Evidence of the Spirit's Filling

`ICR ^ | May 24, 2014 | Henry M. Morris

[imardmd1]

“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

[imardmd1]

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

I fully realize that I did not put the cup to my son's lips, nor cause him to stay up late and go from bar to bar, but I could have set an example at a time in his life that would have served him better. I did not do what my Saviour expected His imitator to do. No excuses.

For someone who likes to quote Scripture, these posts often reveal a lack of proper understanding and exegesis.

Perhaps you'd like to share your hermeneutical method on this question. My last note on Ephesians 5:18 followed that of a scholar who has translated the same verse, as well as the entire New Testament, with a view toward great precision of the grammar and syntax. Your exegetical method on it will be interesting.

Wine is not a problem, . . .

It most certainly is, and its manufacture is a man-made process utilizing anaerobic fermentation; and today aggravated by adding sugars to the process to raise the content to the limit the yeasts withstand.

. . . and it is clear to most people that Jesus turned water into fermented fine wine, the finest probably.

Lacking any logical or exegetical basis to even begin to forward your hypothesis, this approach follows the line "Eat fecal matter, fifty million flies can't be wrong." No sale here.

It is improper use of anything that leads to destruction.

Regarding recreational use of intoxicating beverages as a carnal means to advance the interests of the Kingdom of God--The Holy Ghost has already given us His Word on that to us, and it is quite negative.

Twisting Scripture to advance Satanic interests: well, that has been tried many times (in the Garden, worked; after the Temptation, failed). It was long ago pointed out to me that one of the most deadly humans alive is a false prophet with a Bible in his hand. And a man claiming that recreational use of intoxicants is beneficial based on Bible support for it is one of them, IMHO.

I am sure I have probably offended you, but please don't lose any sleep over it --

[imardmd1]

Your statement was: "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."

Let me rephrase my question:

(2) I take your statement above to say that the time of anyone's death--one's time--is the one God planned for him/her.

Does that correctly state your view?

(Your viewpoint seems to be contrary to mine, which is that one's death might occur at another time than God planned) Thanks --

[Cvengr]

If Jesus Christ wanted to turn water into alcoholic wine, why should we demean Him for that? I don’t see any need to do so.
It was done for a celebration of a wedding.

[Cvengr]

You might want to go back and do your homework. Natural yeast consumes the oxygen and the sugars in the fruit juice to produce carbon dioxide and alcohol. When all the oxygen and sugars have been consumed, the yeast dies and falls to the bottom of the vessel (the lees). That is how a dry wine is produced. A sweet wine simply means the fermentation was halted before all the sugar was consumed, either by removing all the oxygen or removing the biologicals.

Some people add yeast from other sources for a more controlled biochemical reaction.

If the person who created the biologicals, allowed them to serve Him in their natural function, why would we call that vile? Reminds me of the dream of Acts 10:15.

Act 10:15
(15) And the voice spake unto him again the second time, What God hath cleansed, that call not thou common.

[WVKayaker]

...I am sure I have probably offended you, but please don't lose any sleep over it --

I am not offended. I am secure in my relationship with God, through the infilling of His Holy spirit, and His leadership of my life.

I would not drink alcohol when I am around you because it would offend you, and that is what Scripture tells me. BUT, I have no problems with hanging out with publicans and sinners like my Brother did in His days on Earth. I have no doubts He may have had a glass or two (or maybe even three or four!) of FERMENTED wine (with or without sugar added).

As for hermeneutics, I had the privilege of a few years at a Bible College, where I learned some Greek and was taught how to exegete for that and also had some teachings from a Jewish Rabbi, from whom I learned some Hebrew.

Some people just like to find an agreeable source that will represent their views. I prefer to stick with what the Bible says (through the leadings of His Holy Spirit!.

YMMV!

[ravenwolf]

Does that correctly state your view?>>>>

No I just believe it to be a possibility, I don`t know anything that is not explained to me by plain scripture.

What I do know is that we are in Gods hands and I do not believe you need me to point out the scriptures to show why I believe that.

