To Partake or Not To Partake...That Is The Question

So, is Drinking OK?

Jason Boyett

Question: Which is better? Fishing with one Baptist or two Baptists?

Answer: Two. If you take one, you’ll have to share your beer. If you take two, you’ll have the beer to yourself, because Baptists won’t drink in front of each other.

I’m not much of a drinker. I didn’t drink alcohol at all until I was 22 years old. And these days, I might have little more than the equivalent of two 6-packs over the course of a year. A Coors or Shiner Bock when I play poker with my brother’s friends. The occasional mixed drink when hanging with another couple from our church. And should I find myself in the Caribbean, I’m man enough to admit I really like banana coladas—not the virgin ones my wife prefers, but the real thing. And that’s pretty much it.

Other confessions: I like to smoke when I go fly-fishing, because campfires are better with a good cigar, and mountain air is fresher after a cigarette. Furthermore, I play cards, invest in the stock market, let my wife manage our family’s finances and used to watch “Buffy the Vampire Slayer” with devoted regularity.

Next time you’re in a church service, fold a paper airplane out of the bulletin, give it a good toss, and chances are you’ll hit someone who thinks at least one of the activities above are sinful. Problem is, none of them are expressly prohibited by anything in the Bible, unless you do tricky things with the language or remove things from context. That’s one of the big struggles with being a Christian in a society two millennia removed from the time the last of our scriptures were written—all the gray areas. Jesus never said, “Disciples, don’t drink alcohol.” He never told any parables about the effects of R-rated movies on his followers. He never chastised the Pharisees for spending too much time playing video games. Of course, he was pretty clear on things like adultery and divorce. And he really got worked up when the religious folks passed judgment on those who didn’t live up to their lengthy lists of societal and religious rules

When Jesus walked around Palestine, the people who most upset him were the Pharisees. Why? Because they focused on their petty, pseudo-religious rules while losing sight of the important stuff like loving God and loving people. We do the same today. Lots of the “rules” of our comfortable Christian subculture are based more on tradition than the Bible. They have more to do with the notion of “being separate” from the world than being made in the image of Christ. And how significant is it that this attitude of separation places great emphasis on some issues of outward appearance (alcohol, smoking, tattoos, entertainment) and not others (unthinking consumerism, gluttony)?

Which brings us to the issue of drinking alcohol. Many readers strongly believe the Bible is clear in its prohibition of alcoholic beverages. Others believe Scripture doesn’t precisely disallow it, but feel it’s best in today’s society to abstain. And there are still others who think there is absolutely nothing wrong with drinking, while recognizing that drunkenness is very much a sinful act.

Some Christians go even further on the issue and don’t condemn drunkenness. A good friend of mine got to spend an evening with the members of a notable hardcore Christian band. After a concert at a local Christian venue, they all proceeded to a local bar and got plastered—the band, their management, the venue’s promoters, everyone. My friend ended up actually escorting the entourage around that evening because she was the only one in any condition to drive. Needless to say, it was a very long, weird night for her. She wondered if her local Christian bookstore would still display their huge cardboard cutout of the band had they known what went on that evening.

That’s all there is to the story. You’re wondering who the band was, aren’t you? Why is that? Is it so you can judge them? Pray for them? Join them? What’s the Christian response to that kind of story?
Let’s leave those questions aside and just look at some of the issues regarding the Bible and alcohol.

Grape Juice

I attend a Southern Baptist church. I’m not much of a Southern Baptist myself, but that’s a long story, and I won’t get into it. Anyway. Whenever a discussion of alcohol comes up among members of my congregation, and someone mentions the story about Jesus turning water into wine for his first public miracle, one point is inevitably made: that the wine back then was watered down so much it had little or no alcoholic content, making it barely more than grape juice.

That sounds good, and it’s an easy way to justify the nearly 50 times wine is mentioned in the Bible as one of God’s blessings. It also helps account for the many times the taking of wine or alcoholic drink is referenced neutrally, as nothing but a common cultural practice. But there are some problems with the “it was only grape juice” argument. How did the communion-takers in Corinth get drunk off of grape juice? Why did the Good Samaritan pour grape juice on the wounds of the assaulted man in Jesus’ parable? Why does Paul warn us not to “be drunk with wine”? Why were the apostles at Pentecost accused of being full of wine when they began speaking in tongues? Is strange behavior usually rationalized because someone’s been sipping the Ocean Spray? Yes, there were several different kinds of wine in the Bible with varying amounts of alcohol — but it was at a sufficient level for drunkenness to be an issue. People got drunk back then just like they do today. My guess is that Bible wine is exactly what it says it is.

Being a Stumbling Block

A more reasonable argument against wine is made based on an interpretation of Romans 14:21: “It is better not to eat meat or drink wine or to do anything else that will cause your brother to fall.” Based on the context of this verse, causing a fellow Christian “to fall” means causing him to do something that violates his conscience by imitating an action he believes to be wrong. This is how we usually interpret the scenario: I go to Wal-Mart and grab a six-pack. Bob sees me standing in line with my hands full of Coors. Bob thinks to himself, “Hmmmm … I’ve always been taught that drinking beer is sinful, but since Jason’s doing it, I think I’ll give it a try.” And so Bob drinks alcohol, even though he has been taught—and he himself believes—that the action is a sin. Bad for Bob, and bad for me, too.

