Don't smoke,drink alcohol,see movies,listen to...

Status
Not open for further replies.

blhowes

Puritan Board Professor
1Jo 2:15 Love not the world, neither the things that are in the world. If any man love the world, the love of the Father is not in him.

Rom 12:2 And be not conformed to this world: but be ye transformed by the renewing of your mind, that ye may prove what is that good, and acceptable, and perfect, will of God.

I was wondering if anybody had any thoughts about how we should apply these verses in our everyday lives. How can we discern if we love the world to the exclusion of the love of the Father? What does it mean to be conformed to the world? What doesn't it mean?

I come from a tradition that sees many things as being either black or white, with few gray areas, for better or for worse. Sometimes external behaviors are used by some as cues in determining the stability or authenticity of another person's walk with the Lord. They are used to determine if somebody is following the world or is following Jesus. Coming from that tradition, I have held these views at one time and have over time been able to filter out some (hopefully most) of these views. Some I'm sure still linger.

Don't take it the wrong way, but some of the practices of many of the people on this board would have "raised a flag" in my mind and in the minds of people like me about how serious you were about your walk with the Lord. Things like smoking cigars/cigarettes, drinking alcohol, going to movies, and listening to anything but "Christian music" just wouldn't cut it.

Well, praise the Lord God has used the people on this board to help me rethink those kinds of thoughts. He's even allowed me to loosen up a little ... PARTY !! ...:banana:...(kidding).

I was just wondering how you guys/gals put these two verses into practice? We don't want to love the world in a negative sense nor do we want to be conformed to the world, but what does that mean to you - or should I say, how do other scriptures help us know where to draw the line?

Any thoughts?

Well, I've gotta go now. My beer's getting cold and its time to get another cigar.

Bob

[Edited on 7-1-2004 by blhowes]
 
Okay,but let's not use our liberty for license! But I do love a good cabernet!

The folks who abstain from alcohol & tobacco as a matter of principle (read fundamentalists) still tend to conform to one "Christian" fad after another. It's a human tendency and a constant struggle not to conform, but to be transformed.
 
[raised eyebrow]
a good cabernet???
[/raised eyebrow]

Meg,
Have you ever given this much thought? How do you get past what might be considered legalistic distinctions to determine what God is warning us about in these verses and what he wants us to stay away from or avoid?
Any thoughts?
Bob
 
Christian liberty is a precious thing. God alone is Lord of the conscience (see WCF XX), and His Word teaches us to stand fast in the liberty given to us by Christ (see Galatians 5:1). It also warns against those who would bind our consciences with carnal, legalistic commandments that miss the point of true holiness (see Colossians 2:16-23).

Wine is commanded for use in the Lord's Supper and was used by Christ at a wedding party, it gladdens the heart of man, and men through the ages (from Noah to the French Huguenots of South Africa) have made a lawful and good living making wine from the grapes of God's creation. God teaches us to enjoy His gifts and wine is certainly that.

The same can be said for sex, tobacco and music, all of which must be handled with care. God condemns drunkeness, fornication and abuse of our bodies and minds, but nowhere does He condemn the lawful use of sins in themselves indifferent. That which is adiaphora may be used to the glory of God in the proper context.

We are, in fact, to eat, drink and be merry, or whatsoever we do -- to the glory of God! We all have different preferences and experiences and no one should be judged by other brethren for choosing to have a glass of wine with a meal or not. But as a principle, Christian liberty should be dear to us all.
 
Andrew,
Thanks for your response.

How does a person guard against going too far with Christian liberty? The confessions also say:

III. They who upon pretence of Christian liberty do practice any sin, or cherish any sinful lust, as they do thereby pervert the main design of the grace of the gospel to their own destruction,[16] so they wholly destroy the end of Christian liberty, which is, that being delivered out of the hands of all our enemies, we might serve the Lord without fear, in holiness and righteousness before Him, all the days of our lives.[17]

16. Rom. 6:1-2
17. Gal. 5:13; II Peter 2:18, 21

So, its possible, that under the guise of Christian liberty, to do things that are sinful, and still think that you're justified in doing those things.

The obvious first step would be to check the scriptures to see if a practice is specifically condemned. If it is, then its clear that its expected that we refrain from doing something.

Its the second step and following that I wonder about. Every situation we come up against in life won't be specifically mentioned in the scriptures, so we need to use biblical principles to judge whether or not we should do something. I don't think we can say that any conduct not specifically mentioned in the scriptures is necessarily ok to do, as long as its in moderation.

