7/10/14

From Jim McGuiggan... WINE AND WORDS


WINE AND WORDS


It’s a fundamental mistake to assume that because God tolerated and even regulated widespread practices that he approved of them. It’s nonsense to think God approved of slavery, polygamy, concubinage and the widespread “divorce for any cause” culture of Israel even though he gave laws regulating them.

The law-lords in the various nations often have to tolerate and regulate existing conditions that they personally disapprove of and there’s a multitude of judges who commit to carrying out those laws though they personally are opposed to many of them. The specific reasons for this are occasionally hard to uncover but it’s imperative for leaders to temporarily settle for the realisable best rather than try to force through the unattainable ideal. 

Because everybody’s doing it (and have always been doing it) and because the law regulates “it” we’re tempted to think that “it” is morally acceptable, whatever it is. To believe that to be “law-abiding” is the height of moral and spiritual attainment can be a profound mistake at the personal and national level. We all know (or we’re sure we do) of people who are “law abiding” but are greedy rascals to take advantage of the poor beneath them. Prominent church-leaders came to Jesus armed with texts of scripture to debate what “law-abiding” really meant so as to justfy themselves and Jesus called down a pox on their entire way of thinking; called it adulterous (Matthew 19).

Societies need a whole lot more law-abidingness, don’t you know, and to be law-abiding is no bad thing and we should expect people to be (at least) law-abiding; but to line up our lives with specific laws and make that the pinnacle of moral and spiritual aspiration isn’t how Jesus read scripture. To understand the laws of scripture in such a way that the poor and the diseased, the emotionally troubled and the vulnerable young are under threat and/or left without champions is how the worst of the Pharisees understood scripture. To use the laws of scripture to justify the support of some ruinous business or practice just so we can exercise our freedom is risky business.

To give the modern booze industry, as an industry, a clean bill of health should require more than some dabbling with a handful of biblical words and the universal practice of imbibing intoxicating drinks (or substances). What a marvellous signal to the world it would be if Christians everywhere made it clear that they freely choose not to drink a drop of what the booze industry produces so long as families and marriages and homes and cities and nations suffer widespread ruin as a result of their engagement with the filthy rich booze industry. How fine it would be if no boy or girl ever had their first acquaintance with the booze industry in their own homes. How wonderful it would be if parents made it clear that the issue isn’t only about “my rights as an individual to drink whiskey or wine as long as I don’t get drunk.”

Moving on.

To help us think straight, John Stuart Mill, felt the need to remind us of something obvious but something that in practice even scholars forget. “The tide of custom first drifts [a] word on to the shore of a particular meaning, then retires and leaves it there.” The word “gay” is used less and less frequently of cheerfulness or light-heartedness because people don’t wish to be misunderstood so the recently adopted use of the term by homosexuals may well become the exclusive use. Pagan used to mean a villager but no more, intoxicate used to mean to poison but (sadly) no more. “Kaffir” used to be a harmless description of a community of people who lived in a particular area of South Africa but it’s now nothing but an ugly insult. “Heathen” used to speak of those who lived on the heaths, away from towns and cities and the last to hear the Christian message. Not any more—call someone a heathen and see the blood-pressure rise. “Wine” used to be the juice of the grape but now it is (almost) exclusively fermented and intoxicating juice of the grape. (My Concise OED has no other definition listed.) “Coffee” came from a Turkish and earlier Arabic term (a wine) “drink”.

It’s difficult sometimes not to be fooled by present usage. “Drunk” didn’t always mean “intoxicated” and wasn’t always associated with intoxicating drinks. “Inebriate” didn’t always mean intoxicated with alcohol (or some such drug) but because that’s all we’re used to, we find it difficult to change gears. “Wine” which was the juice of the grape and was used of that juice in various states now refers to only one state, the fermented and intoxicating state. So when we read the word “wine” in the Bible we think, “Of course it’s intoxicating because that’s what the word ‘wine’ means!” [How many people when they read the word “baptize” in the NT immediately have an image of a baby being baptized?]