Abstinence (or, perhaps, sneakiness) makes a lot of sense in this case, but let’s not consider the matter settled yet. There are three specific actions in the verse: 1) Eating meat; 2) Drinking wine; and 3) Doing anything else.

That pretty much covers everything, doesn’t it? And it’s just as clear on meat as it is on wine. Let’s consider our Seventh-Day Adventist brethren, who hold it as a doctrine that the eating of meat is wrong. Many believers have problems with SDA doctrine, but among most they are still considered to be a Christian denomination. So do you also think of Romans 14:21 when you pull up at the Burger King drive-thru? When you fire up the backyard grill? When you’re carrying a couple of steaks through the line at the supermarket?

For those who take the Bible seriously, the proper application of the verse becomes a problem. Because in addition to being a teetotaler, you’d better also be a vegetarian.¹

And we haven’t even touched the “doing anything else” part. Keep in mind that almost anything we do in our current culture has been labeled sinful by some aspect of Christianity. The list includes dancing, wearing makeup, women wearing shorts, listening to rock music, swimming in mixed company or buying anything on a Sunday. The list goes on and on. How do we apply Romans 14:21 consistently without living in constant fear that we’re causing a fellow Christian to stumble? How do we faithfully “avoid the appearance of evil” (1 Thess. 5:22) when evil can be almost anything?

To close out this point, remember this: Jesus greatly offended the Pharisees. He certainly spent time with the wrong people, and he drank enough for them to label him a drunkard (Matt. 11:19). It’s pretty clear he did enough to be a stumbling block (1 Cor. 10:32) of some sort to them. After all, they put him to death. Would that qualify for failing to “avoid the appearance of evil”? Jesus didn’t sin, did he?

Considering Our Society

It is estimated that there are more than five million alcoholics in the U.S. alone, and another four million that are considered problem drinkers. The mortality rate is 2.5 times higher among alcoholics than for the general population. Suicide rates are nearly three times higher. Accidental death rates are seven times higher. Up to 40 percent of all traffic fatalities and a third of all traffic injuries are related to the abuse of alcohol. One-third of all suicides and mental health disorders are estimated to be associated with serious alcohol abuse. And that’s just among adult —recent estimates identify more than three million problem drinkers between the ages of 14 and 17 in the United States.² Clearly, the abuse of alcohol has a devastating effect on our society. It messes people up.

Even if the Bible doesn’t condemn wine, wouldn’t we be better off in today’s culture — where it seems more people are likely to abuse alcohol than to enjoy it responsibly — to forgo it completely? It’s a logical argument on the surface, and one Christians have been using since the days of Prohibition. But there’s one problem: it’s pretty much moral relativism.³

Here’s the logic (or illogic): Thirty or forty years ago, our culture as a whole frowned upon things like divorce, adultery and sexual immorality. Why? Because the Bible said they were morally wrong, for one thing. Yet in today’s society, people hardly bat an eye about divorce. Everyone’s having adulterous and promiscuous sex with everyone else, and homosexuality has entered the mainstream. Our culture accepts these actions, but Christians continue to resist them because we believe the Bible calls them sin. And if something was a sin 2,000 years ago, it’s still sinful now. If Scripture is what we say it is, then you can’t eliminate certain parts of it because our society has changed. You can’t rewrite the Bible to accommodate today’s cultural standards. Sins are moral issues, not cultural ones. Got it?

Now, let’s apply that logic to alcohol. If we can’t drop sins from the list for cultural reasons, wouldn’t it be equally wrong to add them to the list for the same reasons? The opposite of the statement in the paragraph above also applies: If something was not a sin in 1st century Palestine, then it can’t be a sin now. And isn’t making ourselves the definers of sin a little too close to saying we’re better than God? At the least, it’s legalistic and Pharasaical. Remember who Jesus kept calling a “brood of vipers”? Here’s a hint—it wasn’t the immoral, the prostitutes, or the drunkards. Nope. It was the churchy people who burdened the above with too many rules.

Judgment and Fear

Let’s think again about the Christian band with whom my friend spent a saucy evening. What was your immediate reaction to that story? I can think of several possible reactions among readers of RELEVANT:
1) Excitement. Who are these guys? I need to know who they are so I can add another celebrity name to my list of Christians who think it’s OK to drink.
2) Anger. Who do these guys think they are? Don’t they know they’re examples to our youth? How irresponsible!
3) Sadness. Why does everything have to be so hard? Why is it so hard to enjoy something without eventually messing it up?

That brings us to the root of the issue. All the arguing about whether or not the Bible says it’s OK to drink really ends up saying much more about the arguers than the topic. I get the feeling that many of those who vehemently defend their rights to be Christian drinkers do so because, well, they’re nervous about being Christian drinkers. As my sister, Micha (a regular RELEVANT contributor), says, “It seems like we have to speak so loudly about why we’re free to smoke and drink because deep down we worry we might be wrong.” Same goes for the teetotalers, who argue and quote verses because they’re afraid to face the ease with which they pass judgment on their drinking brethren.

Both sides make good points, and both sides are wrong. Why? Because either way the focus is on rules. It’s all legalism. Does the Bible say don’t drink? Not exactly, so I can drink. Does the Bible say don’t drink? Not exactly, so I better not drink.