As I'm writing, I had another thought. Could it be that conforming to the world and not loving the world have nothing to do with our outward actions? Could it be not so much don't do what the world does, so much as thinking as the world thinks? Can/should the two be separated?

Thinking as I go,
Bob
 
[quote:24e7683835][i:24e7683835]Originally posted by turmeric[/i:24e7683835]
The folks who abstain from alcohol & tobacco as a matter of principle (read fundamentalists) still tend to conform to one "Christian" fad after another. [/quote:24e7683835]

I do not drink, but I am not a fundamentalist. I also abhor "Christian" fads.

One should not generalize so quickly.

Lon
 
[quote:6066c7b24c][i:6066c7b24c]Originally posted by blhowes[/i:6066c7b24c]
Could it be that conforming to the world and not loving the world have nothing to do with our outward actions? Could it be not so much don't do what the world does, so much as thinking as the world thinks? Can/should the two be separated?[/quote:6066c7b24c]

Here's something along those same lines, to add some more biblical context to the discussion:

1 Corinthians 7:29-31
[quote:6066c7b24c]But this I say, brethren, the time is short, so that from now on even those who have wives should be as though they had none, those who weep as though they did not weep, those who rejoice as though they did not rejoice, [b:6066c7b24c]those who buy as though they did not possess, and those who use this world as not misusing it.[/b:6066c7b24c] For the form of this world is passing away.[/quote:6066c7b24c]

I realize that I am taking this verse out of the immediate Corinthian context, but there are general principles driving what Paul is saying about their particular situation, i.e. the parts that I have emphasized. Notice that Paul presupposes that Christians will buy in the world and use this world, and unless we would make the passage nonsensical we would have to agree that he (or rather, the Holy Spirit by him) is also presupposing that these activities are not sinful in themselves. What is sinful is the over attachment to the things that we buy, and the misuse of the world. To say that we can misuse the world presupposes that we can use it rightly.

[Edited on 7-1-2004 by Philip A]
 
[b:9765c6fadb]Philip wrote:[/b:9765c6fadb]
I realize that I am taking this verse out of the immediate Corinthian context, but there are general principles driving what Paul is saying about their particular situation, i.e. the parts that I have emphasized. Notice that Paul presupposes that Christians will buy in the world and use this world, and unless we would make the passage nonsensical we would have to agree that he (or rather, the Holy Spirit by him) is also presupposing that these activities are not sinful in themselves. What is sinful is the over attachment to the things that we buy, and the misuse of the world. To say that we can misuse the world presupposes that we can use it rightly.

Good thinking. Along the same lines, I was thinking about the two verses that follow 1 John 2:15, primarily verse 16:

1Jo 2:16 For all that is in the world, the lust of the flesh, and the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life, is not of the Father, but is of the world.
1Jo 2:17 And the world passeth away, and the lust thereof: but he that doeth the will of God abideth for ever.

It would be easy to take this verse too far and misinterpret it. When it says "all that is in the world", that's pretty all encompassing. My car is in the world. I'm not to love the car, but does that also mean that I'm not to use it? Perhaps the same could be said about other things like drinking, smoking, etc. I'm not sure though - still working through some fundamentalist thoughts.

Bob

[Edited on 7-1-2004 by blhowes]
 
Bob,

You raise good questions. The WCF quote you cited says it very well. We must walk a fine line between embracing the liberty of Christ and using that liberty unlawfully.

Self-examination is an important part of the Christian walk. And not just when we prepare for the Lord's Supper. We should always take a look at our motives for doing what we do (such as the words we choose to speak, our body language, what we eat as well as drink, etc.). The key question is, why am I doing this? To please myself or to please God. (Ultimately, our desires should conform to God's will, of course, and there need not be a contradiction, but we must not be blind to the desires of our sinful hearts.) I don't mean to suggest that we over-analyze things either, but our motive should always be to glorify God.

We all have different body types and hence the effects of alcohol, for example, may differ from person to person. Each person should be self-aware enough to know what their limits are. If a person is drinking to escape, that's a warning sign.

Every day we are confronted with temptations to knock God off His throne and install some idol in His place, whether it be money, work, sex, drugs, alcohol, or whatever. If we place ourselves in bondage to those things, we have sinned. If instead, we partake lawfully of the good things in God's creation in moderation and in the appropriate context, we do so to the glory of God.

Sorry if this is rambling...I do hope my comments contribute in a helpful way to your thinking on this matter.