Insects and animals develop through various stages just as developing humans do. Specialists come up with words to describe the various stages of that development—this is helpful and important. The word “baby” or “insect” isn’t precise enough to cover the various stages of development so words are invented to aid in precision. (What do you call a butterfly when it’s in the cocoon? What do you call a just recently conceived animal in the womb of its mother—say a cow?)

It’s no crime to call a developing human “an embryo” or a “foetus” though trouble arises when we make moral and civil decisions about the human in those early stages. The same is true about “wine” and a million other things. The Hebrews, Greeks and Romans had various words for wine (“vinum” or “oinos” or “yayin” as the juice of the grape) and other words for wine in different states (ahsis, gleukos, mustum, protropos, shemarim, mesek, tirosh and others).

It’s too easy to ignore all this and in light of the universal custom of drinking intoxicating wine to quote Psalm 104:15 and say, “God gave intoxicating wine to humans as a gift.”

Do you know the difference between “yitzhar” and “shemen”? Does it really matter whether you do or don’t?

(To be continued, God enabling)


by Garry K. Brantley, M.A., M.Div. ... Philosophical Naturalism and Theology

http://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=12&article=263

Philosophical Naturalism and Theology

by  Garry K. Brantley, M.A., M.Div.

During the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, a major intellectual shift occurred, leaving deep philosophical wounds on the body of academia that as yet have not healed. This period, known as the Enlightenment, introduced a novel way of thinking about our world that can be characterized as anthropocentric—humankind became the central arbiter of truth. While capable philosophers and theologians have attended to the injuries caused by this intellectual trauma, those wounds appear to have resisted treatment and have begun to fester.
As human reason nudged its way to the epistemological center, God’s revelation, the Bible, was driven to the periphery. Once privileged and “enlightened” intellectuals jettisoned the biblical world view that embraced the concept of a sovereign, transcendent God, rationalism began to rule and the period known as modernism emerged. Guided in large measure by the empiricism of Sir Francis Bacon (1561-1626), modern scientists were optimistic that humans could exercise “power over nature by means of the discovery of nature’s secrets” (Grenz, 1994, 30[1]:25). The seismic intellectual shift of the Enlightenment eventually produced the philosophical tidal wave of naturalism that largely has washed away supernaturalism from the field of science (see Johnson, 1995, pp. 8-9,97-101).
Briefly put, philosophical naturalism is the idea that nothing exists beyond “the spatio-temporal world of physical entities that we can investigate in the natural sciences” (Wilkins and Moreland, 1995, p. 8). In other words, the natural universe occupying space and time is exhaustive of reality, and should be explained by purely naturalistic theories. From this perspective, nothing beyond the Universe (i.e., the supernatural or transcendent God) exists, except as an unsubstantiated “belief ” in people’s minds.
In this way, philosophical naturalism has strangled scientific investigation, and now has biblical/theological studies firmly in its grip. The current maelstrom within Jesus’ studies created by the fellows of the now-famous Jesus Seminar is a popular example of the extent to which naturalism has influenced theology (see Strimple, 1995, pp. 1-11; van Biema, 1996; Woodward, 1996). Committed to naturalistic presuppositions, this panel of biblical scholars has surgically removed with their critical scalpels the miraculous dimension from the biblical text. In so doing, they have denied, among other essential doctrines, the deity of Jesus, and His bodily resurrection as a historical event (see Bromling, 1994; Brantley, 1995, pp. 15-30).
While Christians likely are both astounded and perplexed by such dogmatic pronouncements of critical scholars, we need to understand exactly what is at work. Such scholars have adopted the “scientific” world view dominated by philosophical naturalism, which has colored their historical interpretations. These naturalistic assumptions adopted generally by the fellows of the Jesus Seminar dismiss from the realm of historical possibility the idea of a transcendent God’s breaking into our world and, therefore, reject the occurrence of miracles at any time in history. Yet, this reasoning is incurably circular. It says, in essence, we know that Jesus did not perform miracles or rise from the dead, because we know that such events cannot occur. Hence, while they profess to be objective in their research, critical scholars prove to be in the grips of their own naturalistic dogmatism, which has influenced their historical reconstructions of the Man from Galilee.
Contrary to Enlightenment thinking, the biblical world view is one in which God, not humanity, is at the center. We must be careful, therefore, to bring every thought captive to the obedience of Christ (2 Corinthians 10:5)—not the distorted Christ reconstructed by theological naturalists, but the incarnate Son of God as presented in the Scriptures.

