Evidence of the Spirit's Filling

“And be not drunk with wine, wherein is excess; but be filled with the Spirit.” (Ephesians 5:18)

This classic verse on the filling of the Holy Spirit can be rendered as follows: “And don’t begin to be drunk with wine, which involves profligacy, but be continually being filled with the Spirit.” That is, one cannot be filled with the Holy Spirit (which implies complete control by the Holy Spirit) if he has come to even the slightest degree under the control of wine (or anything else, for that matter).

Being fully controlled and guided by the Spirit is not just a one-time experience. It should be a continual experience—a moment-by-moment control of one’s thoughts and actions by God. In practice, however, it is at best a repeated experience, whereas most Christians experience it quite rarely, if at all.

But how does one have such an experience, and what is the evidence that it is the real thing? To be controlled by the Spirit, one must yield control to Him and not let himself be controlled by anything or anyone else. In practice, this means believing and obeying the Word He inspired, consciously yielding one’s self as often as necessary. Jesus promised that “when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth” (John 16:13).

It should be noted that the filling of the Spirit is not necessarily marked by any particular feeling or ecstatic experience. The real proof is in the life, manifested by such characteristics as are described in the context of the passages referring to the Spirit’s filling. In our text, it is obvious that such a filling is accompanied by redeeming one’s time (v. 16), understanding God’s will (v. 17), a happy and Bible-centered conversation (v. 19), a continuously thankful heart (v. 20), and a right attitude and relationship with one’s spouse (vv. 22-25). It is also evidenced by boldness in witnessing and in standing up for God’s truth (Acts 4:31; 13:9-10). HMM

I felt moved by this Henry Morris devotional, as a Providential comment on an earlier conversation with a long-time Christian pal earler in the day, and sent an email later as follows:

------------------
Xxxxx (redacted), regarding our conversation re women's dresses or pants, which would come under this heading. In many cases (and not only in dressing the human body) spiritual infants/children, who have not yet overcome the Wicked One (spiritual adults), want to interpret the practices of modesty to their own desire, blaming their observing criticisers as having spiritual shortsightedness, and not seeing the havoc they wreak upon the modesty and purity counseled by the Scriptures as the governing principle. Neither do they recognize that they are not yet quite fit to reign with Christ in the millenium as overcomers (IMHO).

This is something worth pondering on rather more than we did today.

What about dating, about remarriage of divorced people? Once one has confessed that divorce is wrong, and remarriage afterward just as wrong, won't thoe sins be forgiven, eradicated, and once admitted, can't I and my new wife continue on as serving and fruitful members of a congregation? As for me, why do you think I have remained un-re-married for 42 years now (43½ since separation)? Who would complain if I just went ahead and saw to my own comfort and well-being in this area? Wouldn't I still be available for control of the Holy Ghost (any other diversion issues laid aside)? Why not have a nice cool beer on a hot July day, once or twice a year, or a good Cuban cigar brought over from Canada on a quick vacation over there, once in a great while? After all, as Rudyard Kipling said, ". . . A woman is only a woman, but a good cigar is - a - smoke!"

And many do not like the verse, "Look not thou upon the wine when it is red . . ." (because grape juice wine is always purple, and only fermented wine is red, as a trained spectroscopist and color analyst, or winemaker will tell you)? Is that, standing alone, a commandment of the Holy Spirit to be followed without further question? Many say it is not, and is to be ignored as Old Testamentish; when Paul advises Timothy to take a little wine for his stomach's sake, and because of τας πυκνας σου ασθενειας (Greek describing myasthenia gravis perhaps?, maybe diagnosed by Luke the physician and medical advice given?).

Myasthenia gravis
Disease or medical condition
Myasthenia gravis is an autoimmune neuromuscular disease leading to fluctuating muscle
weakness and fatigue. Muscle weakness is caused by circulating antibodies that block acetylcholine receptors at the postsynaptic neuromuscular...etc.

Well, you see what I'm hinting at. But the following is from the great engineering professor, Henry Morris, the organizer of Institute for Creation Research; who once came to (our church) to share his wisdom with us --

Maybe I am not understanding this the way I am supposed to, could you explain?

