Genesis 1:29 and cannibus

[Magma2]

I am sort of surprised to see so much anti-Federal gov't thought here at PB, which doesn't mean (in my mind) it is bad; it may just be that I am ignorant of some things (no doubt many things!). One example is the head-covering thread; I had not seen a cogent Biblical defense of it till I perused the posts on it. Now I have to ask the Lord for wisdom to see if this is something I must learn more of with a view to holding to it.

While you're asking the Lord for wisdom, check out Gordon Clark's commentary on First Corinthians pgs 175ff. The argument for head coverings falls on exegetical grounds, and, in my view, hangs on the translation of toiauten. KJ had it right "we have no such custom, neither the churches of God." For another thread I suppose.

Also, I don't think by calling my session you would be "ratting" me out. I never thought I was hiding anything until you accused me of "flying stealth."

Which is not to say I will change my view of sorcery. If my exegesis of the Biblical material is sound, and my application of it to what we have been considering is pertinent, then it is not properly "my" view but God's.

Your view is pertinent and relevant in cases such as your own, Meg Thomas' and others. Tim Leary also comes to mind. My objection is that your pertinent point cannot be universalized (you can't make a "some" and "all") and one of the implications of your position, which I disagree with, is the continuation and expansion of government's so-called and failed "war on drugs." I just believe the biblical role of gov't is a very limited one. As John Robbins writes; "Biblical law follows the principle of punishing wrongdoers rather than trying to regulate everyone in the hope of preventing wrongdoing."

Are not the officers He has appointed to watch over the church mandated to discern and decide on such matters, for the safety of His flock? I have rendered my opinion, which I know is widely supported by others given to discern and rule. I am interested in other pastors'/elders' judgments on this matter, interacting with both the text and its modern application, to see what they think.

I don't see that pastors'/elders' have any special gift of interpretation that places even one of their arguments or opinions above criticism and examination by anyone in light of Scripture. If your position is sound you should be able to deduce it clearly from Scripture alone. So far you'll note that your conclusions are drawn from a combination of Scripture dealing with sorcery and your personal experience with drugs and marijuana in particular and no one is obligated to submit to conclusions drawn from personal experience, even the experience of an elder/pastor.

It really has no bearing -- or a different bearing, at any rate -- what the Federal gov't has to say about it. Citizens may vote for those who represent their views, as is the way in the U.S. In terms of the Kingdom of God and its government the stakes are much higher, arriving at the correct disposition of this problem.

Which is why prohibitions and commands against drunkenness or dissipation suffice to govern those in the Kingdom.

I am open to fresh exegesis, and fresh scrutiny of the relevant sciences dealing with marijuana use, as well as pertinent experiential data (which is not to be despised, Sean), in a revisiting of this legal matter (legal as per the law of God's judgment on it).

Experiential data is not to be despised, but it should never be confused with the truth and it must never be raised to the level of God's Word.

A final question: given what we know -- or some may know -- of the tremendous impact the drug culture of the sixties and seventies had on not only our culture but the cultures of the entire world -- i.e., a remarkable new awareness with exponential growth -- can we be oblivious to the fact of a new but like phenomenon impacting world consciousness, this time not with the "groovy" or "spiritual" psychedelic awareness, but something deeper, something within the "Pandora's Box" of sorcery longing to break free and have no reins on it at all within the collective mind of humanity at large, were such drugs to be legalized?

Again, I don't know what it's like where you live, but where I live drugs are as readily available and as accessible as any time in history and their use is even more widespread than prior to 1914 when they could be purchased legally. The spiritual and moral shape of this country is horrible, but I can hardly blame it all on drug use. I'm more inclined to blame it on the churches who have pretty much abandoned the faith once delivered to the saints and instead preach Arminian pablum in place of the gospel. I will even grant that things might even be worse for a time if drugs were legalized, perhaps a large number of addicts will overdose and die eliminating at least some of the drug problem, but the dangers of your Pandora's Box is not something you've inferred from Scripture alone.

One does not have to be a visionary to see the effect of legalized drugs on a culture's consciousness.

And one certainly doesn't have to be a visionary to see what the effects of prohibition have been and how its been used as a pretext to eliminate many of our remaining freedoms. Of course, the perpetual and endless imagined "war on terror" will probably be sufficient to eliminate any remaining constitutional restraints on gov't.

Interesting talking with you, Sean. I hope I have not offended you with my sometimes sharp remarks.

I'm not easily offended. Nice to talk with you too Steve. It's been fun. I never thought I'd be in a position of arguing for decriminalization of drugs on, of all places, the Puritan Boards.