REFERENCES

Brantley, Garry K. (1995), Digging for Answers (Montgomery, AL: Apologetics Press).
Bromling, Brad T. (1994),“A Look at the Jesus Seminar,” Reason and Revelation, 14:81-87, November.
Grenz, Stanley J. (1994), “Star Trek and the Next Generation: Postmodernism and the Future of Evangelical Theology,” Crux, 30[1]:24-32.
Johnson, Philip E. (1995), Reason in the Balance (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity).
Strimple, Robert B. (1995), The Modern Search for the Real Jesus (Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R).
Wilkins, Michael J. and J.P. Moreland (1995), “Introduction: The Furor Surrounding Jesus,” Jesus Under Fire (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan).
Woodward, Kenneth L. (1996), “Rethinking the Resurrection,” Newsweek, pp. 60-70, April 8.
van Biema, David (1996), “The Gospel Truth?,” Time, 147[15]:52-59.

From Mark Copeland... Paul's Ministry At Corinth (18:1-18)



                          "THE BOOK OF ACTS"

                 Paul's Ministry At Corinth (18:1-18)

INTRODUCTION

1. Following his limited time at Athens, Paul went to nearby Corinth...
   a. An economic center of Greece, also known for its immorality
   b. It became an important focus of Paul's ministry as an apostle
   c. A well-known church was established, recipient of at least two
      epistles by Paul

2. Paul's ministry at Corinth lasted a year and a half, involving...
   a. His labor as a tentmaker, and teaching in the local synagogue
   b. His conversion of many Corinthians, including the ruler of the
      synagogue
   c. His providential protection by the Lord
   d. His writing two epistles to the church at Thessalonica

[His ministry at Corinth as recorded by Luke is in Ac 18:1-18.  We
begin by observing...]

I. PAUL'S ARRIVAL AT CORINTH

   A. HE LIVED WITH AQUILA AND PRISCILLA... (Ac 18:1-3)
      1. He found this couple who had been expelled from Rome
         a. A husband and wife who later converted Apollos - Ac 18:24-28
         b. Mentioned in several of Paul's epistles - Ro 16:3; 1Co 16:19;
            2Ti 4:19
      2. Of the same trade (tentmakers), Paul stayed with them
         a. He worked to support himself as a matter of principle - 1Co 9:6-15; Ac 20:33-35
         b. He also received support from churches like Philippi - 2Co 11:7-10; Php 4:15

   B. HE TAUGHT IN THE SYNAGOGUE... (Ac 18:4)
      1. He "reasons" with the people, as with...
         a. Those at Thessalonica, Athens, and Ephesus - Ac 17:2,17;
            18:19; 19:8-9
         b. Government officials like Felix, Festus, and Agrippa II - Ac 24:25; 26:25
         -- The gospel is designed to appeal to the mind as well as the
            heart! - cf. Mt 22:37
      2. He "persuaded" both Jews and Greeks...
         a. As he did at Thessalonica and Ephesus - Ac 17:4; 19:8
         b. As he almost did with Herod Agrippa II - Ac 26:28
         -- Again, the gospel appeals to the reasoning processes of the
            mind - cf. Isa 1:18

[Not long after his arrival, Paul is then joined by his two close
companions and co-workers...]

