Posted on 11/25/2013 9:03:35 AM PST by Laissez-faire capitalist
The Apostle Paul said to not become drunk on wine, but to be filled with the Spirit. Obviously, there is a point at which one can imbibe a certain amount of alcohol, be it from fermented grapes, fermenting honey, or whatever - and become drunk.
I imagine that some people, somewhere, can drink one beer for the first time and become drunk - a rarity indeed - but nonetheless not outside the realm of possiblity. And so, by drinking that first beer, they become drunk --- and sin. Others may say that it takes x amount (be it from wine, beer, hard liquor, etc) to become drunk (i.e. a 6 pack). Others may say that it takes x amount of the aforementioned times 1.5 (9 beers). Others may say 2 times x - a 12 pack...
Is it different for each person? .
Can some people say "I wasn't drunk, I was just slightly tipsy, or somewhat tipsy, and thus was not drunk and therefore do not need to repent of the sin of drunkenness." Who is to say? Do they alone know the truth?
The best thing to do is avoid alcohol altogether.
Now some may say that if this road is trod that it could lead to a host of "maybe I shouldn't do this or that" and thus it becomes a question of necessity.
Is clothing necessary? Yes. Is food necessary? Yes. And on and on... And so, some things in life aren't necessary. Is alcohol necessary?
Can someone become addicted to a host of things? Certainly. Some are probably addicted to social websites - how is that any different from being addicted to cigarettes? Sure, certain addiction may have different levels of consquence, but addictions of any sort aren't pleasing to God.
And, once again, I will add to this - for those who missed it the first two times:
A young man was heard accepting Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior. A few years later he went off to Bible college, graduated, and became a youth pastor not long thereafter. Around two years later he fell into sin, deep sin, whatever. Half of the church thought that he was never saved to begin with, and the other half thought that he had merely "fallen out of fellowship" with Christ, but was nonetheless still saved.
So how much bad fruit, or lack of good fruit, does one have to show in order to be classified into the "never saved" to begin with or the merely "out of fellowship with Christ"? X amount of sin? X amount plus one act of drunkenness? X amount of a particular sin, plus one act of drunkenness, plus one time of fornication to put them "over the top" and into the realm of the "never saved"? And how much of a time period must elapse between each sin(s)?
Yes, Paul the Apostle knew that certain of the Thessalonians were saved, and appaerently the Apostle John knew that certain were saved when he wrote to them, but they were writing the scriptures. The Bible says that the scriptures are God breathed, and Paul wrote that the scriptures were written when the Holy Spirit moved upon men.
And thus it wasn't Paul or John who knew who was or wasn't saved, but God alone --- He revealed this to them as they wrote the scriptures. But since there are supposedly no Apostles around anymore, who is there for God to reveal things like this to? And secondly, the canon of scripture is closed.
I believe that we know personally if our hearts are or aren't right with Jesus Christ. I know when God has pricked my heart on several occasions. As to being able to say with absolute certainty whether or not the person sitting next to me or you in the pew is or isn't saved - who is to know?
I believe that the term "out of fellowship with Christ" needs to be chunked.
If a person is in sin, claims to be saved, then someone should follow the scriptures and go to that person and tell them that they need to repent. If they refuse, then take a second person, (an elder of the church). If they refuse to repent, let the local body of believers they belong to decide to tell them that they refuse to repent and are thus disfellowshipped. Sure, they can still come to that church church, but they (as Jesus said) would be treated like a heathen man.
And so, if that youth pastor person ultimately refused to repent... in the end, was he never truly saved to begin with? And if so, how could they he duped the church for so long?
If his departure from the church was his unmasking, who is to say that he will never return and truly repent, thus showing that a declaration of him being never saved to begin with was actually premature, as they later repented, and thus showed that they were saved in the first place, and had not duped the church, but had fallen into sin?
So, once again, how can one ever differentiate here in the here and now, and at this moment b/w those who are or will be known later as the "never saved" and the "fallen out of fellowship with Christ"?
You cannot equate obesity and gluttony. They are not the same. A person can be unwillingly obese without being a glutton, and one can be a glutton without being obese. One is a physical condition, and the other a spiritual one.