Here’s Micha again, because she says it so well: “It’s hard to tell people to be well-balanced — to drink, but not to drink too much. Because drinking screws people up, and how could Jesus have been a part of something that can turn bad so quickly? The truth is, none of us are very good at identifying and following our conscience. It’s hard to hear that still, small voice, and even harder to trust it. So we would rather have rules. And don’t the rules end up screwing us up just as much in the end?”

So those are the questions we’re left with, and there really aren’t any good answers. I could write that the Bible doesn’t say drinking is a sin (which I believe), but lots of readers will still disagree with me. I could also say that many of the drinkers’ arguments are based on their own fear of being wrong (which I also believe), but those readers will disagree with me, too. I could be angry about the Christian band, or I could feel some sort of kinship with them based upon their penchant for alcohol. But mostly I’m just sad, because it’s so hard to be like Jesus.

That said, I’ll close with two statements I think we all can agree on: Too much drinking does bad things to people. So does too much judgment.

-----------
Sources:
¹ This argument is explained in greater detail by Daniel Whitfield in a 1996 article entitled “Alcohol & the Bible,” which can be read here.

² Encyclopedia Brittanica, online edition (www.brittanica.com).

³ Again, I’m indebted to Whitfield for this one.

Originally published on RELEVANTmagazine.com in 2003.

http://www.relevantmagazine.com/features-reviews/life/1539-alcohol-a-commentary

Final Thoughts and Reflection on An Unlikely Disciple

I have been reflecting quite a bit on the book that I just finished called An Unlikely Disciple. There is an inner conflict within me that I am convinced may never go away. I grew up Southern Baptist. Jerry Falwell was a hero. I never bought into the extremes of Bob Jones and his crew, but a looser adherence to "the fundamentals" was okay with me. As time has gone on, I have watched with dismay this movement get further and further away from true Christianity. Falwell lived with his foot in his mouth. He often made Christians look like intolerant buffoons and his charismatic counterpart, Pat Robertson doesn't do much better. I am all about standing on things that are important, but where do you draw the line? I am becoming convinced that we are even more called to meet people where they are and walk them toward Christ. I still believe that a person should come to a point where they accept Christ (although I have met many friends who say they cannot point to to a time or place, but they know that they are believers and their words and deeds testify to it), but I just struggle with the vitriolic tones that certain evangelical leaders take. Honestly, it angers me.

I preached a very evangelical sermon yesterday. I pleaded with a small congregation to deal with sin. But I made a point not to picture God as someone who simply wants to punish them, but a God who loves them. I made an effort to make sure that they understood that the gospel does not just point away from hell but toward heaven. Someone recently said to me that they appreciate how I just take things in stride. Honestly, that is not always the case (just ask my wife), but sometimes I appear that way because I just simply do not care about some things because they simply do not matter. By the way, I only appear that way because I do my best to pray every morning and to cast my care on Christ ("Humble yourselves, therefore, under the mighty hand of God so that at the proper time he may exalt you, casting all your anxieties on him, because he cares for you" 1 Peter 5:6-7 ESV). It is only this that helps me.

I said all of that to say that it almost seems like I agree more with Roose in this book when he looks with confusion at Liberty University and says (and I paraphrase), "You call this love?" He's right. If it doesn't look, smell, sound, taste, or feel like love, then it probably isn't. Unbelievers know a lot more about love than we give them credit for (part of the Imago Dei I believe). Roose believes that true love will bring freedom...and he's right. For all of our talk about sin, we must remember, as believers, we are given the keys to the kingdom, we are given Jesus Christ, the key to freedom from sin. I am really trying to simply just love people more and point my finger less. Besides, can I really point out sin in others when it is so prevalent in my own life? I know it is. Maybe that's the difference. I just admit it, deal with it, and try not to pretend like it isn't there...most of the time anyway.

I do feel many times like I am stuck in the middle between this screaming, judging fundamentalist on one side and this hippie preacher that just wants to love people because God loves him on the other side. Perhaps Dr. Leslie, my undergrad New Testament professor was right. "The truth is often in the middle," he would say and it usually made me mad. But that was the fundamentalist in me talking. I'm a bit older, a bit wiser (I think) and the truth is, sometimes...I just don't care.

"Honor everyone. Love the brotherhood. Fear God. Honor the emperor." (1 Peter 2:17 ESV)

Star Wars Is Still Good...In Small Doses

Yesterday, I took the entire day to watch all 6 "major" Star Wars movies (my wife pointed out to me that I did not watch them all since I did not watch the Ewok movie, but I did watch episodes 1-6).  This sounded like an awesome way to spend a day, but about the time I got to the ending of The Empire Strikes Back, I was really realizing that Star Wars is almost always good, but it is really good in small packages.  If you desire a long block of Star Wars or even and especially all of them, I now suggest two sittings, one for the first three episodes and another for the second three.  After 15 hours of movies, I am officially tired of Star Wars and feeling guilty for wasting so much time.  Today, I am back to the grind, still looking for that perfect job...