Yes, I believe so. On the first issue:

Whether or not the reaser agrees, Morris's view is that use of CNS depressants or other intoxicants for recreational effects will hinder filling (= control) by the Spirit, if He has to wrestle with both chemistry, one's enjoyment of its effects, and an attitude toward His commands to leave that lifestyle alone. These are man-made or naturally-occurring poisons, not food supplements.

I think Morris is quite right, having been on both ends of the spectrum myself. I think you are assuming that wrong conclusions were made. Think it over.

On your second point(s), the author's text has not made it crystal clear that verses 16, 17, 19, 20, etc. are not referring back to John 16, in which context his comments would be nonsensical. Rather, the verses refer back to Ephesians 5, from which his theme verse is taken. There, the comments on the verses are entirely intelligible and fitting.

Considering your dilemma, I saw right away why you found it confusing. It will be OK when you read the correct verses and match them with his comments.

(Just trying to get back to you ASAP.)

The above scripture alone shows that wine is fermented grape juice.

No, it does not.

Follow this:

In both the Old and the New Testaments (Hebrw, Aramaic, and Koine), a beverage originating from a grape and called οἶνος and pronounced oy'-nos does not give you any clue as to whether it is

- newly pressed (which English would term it "juice"); or
- made from pasteurized concentrate by adding water (also "juice"; which they could and did do, and so have I very successfully); or
- kept below fermentation temperature (also "juice" preserved by preventing fre,entation); or
- left open to air or a few days such that a very minor passing intermediate content of ethyl alcohol (EtOH) forms as its fructose ferments to to acetic acid, eventually spoiling the fluid for beverage use; or
- undergoes anaerobic fermentation through sealing the fluid in a new, unstretched leather bottle (stretching accommodates the pressure of the CO2 fermentation product) in one case; or on the other hand in a barrel where the carbon dioxide passes through a water trap that prevents oxygen from getting in (which in English would then term it "wine").

Only the context can tell whether the juice is fermented or not. If there is nothing in the context to inform, then one simply does not know.

With that said, the disciple commanded in the Eph. 5:18 verse may either (1) choose to drink all the unfermented οἶνος he or she wants, thus staying sober, and from that aspect fit for the Spirit's control; or, (2) he/she can choose instead to imbibe alcoholic οἶνος, and thus unfit for the use by the Holy Spirit.

I hope that is quite clear to you.

Consider that when the translator sees the word "οἶνος" in the Greek, it will be translated into English as "wine"; but it would be quite wrong to infer from it the English sense that it is only alcoholic. When reading "wine" in the Bible text you must look to the context to find out what kind of wine is being described.

However, in actuality when the juice is from Concord-type purple grapes, a person can know from Proverbs 23:31 beyond the shadow of a doubt by looking at the characteristics of the fluid whether it is alcoholic. But if you are blind, most certainly you can tell from the smell, and from a small sip, if it is alcoholic.

There are no excuses here whether on this basis that the Holy Ghost will accept or reject the person for consecrated service.

That verse only says "don't use the kind of wine that, to the Holy Spirit, any level of intake makes you intoxicated."

I hope that is quite clear to you.

I don`t want to seem disagreeable but that is not clear to me at all.

Only the verses in the Bible is any indication to me.

I have noticed so many times when some one does not believe what is generally indicated by the Bible verses they will come up with the diverse meaning of the words.

Not that I am pointing this at you in this case but a good example is 1 Cor ch 11, many people will say that Jesus had long hair and they will come up with all kinds of arguments to show that the scripture says anything except what it does say.

Paul goes to some length to tell the people that a man and woman show who and what they are by their hair and he sums it up in verse 14

1 Cor 11:14
Doth not even nature itself teach you, that, if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him?

This is true of almost the same words in most any translation you want to read even though many translations are contradicting themselves.

Also in the same chapter Paul says that a man must examine himself when he partakes of the communion, many Churches deny this, they say he must be examined by the Church leader or leaders.

When I was fairly new to the Church in the early seventies a preacher and his wife came to see my wife and me, he introduced himself and he introduced his wife as a preacher also.

I was kind of innocent even though I was in my thirties, I thought every one believed the same way and that was as the Bible said.

So I exclaimed ;I thought the bible said a woman was not supposed to preach;

The woman took what I said to be a smart remark rather than sincerity and she said, I don`t care what the bible says, god called me to preach any way, the man just grinned and said yep that is what the bible says.