It’s not a matter of morality with them; it’s a matter of incapacitation. And incapacitation to me sounds like drunk.
This is the title of the thread. I gave a biblical answer.
Your broader question is really that of the Founders when they decided to launch the revolution. They found it necessary to publish a treatise on the subject of when that biblical admonition to obey government is superceded. That document is the Declaration of Independence.
Prior to that, however, the Bible itself contains instructions regarding the same thing.
1. Jesus said to "Render to Caesar that which is Caesar's." In other words, whenever Caesar tries to take the place of God, then your allegiance is to God. Up to that point you obey the laws of the land.
2. Romans 13 is the clearly stated Christian position on government.
3 For rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong. Do you want to be free from fear of the one in authority? Then do what is right and he will commend you. 4 For he is God's servant to do you good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword for nothing. He is God's servant, an agent of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer. 5 Therefore, it is necessary to submit to the authorities, not only because of possible punishment but also because of conscience. 6 This is also why you pay taxes, for the authorities are God's servants, who give their full time to governing. 7 Give everyone what you owe him: If you owe taxes, pay taxes; if revenue, then revenue; if respect, then respect; if honor, then honor.
There are two guiding principles for GODLY government:
1. It is to do GOOD.
2. It is to punish WRONGDOERS.
Our Founders wrote that the government of England had forsaken these God-given principles and had instead been doing the opposite: injuring the Good and rewarding the Bad.
That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of 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 shewn, 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.--
It is clear that from the Bible, and from a our own Godly example of overthrowing the despotism of King George, that the German people should have struggled against the perverse despotism of Hitler's Nazism. Some did, but not many at all.
However, one cannot equate our government's definition of drunk driving based on a blood-alcohol content as the equivalent of despotic Nazism. INSTEAD, preventing vehicular homicide by defining blood/alcohol drunkenness is entirely within the realm of Godly government: (1) It is pursuing good, and (2) it is punishing wrongdoing.
Your question about ObamaCare must be taken in the context of our being a representative republican form of government. As the Founders wrote,
Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed.
First, we have mechanisms at our disposal -- far short of revolution -- to change ObamaCare and, hopefully, to be entirely rid of it. So, not only is it possible to change, WE have the freedom to participate peacefully in that change BY THE VERY NATURE OF OUR OWN form of government. In other words, we don't have to overthrow government to change government. We don't have to ignore God and Romans 13 to change government, because our government is designed with its own built in change mechanism.
NEXT, there are serious concerns about death panels, subjugation of the people, and ObamaCare being a possible pathway to despotism for socialists who have infiltrated our free system of government. I agree with those concerns. If that despotism were to become so destructive of freedom that Godly people would question the legitimacy of such government, then we DO HAVE the biblical right to overthrow that government. And, at such a time we should pursue it.
FWIW, it is a strong likelihood that Jesus was celebrating Purim in John 5. Purim was the celebration of the Jews' destroying a minority Persian government that had designed their extermination. And Jesus celebrated it, too.
“...Or are you skeptical of someone saying that the bible supports helpful laws of governments?”
Winner winner chicken dinner!
You sky-pilot thumpers in favor of more big and better government are no doubt an inspiration to the political predators and parasites that torment us mere mortals.
Thanks for your efforts...not!
That is a very Thomistic answer you gave, Chaplain!
The one other point that I’d add is that Obamacare represents a fundamental violation of commutative justice. I demands that a person receive a good without a proper exchange and falls in the category of theft (See S. Th. II-II-95 & 96 for a starter)
Yes, good point about social welfare being on the backs of those who are producers. I’ve never minded helping those who truly can’t help themselves. In my own experience, though, I’ve seen far too many on the dole who are as able-bodied as could be. Refusal to work is now a disability.
Read 123 and ... Guy Fieri is a liberal democrat.
I feel I must contradict you here. The issue is more than obedience. The sense of this baptism is to demonstrate the righteousness which is by fulfilling The Law, which no other human has ever been able to do.
"Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled" (Mt. 5:17-18 AV). This is just one part of The Law to which He, and John Baptist the Levite are to perform as Jesus stands on the threshold of His. John is to ritually dip Him, to wash both Him and His garments as well.