 

[Jerusalem Blade]

Continuing the conversation:

Steve: Which is not to say I will change my view of sorcery. If my exegesis of the Biblical material is sound, and my application of it to what we have been considering is pertinent, then it is not properly "my" view but God's.​

​

​

Sean: Your view is pertinent and relevant in cases such as your own, Meg Thomas' and others. Tim Leary also comes to mind. My objection is that your pertinent point cannot be universalized (you can't make a "some" and "all") and one of the implications of your position, which I disagree with, is the continuation and expansion of government's so-called and failed "war on drugs." I just believe the biblical role of gov't is a very limited one. As John Robbins writes; "Biblical law follows the principle of punishing wrongdoers rather than trying to regulate everyone in the hope of preventing wrongdoing."​

But if my point in based upon empirically verifiable grounds – data – then it may indeed have universal application and relevance.

For you to limit my observations and the implications of them to only “such cases as your own…[and a few others]” is very much akin to the postmodernist relativizing of truth to the merely “it is true only for you.”

And your position is based upon what? Your opinion/experience of the effects of marijuana on the human system, and particularly its consciousness? Completely apart from the government angle – which is a different matter entirely – I do not see your view supported by either any relevant cultural studies or any scientific data, and by this latter I refer to psychopharmacological findings (mentioned above) or clinical observation of persons under the influence.

I did not see you refute my contention that due to its varied cultural applications and it pharmacological properties it cannot be excluded from the classic Biblical definition of a sorcerous potion (smokes are included in that category, as we know from crack and angel dust / PCP). I say “forget gov’t issues” for the moment as they but cloud this primary consideration; both your and my thoughts on this are beside the primary point.

You deny it is sorcery/a sorcerous potion; and on what basis? Because it did not seem like that to you? Because it was just a mild intoxicant/euphoriant to you? Talk about universalizing an experience! And if high school kids take it (it being “de facto legal” to them) just to get “stoned” and without any “sorcerous intent,” this is the basis for your judgment that it is not intrinsically a sorcerous substance? Is this the extent of the data you produce to support your view?

I said it once, and will repeat, that one aspect of sorcery is deception, both self-deception and the deceiving of others. May not your view that it is equivalent in its effects to alcohol – and thus morally equivalent to it – be the result of deception? This is what I meant when I said it is “de facto moral” to some: they see nothing wrong with it, there being no moral prohibition concerning it they are aware of.

Your experience – and that of some others – is not sufficient grounds to overturn a plethora of data to the contrary. Merely wishful thinking, or positing it as an unsubstantiated truth-claim certainly will not do it.

You have said,

I don't see that pastors'/elders' have any special gift of interpretation that places even one of their arguments or opinions above criticism and examination by anyone in light of Scripture. If your position is sound you should be able to deduce it clearly from Scripture alone. So far you'll note that your conclusions are drawn from a combination of Scripture dealing with sorcery and your personal experience with drugs and marijuana in particular and no one is obligated to submit to conclusions drawn from personal experience, even the experience of an elder/pastor.​

​

​

You are right in that we must examine pastors’ & elders’ views in the light of Scripture to see if they are sound. Now when you say we must be able to deduce clearly any position from Scripture alone, you omit the need to also rightly assess their proper application by an astute awareness of the situations these positions are to be applied to. The nature, chemically and psychopharmacologically, of the substance in question, is indeed a relevant area of inquiry. If this evidence supports grass being placed within the category of Biblically prohibited substances, then it is a case of “Scripture alone” judging something that falls within its purview.

You will note that my argumentation is quite apart from any personal experience, but is an exegetical issue, and a scientific one, with cultural corroboration (such as the use of the substance – due to its intrinsic properties – for shamanistic and occult purposes). Having said this latter remark, let me restate an earlier caveat: that it sometimes is not used for such purposes, nor is any occult or sorcerous activity experienced by some users, does not negate the fact that it is sorcerous; it only goes to show that its essential nature is disguised at times, due to its deceptive qualities.

I belabor this issue because of its importance. And let me state, were you in my church, I would, along with the other elder and the pastor, gently request / order you not to make your views known, as they are – in the unanimous view of the eldership – in defiance of clear Biblical teaching, and would be subversive of the peace and purity of the church, to which, as a member, you are committed to strive for and uphold. Failure to comply would result in the beginning of disciplinary proceedings. The Scriptural prohibitions against sorcerery are to be taken most seriously.

There is no other Reformed church in my city, and only one other in the country. I do not think you would be happy in the Charismatic or Arminian assemblies nearby.

Do you think me wrong in my stand as an elder, Sean? I am interested to dialogue with you on this.