Also WVKayaker gave us some scripture that addresses that question pretty good.

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. ...

Gods children are worth much more than sparrows.

[imardmd1]

Yeah, I think you and I have been through this before. We’ll see. I recall Lima. I lived in Honeoye Falls.

[imardmd1]

A sweet wine simply means the fermentation was halted before all the sugar was consumed, either by removing all the oxygen or removing the biologicals.

I don't think you described the well-known chemistry of fermenting sugars to ethanol. You might want to do your own checking, and revise your assessment of contradicting me. Here's aan excerpt of a fuller article that repeats what I wrote earlier in this thread:

Ethanol fermentation

(excerpt)

Alcoholic fermentation, also referred to as ethanol fermentation, is a biological process in which sugars such as glucose, fructose, and sucrose are converted into cellular energy and thereby produce ethanol and carbon dioxide as metabolic waste products. Because yeasts perform this conversion in the absence of oxygen, alcoholic fermentation is considered an anaerobic process.

[Cvengr]

Act 10:15
(15) And the voice spake unto him again the second time, What God hath cleansed, that call not thou common.

[Cvengr]

From http://www.winesandvines.com/template.cfm?section=features&content=66003

Oxygen’s effects
So just what does oxygen do to wine? Many white wines are made reductively from the start, protecting them as much as possible from oxygen after crushing, but for some white styles and most red wines, oxygen exposure at some stages of fermentation is an important tool in winemaking. For all wines, some oxygen is needed for healthy yeast growth during primary fermentation, and a deficit will result in struggling ferments that are liable to produce sulfides, causing reduction problems. Once fermentation is complete, the requirement for oxygen is much reduced—especially for unoaked white wine styles. Winemakers will look to protect wines during storage and movement by the use of inert gases and stainless steel tanks. However, the use of oak barrels is a deliberate attempt to make positive use of small levels of oxygen exposure during winemaking to achieve stylistic goals. This is particularly important for red wines with substantial tannic structure. Increasingly, winemakers are usin g controlled oxygen delivery during winemaking (known as microoxygenation) to assist in developing structure, color and mouthfeel in red wines—although this is still pretty much an empirical process that involves a good degree of guesswork and tasting rather than exact measurement. When a winemaker has decided his wine is ready for bottling (which can be as little as a few months and as long as several years after vintage) he needs to decide how that bottling is to take place—and also how the bottle is to be sealed. These decisions will have important implications for the shelf-life of the wine, and also how the wine will appear to consumers at the point of consumption.

Read more at: http://www.winesandvines.com/template.cfm?section=features&content=66003
Copyright © Wines & Vines

[imardmd1]

It's not clear what purpose your article/link serves. Exposing wine to air (79%nitrogen, 21% oxygen) during ferment causes an the reaction to proceed to completion, making acetate/acetic acid, not the intermediate ethanol. Each molecule of oxygen used in fermentation will produce two molecules of acetic acid. Enough exposure to air will make the musth undrinkable.

The article you presented has nothing to do with the normal anaerobic formation of ethanol, nor has it any relation to the doctrinal issue being discussed, so why are you introducing this irrelevant distracting infornation?

[imardmd1]

Apples and oranges. Irrelevant. Park it.

[imardmd1]

If Jesus Christ wanted to turn water into alcoholic wine, why should we demean Him for that? I don’t see any need to do so.

You're simply insisting that beverage alcohol was being served at this event, with Jesus contributing it, so you can make him take the blame to justify your (and Satan's) preference for recreational use of intoxicants. (BTW, in the Bible the English term "strong drink" does not refer to distilled spirits, or even fortified wine/sherry. The distillation process was not discovered until about--IIRC--800AD, and that for the purpose of making accelerant for the use of fire in warfare.

It was done for a celebration of a wedding.

It was, but you have not one shred of evidence anywhere in the Bible to prove that alcoholic wine was present, served, approved, used, or made at this event. You hsve only baseless assumptions heavily weighted by your prejudicial opinions, not a valid argument.