An Unlikely Disciple

I was browsing in a Border's a few days ago and saw this book and requested it from the library and it showed up a few days after.  It is called An Unlikely Disciple. It is about an Brown-educated nineteen year old who decides to take a semester off from his liberal university and attend at "America's Holiest University," Liberty University in Lynchburg, Virginia.  What makes this book fascinating for me first of all is that I also spent my very first semester in college at Liberty and so I am able to relate to most of his writing.  Since that time, I have shed most of my fundamentalism (at least culturally) and have become more moderate on many issues.  Secondly, I  very much relate to Kevin Roose as he enters this strange world because now, to me, that world would also be very strange.  I am certainly much different that I was at eighteen-years old and hopefully wiser and I do not tend to fall into some of the intellectual traps that Liberty puts in front of you, the most common being that you have only two choices, fundamentalism or atheism.  It just doesn't work that way even though I sometimes wish it did because it would make choices in life so much easier.  Anyway, I am not yet ready to give the book my full endorsement, although I will say I am having a hard time putting it down.  Since it is written from Roose's perspective, it is not a "Christian" book, but so far has been very enlightening nonetheless.  You can check out the book on Amazon here.

Search For Escaped Mouse Is Called Off

According to a spokesman for a local law enforcement agency, search efforts for escapee Mark Smith have been called off. "The search for Mr. Smith has now switched from an active search to an inactive search," a local spokesman said. "This means that law enforcement officers will now focus on other law enforcement issues, but remain vigilant to Mr. Smith's whereabouts and continue to maintain the humane traps as necessary." Mark Smith escaped from the Mouse Correctional Facility on July 14th and was spotted by local Navarre resident and podcaster David McDowell. When asked for comment on the called-off search, McDowell responded, "I think it's a timely decision. They can't focus on a little brown mouse forever. There are other issues to consider. But rest assured, I will remain vigilant and any spotting of that mouse will result in it's capture." McDowell has already responded by creating a "Life With A Mic's Most Wanted List" with it's one and only member right now being Mark Smith. If Smith is spotted, the Life With A Mic podcast should be notified by sending an email to lifewithamic at gmail.com.

<embed src="http://downloads.cbn.com/cbnnewsplayer/cbnplayer.swf?aid=8976" height="300" width="533" allowfullscreen="true"/>

I am not sure if I agree with everything in the article, but consider the source.  :)

Revisiting John Calvin's Reformation on 500th Anniversary

By Lee Webb

CBN News Anchor

Friday, July 17, 2009

<!--

12 Comments

-->

RSS

Podcasts

//

The latest version of Adobe Flash Player is required to watch this video. Please click on the link below to download the latest version. Thanks!

Embed:

// Ad Feedback

If you want to see clear evidence of the connection between God and the United States, look at the life and beliefs of the Protestant reformer, John Calvin. July marks the 500th anniversary of his birth.

Calvin never stepped foot on American soil, but his influence in the founding of this country is difficult to deny.

'Father of America'

CBN News took to the streets to discover that most people today associate the name, Calvin, with the comic strip character Calvin, of Calvin and Hobbes, or Calvin Klein.

That is a shame according to Dr. Charles Dunn, dean of the Robertson School of Government at Regent University.

Dunn agreed with the late Harvard historian George Bancroft who wrote, "He that will not honor the memory and respect the influence of Calvin knows but little of the origin of American liberty." Bancroft even called Calvin "the father of America."

"We might dispute the degree to which he was the father of America," Dunn said. "But no one had as great an influence over such a breadth of ideas as John Calvin."

Calvin developed many of those ideas while he was pastor of St. Pierre Cathedral in Geneva beginning in 1536 with ideas that transformed the city. Those ideas included education for the masses, not just the elite; the sacredness of all professions, not just the ministry; free market economic reforms; and checks and balances in civil government.

"He understood the nature of government that you cannot grant power to just one authority because power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely," Dunn said. "So there must be checking of power with power."

These are ideas the early settlers brought to America a century later and appeared in documents like the Mayflower Compact and the U.S. Constitution.

Significant Works

But perhaps Calvin's most significant work was his Institutes of the Christian Religion.

Dunn called it "The most brilliant theological document since the New Testament."

Five centuries later, it is still in print in two volumes. In it, Calvin set out to explain what the Bible had to say about God, man, creation, sin, justification by faith, the church and the sacraments, among other things. But the theme throughout is the sovereignty of God in all of life, including salvation.

Today, Calvinism, or reformed theology as it is also called, is a small minority of the evangelical movement. But it is making a comeback in places many evangelicals have avoided.

Redeemer Presbyterian Church in the heart of Manhattan, N.Y., is drawing hundreds each week to hear the preaching of Reverend Tim Keller.

And at Mars Hill Church in Seattle, Wash., Mark Driscoll uses an edgy, multi-media presentation to tackle Calvinism's most controversial doctrines, including predestination.

Calvin Doctrines

"Some Christians say God chose those that He knew would choose Him," Driscoll exclaimed in one sermon, "The only problem is the Bible says no one seeks God, no one looks for God, no one desires God, no one chooses God."

Mars Hill is one of many churches countering the popular notion that Calvinism is too traditional, even stodgy. Driscoll characterizes himself as a "Charismatic Calvinist." And he is one of the reasons Time magazine recently proclaimed "The New Calvinism" one of the 10 ideas changing the world right now.

Nowhere is Calvinism's resurgence more obvious than on college campuses across the country. In fact, at the University of Virginia in Charlottesville, one of the most popular campus ministries is called Reformed University Fellowship.

On the night CBN News visited the campus, more than 100 students turned out for what amounted to a Tuesday evening worship service.

Kelly Lersch, who attends regularly, was surprised by how many people participated.

