

Posted by Mark Memmott at 07:58 AM/ET, March 10, 2008 in Presidential race, 2008, Republicans

Sunday, March 9, 2008

So Much For Compromise...

Interesting article at: http://morningsentinel.mainetoday.com/view/letters/4833617.html

One of the better quotes:

"The real problem: Paul's fellow GOP colleagues have never forgiven him for always opposing the Iraq war. The arrogant and ambitious will pardon any sin if you are wrong but will not forgive anyone who has been proven right. That makes them look too much the fool. Most Americans now agree with Paul. So much for "compromise" in modern politics.

Paul's problem is the same one that plagued former Democrat Ronald Reagan: He really hasn't changed but his party has. Reagan, a conservative New Dealer, saw his party converted into a democratic socialist regime. Paul has seen the GOP degenerate into another big government warfare/welfare party whose leading nominee's presidential campaign theme is "Invade the World, Invite the World."

Republicans: Do not ask for whom the bell tolls; it tolls for thee."

Thursday, March 6, 2008

Great Video...

Wednesday, March 5, 2008

More About Alcohol From My Friend, Bob Vincent

The Bible contains many warnings against the intemperate use of alcohol (Proverbs 23:29-30). But nowhere does the Bible say that alcohol is evil -- quite the contrary. The Bible commends the beneficial effects of wine and tells us that it is God's gift: "Stop drinking only water, and use a little wine because of your stomach and your frequent illnesses" (1 Timothy 5:23). "He makes grass grow for the cattle, and plants for man to cultivate -- bringing forth food from the earth: wine that gladdens the heart of man, oil to make his face shine, and bread that sustains his heart" (Psalm 104:14, 15).

The Bible condemns drunkenness plainly: "Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral . . . nor drunkards . . . will inherit the kingdom of God" (1 Corinthians 6:9-10). But the cause of alcohol abuse is not in material things. Jesus said: "What comes out of a man is what makes him 'unclean.' For from within, out of men's hearts, come evil thoughts, sexual immorality, theft, murder, adultery" (Mark 7:20, 21).

Some people deprive their families by their extravagant consumption of alcohol. Of course, this is a wrong (1 Timothy 5:8). But this does not really have anything to do with alcohol; it is extravagance. If a person spends his money on golf or another pastime to the economic detriment of his family, he has committed the same sin.

Romans 14 and 1 Corinthians 8-10 warn us not to encourage others to violate their own consciences and faith. These passages do not press us to live under the ethical tyranny of those who may not like what we do. There is no better example of holiness than Jesus Christ. If the above passages mean something other than this, then our Lord would have sinned when he drank in front of the Pharisees, for they got upset at his drinking. They lied about him and called him a drunkard, but Jesus never got drunk (Luke 7:33-34). Jesus got those Pharisees very upset because of his temperate drinking, but he never caused a believer to stumble into sin by his example. Jesus never sinned (2 Corinthians 5:21).

It is not a sin not to drink as long as our motives are right. Furthermore, we should never forget the warning of Proverbs 23:29, 30. We can easily be deceived when it comes to alcohol. There is often only a thin line between temperance and intemperance. No one really needs to go beyond one, or two glasses of wine. But let us not think that our Lord sinned by his temperate use of alcohol.

Not only did Jesus drink wine, he also made it. In the second chapter of John's gospel, we find the account of Jesus' turning the water into wine at the wedding feast in Cana. Some people have said that this was just grape juice "unfermented wine." But this is to read into the passage something that is not there, as can be seen by verse ten: "Everyone brings out the choice wine first and then the cheaper wine after the guests have had too much to drink; but you have saved the best till now" (John 2:10). The meaning is quite obvious: when someone has a party, he puts the wine from the best year in the bowl first, and then after the guests have had a glass and their taste buds are not as discerning, the host has the cheaper wine put into the bowl. This was what astounded the steward of the feast -- when he tasted the wine that Jesus had made, he knew that it was fine wine -- the finest vintage on earth.

In 1 Corinthians 11:20-22, Paul rebukes the church in Corinth because certain people took considerably more than their share of the wine and became drunk. If this had simply been grape juice, how could anyone have gotten drunk from it? What the New Testament Church used was wine, the fermented juice of the grape. That is the common meaning of the Greek word used for wine, OINOS. There was another Greek word that meant unfermented grape juice, TRUX, but that word is not used in the New Testament [Henry George Liddell and Robert Scott, A Greek-English Lexicon, (Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press, 1977), p. 1830].

For one who has put his trust in the Lord Jesus, all of life takes on a new responsibility: "So whether you eat or drink or whatever you do, do it all for the glory of God" (1 Corinthians 10:31). But it also takes on a new perspective -- gratitude and freedom, living under God's free grace: "For everything God created is good, and nothing is to be rejected if it is received with thanksgiving, because it is consecrated by the word of God and prayer" (1 Timothy 4:4-5).

Some words about alcohol from my friend, Bob Vincent, an EPC pastor in Louisiana.

"It may surprise you, but according to some historians, the first person to distill whiskey from corn mash and age it in charred oak casks (what we call Bourbon) was eighteenth century Baptist pastor, Elijah Craig, of Kentucky . The Reverend Craig was an ardent, Bible-believing Baptist and committed to education; he founded what later became Georgetown College . Early Baptists understood that drunkenness is a serious sin but had no trouble with a wee dram of whiskey. While some Christians were critical of the Reverend Craig's invention, virtually no Christians believed in total abstinence from alcohol as a beverage until relatively modern times.

However, Christianity underwent significant modifications in the nineteenth century with the introduction of a measure of theological liberalism that denied the radical impact of Original Sin and preached that if we could outlaw certain things, we could bring in the Millennium. The fruit of these movements helped to outlaw of slavery and introduce prison reform, female suffrage and prohibition. By the early twentieth century, this earlier form of theological liberalism had taken major control of most Protestant denominations, except for Lutherans and Episcopalians, and on January 16, 1919, the Eighteen Amendment to the United States Constitution was passed, which along with the Volstead Act, brought in Prohibition and took a small band of Sicilian war lords and gave them significant wealth and political control in America. It was these Sicilian patriots who put John F. Kennedy in the White House and also, probably, they who removed him from office -- but I'm going to far down a rabbit trail.

The bottom line is that until the mid-nineteenth century, virtually no Bible-believing Christians would have said that having a small amount of alcohol is a sin. Furthermore, classical Greek had a word for unfermented alcohol, TRUX, pronounced like "trucks." That is not the Greek word that the Holy Sprit had the human writers use in such passages as John 2, where the Lord Jesus turned the water into wine. That word is OINOS, "a beverage made from fermented juice of the grape" [Frederick William Danker, A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature, Third Edition, based on Walter Bauer's Griechisch-deutsches Wörterbuch zu den Schriften des Neuen Testaments und der frühchristlichen Literatur, sixth edition, ed. Kurt Aland and Barbara Aland, with Viktor Reichmann and on previous English editions by W.F.Arndt, F.W.Gingrich, and F.W.Danker, (Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 2000), p. 701].
From my perspective that settles the question, our Lord Jesus Christ made and drank alcoholic wine. That doesn't mean that we should consume alcohol, but it does mean that we sin if we sit in judgment of those who do, if they are drinking in moderation. As for the people who believe it is a sin to drink alcohol, we sin if we press them to go against their conscience because "everything that does not come from faith is sin" (Romans 14:23, See that whole 14th chapter and 1 Corinthians 8-9)..."