Steve

 

[Magma2]

[/COLOR][/INDENT]But if my point in based upon empirically verifiable grounds – data – then it may indeed have universal application and relevance.

What makes your "empirically verifiable grounds" more universally applicable or justifiable than the ones I've provided? Because you say so? Because you're an elder and I'm not? I've already told you that in my experience the people I knew, including myself, did not smoke pot for any reason that can be associated with sorcery. We smoked pot because we liked the way it made us feel and we liked to get stoned. I enjoyed the dissipating effects of it all as did my friends. Admittedly, my experience isn't yours or Meg's, but so what?

The problem which you seem to consistently miss is that your argument, while of some value, does not rest on exegesis from Scripture ALONE, but relies, and quite heavily I might add, on your own so-called "empirically verifiable grounds." Further, if you would go back and read Gordon Clark and one of his most accomplished students, John Robbins, you will realize that there is no such thing as "empirically verifiable grounds" and empiricism, as a means to truth, cannot arrive at any knowledge at all. More importantly, the combination of Scripture and conclusions drawn from "empirically verifiable grounds" together can never yield more truth. In your zeal against any and all drug use you've gone off the "sola scriptura" plantation.

For you to limit my observations and the implications of them to only “such cases as your own…[and a few others]” is very much akin to the postmodernist relativizing of truth to the merely “it is true only for you.”

Well then your argument is very much akin to eisigesis. No, it is eisigesis. I would limit your observations along with their implications to every case where marijuana or any other drug is used in sorcery.

And your position is based upon what? Your opinion/experience of the effects of marijuana on the human system, and particularly its consciousness? Completely apart from the government angle – which is a different matter entirely – I do not see your view supported by either any relevant cultural studies or any scientific data, and by this latter I refer to psychopharmacological findings (mentioned above) or clinical observation of persons under the influence.

My position is based on Scripture alone and the commands against drunkenness which apply to other substances as well.

You are greatly mistaken if you think science and the collection of "scientific data" is a means by which we can arrive at the truth of any conclusion. You should read or at least reread Clark's "The Philosophy of Science and Belief in God."

I did not see you refute my contention that due to its varied cultural applications and it pharmacological properties it cannot be excluded from the classic Biblical definition of a sorcerous potion

What's there to refute? I agree that marijuana can and has been used in sorcery. You and Meg have shown that it can and I have not disputed this point at all. Of course, potions are normally something you drink, but I'll let that slide. Meg at least was making butter. OTOH, you made it clear that God could not intervene if someone was under the influence of marijuana and I don't buy that either.

You deny it is sorcery/a sorcerous potion; and on what basis? Because it did not seem like that to you? Because it was just a mild intoxicant/euphoriant to you? Talk about universalizing an experience!

Again, you miss the point. I don't have to universalize my experience. There are already universal propositions and commands in Scripture against intemperance and dissipation. However, I would think my experience disproves yours and and specifically your attempt at universalizing your experience and then applying it to Scripture.

And if high school kids take it (it being “de facto legal” to them) just to get “stoned” and without any “sorcerous intent,” this is the basis for your judgment that it is not intrinsically a sorcerous substance? Is this the extent of the data you produce to support your view?

Sure, why not? If I were to line up a bunch scientists in lab coats all testifying to the benign effects of marijuana and even to its positive medicinal use would that change anything? I don't see how? But why would their pharmacology and scientific data be somehow less relevant than your own?

Admittedly, if I did line up these folks it certainly wouldn't help your case, but it wouldn't nullify mine either. People should not engage in sorcery or use marijuana for that reason, nor should they use it to get stoned and have their thoughts scrambled. There, we're both covered.

I said it once, and will repeat, that one aspect of sorcery is deception, both self-deception and the deceiving of others. May not your view that it is equivalent in its effects to alcohol – and thus morally equivalent to it – be the result of deception?

It may be, but you haven't done anything to prove that my view is "the result of deception." Just asserting something doesn't make it true.

This is what I meant when I said it is “de facto moral” to some: they see nothing wrong with it, there being no moral prohibition concerning it they are aware of.

I do see things wrong with smoking marijuana, I've said so, just not for the reasons you say so. I take it that is a "great evil" and sin in your book.

Your experience – and that of some others – is not sufficient grounds to overturn a plethora of data to the contrary. Merely wishful thinking, or positing it as an unsubstantiated truth-claim certainly will not do it.

Plethora of data? Would that be "scientific data" or just more data culled from the subjective experiences of drug users in the 1960's? For what it's worth I would love to see the "plethora of data" from the scientific community in support of the idea marijuana is a "sorcerous substance." I admit, that would be a new one.