If any one has to get away from the Bible to prove or disprove it, where does this leave us?

Ephesians 5:18 - And be not drunk with wine, wherein is excess; (If some one is drunk with wine it is excess.)

1 Tim 3:3 Not given to wine

1 Tim 3:8 not given to much wine,

Titus 2:3 - The aged women likewise, that [they be] in behaviour as becometh holiness, not false accusers, not given to much wine, teachers of good things;

John 2:10 - And saith unto him, Every man at the beginning doth set forth good wine; and when men have well drunk, then that which is worse: [but] thou hast kept the good wine until now.

Matthew 11:19 - The Son of man came eating and drinking, and they say, Behold a man gluttonous, and a winebibber, a friend of publicans and sinners. But wisdom is justified of her children.

Acts 2:13 - Others mocking said, These men are full of new wine.

My conclusion is that there would be no reason for any of the above scriptures if wine was only grape juice, they would be of no use at all.

Ephesians 5:18 - And be not drunk with wine, wherein is excess; (If some one is drunk with wine it is excess.)

So, tell me, how would you define "excess"? What is the meaning of that word, precisely? Scripture says to not even look (with a longing gaze) at wine when it is red (caused by the effect on color centers by partial, anaerobic, fermentation). Purple wine is not alcoholic, but it is still "wine" in both Hebrew and Greek. Wine as translated in the Bible can be either, depending on the indications of the context.

I'm sorry, if you dig into the principles of precise interpretation, you will find that such a rendering of the Greek can not lead you to the sense you have written. That is a lacvk of understanding what the translators tried to give us in English, and forcing it into supporting your preference. Unfortunately, though the AV is correct, its ambiguosity can result in grave errors to the unwary or careless.

------------

Eph 5:18 TR

και μη μεθυσκεσθε οινω εν ω εστιν ασωτια αλλα πληρουσθε εν πνευματι

και -- And ;(conjunctive, theme extending from verses 15-17)

μη -- stop ; (this is a "no," but in the negative imperative sense, it means "do not")

μεθυσκεσθε -- getting yourselves drunk with, intoxicating yourselves using; (verb,present tense, passive voice, middle mode, 2nd person plural)

οινω -- wine; (noun, dative, singular, masculine, though οινω is not necessarily of the fermented variety, here the txt and context denads thatthis fluid referred to contains ethanol, a deadly poison, a toxin, which makes wine containing alcohol at any level an in-toxic-ant, and consuming any amount in-toxic-ates.) εν -- [by]; (preposition, context defining use)

ω -- [means of] which; (noun, dative [of instrumentality], singular, masculine, "which" being masculine refers to the alcoholic wine, whereas neuter would have referred to the action of ingesting)

εστιν -- is; (verb, present tense, active voice, inicative mode, 3rd person, singular)

ασωτια -- debauchery, the habitual lifestyle of a determinedly unsaved person; (noun, nominative, feminine, singular, from α = negative and σώζω = to save, meaning "unsaved" and not "unsafe", in the precise tecnical Biblical sense)

(translation into English would suggest at this point the use of the exclamation point to lend emphasis to this admonition)

αλλα -- But on the contrary (conjunction, denoting contrariwise and instead of habitually drinking alcoholic wine like an unsaved person would)

πληρουσθε -- constantly/habituaslly be being fully filled (verb, present tense, passive voice, middle mode, 2nd person plural, be completely filled to the brim)

εν -- [by]; (preposition, context defining use)

πνευματι -- [means of] [The] Spirit; (noun, dative [of instrumentality], singular, neuter, the context demands that the Spirit mentioned is The Spirit of The God)

(Exclamation point here for the same purpose)

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

Here is a translation agreeing with the KJV, but less ambiguous in the message, and carrying across the nuances of the Koine:

"And stop intoxicating yourselves using wine, by means of which is debauchery! But, on the contrary, constantly be being fully filled by The Spirit!"

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

In summary, only the regenerated believer-disciple child of The God is indwelt by The Holy Spirit; and if he/she has been ignorant of God's will for His child, he/she is to immediately stop being unwise (v. 17), completely cease the practices of unsaved fools (v. 15) to partake of alcoholic wine at any level; and commit themselves to allow the Holy Ghost to fill them fully to overflowing. The passage goes on to urge them to sing to one another in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, making melody in their hearts as unto The God.