"And the LORD said unto Moses, Lo, I come unto thee in a thick cloud, that the people may hear when I speak with thee, and believe thee for ever. And Moses told the words of the people unto the LORD. And the LORD said unto Moses, Go unto the people, and sanctify them to day and to morrow, and let them wash their clothes, . . ." (Exo 19:9-10 AV)
"And Aaron and his sons thou shalt bring unto the door of the tabernacle of the congregation, and shalt wash them with water" (Exo 29:4 AV).
"And Moses brought Aaron and his sons, and washed them with water" (Lev 8:6 AV). From Barnes, the commentator: Leviticus 8:6 Moses ... washed them with water — At consecration they were subjected to entire ablution, though on ordinary occasions they were required, before entering on their duties, only to wash their hands and feet. This symbolical ablution was designed to teach them the necessity of inward purity, and the imperative obligation on those who bore the vessels and conducted the services of the sanctuary to be holy.
Brown, Driver, Briggs give the definition of the Hebrew verb here "rawkhats" as being "to wash, wash off, wash away, bathe," which the baptism effectively performs this action to completely satisfy the ritual law being addressed. Why?
"For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to every one that believeth. For Moses describeth the righteousness which is of the law, That the man which doeth those things shall live by them" (Rom. 10:4-5 AV).
Jesus had to submit himself to the ceremonial law, to satisfy The God's righteous demands, a task only Christ could ever do, all the jots and tittles were finally "crossed-off" on that tree, with a shout: "FINISHED!" and he committed His spirit unto The Father, and died.
I try to be hermeneutically correct, but I'm a poor student these days
Thank you
And that actually includes those who are disabled and unable to work. They are a great gift of God to society at large as they provide us an opportunity to act Christ-like (Matthew 25, anybody?), but our current state of egoism/utilitarianism forces them into the role of a leach.
In our society, part of the issue is the loss of what an actual commutation is. Therefore, the virtue of gratuitousness is lost on the giver and thankfulness is stripped from the receiver. It serves neither party well...and results in the coarsening of our society.
At least IMHO
C.S. Lewis, a great Christian, would agree with my post #123, imho.
However, it’s a great quote that you post, and a constant reminder of the line between those who truly would do good and those who would use anything, including helping others, as a ploy for the acquisition of power.
Governments, as opposed to individuals, have only two Godly purposes: promote the good of the people and punish those who threaten the safety and security of a free people.
“So, if the state says you’re drunk when you get behind the wheel with .06 BAC, then you are also biblically drunk.”
According to the state one can only be biblically drunk if one is operating prohibited machinery on a public road or if one is being disorderly in public. Pretty much anything else you can be completely ripped and impaired habitually and not be biblically drunk as far as the state is concerned.
Freegards
Almost all people who are obese are obese because they indulge in eating to excess and/or drinking to excess combined with lack of activity - period.
Gluttony – not laziness – to blame for obesity
Again, this is subject that very few people wish to approach with honesty.
Even some doctors and medical professionals will throw out nonsense PC claptrap regarding obesity, saying that while the primary causes are over eating and lack of activity, factors such as "culture, and socioeconomic status are to blame."
As Ravi Zacharias once said (paraphrasing here), if culture is allowed as an excuse to water down sin, then truth and morality are robbed of their very essence.
Not so. If you’re beyond the intoxicated level for public disorderly or for DUI, then you are still beyond that level whether you become guilty of dui/disorderly or not.
So, you’ve gone past a level that is shown by serious research to impair reflexes and judgment.
Guess I am not understanding. So if the legal state intoxication level decides one being ‘biblically drunk’ how do you know if you are biblically drunk if you are in a state that doesn’t have any laws deciding perimeters on intoxication? How did they know before there were such laws anywhere? What happens when you cross the border into a state where the laws are for differing levels of intoxication? Could one be biblically drunk and then become not biblically drunk or vice versa when crossing a border where the laws are different?
Freegards
2. It is to punish WRONGDOERS.
Then it would depend on just WHO is the ruling authority; would it not?
WHIO defines the GOOD?
WHO defines the WRONG?
A LOT of verses do...
Since we’re talking about Romans 13, then the good would be that which the Bible would subscribe to as good.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.