"People come and they bring their Bibles and I wasn't used to that growing up in church," she said. "I mean, you talked about what the Bible says, but you didn't really bring your Bible to church and so, yeah, that was really different."

Greg Thompson is senior pastor at Charlottesville's Trinity Presbyterian Church, popular among University of Virginia students. He told CBN News what he heard from them when they first encounter reformed doctrine.

"I didn't know the world mattered so much," he said. "I didn't know the Bible mattered so much. I didn't know I was so messed up and how sufficient Jesus' work for me, my salvation. This is big. And, of course, it is big."

And that realization, Thompson said, brings a cultural benefit that Geneva saw during Calvin's time.

Calvinism and Young People

He said Calvinism is providing young people who want to be social activists with "a theology that's basically born out of the goodness of Creation, the radical corruption of the Fall and Jesus's salvation; His lordship over all things, not must my little soul."

Calvinism's resurgence is the subject of the book Young, Restless, Reformed written by Christianity Today's Collin Hansen.

"There's a need for a rigorous Christianity; a Bible-based, rigorous Christianity that can hold up during these times," Hansen said. "Even a place like Time magazine is recognizing that an evangelicalism that tries to parrot the culture around is an evangelicalism that will perish with the culture around it."

Hansen is hopeful that more Christians will revisit and reclaim the tenants of the Reformation that transformed a church and a city five centuries ago.

*Originally published July 16, 2009

http://www.cbn.com/cbnnews/us/2009/July/500th-Anniversary-of-John-Calvins-Birth/

Noah's Mark Is Now Part of the Wordpress Family!

Hey everybody!

Noah's Mark, a blog which discusses biblical sexuality has now been moved and is part of the Wordpress family.  You can find the new blog at:

www.noahsmark.wordpress.com

Be sure to check out the latest series from Relevant Magazine called, "Is Masturbation Sin?"

Love in Christ,

David

Mouse Identified

The mouse seen yesterday near Navarre, Ohio has been identified as 31 year old Mark Smith. Smith (31 years old in mouse years) recently escaped from the Mouse Correctional Facility where he had been serving a five-year sentence for cheese robbery. Smith escaped two days ago from the facility and was spotted in the living room of Navarre resident David McDowell. "I was just doing my podcast and he does this little jump from one side of the room to the other," McDowell said. "He was a cute little guy, but I can't harbor a fugitive in my house, no matter how cute he is." Authorities have issued a statement that reads, "Mr. Smith is not considered armed and dangerous at this time, however you should not approach him. If Mr. Smith is spotted, you should contact the Life With A Mic podcast at lifewithamic[at]gmail.com. Humane traps have been set and we expect to apprehend him at any time." Mr. Smith is described as two inches long and about an inch high, dark brown with a "cute little tail and cute little pink feet" according to Mr. McDowell.

"Hey God...It's Me, David...Are You There?"

"Welcome to therapy, Mr. McDowell,"  you say.

"Thanks...it's good to be here," I mumble.

Is it sad that I think of my blog as a therapy session sometimes?  I always have mixed feeling when I blog.  I guess I'm just way too transparent, or too real...or I just don't like to put up fronts.  I really despise fakeness.

I have mixed feelings this morning.  Kandice kissed me good-bye this morning at 7:15, heading off to her new job which she is very excited about.  And here I sit...unemployed...again.  Don't get me wrong, I am very happy for Kandice.  She has my full support and I am convinced she will do awesome at this job.  I must admit though, my feelings are often like, "Hey God...when is it my turn?"  My spiritual red lights are going off telling me that I am being selfish.  When things like that happen, I try to just get on my knees and pray and say, "Ok God, I know that You know this, but here is how I'm feeling...and I have to give this to You or it is going to eat me up inside."  I have cried to God, screamed at God, screamed to God, and yes, I have been angry with God (futile effort by the way).  Some people think that this is irreverent.  I just get really tired of hiding my true feelings behind pious prayers.  God knows how I am feeling.  He is God of the universe and knows everything...why should I pretend that He isn't aware of my feelings?  He is my best friend, my all in all, everything I need.  And sometimes my feelings just get in the way, like this morning.

So here I am, alone again in the house during the day, looking for work, praying to God about my feelings and about me finding a new job.  In a way, it is liberating.  In other ways, it is constricting and dangerous.  In many ways, it is like that first big hill on a roller coaster...and I'm just hanging on for my life.

John Calvin's "Of Christian Liberty" Section Four

Another point which depends on the former is, that consciences obey the law, not as if compelled by legal necessity; but being free from the yoke of the law itself, voluntarily obey the will of God. Being constantly in terror so long as they are under the dominion of the law, they are never disposed promptly to obey God, unless they have previously obtained this liberty. Our meaning shall be explained more briefly and clearly by an example. The command of the law is, "Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thine heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy might," (Deut. 6: 5.) To accomplish this, the soul must previously be divested of every other thought and feeling, the heart purified from all its desires, all its powers collected and united on this one object. Those who, in comparison of others, have made much progress in the way of the Lord, are still very far from this goal. For although they love God in their mind, and with a sincere affection of heart, yet both are still in a great measure occupied with the lusts of the flesh, by which they are retarded and prevented from proceeding with quickened pace towards God. They indeed make many efforts, but the flesh partly enfeebles their strength, and partly binds them to itself. What can they do while they thus feel that there is nothing of which they are less capable than to fulfill the law? They wish, aspire, endeavor; but do nothing with the requisite perfection. If they look to the law, they see that every work which they attempt or design is accursed. Nor can any one deceive himself by inferring that the work is not altogether bad, merely because it is imperfect, and, therefore, that any good which is in it is still accepted of God. For the law demanding perfect love condemns all imperfection, unless its rigor is mitigated. Let any man therefore consider his work which he wishes to be thought partly good, and he will find that it is a transgression of the law by the very circumstance of its being imperfect