In a similar fashion, the born-anew children of God are begged to let the Word of The Christ dwell in them richly, teaching and admonishing one another in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing with grace in their hearts unto the Lord (Col. 3:16).

Now, two things which are equal to the same thing are equal to each other. The idea then is for true Christians to stop demonstrating debaucery be becoming intoxicated to any degree; rather, they should allow the Holy Ghost to indoctrinate them with the Word of The Christ, becoming exhuberant with the new wine of the spirit.

I see nowhere in the New Testament where followers of Jesus are exhorted to be filled with the Spirit by enjoying a nice relaxing liter or two of Beaujoulais with their next Chateaubriand a deux, do I?

(That's one of the references you cited. For another, prove any way you think you can of Jesus ever making or consuming alcoholic wine. I'll wait. See: Did Jesus Make Alcoholic Wine?)

Warning:

One claiming to be a Bible believer, but on the other hand holding forth for tolerance of casual recreational "wine" drinking (or other alcoholic beverages) is a horribly anti-Christian example for one's children, for "weak" brethren (who are actually stronger when they refuse on a spiritual Scriptural basis), for the onlooking world of angels who have not yet left their first estate, and for the watching lost world of unsaved humans crying for relief from the wages of sin. But for sure, it will not lead to rewards in heaven -- nor on earth, in the end.

I beg you, give up on that stand of refusing the Will of God.

The argument you have advanced here is so vague and weak in providing any proof of alcoholic wine by Jesus' miracle that its value is nonexistent. One has to assume that the first wine was fermented to give this any force, and even that cannot prove that the beverage created by Jesus contained any ethanol. In fact, the very clear conclusion one must make is exactly opposite.

The greater context of the Bible argues against you. Please read in entirety the article at the link I provided in my last post, from which the following is an excerpt:

==========

. . . THERE IS NO REQUIREMENT THAT WINE OF JOHN 2 BE ALCOHOLIC.
Many insist that it was alcoholic, on the basis of John 2:10, which says, “Every man at the beginning doth set forth good wine; and when men have well drunk, then that which is worse; but thou hast kept the good wine until now.” They would say that, in those days, it was common to serve the best alcoholic wine at first, saving the worst until later, when men’s tastes have been dulled by much drinking. But the point is just the opposite here! These people could definitely recognize that the wine which Jesus made was much better than what they had been served at first. This could not have been possible if they were already well on their way to becoming intoxicated! The fact is, neither the wine which they had at first, nor that which Christ made, was alcoholic.

. . . THE LORD JESUS CHRIST WOULD NOT HAVE GOTTEN GLORY FROM MAKING DRUNK PEOPLE DRUNKER.
Verse 11 is most important when it states that, by this miracle, Jesus “manifested forth his glory.” Verse 10 indicates that the people had drunk quite a bit of whatever kind of wine they were drinking. If it had been alcoholic, they would have been intoxicated, or nearly so. Had Christ made alcoholic wine, He would have made drunk people drunker, or almost-drunk people completely drunk! Such a deed would certainly not have manifested any glory to Him!

, , , MAKING DRUNK PEOPLE DRUNKER WOULD NOT HAVE CAUSED HIS DISCIPLES TO BELIEVE MORE STRONGLY ON HIM,
yet verse 11 says that, as a result of what He did in turning the water into wine, “his disciples believed on him.” Jn. 1:41 shows that they had already believed on Him as Messiah; this was a deepening of their faith and a proof that they had not been wrong. Would making drunk people drunker inspire such faith? The opposite would be likely! They were not looking for a Messiah who would pass out free booze! Thus, because of the description of this miracle and its result, we cannot conclude otherwise than that this wine was non-alcoholic.

==========

Come now, give these points their honest place in your assumptions, eh? Give Jesus' righteousness a fair shake.

The idea that His wine was alcoholic demeans His missional purpose in making the long trip from Beth Arabah to Cana with His new disciples, and denigrates the purity of His character.

Do you not know that it takes leavening, that which is ritually and practically unclean, to make alcoholic wine? Leaven is a catalyst--not a reactant--and is unchanged by the process. To get fermentation, you have to add filth (toe jam, skin dirt, airborne yeasts, dirt from the container, bugs, goatskin oils, etc.). Fermentation is a rotting process that always makes the resulting product taste worse than the freshly pressed juice from which it is made.