~Andrew
 
[b:d4d3ddf29e]Andrew wrote:[/b:d4d3ddf29e]
Sorry if this is rambling...I do hope my comments contribute in a helpful way to your thinking on this matter

Its not...they do...and I appreciate it.

Here's some more comments/questions that I thought I'd bring up while I'm still sober.

I really don't have any desire to drink alcohol, even if I'm convinced its ok. Nevertheless, we'll use me as the guinea pig.

There's a disagreement among the brethren whether the wine used by Jesus and spoken of elsewhere in the scriptures was actually fermented or whether it was just grape juice. Let's assume for the sake of argument that it was fermented (alcohol).

First, since the wine Jesus used was fermented, does that mean that I can drink wine also - or does it go beyond that to mean that I can drink any beverage that's alcoholic (though in moderation), no matter how potent it is?

Again, for the sake of argument, let's say that it does mean that I can drink any alcoholic beverage and it doesn't matter if its 100 proof, as long as I do it in moderation. I don't know much about alcohol, but I've heard in my college days that "grain alcohol" is pretty potent. There may be stronger types of alcohol, but let's assume that that the strongest there is.

Ok, so I study the scriptures and determine that its ok to drink the grain alcohol, but I have to drink it in moderation. What does moderation mean? Is it one sip? One cup? Two cups?

Its gonna vary from person to person, so that's something that I'm going to have to figure out for myself. Since I'm not a drinker now, I wouldn't have the faintest idea how much I can drink before I get drunk, which would be a sin. So, practically speaking, how would I determine what moderation is for me if I don't know what the limit is for me to get drunk? Seems like I'd have to sin at least once to get the upper limit, and then back off some next time to determine my "moderation point". Once that's determined, its smooth sailing. Unfortunately, there doesn't seem to be any way to be sure ahead of time what my limit is, so I'd have to sin at least once, which is not recommended.

[b:d4d3ddf29e]Andrew wrote:[/b:d4d3ddf29e]
Sorry if this is rambling...

If you thought what you wrote was rambling, then I'd hate to think what you thought about what I wrote. If yours was rambling, then mine must have been...

Bob

[Edited on 7-1-2004 by blhowes]
 
[quote:1957709f0d][i:1957709f0d]Originally posted by turmeric[/i:1957709f0d]
Okay,but let's not use our liberty for license! But I do love a good cabernet!

The folks who abstain from alcohol & tobacco as a matter of principle (read fundamentalists) still tend to conform to one "Christian" fad after another. It's a human tendency and a constant struggle not to conform, but to be transformed. [/quote:1957709f0d]

Oops! Wrong message board, that one was for the Wesleyan board, this is the [b:1957709f0d]Puritan[/b:1957709f0d] board! Some of us are still reforming!:banghead:

I apologize to all who felt generalized against, I meant those who abstain because they are convinced drinking any alcohol is a sin, not just for them but for everyone, i.e. Wesleyans and their theological relatives, some Baptists and independents, et al. I am not referring to former alcoholics and others who refrain for health reasons or reasons of preference.

I don't know how I make the distinctions, Bob, and doubt that I always do it correctly. Loving the world, though, seems to be a deeper problem than having or not having a drink. I think Paul addresses this type of thinking in Colossians 2, and suggests that we set our affections on higher things than what we, and especially our fellow-Christians are drinking or smoking, or even what day we worship on. (Oh, dear, another Sabbath debate, sorry!)
 
[b:83f33f6498]Meg wrote:[/b:83f33f6498]
Loving the world, though, seems to be a deeper problem than having or not having a drink.

I agree, though I'm still trying to separate the two in my mind. Drinking may be evidence of a love for the world. Drinking in moderation may just be a compromise. ( I can go just far enough so that I enjoy it, but not far enough so that its still called a sin.)

Bob
 
I think legalism needs to be more carefully defined. The legalism dealt with in the NT is a legalism where people were imposing these standards as necessary for salvation, or for a right standing with God. I think sometimes we use this term out of Biblical context, and feel that people are legalistic because they believe it better for Christians to refrain from certain things.

I think that one very practical method at least of judging whether our motives are to glorify God, and whether we are practicing moderation, is our attitude toward those who do not feel they-- or even we-- have such freedoms. Do we deliberately flaunt our liberty around them? Are we careful not to offend them-- even by causing them to stumble in their thoughts of us? Do we despise them for their seeming weakness? Basically, are we so attached to our liberty that our love (for other Christians) goes by the wayside in that kind of situation? If so, I think we have passed over from liberty into a love of the world.