Debating Infant Baptism with Martin Luther: Part I

Interviewer: Dr. Luther, thank you for being with us today. While the majority of Christian churches—Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, Anglican, Presbyterian, Methodist, and your name’s sake, Lutheran—practice infant baptism, there are many churches (Baptists and Pentecostals, for example) that dismiss the practice as unscriptural. I know this is a subject you feel very strongly about. What is your main line of defense for saying infant baptism honors God?

Luther: I would begin by saying that the reality that infant baptism pleases Christ is evidenced by the fact that God sanctifies many of them who have been thus baptized, and has given them the Holy Ghost. We can point to men and women, baptized in infancy, who can now explain the Scriptures, and evidence by their life that they know Christ. Look at St. Bernard, Gerson, John Hus, and others. If God did not accept the baptism of infants, he would not give the Holy Ghost or any of his gifts to those who had been thus baptized. This is indeed the best and strongest proof for the unscholarly and unlearned.

Interviewer: But surely you’d agree this doesn’t settle the issue. Detractors can point to multitudes of men and women, now entirely unreligious altogether who were baptized in infancy. They can also point to men and women who, believing their justification to be entirely sealed via their baptism at infancy, felt free to, from that point on, go on with their lives, unconcerned with maturing in godliness. In fact, some would say that telling a child that their sins were forgiven and they are now regenerate, thanks to their baptism which took place in their infancy, actually encourages children to pursue godliness no further. It’s like being told to pursue something they already have attained.

Luther: God in his wisdom allows many who start the race to stumble and fall before the race is over. Just because one can find a man or woman who has since renounced their baptism, this doesn’t mean that the baptism didn’t at the time accomplish what it was intended to accomplish—namely, the salvation of the infant’s soul. We maintain, however, that the fact that many who were baptized in infancy grow up to become mature in Christ, filled with the Holy Spirit, proves that God endorses the manner in which they were baptized. God can never be opposed to Himself, or support falsehood and wickedness, or for its promotion impart His grace and Spirit.

Interviewer: But again, detractors would say that God could well save children, who were baptized in infancy, not because of their paedo-baptism, but in spite of it. It’s obvious that godly and spiritual men and women through the centuries, who didn’t know better, submitted to the Pope as Christ’s Vicar on earth. You would say that the godly in the Church of Rome were saved in spite of Rome, not because of her. Couldn’t one use that same line of reasoning with infant baptism?

Luther: Someone who uses this line of reasoning is at a fundamental disagreement with us concerning the nature of baptism. We maintain that all humans, however old, the elderly as well as the infants, are in need of the grace that is available in Holy Baptism. It is wrong to withhold the sacrament of baptism from infants because they, like everyone else, need their sins forgiven.

Interviewer: But this begs the question—He that believes in the Lord Jesus Christ will be saved, the apostles tell us. Can infants, in your opinion, believe?

Luther: We are not so much concerned to know whether the person baptized believes or not; for on that account Baptism does not become invalid; but everything depends upon the Word and command of God. If an adult deceitfully receives baptism under false pretenses, this does not invalidate the baptism itself, in the same way that someone receiving the Lord’s Supper unworthily doesn’t alter the fact that it is truly the Lord’s Supper he or she is receiving.

Baptism is nothing else than water and the Word of God in and with each other. That is, when the Word is added to the water, Baptism is valid, even though faith is wanting. For my faith does not make Baptism, but receives it.

Interviewer: But does a child have the faith to properly receive Baptism?

Luther: All humanity is enslaved to sin and unable, apart from the Holy Ghost, to take hold of Christ. A grown man, with impressive mental faculties is no more capable of receiving Christ on his own that a child fresh out of the womb. Whether infant or adult, the grace to receive the benefits of Baptism comes from the gracious hand of God.

We bring our children for Baptism in the conviction and hope that he or she believes, and we pray that God may grant the child faith. But we do not baptize them upon that, but solely upon the command of God. Why? Because we know that God does not lie. I and my neighbor and, in short, all humans, may err and deceive, but God's Word cannot err.

Interviewer: But what command of God, what Scriptural warrant, is there for saying that an infant should be baptized, or for saying that an infant can comprehend and believe the gospel?

Luther: Christ’s command to go and baptize “all nations” excludes no one under heaven, and certainly infants are included in this. There are numerous examples of household baptisms in the book of Acts, and we say that surely some of these households had infants within them. Furthermore, the ancient tradition of the Church testifies to the validity and legitimacy of infant baptism. There is documented evidence that infants have been receiving baptism since the earliest days of the Church. One can find second century grave stone inscriptions, listing the day a baby was born, the day they “received grace” or “became a child of God”, followed by the day they died.