In old-fashioned grape stompiung, aren't the makers immersed in the stuff up to their waist? What does that mean to you? In fact, the only reason we have wines that can be safely preserved today is because of the discoveries of Louis Pasteur that saved Franc's wine industry by means of heating the casked juice to halt the rotting process. (And proved the germ theory of disease while discovering pasteurization, through which we also have 'clean'(?) milk.)

Why would Jesus permanently vilify the ritual sanctity of the carved stone jugs used to hold the household's fresh water and keep it "living", just to store leavened fruit juice once for a party?

In my experience, no pressed juice of grapes that has had its sugars removed by fermenting them tastes more sweetly refreshing than cleanly pressed grape juice. And this is comparing Welch's grape juice made from concentrate, as compared to genuine top-quality Burgundy sipped in Dijon, or the freely available Dom Perignon in a first class flight from JFK to Narita.

Be honest with yourself. What does it take to override common sense and stand for a beverage that is only made sanitary by the inebriating alcohol it contains?

Carry this to its logical conclusion and spiritual evaluation --

So, tell me, how would you define “excess”?

Drinking in excess brings out the true nature in many people, some becomes the mean s.o.bs that they really are, some go the other way.

A few can drink with out any change, their conservation is still the same.

That is my view and has no more to do with scripture than the question that prompted it.

Scripture says to not even look (with a longing gaze) at wine when it is red >>>>

You left off part of the scripture ( when it giveth his colour in the cup, [when] it moveth itself aright.)

Other scriptures to consider.

1When thou sittest to eat with a ruler, consider diligently what [is] before thee:

20Be not among winebibbers; among riotous eaters of flesh:

The self righteous accused Jesus of being a wine bibber because he had obviously drink a little wine.

30They that tarry long at the wine; they that go to seek mixed wine.

I have never drink any new wine and I have never drink any wine while it was fermenting ( [when] it moveth itself aright.)

But you can see that the writer of Proverbs knew how to make wine.

Proverbs 31

1The words of king Lemuel, the prophecy that his mother taught him.

2What, my son? and what, the son of my womb? and what, the son of my vows?

3Give not thy strength unto women, nor thy ways to that which destroyeth kings.

4It is not for kings, O Lemuel, it is not for kings to drink wine; nor for princes strong drink:

5Lest they drink, and forget the law, and pervert the judgment of any of the afflicted.

6Give strong drink unto him that is ready to perish, and wine unto those that be of heavy hearts.

7Let him drink, and forget his poverty, and remember his misery no more.

You can see very plainly that wine is a fermented drink.

I don`t know why you are writing down all of this foreign language, I do not understand it, that is why I depend on the Bible that has been translated.

The Latin vulgate was commissioned in 382 ad, the KJV was put out in 1611 and every thing I have read in them compares, some different words but the same meaning.

So I am not sure I understand you correctly or not but you seem to be saying that when Paul told Timothy to drink a little wine for the stomachs sake he was only talking about grape juice, and when Jesus made wine he only made grape juice.

So when the religious leaders accused Jesus of being a winebibber are you saying that Jesus was only drinking grape juice with the sinners, wow what sinners they were.

“And stop intoxicating yourselves using wine, by means of which is debauchery! But, on the contrary, constantly be being fully filled by The Spirit!”>>>>>

1Cor 11
18 For first of all, when ye come together in the church, I hear that there be divisions among you; and I partly believe it.

19 For there must be also heresies among you, that they which are approved may be made manifest among you.

20 When ye come together therefore into one place, this is not to eat the Lord’s supper.

21 For in eating every one taketh before other his own supper: and one is hungry, and another is drunken.

22 What? have ye not houses to eat and to drink in? or despise ye the church of God, and shame them that have not? What shall I say to you? shall I praise you in this? I praise you not.

By reading the above scripture you can see very plainly that these people started coming together to eat the Lords supper but it turned out to be just a party.

you can see that they did not stop with eating just a piece of bread and a cup of wine, they turned it into a feast, some were drunk, you do not get drunk on grape juice.

Paul is not complaining about the wine, he is complaining because they have turned the Lords supper into a feast therefore they were not coming together to eat the Lords supper but to show off.