Now when you say we must be able to deduce clearly any position from Scripture alone, you omit the need to also rightly assess their proper application by an astute awareness of the situations these positions are to be applied to. The nature, chemically and psychopharmacologically, of the substance in question, is indeed a relevant area of inquiry. If this evidence supports grass being placed within the category of Biblically prohibited substances, then it is a case of “Scripture alone” judging something that falls within its purview.

Let me make it simple:

Experience/Psychopharmacology/Chemical Analysis/_____ Fill in Blank + Scripture does not = Scripture alone.

Scripture + Scripture = Scripture alone.

What you would need to do is show from Scripture that marijuana is always used in sorcery and is therefore a forbidden "sorcerous substance" (is that even a word?) and this is something you simply can't do. For what it's worth I don't think the Scriptures care what substances are used in sorcery, whether ergot, alcohol, marijuana or anything else. It's the practice that is sinful.

You will note that my argumentation is quite apart from any personal experience, but is an exegetical issue, and a scientific one, with cultural corroboration (such as the use of the substance – due to its intrinsic properties – for shamanistic and occult purposes).

I don't know that your argumentation has been "quite apart from any personal experience," since you've included your own experience as a Sixties "poet" in the mix.

Regardless, you'll note that my argument is also not based exclusively personal experience, I've included my friends too and I'm quite confident I can marshal ample scientific and other data to my cause, but why bother? The Scripture already gives reason why people should not smoke marijuana. But I don't confuse what the Scripture say with what you say. I'm not saying your point of view is without merit, rather it is over extended and beyond what the Scriptures teach. I'll make this point hopefully even clearer below.

Having said this latter remark, let me restate an earlier caveat: that it sometimes is not used for such purposes, nor is any occult or sorcerous activity experienced by some users, does not negate the fact that it is sorcerous; it only goes to show that its essential nature is disguised at times, due to its deceptive qualities.

Then, again, it's your job to prove this point, and, so far, you have not.

I belabor this issue because of its importance. And let me state, were you in my church, I would, along with the other elder and the pastor, gently request / order you not to make your views known, as they are – in the unanimous view of the eldership – in defiance of clear Biblical teaching,

Then let me belabor this; I would not submit to your "gentle" request/order and for this reason, you have not yet shown that my view is in defiance of ANY clear biblical teaching.

Yours may be the collective teaching of you and your session, but you have no warrant to bind me to the teachings of men -- even your own. If you ever had that "gentle" talk with me, it is you and the other members of your session that would be in defiance of clear biblical teaching. Sorry. You do not have, nor does any session, the kind of power you seem to think you have.

and would be subversive of the peace and purity of the church, to which, as a member, you are committed to strive for and uphold. Failure to comply would result in the beginning of disciplinary proceedings. The Scriptural prohibitions against sorcerery are to be taken most seriously.

Well, good luck trying to prove I'm guilty of engaging in sorcery.

Why is this conversation starting to remind me of Monty Python?
YouTube - monty python-witch scene

Do you think me wrong in my stand as an elder, Sean? I am interested to dialogue with you on this.

Hopefully it should be extremely clear that, yes, I do think you are wrong in your stand as an elder and dangerously so.

Hope that helps.

 

[Jerusalem Blade]

I remember one time, in midstate New York, the only Reformed church anywhere near me was Reformed Baptist; I liked the pastor -- he was the first to challenge me as regards the 5 points of Calvinism -- and he knew that I was, being a Jew, of a paedobaptist orientation. When he saw my desire to join myself to that church, yet still hold to my paedobaptist convictions, he said to me, "Steve, you are welcome among us; only please do not be contentious." He was referring to my seeking to subvert the members of his church from their own doctrinal position. I heartily agreed, and complied. And I was benefited greatly by my time with them.

If we have a philosophical position that gives us a certain epistemological orientation, and this in turn gives us a view of what is or is not true knowledge concerning a certain subject, and this view puts us sharply at odds with those who have the rule over us (Hebrews 13:17), do we have warrant to defy our elders in this matter?

Am I wrong to say that Clark's and Robbin's views (if you do in fact accurately represent them) are an interpretation of the Biblical data, and that their views concerning what is knowable and what is not really is a philosophical position, without any clear (as in "indisputable") Scriptural support? And if that is the case, is it defensible for one holding to their views to stand in defiance of elders who are of a different interpretation of what the Scripture says is knowable?

It would seem then that the Biblical mandate to submit to the rule of the overseers may be waived in lieu of a philosophy of epistemology, which may aver that the elders are assuming knowledge where none can be.