Interviewer: But you would agree that the Scriptural case to be made for infant baptism is based on implicit, not explicit, instructions to do so? Detractors say that we’ve no reason to assume that infants were included in any of the household baptisms. When the jailer in Acts 16 was baptized with his family, the text says he and his household all believed the gospel. Which brings us back to the original question—where does Scripture say that infants can believe?

Luther: Was not John the Baptist filld with the Holy Spirit while still in his mother's womb? Conversion is all God's work, and he can accomplish it regardless of how old someone is. We could ask for a proof text, showing that God cannot regenerate infants. In the absence of such a text, what right have any of us to limit God?

Interviewer: Baptists say that one cannot, while sticking to a strict "Sola Scriptura" principle, defend infant baptism since there are no explicit commands or examples of it in the New Testament. They would say that the baptism of infants was, itself, simply a carry over from the mideival corruption of the Roman Catholic Church--a superstitious human tradion, with no Scriptural warrant. Some detractors would go so far as to say it is a harmless tradition, one that is commendable, as it has such a long history in the Church--however, they would say that, while it can be defended as a benevolent tradition, it must never be held up as a Scriptural essential, binding a Christian's conscience. Some churches that practice infant baptism--Methodists, for example, and some Anglicans--themselves basically hold infant baptism to be a human tradition. They still practice it, but don't insist that Scripture demands it.

Luther: Such reasoning makes it sound as if the Baptism of infants were merely optional, rather than expected by God. This does damage to the importance of baptism.

Interviewer: But, in the absence of any explicit commands in Scripture about infant baptism, can one really say it's sinful for parents to not baptize their children? If this was that important to our Father, wouldn't it be spelled out more clearly in Scripture? Can an essential doctrine be based entirely on deductions, assumptions, and Church tradition?

Luther: If a couple fail to baptize their child, and that child should die, they can hope, but have no certain assurance that their child has been received into Heaven. However, if I baptize that child, and he or she should die, I can know, on the authority of God's promises about Baptism, that the child is in Christ's presence. Surely withholding from a child the gracious means by which they are received into Christ's kingdom is sin.

===========================================================================

* Based on Luther's Large Catechism

Author: Daniel Townsend

Daniel Townsend is an Examiner from Jackson. You can see Daniel's articles on Daniel's Home Page.

http://www.examiner.com/x-10570-Jackson-Presbyterian-Examiner~y2009m7d7-Debating-Infant-Baptism-with-Martin-Luther-Part-I

John Calvin's "Of Christian Liberty" Section Three

On this almost the whole subject of the Epistle to the Galatians hinges; for it can be proved from express passages that those are absurd interpreters who teach that Paul there contends only for freedom from ceremonies. Of such passages are the following: "Christ has redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us." "Stand fast, therefore, in the liberty wherewith Christ has made us free, and be not entangled again with the yoke of bondage. Behold, I Paul say unto you, that if ye be circumcised, Christ shall profit you nothing. For I testify again to every man that is circumcised, that he is a debtor to do the whole law. Christ is become of no effect unto you, whosoever of you are justified by the law; ye are fallen from grace," (Gal. 3: 13; 5: 1- 4.) These words certainly refer to something of a higher order than freedom from ceremonies. I confess, indeed, that Paul there treats of ceremonies, because he was contending with false apostles, who were plotting, to bring back into the Christian Church those ancient shadows of the law which were abolished by the advent of Christ. But, in discussing this question, it was necessary to introduce higher matters, on which the whole controversy turns. First, because the brightness of the Gospel was obscured by those Jewish shadows, he shows that in Christ we have a full manifestation of all those things which were typified by Mosaic ceremonies. Secondly, as those impostors instilled into the people the most pernicious opinion, that this obedience was sufficient to merit the grace of God, he insists very strongly that believers shall not imagine that they can obtain justification before God by any works, far less by those paltry observances. At the same time, he shows that by the cross of Christ they are free from the condemnation of the law, to which otherwise all men are exposed, so that in Christ alone they can rest in full security. This argument is pertinent to the present subject, (Gal. 4: 5, 21, &c.) Lastly, he asserts the right of believers to liberty of conscience, a liberty which may not be restrained without necessity.

John Calvin's "Of Christian Liberty" Section Two

Christian liberty seems to me to consist of three parts. First, the consciences of believers, while seeking the assurance of their justification before God, must rise above the law, and think no more of obtaining justification by it. For while the law, as has already been demonstrated, (supra, chap. 17, sec. 1,) leaves not one man righteous, we are either excluded from all hope of justification, or we must be loosed from the law, and so loosed as that no account at all shall be taken of works. For he who imagines that in order to obtain justification he must bring any degree of works whatever, cannot fix any mode or limit, but makes himself debtor to the whole law. Therefore, laying aside all mention of the law, and all idea of works, we must in the matter of justification have recourse to the mercy of God only; turning away our regard from ourselves, we must look only to Christ. For the question is, not how we may be righteous, but how, though unworthy and unrighteous, we may be regarded as righteous. If consciences would obtain any assurance of this, they must give no place to the law. Still it cannot be rightly inferred from this that believers have no need of the law. It ceases not to teach, exhort, and urge them to good, although it is not recognized by their consciences before the judgment-seat of God. The two things are very different, and should be well and carefully distinguished. The whole lives of Christians ought to be a kind of aspiration after piety, seeing they are called unto holiness, (Eph. 1: 4; 1 Thess. 4: 5.) The office of the law is to excite them to the study of purity and holiness, by reminding them of their duty. For when the conscience feels anxious as to how it may have the favor of God, as to the answer it could give, and the confidence it would feel, if brought to his judgment-seat, in such a case the requirements of the law are not to be brought forward, but Christ, who surpasses all the perfection of the law, is alone to be held forth for righteousness.