Liberty is a means to glorify God: I think, to more fully enjoy the things He has given us, and to be, with Paul, "all things to all men." We have the freedom both to partake and to [i:a5b8869031]refrain[/i:a5b8869031] from partaking for these ends. If we are truly free, we can refrain as easily as we can partake: otherwise it's a freedom in one direction-- which we call "bondage" when it comes to the depraved will.

Just to be clear: I have no problem with drinking alcohol, though I never have up to this point, and don't really much care one way or the other if I ever do. I have more problem with smoking-- I guess more with the inconsideration with which it is often done: I know too many children with chronic respiratory problems. I don't know if cigarrettes are more of a culprit than cigars: they are certainly much uglier :).

[Edited on 7-1-2004 by a mere housewife]
 
[b:304eca22d1]Heidi wrote:[/b:304eca22d1]
I don't know if cigarrettes are more of a culprit than cigars: they are certainly much uglier :).

Which are uglier cigars or cigarettes? Careful how you answer, as this thread may be in danger of being closed. I didn't think the thread would deteriorate so quickly. :lol:

Seriously, though, thanks for your response. Those are some excellent guidelines and something we should all keep in mind as we enjoy our liberties in Christ. Its neat how liberty and love go hand-in-hand.

Bob
 
[b:24be3f6a95]Bob wrote:[/b:24be3f6a95]
The White Horse Inn boys just finished a repeat of a great series on American Religion that speaks to these issues of legalism, adding to the gospel, the cult of abstinence. I believe the last four weeks have been on this theme. Take a listen.

Headphones are on. Thanks.
Bob
 
Bob said:
[quote:22dc46a295]
Which are uglier cigars or cigarettes? Careful how you answer, as this thread may be in danger of being closed. I didn't think the thread would deteriorate so quickly.
[/quote:22dc46a295]

hmmm, well.... Let's just say, it begins with a "c" and ends with an "s"... :D

Another thing that I find helpful to pegging down the idea behind "moderation" is to think of moderation in a different context-- for instance, in the context of dessert. If I had three pieces of cake, would I (or anyone) consider that I'd been moderate? Is my moderation going to be shown before all men if my attitude is to have as much as I can eat/drink before getting stuffed/drunk? Is God really glorified 3 x as much by three pieces of dessert, or is 1 piece not sufficient to enjoy His good gifts, and thank Him for them? I think that approach will also tie in with being good stewards of our health (long-term).
 
[b:2cb51169c2]Heidi wrote:[/b:2cb51169c2]
hmmm, well.... Let's just say, it begins with a "c" and ends with an "s"...

Glad you cleared that up.
 
Yes, as was mentioned above, true liberty involves both the freedom to partake as well as the freedom to refrain as appropriate and either way to the glory of God.

To speak broadly, the primary danger in this area that I see outside the Church is the tendency abuse God's gifts by drunkeness, licentiousness, etc. The primary danger I see within the Church is the tendency to overreact to the excess of unbelievers and fear even a moderate use of God's gifts. To call smoking or drinking a sin per se (ie., without regards to the context), for example, is to condemn something that God has not condemned, but (at least in the case of drinking) has specifically approved/blessed in His Word. This is legalism -- ie., adding to God's commandments a requirement (temperance or abstention) that He is not the author of. We must be as careful not to condemn that which God allows as we must be to not abuse the gifts that He grants to us in His mercy and goodness.
 
VirginiaHugenot said:
[quote:0b4b4870ec]
This is legalism -- ie., adding to God's commandments a requirement (temperance or abstention) that He is not the author of.
[/quote:0b4b4870ec]

I absolutely agree that it is wrong to add to God's commandments, but I do think that legalism involves a "legal" standing with God. A person can believe that the Bible gives us no right to drink, and yet not believe that their Christian brother who drinks is any less saved, or any less legally righteous or favored before God. In this case, he is not a "legalist". I believe this is supported by the NT's condemnation of those who wanted to impose certain commands, etc: they were teaching that we have to do this to earn God's favor-- to buttress our legal standing. The "bondage" we are not to return to is a bondage of thinking that these things earn us anything with God. If there are Scriptures to the contrary, please correct me.

Bob, I'm glad I was able to clear things up with those incisive words. :)
 
Bob (Maxdetail),
I enjoyed the message. I thought it was funny what they said about Archibald Alexander. He didn't like the taste of fermented beverages, but when the Methodists came to town and said that abstinance from drinking alcohol was a mark of sanctification, he felt that it was his duty and obligation to drink a fermented beverage right in front of them.:lol:

Reformed folks sure are funny sometimes.