So, why don't you give up on that. I don't even have to defend my position on this wedding, because my argument is Jesus' purity and innocence of any sinful activity. I do not think (my opinion) that he would even have agreed to provide the refreshment if a non-alcoholic juice would have been unwanted.

In fact, I don't believe that godly Mary, highly favored by Him, would even thought of asking Jesus' to supply more intoxicanr if that was what was wanted.

I'm pretty sure that by now you know of the verse following, but I'm including it anyway, whether you think it out of context or not, regarding the Cana affair:

"Woe unto him that giveth his neighbour drink, that puttest thy bottle to him, and makest him drunken also, that thou mayest look on their nakedness!" (Hab 2:15 AV)

[Cvengr]

Written as a true adversarial accuser.

[Cvengr]

So the only reason you can conceive of giving a glass of wine containing alcohol to somebody is to try and look at their nakedness? Then by counterargument, you can only understand the miracle if Jesus turned water into non-alcoholic wine?

What if he simply turned it into wine? You can’t conceive of anything with alcohol as being worthy if God makes it?

[imardmd1]

Written as a true adversarial accuser.

OK, tell me why you are frothing at the bit for suggesting that you have some other reason to object to the fact that you have no proof that Jesus made, drank, or served intoxicants, other than that you personally wish to imbibe them without answering to God or anyone else for it?

And also (knowing that I have in the day become almost blind drunk on wine), why do you want to drink intoxicants? How does that improve your life?

Seriously.

[imardmd1]

Let's suppose your scenario is the situation. What would be your purpose in giving more intoxicants to people that were already half-plastered (from six 2-firkin jars and assuming 120 people, I figured about another gallon apiece)? You must have a reason . . . ?

And why would your Mom want you to do that?

Have your figured out what the Biblical significance is, in retelling the ministry of Jesus?

Can you put this all together and come up with an objective here that even begins to be reasonable?

Why would John include the fact that the wine was made in the ritual containers which, after contaminated by leavened wine, would need to be replaced?

[imardmd1]

I am not offended. I am secure in my relationship with God, through the infilling of His Holy spirit, and His leadership of my life.

Well, let me say it appears from your responses that if the conclusions drawn by Henry Morris in this article from Ephesians 3:18 were truly the case, your position might become just a little insecure? That is, the idea that habitual consumption of intoxicants and control by the Holy Spirit can coexist might have to be dumped? Hmmm. For sure, your hermeneutics would have to come to a considerably different conclusion than the more precise translation offered earlier in this thread, wouldn't it?

How would you account for that, especially where the gender of "which" (masculine) is undeniably referring to "wine" , rather than to the action of "becoming drunk", where "which" if referring to the action father than to "wine" would necessarily have to be neuter and could not be masculine?

Is it possible that one in the state of well-advanced inebriation could be also filled (controlled) by the Holy Spirit such that the chemical influence was completely overridden by the Spirit, such that at any level, the individual would be seen as completely sober in speech, thinking, action, and worship (proskuneo)?

Would speaking in tongues (glossolallia) while under the influence be recommended? These might be questions of faith and practice for us to consider, especially for the Romanist or charismatist.

Just wonderin' . . .

[imardmd1]

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

Well, to help my memory, could you give me your estimate of how unlearned these apostles were? Let's say, by comparison with yourself or myself? My curiosity forces me to ask. And you might be willing to tell me where your estimate came from?

Thanks --

[WVKayaker]

Well, let me say it appears from your responses that if the conclusions drawn by Henry Morris in this article ...

... Just wonderin' . . .

No, it seems you are just beating a dead horse. I obviously do not agree with the author's premise and of your harping and criticizing others.

I already stated that I would not drink any alcohol in front of you, as it may cause my weaker brother to stumble. But, I see nothing in Scripture which is interpreted to deny any moderate consumption of wine or other spirits.

Excess/Drunkenness is always a problem in itself! Scripture DOES warn against that very clearly!