There is a kind of spiritual anarchy which arises from this approach to living in the house of God, which sets philosophy above the simple rule of submission. Will not the result be the spirit of defiance, and eventual chaos?

Steve

 

[Magma2]

I remember one time, in midstate New York, the only Reformed church anywhere near me was Reformed Baptist; I liked the pastor -- he was the first to challenge me as regards the 5 points of Calvinism -- and he knew that I was, being a Jew, of a paedobaptist orientation. When he saw my desire to join myself to that church, yet still hold to my paedobaptist convictions, he said to me, "Steve, you are welcome among us; only please do not be contentious." He was referring to my seeking to subvert the members of his church from their own doctrinal position. I heartily agreed, and complied. And I was benefited greatly by my time with them.

If we have a philosophical position that gives us a certain epistemological orientation, and this in turn gives us a view of what is or is not true knowledge concerning a certain subject, and this view puts us sharply at odds with those who have the rule over us (Hebrews 13:17), do we have warrant to defy our elders in this matter?

Apples and oranges Steve. You freely chose to join yourself to a body in spite of your difference over the administration of baptism. That was your choice and you were free to submit to their request or not.

What you're suggesting in our disagreement is that I am somehow liable to ecclesiastic discipline should I fail to willingly submit to your "gag order" -- EVEN THOUGH you cannot even defend your position from the Scriptures!

Last I checked, the PCA does not have a position on the decriminalization of drugs either pro or con and does not make that a requirement of membership. Perhaps your denomination does, in which case I wouldn't join.

So, to answer your question directly; Yes, we do have warrant to defy those who rule over us if what is being imposed upon us is without the warrant of Scripture.

Consider this from James Thornwell:

The scriptural view of the Church, as a visible institution, is that she is a mere instrumentality employed by Christ for the purpose of accomplishing His own ends. She has no will, wisdom nor power of herself. She is the instrument, and He the agent. She is not His confidential agent, to whom He communicates His will, and leaves it to be executed as she may see best. She is a positive institution, and therefore must show a definite warrant for everything that she does. It is not enough that her measures are not condemned. They must be sanctioned, positively sanctioned, by the power which ordains her, or they are null and void.

Your view of church leadership Steve, is, well, popish. I think the drug issue aside, you need to really rethink your position.

Am I wrong to say that Clark's and Robbin's views (if you do in fact accurately represent them) are an interpretation of the Biblical data, and that their views concerning what is knowable and what is not really is a philosophical position, without any clear (as in "indisputable") Scriptural support?

Of course their view of knowledge is philosophical. After all, epistemology is primary and is the precursor to all other areas of philosophy. Beyond that I would say their philosophy concerning what is knowable is also supremely biblical. Even if someone is not a Scripturalist and doesn't adhere to Clark's philosophic position, I find it hard to imagine any P&R man disagreeing with Thornwell above.

And if that is the case, is it defensible for one holding to their views to stand in defiance of elders who are of a different interpretation of what the Scripture says is knowable?

Sure it is. You held to a different view of baptism, yet you joined a Baptist church. You willingly submitted to their request not to bring up your own doctrine of baptism of your own free will and not because of any threat of ecclesiastic discipline. You didn't become a Baptist did you? So I assume you honored your agreement and didn't try and convert Baptists to the biblical position. If you did not, I would hope the Baptists quickly gave you the left foot of fellowship out the door.

It would seem then that the Biblical mandate to submit to the rule of the overseers may be waived in lieu of a philosophy of epistemology, which may aver that the elders are assuming knowledge where none can be.

We are to submit to those who rule over us, but there is no Biblical mandate for anyone to submit to anyone simply because they say so. For example, wives are to submit to their husbands, but that doesn't give a husband the Biblical mandate to demand submission to his every whim -- especially if submission would be contrary to Scripture. Again, I think your view of church leadership will find more sympathy with the teachings of Rome than with Scripture.

There is a kind of spiritual anarchy which arises from this approach to living in the house of God, which sets philosophy above the simple rule of submission.

Hardly. What is set above the "simple rule of submission" is not some alien philosophy (as you insinuate), but rather the teachings of Scripture themselves. Frankly, that is what you as an elder are commanded to be in submission to as well. You have no authority within yourself to demand submission to your opinions, no matter how correct or "visionary" you think they are.

Will not the result be the spirit of defiance, and eventual chaos?

Again, Steve, you really need to rethink your position since you are basically making Rome's argument. God forbid if every man was permitted to interpret the Scriptures for himself. It will be ANARCHY!

 

[Jerusalem Blade]

[On Sat the 24th of March high winds in this African village took down the wires to my compound and other NGOs that gave us internet connection; I finally have a connection for the moment, but am not sure about after this. Sorry for the delay getting back to this discussion.]