Bob
 
[img:e7adbf5eee]http://www.cartoonstock.com/lowres/pwo0063l.jpg[/img:e7adbf5eee]

Couldn't resist...OK, I'm serious again...
 
Heidi,

Legalism involves adding requirements for holiness that God does not command. The classic passage teaching this is Matthew 15:1-9. The language of Jesus is very clear that such teaching leads to hypocrisy, the Biblical definition of which is replacing God's holiness with one's own.

If a person believes that drinking an alcoholic beverage is sinful and that abstinence is a mark of sanctification (such as the Methodist type referenced below), that is legalism because God does not teach in His Word that drinking an alcoholic beverage per se is sinful. Without addressing the many Scriptures which teach that wine is good, it should be also noted that Paul in many epistles warns against those who teach that holiness requires a certain kind of abstinence (see Col. 2:16-23 or I Tim. 4:3). Such errors lead us away from the precious truth that God alone is Lord of the conscience. If one falsely thinks they are pleasing God or demonstrating sanctification by obeying a law (ie., completely abstaining from alcohol) that He does not command, then I submit that this situation is a perfect modern example of the legalism.

This does mean, of course, that everyone has to drink wine daily to honor God's gift. People are free to do as they like (to the glory of God). That's part of the essence of Christian liberty. I do believe that the regulative principle of worship, however, requires the use of wine, not grape juice, in the Lord's Supper. A person who disagrees and refuses to partake of the Lord's Supper using wine has become like a Pharisee of old, supplanting the commandment of God with his own misguided conscience. In this case, it is not merely the enjoyment of an alcoholic beverage that is at stake, but adherence to the sacrament instituted by the Lord Himself.

Legalism, the adding of men's commandments to what God has commanded, always has the effect of replacing or supplanting God's law. This is what Jesus warns against in Matthew 15. It is a warning as relevant today as it was back then.

~Andrew
 
[quote:71da243dbe][i:71da243dbe]Originally posted by VirginiaHuguenot[/i:71da243dbe]
This does mean, of course, that everyone has to drink wine daily to honor God's gift. [/quote:71da243dbe]

I think you forgot a "not" in there (at least, I hope you did!). I do not mean to nitpick or anything. I just found it humorous that, in a discussion on legalism, you had such a slip of the keyboard.

:bs2::bs2::bs2::bs2:

Lon
 
Andrew, thank you for the references: I looked them up & read them in context, and looked up the remarks on my husband's Calvin cd. The passages you quoted definitely do support the position that is wrong, unBiblical-- disobedient to the word and corrupting of the pure gosel- to teach that holiness lies in outward observances that Scripture has not imposed on us.

My problem comes in because I know many godly people who believe that Scripture itself has imposed the non-alcohol requirement on us. They are not setting themselves up as judges, or (purposefully) as teachers of a standard other than Scripture.

I agree that a lot of people who hold that the Bible tells us not to drink alcohol do it in such a way that they make holiness to be outward, and they make themselves the judges of it. This is what the passages warn against: allowing ourselves to be judged or hoodwinked by such people. But I believe that there are many others, especially in the reformed community, who would feel that the Bible forbids alchohol, but avoid this error because their own holiness is genuine: they know it is a matter of the heart, not the hemline: they appropriate the pure gospel over their sins every day. I think we sometimes impose an inverted form of "legalistic" thinking toward these people, and feel that their holiness must be bound up in what they conscientiously forbid.

If we don't acknowledge that people will have differing interpretations of scripture without falling into the heresy of perverting the gospel in this area, then we have to call all those who believe in headcoverings legalists (if we disagree with them) because they believe Scripture commands this observance, and obviously if you think the Bible commands something, you think a neglect of it is sin. This would enter into the baptist/paedobaptist debate as well.

So I do still think that there is a legal aspect to legalism: it is a heresy that involves doctrine. But perhaps what I said originally wasn't wide enough-- the verses you quote would indicate that when we set ourselves up as judges, we are then dragging in the legal aspect: we are at least "acting" legalists, acting as if the person's legal standing was bound up in outward ordinances. We are not to submit ourselves to that kind of judgment (though submitting ourselves to be judged and submitting ourselves, in Christian charity, to refrain from some liberty or other are different things).