I beg you, give up on that stand of refusing the Will of God.

Believe me I am trying, but to put one thing in the Bible when there are a dozen things to contradict it is not my way of doing it.

That question was posed rhetorically because you had already showed your prejudice toward your definition, when you did not understand that you do not understand the meaning of the word ασωτια, pronounced ah-soh-tee-ah, given accurately by the Holy Spirit in the inerrant, infallible, verbally inspired Written Word of The God. "Excess" as given by the uninspired translators is not infallible, it is not Spirit-inspired, and is a substitute word that has more meanings than the one you and others have chosen to reinforce your view.

Merriam-Webster's Unabridged Dictionary gives two definitions for "excess":

1 a: a state of surpassing or going beyond limits
1 b: something that exceeds what is usual, proper, proportionate, or specified
1 c: the amount or degree by which one thing or number exceeds another
2: undue or immoderate indulgence

You have chosen definition #2, when the Bible context specifies that going beyond ZERO ingesting of alcoholic beverage (wine or strong drink) is the degree beyond what the Holy Spirit does not permit if He is to be in control of your spiritual life--if Jesus is to be Lord of All. That would be is definition #1.

If the amount permitted was beyond zero (and it is not), then you, governed by your fickle heart (influenced by how high your BAC is)(Jeremiah 17:9-10), have no basis to judge what your tolerance is, nor that of anyone else.

Actually, state legislatures have arbitrarily but uniformly set a limit of 0.08% BAC as the limit for vehicle operation, thus indicating that even one beer incapacitates one's driving ability to an unacceptable degree.

But in fact, the Holy Ghost has set an unarguable and determinable limit of BAC for fellowshipping with you, and that is ZERO, and that is also a condition of employment as a servant of The Lord. Resistance to that rule is also a measure of the limit of one's spiritual maturity, which is the level of resistance to chastening by the Holy Spirit. It sets up a standard by which any observer, saved or not, can easily distinguish from one's doctrine whether the person is a follow of Christ, or not.

Absolute intransigency in taking the position that the Holy Spirit permits some recreational imbibing (but with what self-imposed bounds?) is a flag that the person is a spiritual danger to self and others, and should be treated as if he/she were unsaved as well as unreliable in opinion.

Why is that? It is because the word ασωτια is "from a compound of G1 (as a negative particle) and a presumed derivative of G4982" (Thayer); is "properly unsavedness, that is, (by implication) profligacy" (Strong); that is, the partaker of any amount of intoxicating substance is implicitly practicing the habitual behavior and mentality of an unsaved, unspiritual person.

If it was your son, who was buried before his time, on his 27th birthday because of his high BAC causing his fatal accident, as mine was; then you would begin to understand the level of chastening The God might administer to you for your mindset and conduct before your children as the example whom you think they ought to imitate.

I honestly hope you are getting this nugget of holy wisdom by inference, rather than by the chastening you will receive if you are unteachable now (Hebrews 12:5-8).

Beyond this, I cannot help you.

imardmd1: Scripture says to not even look (with a longing gaze) at wine when it is red

ravenwolf: You left off part of the scripture ( when it giveth his colour in the cup, [when] it moveth itself aright.)

I guess you missed the point that I left them off because they are only two more physical manifestations that prove that a particular batch of wine has changes brought about by fermentation: (1) the "color in the cup" effect is due to increase in the index of refraction caused by the ethanol content, and lending a sparkle; and (2) "moving itself aright" is a description of the changed behavior of the fluid as it runs down from the sides of the glass/cup after being swirled around the bowl, where differential evaporation of the ethanol causes "tears" to form--one of the qualities observed by wine connoisseurs, which they describe as "having legs." Grape juice does not show this.

I left them off because they would simply take more time to explain, and when obeying the first instruction was alone enough to prove the Holy Ghost's intent regarding the wine. Did you think I was trying to hide some unfavorable or unexplainable points? In Proverbs, the Wise Preacher under the Holy Ghost's influence, is instructing us to leave the wine sporting these qualities alone, as they are obvious qualities by which the stupidest observer can know that the alcoholic wine is intoxicating, not harmless.

That is a direct order to the believer by the Holy Ghost: "Do not drink any of this wine at all when it gives these signs!" Obeying that command is a spiritual response of unquestioning, prompt, and trusting obedience, seen and honored by God and the angels. It is not the response of a carping, whining spiritual babe who wants to continue his/her own ways without conforming them to God's ways.