The Unanimous Declaration of the Thirteen United States of America

Declaration of Independence

Here is the complete text of the Declaration of Independence.
The original spelling and capitalization have been retained.

(Adopted by Congress on July 4, 1776)

The Unanimous Declaration
of the Thirteen United States of America

//

When, in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bonds which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the laws of nature and of nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any form of government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shown that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security. --Such has been the patient sufferance of these colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former systems of government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute tyranny over these states. To prove this, let facts be submitted to a candid world.

He has refused his assent to laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.

He has forbidden his governors to pass laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.

He has refused to pass other laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of representation in the legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only.

He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their public records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.

He has dissolved representative houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people.

He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected; whereby the legislative powers, incapable of annihilation, have returned to the people at large for their exercise; the state remaining in the meantime exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within.

He has endeavored to prevent the population of these states; for that purpose obstructing the laws for naturalization of foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migration hither, and raising the conditions of new appropriations of lands.

He has obstructed the administration of justice, by refusing his assent to laws for establishing judiciary powers.

He has made judges dependent on his will alone, for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.

He has erected a multitude of new offices, and sent hither swarms of officers to harass our people, and eat out their substance.

He has kept among us, in times of peace, standing armies without the consent of our legislature.

He has affected to render the military independent of and superior to civil power.

He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his assent to their acts of pretended legislation:

For quartering large bodies of armed troops among us:

For protecting them, by mock trial, from punishment for any murders which they should commit on the inhabitants of these states:

For cutting off our trade with all parts of the world:

For imposing taxes on us without our consent:

For depriving us in many cases, of the benefits of trial by jury:

For transporting us beyond seas to be tried for pretended offenses:

<a href="http://media.fastclick.net/w/click.here?sid=7651&m=6&c=1" mce_href="http://media.fastclick.net/w/click.here?sid=7651&m=6&c=1" target="_top"><img src="http://media.fastclick.net/w/get.media?sid=7651&m=6&tp=8&d=s&c=1" mce_src="http://media.fastclick.net/w/get.media?sid=7651&m=6&tp=8&d=s&c=1" width=300 height=250 border=1></a>

For abolishing the free system of English laws in a neighboring province, establishing therein an arbitrary government, and enlarging its boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule in these colonies:

For taking away our charters, abolishing our most valuable laws, and altering fundamentally the forms of our governments:

For suspending our own legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.

He has abdicated government here, by declaring us out of his protection and waging war against us.

He has plundered our seas, ravaged our coasts, burned our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people.

He is at this time transporting large armies of foreign mercenaries to complete the works of death, desolation and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of cruelty and perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the head of a civilized nation.

He has constrained our fellow citizens taken captive on the high seas to bear arms against their country, to become the executioners of their friends and brethren, or to fall themselves by their hands.

He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavored to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian savages, whose known rule of warfare, is undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.

In every stage of these oppressions we have petitioned for redress in the most humble terms: our repeated petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A prince, whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.

Nor have we been wanting in attention to our British brethren. We have warned them from time to time of attempts by their legislature to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the circumstances of our emigration and settlement here. We have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the ties of our common kindred to disavow these usurpations, which, would inevitably interrupt our connections and correspondence. They too have been deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity, which denounces our separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, enemies in war, in peace friends.

We, therefore, the representatives of the United States of America, in General Congress, assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the name, and by the authority of the good people of these colonies, solemnly publish and declare, that these united colonies are, and of right ought to be free and independent states; that they are absolved from all allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the state of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as free and independent states, they have full power to levy war, conclude peace, contract alliances, establish commerce, and to do all other acts and things which independent states may of right do. And for the support of this declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our lives, our fortunes and our sacred honor.

New Hampshire: Josiah Bartlett, William Whipple, Matthew Thornton

Massachusetts: John Hancock, Samual Adams, John Adams, Robert Treat Paine, Elbridge Gerry

Rhode Island: Stephen Hopkins, William Ellery

Connecticut: Roger Sherman, Samuel Huntington, William Williams, Oliver Wolcott

New York: William Floyd, Philip Livingston, Francis Lewis, Lewis Morris

New Jersey: Richard Stockton, John Witherspoon, Francis Hopkinson, John Hart, Abraham Clark

Pennsylvania: Robert Morris, Benjamin Rush, Benjamin Franklin, John Morton, George Clymer, James Smith, George Taylor, James Wilson, George Ross

Delaware: Caesar Rodney, George Read, Thomas McKean

Maryland: Samuel Chase, William Paca, Thomas Stone, Charles Carroll of Carrollton

Virginia: George Wythe, Richard Henry Lee, Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Harrison, Thomas Nelson, Jr., Francis Lightfoot Lee, Carter Braxton

North Carolina: William Hooper, Joseph Hewes, John Penn

South Carolina: Edward Rutledge, Thomas Heyward, Jr., Thomas Lynch, Jr., Arthur Middleton

Georgia: Button Gwinnett, Lyman Hall, George Walton

Source: The Pennsylvania Packet, July 8, 1776