But would you say that A) a person who acts that way inconsistent with what he believes is guilty of being the same kind of heretic as a person who believes that way?

that B) a person who doesn't even act that way, but still believes that alcoholic beverages are forbidden by Scripture, is perverting the gospel, and is to be dealt with as a "legalist."
 
Heidi,

Thanks for your feedback and your questions. In my personal opinion, there are several ways to respond.

Before I do so, however, I'll mention a personal aside. I too know many godly people that object to the use of alcohol on "Scriptural" grounds. In fact, I recently left a denomination that has many such folks, some who are very dear to me (the RPCNA). In that denomination, generally and Synodically speaking, wine in the Lord's Super is frowned upon. (I did not leave the RPCNA over this issue, I hasten to add, although it was personally problematic.) So I know the concern of having dear, Reformed brethren who honestly but mistakenly believe that the Bible prohibits alcoholic beverages.

I think that there misguided consciences are leading them to a sinful, legalistic position. It is an area that I pray for them about and would gladly discuss it in a way that I hope would be mutually edifying. It's hard for me to draw the distinction that you seem to have in mind with your question. I try not to make judgments about people who hold like I do to the Westminster Confession of Faith sincerely. In this case, such a person and I may differ about the application of the Christian liberty principle, but we agree that the principle exists.

Likewise, I have encountered the headcovering issue that you mentioned as well, and I have had some dear friends who believed they should be worn by women perpetually (inside and outside of public worship) as well as those who would never wear headcovering at all (my view is that women should wear them in public worship).

There are lots of issues upon which Reformed Christians may disagree, and we can't all be right. The erroneous view is a legalistic one, I think, regardless of the motives of the person who holds to it, just as there are well-intentioned antinomians on the other side of every debate.

Nevertheless, my really big concern is not with the invidividual who holds to a stricter requirement than God commands, but with the Church that does so. In my experience, friendly debates and discussions over issues can be profitable; reformation in the Church (ie., correcting official doctrinal errors) is mandated. If a Church specifically condemns the use of alcohol per se, as many do, then I think legalism has taken hold and must be uprooted by reference to God's Word and the WCF XX. Does this make sense?

~Andrew
 
Andrew, that does make sense: I guess I do find it necessary to separate people whose doctrine is legalistic from people who simply hold to a different interpretation of practice from Scripture than I do-- it is the difference between perverting the gospel and loving the gospel.

I was wondering how Acts 15 fits into all of this: the Jerusalem council was called because of people who were teaching legalism: that the gentiles had to be circumcised to be converted. The council ends up by deciding that this is not the gospel, but by decreeing that the Gentiles should practice abstinence in some areas:

"Wherefore my sentence is, that we trouble not them, which from among the Gentiles are turned to God: 20 But that we write unto them, that they abstain from pollutions of idols, and from fornication, and from things strangled, and from blood."

Fornication is obvious: I can see pollutions of idols... (though elsewhere weren't they give the liberty to eat such things, if they didn't inquire about them?) What about things strangled and blood? I think one of them refers back to the OT (though I can't remember which one) but at least one of them seems more-- arbitrary. As if they are imposing on the Gentiles an [i:2f7d1ea39a]application[/i:2f7d1ea39a] of some Biblical command (such as the law of charity), rather than the Biblical command itself.

I'm not sure about what I'm saying here, but I do think Acts 15 has to play into this-- though we are really off Bob's topic now, aren't we? I'm sorry, Bob. Maybe we should start another thread? (I don't have much more to contribute: I just want to understand from others how Acts 15 fits in.)

At the very least, the same apostles that warned against people forbidding meats in another context forbad meats themselves in this one... yet this is certainly not given to us as an example of ecclesiastical legalism. How does this reconcile?

[Edited on 7-1-2004 by a mere housewife]
 
[b:c4c6a5e8da]Heidi wrote:[/b:c4c6a5e8da]
...though we are really off Bob's topic now, aren't we? I'm sorry, Bob

Not to worry. I'm the outdoors type of guy (not really), and I love rabbit trails. Its always interesting to see where they finally end up.

Bob
 
[quote:9cf47de50d]
I do believe that the regulative principle of worship, however, requires the use of wine, not grape juice, in the Lord's Supper. A person who disagrees and refuses to partake of the Lord's Supper using wine has become like a Pharisee of old, supplanting the commandment of God with his own misguided conscience. In this case, it is not merely the enjoyment of an alcoholic beverage that is at stake, but adherence to the sacrament instituted by the Lord Himself.
[/quote:9cf47de50d]

What about an alcoholic who is now sober? He then could not take the Lord's supper?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top