Sean, I had asked earlier, please don’t bring up “decriminalization” – the governmental aspect just clouds the more important spiritual issues. For this discussion’s sake, let us assume we are in a country where it is allowed.

You say, “Yes, we do have warrant to defy those who rule over us if what is being imposed upon us is without the warrant of Scripture.”

What we are talking about is marijuana use among the people of God.

Do you agree that pharmakon (Greek: a drug, i.e. in this usage a spell-giving potion) from which the words “sorceries” [Revelation 18:23] and “sorcerers” [Revelation 21:8; 22:15] derive, refer to a thing, and an activity, prohibited by Scripture? Are we in agreement this far? If not, how would you unpack the words in question? But if you are in agreement, let us proceed.

If I have been understanding you correctly, you say marijuana should be classed in the same category with alcohol, an intoxicant that “dissipates” if abused/over-used, and in that regard may be prohibited, but should not be equated with sorcery in general.

What I am seeking to do is bring our discussion down to the essence of our respective views, and the plain Biblical standards which are relevant concerning them.

Please do not bring my previous statements to bear on this present part of the discussion, for I have sought to pare away personal references, etc. in lieu of “Scripture alone.”

You know my view is that marijuana falls into the prohibited class of drugs called magical or spell-inducing potions, and that their use necessarily involves one in the prohibited activity of sorcery regardless of intent and experience.

And you disagree; what I want is to understand the essential basis of your disagreement. Am I correct in saying that for you there is simply no basis for determining the truth of what I assert concerning grass? You had earlier put it like this:

…there is no such thing as "empirically verifiable grounds"… and empiricism, as a means to truth, cannot arrive at any knowledge at all. More importantly, the combination of Scripture and conclusions drawn from "empirically verifiable grounds" together can never yield more truth.​

Okay, so we disagree on the classification of grass, and, in your view, neither you nor I have data to authoritatively pronounce a judgment on it one way or another, save for the Biblical principle against “dissipation”.

Is this the basis for your view, and your not recognizing the “authority” of mine, seeing it as merely a human opinion?

 

[Jerusalem Blade]

Some thoughts on what we can know according to Scripture.

It has been said, “…there is no such thing as ‘empirically verifiable grounds’… and empiricism, as a means to truth, cannot arrive at any knowledge at all.” I gather it is meant by this, that any information we glean from science or other non-Biblical sources is such that we cannot base authoritative directives upon them. Only upon actual Scriptural statements may we do such.

But consider: when Moses in the law (Deut. 18: 10, 11), by God’s command, forbade certain occult activities such as divination, enchantment, charming (by means of spells), wizardry, necromancy, etc, he assumed the requisite discernment among the judges of the people to know when these sins were being committed. Otherwise it were folly to forbid what they knew not.

When in New Covenant torah (law or instruction) it is pronounced by the Holy Spirit through the apostle John that like sins in his day – sorcery, enchantment (see Rev. 21:8; 22:15) – were forbidden, are we to think that He forbade something we were of necessity ignorant of, and thus could not know so as to steer clear of? Or has He in fact given the leaders among His people discernment in such things, so that the people may not fall into these sins through ignorance?

Has not “His divine power…given unto us all things that pertain unto life and godliness” (2 Peter 1:3), that we may life lives pleasing to Him, free of defilement, we who are called unto glory and virtue?

Let us consider what the Scripture says about “knowledge” and “discernment,” and what may be included in these. In Exodus 31, the LORD, talking to Moses of the man Bezaleel, says He has “filled him with the Spirit of God, in wisdom, and in understanding, and in knowledge, and in all manner of workmanship, to devise cunning works, to work in gold, and in silver, and in brass, and in cutting of stones, to set them, and in carving of timber, to work in all manner of workmanship.” And the LORD goes on, telling Moses of other men into whom He has put wisdom, for the building of the tabernacle.

Now we know this tabernacle was made of earthly things, types of the heavenly, and when these holy things were later put in the temple, it was a temple made with human hands. Are WE not now the holy temple of the Lord? (Eph 2:21, 22; 1 Peter 2:5; 2 Cor 6:16) The builders of God’s physical house in the ancient days were given wisdom and knowledge – empirical knowledge, I might say, that is, knowledge of the properties of things in the physical world – even as the spiritual rulers, the priests and Levites, were given to “put difference between holy and unholy, and between unclean and clean; and that ye may teach the children of Israel all the statutes which the LORD hath spoken unto them by the hand of Moses.” (Lev 10:10, 11). The LORD strongly rebuked the priests when “they have put no difference between the holy and profane, neither have they shewed difference between the unclean and the clean…” (Ezek 22:26) Again, the LORD said to Jeremiah, “…if thou take forth the precious from the vile, thou shalt be as My mouth…” (15:19).