"Blessed is every one that feareth The LORD, that walketh in His Ways" (Psalm 128:1).

BTW, in citing these other verses in your post is not a revelation. In fact, they are covered in the link I gave you to the Way of Life site, if you would just take the time to go there and peruse the fine discussion of this matter. I'm getting tired of repeating answers to certain points that are quite simple to find elsewhere.

The only thing I can base my belief on is plain scripture.

1 a: a state of surpassing or going beyond limits

2: undue or immoderate indulgence

You have chosen definition #2,>>>

It is the same thing to me.

when the Bible context specifies that going beyond ZERO ingesting of alcoholic beverage (wine or strong drink) is the degree beyond what the Holy Spirit does not permit >>>>>

That is your conclusion but I have read none of this in scripture.

But supposing you are right, would not Paul be wrong by telling the Deacons to not be given to much wine, meaning they could drink a little?

You need to remember that Jesus chose 12 unlearned and ignorant men to preach the gospel to the world.

They were only unlearned and ignorant in the minds of the highly educated professors of religion, plus they had what the professors did not have which is common sense.

You are coming up with words that I have never heard of to prove your point, telling me what the correct meaning is.

But what you do not think about is that maybe the Apostles did not even know the correct meaning of many words no more than people of today do.

I have no doubt you have heard the phrase ( I couldn’t care less )

Which means I do not care at all.

The younger generation has changed it to ( I could care less ) thinking they are saying the same thing but the meaning is the exact opposite.

But what they think they are saying is (I don`t care)

It is nothing but a play on words which does not impress me and probably no one else.

If it was your son, who was buried before his time, on his 27th birthday because of his high BAC causing his fatal accident, as mine was;

I am sorry you lost your son, I know exactly how it is, I lost mine when he was 22 in a motorcycle accident, he was sober and driving about 30 miles an hour according to witnesses which were his sister and brother in law and girlfriend.

He was killed by a deer jumping across the cycle, and no I do not hate deer, nothing is going to happen to any one against gods will which we know nothing about, but God does.

Paul also says that if our hope is in this life only we are most miserable of all men, God knows what he is doing and I do not believe any one is taken in an accident unless it is time for him or her to go.

We only know as much about it as God thought we should know, whether your Son or my son knew God or not only God knows.

But we may be surprised at what they know, just because we can not communicate with them does not mean that God can`t.

Has it occurred to you that maybe God took your son out of love? instead of what you suppose? could he have saved him from something much worse?

God bless you.

... my son died and was buried before his time ...

While I can offer condolences, it was the person, not the alcohol!

For someone who likes to quote Scripture, these posts often reveal a lack of proper understanding and exegesis. Wine is not a problem, and it is clear to most people that Jesus turned water into fermented fine wine, the finest probably. It is improper use of anything that leads to destruction.

God is also in control of everything, and NOTHING happens unless He allows. The (according to us) premature death of anyone is always unexpected, but God doesn't see any surprises. In everything, the Power and Will of God are potentials for someone else to find solace and assurance in His saving grace!

Matthew 10: ...28 Do not be afraid of those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. Rather, be afraid of the One who can destroy both soul and body in hell. 29 Are not two sparrows sold for a penny? Yet not one of them will fall to the ground outside your Father’s care. 30 And even the very hairs of your head are all numbered. ...

Romans 9: 16 It does not, therefore, depend on human desire or effort, but on God’s mercy. 17 For Scripture says to Pharaoh: “I raised you up for this very purpose, that I might display my power in you and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth.” 18 Therefore God has mercy on whom he wants to have mercy, and he hardens whom he wants to harden.

19 One of you will say to me: “Then why does God still blame us? For who is able to resist his will?” 20 But who are you, a human being, to talk back to God? “Shall what is formed say to the one who formed it, ‘Why did you make me like this?’” 21 Does not the potter have the right to make out of the same lump of clay some pottery for special purposes and some for common use?

22 What if God, although choosing to show his wrath and make his power known, bore with great patience the objects of his wrath—prepared for destruction? 23 What if he did this to make the riches of his glory known to the objects of his mercy, whom he prepared in advance for glory—

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.