II. FOLLOWING THE ARRIVAL OF TIMOTHY AND SILAS

   A. THEY HAD COME FROM MACEDONIA... (Ac 18:5)
      1. With good news regarding the church at Thessalonica - 1Th 3:1-7
      2.  Prompting Paul to write First Thessalonians (ca. 49-51 A.D.) 
         - 1Th 1:1

   B. PAUL FURTHER COMPELLED BY THE SPIRIT... (Ac 18:5)
      1. He "testified" to the Jews that Jesus is the Christ - cf. Ac 20:21,24; 23:11; 28:23
      2. Such testimony likely involved:
         a. Messianic prophecies of the  Old Testament - Ac 17:2-3
         b. His own eyewitness testimony as an apostle - cf. Ac 26:16

   C. PAUL THEN MET OPPOSITION... (Ac 18:6-7)
      1. By some Jews who blasphemed, just like those in Antioch of
         Pisidia - Ac 13:45
      2. He turned to the Gentiles, like he did in Antioch of Pisidia
         - Ac 13:46
      3. In Corinth, he had only to go next door, to the home of Justus
         - Ac 18:7

   D. YET THE GOSPEL BORE FRUIT... (Ac 18:8)
      1. Crispus, ruler of the synagogue
         a. Who believed on the Lord with all his household - Ac 18:8
         b. Who was personally baptized by Paul - cf. 1Co 1:14
      2. Many of the Corinthians, hearing, believed and were baptized
         a. Just like those in Jerusalem, Samaria - cf. Ac 2:37-41; 8:12
         b. Later problems made Paul thankful he himself had baptized
            few - cf. 1Co 1:10-17

[In the midst of opposition, Paul and his companions found success in
preaching the gospel!  He then received encouraging confirmation from
the Lord that led to a long stay at Corinth...]

III. EIGHTEEN MONTHS AT CORINTH

   A. ENCOURAGED BY THE LORD... (Ac 18:9-11)
      1. In a vision, told not to be afraid, nor remain silent, "for I am
         with you, and no one will attack you to hurt you; for I have 
         many people in this city." - Ac 18:10
         a. Most understand this to refer to divine foreknowledge for the
            success of the gospel
         b. That the Lord knew there were many souls (people, Gr. laos) 
            who would obey the gospel
         c. But it may refer to why (cf. "for") none would hurt him;
            i.e., because of men like Gallio
      2. So Paul remained a year and six months
      3. During which he wrote Second Thessalonians (ca. 51-52 A.D.)
         - 2Th 1:1

   B. ENABLED BY THE PROCONSUL... (Ac 18:12-18)
      1. The Jews brought Paul up on charges before Gallio, proconsul of
         Achaia
      2. Gallio refused to heed them, not willing to be a judge in
         religious matters
      3. The Greeks beat Sosthenes, ruler of the synagogue, which Gallio
         ignored
      4. Thus Paul remained in Corinth a good while - Ac 18:18

CONCLUSION

1. In Paul's ministry at Corinth, we see...
   a. His dedication and methodology as a preacher of the gospel
   b. The response of those who hear the gospel (they believed and were
      baptized)

2. From such, hopefully there are things we can learn...
   a. Whether we are servants of the Lord like Paul and his companions
   b. Or those seeking to learn the truth on how to be saved

Have you heard the gospel, believed, and been baptized...? - Ac 18:8

Executable Outlines, Copyright © Mark A. Copeland, 2013





From Gary... When I think about it...

 
Being an adult can be difficult because of the problems we face. And the caption above just lists a few of them. Being an adult Christian is even tougher. Those around you who love sin will try to get you to do what they do- to forget your faith; to be like them.  It is hard to stand alone when even your government opposes you, but it can be done- the first century Christians proved that beyond any doubt.  But, it wasn't easy!!!  No wonder the apostle Paul wrote the following...

1 Corinthians, Chapter 16 (NASB)
1Co 16:13  Be on the alert, stand firm in the faith, act like men, be strong.
1Co 16:14  Let all that you do be done in love.

Strength comes through love. What you truly love, you will give the highest priority in your life- and for the Christian, that is God and HIS revealed will through the Bible! Do not worry about problems in the future, because God is already there to help you!!!  And because HE loves YOU, just do what you should do to please HIM and forget about the rest! Ponder that today!!!!