The NT reiteration of this would be in Hebrews 5:14: “…strong meat belongeth to them that are of full age, even those who by reason of use have their senses exercised to discern both good and evil.”

Concerning the extent of knowledge: the Lord Jesus allowed that men “can discern the face of the sky” so as to know what the weather will be (Matt 16:3). He did not deny they may have knowledge of the physical world and its properties; one might call this “empirical knowledge.” We have shown that this sort knowledge was given men in the OT times, in the building of God’s tabernacle.

We have shown that it was required of the priests to be able to discern between the holy and unholy, the sacred and profane, clean and unclean. This means that they must have had at least sufficient knowledge of the unholy etc to keep the people from it. We do not have Biblical treatises on necromancy, divination, enchantment, charming, witchcraft, and sorcery, and yet it is tacitly understood the priests and judges have sufficient knowledge to discern and steer the people clear of them, as well as to punish those who engaged in these practices.

How is it that some may assert God will prohibit a thing – and I am referring to the sin of sorcery in the New Testament – and yet not give us the knowledge to understand what constitutes this thing? It was not so with the people of God in the OT, neither is it so with us in the NT era.

This philosophy which says, “…there is no such thing as ‘empirically verifiable grounds’… and empiricism, as a means to truth, cannot arrive at any knowledge at all”, is not supported by the Bible. How preposterous that some may assert we cannot know what the sins are God has forbidden us, as we cannot truly know ANYTHING unless it is specifically written in the Scripture. Unlike the OT law, NT torah often gives us principles rather than codes governing all behavior, such as the 613 laws of the Mosaic code. The philosophy espoused by my opponent in this discussion seems to me a man-made theory, and contra the Biblical data (perhaps he is also not accurately representing Clark and Robbins, and this is just his own “spin” on them). One may claim to espouse Sola Scriptura, yet the claim be a false one.

So I will repeat myself afresh: marijuana falls into the prohibited class of drugs called magical or spell-inducing potions, and their use necessarily involves one in the prohibited activity of sorcery regardless of intent and experience.

It matters not that one smokes or otherwise ingests it merely to get “stoned” – for what is this “getting stoned” but inducing an altered psychic state by means of a psychoactive agent, energizing the human spirit into a state of awareness apart from the Holy Spirit of God? Whether one calls it being “stoned,” “high,” “zonked,” “mellowed-out,” or the number of other appellations given the state, the activating of the spirit and soul of man apart from the Spirit of Christ is by definition sorcery. Be assured it is neither a “neutral” act nor state, for there is no vacuum in the human spirit, it is energized by Christ, or by the unclean spirit. When a Christian commits this sin, he or she grieves the Holy Spirit, and He departs from fellowship with the believer, while yet remaining in him, albeit profoundly grieved.

It may be objected that one might be engrossed in but soulish or physical activities, but this does not alter the essential nature of the state. Many are the fleeting “enjoyments” of sorcery, the pleasures of the flesh not least among them. The jaws of death are often the bite of exquisite pleasure.

The active ingredient in marijuana, THC, can be so powerful in some varieties that it may be on a par with the more powerful agents of sorcery, as mushrooms and peyote. The conventional wisdom – the consensus – in the godly churches, among the pastors and elders, is that marijuana is an agent of sorcery.

We must have some accurate knowledge of things in the world and their properties, else we might foolishly take our lives by unwittingly drinking or eating poisons. Medicines, which God has blessed us with, are known and classified by their properties.

True, such knowledge is not equal to eternal truths of Scripture, but such “empirical” knowledge of things is useful, and sometimes necessary, to godly living. Useful, in that our ailments may be relieved, and our lives even saved; necessary, in that we may not sin by using substances against God’s law, and reaping horrific harm to boot.

There appears to be a “super-spirituality” embraced by some, which is in truth delusional, as it is not in touch with the realities of the world God gave us to live in wisely, and to subdue.

And what is this “subduing,” where God told us to “replenish the earth, and subdue it” (Genesis 1:28) but bringing it under our benign control, a control which involves gaining a knowledge of it so as to manipulate its various elements and their properties for God’s glory and our good?

My opponent seems not to be operating from a Reformed hermeneutic, but from something alien to it, and to common sense. Is not God the God of all life, sovereign in all its spheres? Why exclude, then, realms of knowledge He has given us to master and order to His glory? Shall we exclude the “empirical data” of history* – yes, and of church history also – not to mention the numerous other disciplines of study and research, because some say we can truly know nothing but what is in Scripture? Surely this is a truncated view of life.

“How long shall this be in the heart of the prophets that prophesy lies? yea, they are prophets of the deceit of their own hearts…and cause My people to err by their lies, and by their lightness; yet I sent them not, nor commanded them: therefore they shall not profit this people at all, saith the LORD” (Jeremiah 23:26, 32)

Those who would gainsay, be sure you speak not after the flesh, but after the Spirit. “To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them.” (Isaiah 8:20)

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

*[I am aware of the postmodernist objection to history – and other realms of knowledge – as empirical data, but that is a different discussion.]

Steve

 

[Michael]

Genesis 1:29 and cannabis

It’s been a while since I’ve followed up on this thread and I see it’s taken a turn that’s a little different from what I was hoping to discuss (but that’s ok).

Let me explain quickly why I brought it up in the first place. I was involved in a discussion about accountability to God. Within that conversation the obedience of the magistrate came up. I was looking for an example where a magistrate criminalized something that God had given as a provision to man. Originally, I used examples of societies where the consumption of meat was outlawed (I’ve actually lived in such before). Marijuana was the second example I could think of, but in all actuality it was more the principle of the matter that I wished to discuss.

In the U.S. we are in a unique position as Christians because we are part of the voting force that elects our officials and determines our laws. Going back to the example of criminalizing the eating of meat, could a Christian actually support a law that tried to do just that? Keep in mind, I’m not talking about whether or not one should obey such a law, but rather if a Christian could support it or vote for it. Perhaps that would have been a better topic to choose.

Just for a twist of fun in this debate, if you don’t feel that the meat thing really applies, try eating a bald eagle or a snow leopard and see what happens.

Regarding cannabis, it is apparently difficult to discuss because many seem to assume that supporting the end of its prohibition would in fact be supporting getting stoned. At every step in the conversation, that seems to be the underlying current that those who disapprove are fighting against. This makes for a frustrating discussion.

First, on the most basic level we are talking about criminalizing the simple possession of a plant. God has given all the green herbs to man, yet the authorities will take you away from your family and put you in prison if it is in your possession or growing on your property. This is the simplest and first aspect that must be dealt with. Can we even talk about this without assuming that everyone will end up participating in sorcery?

Now of course our government has its reasons for banning the plant. Obviously, if no one smoked it, the legislation would not have been considered. But do we legislate people’s actions or do we legislate things? What’s more, should we be legislating things which God has specifically given to man? The argument that legalizing cannabis = legalizing cocaine doesn’t answer anything but further begs the question.

The next step some would consider would be to recognize the practical uses of the plant (i.e. for medicine). There are certainly stronger medicines out there, whose proper use never seems to be attacked as a means of sorcery, but yet this one provision of God in all of its simplistic and practical help gets such a bad rap. Why? Because we all “know” that if it is legalized for medicinal purposes, someone just might get their hands on it to enjoy themselves.

Lastly, there would be the argument that even the recreational use is part of God’s provision. I won’t get into trying to defend this, but the argument does exist. In fact, I think that it’s because the argument exists that so few will deal seriously with the first two situations.


Steve,

I appreciate your thoughts and I do have an amount of sympathy to your feelings about marijuana and sorcery. I can tell that you’ve spent a good deal of time studying this and that you are also speaking from experience. I too have used marijuana in abundance in my past, but I can’t say that I share your opinion here. I had no plans of bringing this up because it would seem to add a pressupposition to my question here. But in fact, I really am more concerned with the magistrate’s accountability to God. Since you have gone in such depth though to explain the pitfalls of pot and how it draws one into sorcery, I would only like to remind you that no matter how much we dislike dealing with the relativity of sin, the truth of such relativity does in fact exists. I have no doubt that there are some who participate in sorcery (or the equivalent thereof) because they are stoned. But I do not believe that it is the same with everyone. Just as alcohol in various amounts effects different people differently, the same can be said of cannabis. Everything can be abused, but I’d stop short of making a blanket statement about everyone’s disposition to the effects of pot. The truth lies in the heart.

Now that I’ve said that I realize that I automatically become someone who is arguing for getting high. That’s not exactly the case. But oh well.

Honestly, all of this is just a side thought to me. Again, I’m looking for a solid Biblical argument that the magistrate is justified here. That is, starting with point one: there is a plant given by God and if you have one in your backyard you go to jail.

 

[Magma2]

Again, I’m looking for a solid Biblical argument that the magistrate is justified here. That is, starting with point one: there is a plant given by God and if you have one in your backyard you go to jail.

I'm confident we can conclude there is no such argument.