Category: Christian Liberty

Posted on

Lent, Ligon Duncan, and Legalism

Collin Hansen wrote an article for the Gospel Coalition entitled Should You Cancel Good Friday? which has brought to the attention of many a conversation they have never had before. What is Lent? Why celebrate it?

As a committed Protestant, I am committed to the Church Calendar, not because I want to be a slave to it, but because I am aware of its inevitability. We all follow some calendar. The question is which calendar? I ask that question because Protestantism is grounded in a Trinitarian view of the world. In its best expression it does not isolate ideas; it brings ideas together to form a coherent system.

I suggest that Lent is highly Trinitarian. As the Trinity is a communion of love, so Lent provides a means to express that love to one another in the community. Where sins are confronted and battled, there you find a vigorous Trinitarian community and vision. Lent is service to the community by giving us a season of determined battle against sin for the sake of our neighbors.

It offers a vision of history that undergirds the biblical history and that reflects the normal routines, liturgies, and rituals of human beings. Lent is a form of restructuring our lives. All Christians need a re-structuring of order in their own lives. All Christians need to re-balance and re-form areas where there is disproportionate indifference. We all undergo a Psalmic journey of lamentation and feasting. Lent draws us into this journey.

In essence, Lent reveals the God who suffers in the Person of Jesus Christ. God’s image-bearers are formed from the dust of a fallen Adam to the glorification of the risen Final Adam. To disconnect Lent from the Church Calendar is to disparage history.

It is true we live in the age of an ascended Lord, but this same Lord guides a Church that is still broken, suffering, and healing from brokenness and suffering again and again. The removal of Lent is to proclaim an over-realized eschatology.

It is true that Lent can be abused, and history teaches us that it has. But it is also true, as Luther so memorably stated, “the abuse of something is not an argument against its proper use.” So if Lent can be proven to be profitable, then is there a legitimate way to benefit from it without falling into some its former abuses. Protestant Christians are not bound by Romish structures of food or rituals. We use wisdom in forming healthy habits for a Church and individuals while not binding the Church or the individual to a particular habit.

Lent and Wilderness

Lent teaches us that Satan’s gifts are easy to master. They come with first grade instruction manuals. They are made to be mastered quickly and enjoyed rapidly (fornication, drugs, alcohol; various temptations). God’s gifts are a little harder to master. They require self-control and patience. They anticipate spiritual growth; they demand a kingly attitude to grasp kingly wisdom. God’s instructions mean you have to seek others in the community to understand them properly. You have to exercise and express a theology of patience built into a theology of blessings.

In the wilderness, a garden stripped of colors, fruit, and water, Jesus faced the devil again in a re-match. He knew well that temptation had a triumphant history of subtly winning arguments. Jesus wasted no time and rebuked temptation. just like He would do with the demons and the demonic-like religious teachers of the day.

We are not to sit in temptation’s classroom. God already said we are to flee it; to rebuke it with the only source of authority that is permanent and stamped with divine truth.

The Church finds herself in a wilderness scenario. She is stripped of her former glory. But she is destined to journey from glory to glory like her Lord and Master. As in Luke four, we need to sit in Yahweh’s school house. We need to be instructed by the two-edged sword that muzzles the Tempter and tells him to not come back again. He is not welcome and neither are his offers.

Lent offers us a 40 day class on temptations and the glories and rewards of resisting it.

But Why 40 Days?

Lent follows the temptations of Jesus in the wilderness. His fasting for 40 days speaks to the evil and the hardness of heart of the Israelites who succumbed to the Serpent’s whispers. So as the Church walks with Jesus from wilderness to Golgotha she re-lives the messianic journey. The 40 days are symbolic for that wilderness testing, and as a result it is chronologically set before the Great Paschal Feast, commonly referred to as Easter.

Should Lent be Observed?

Ligon Duncan and others in the Southern Presbyterian tradition argue that Lent has a history based on merit. Lent was a way to earn something. The Reformation fixed this soteriological error, and therefore Lent is no longer to be observed.

Duncan and others also go on to say that celebrating Easter and Christmas offer no such harm (he also believes that a National Holiday like Thanksgiving is also a uniquely American holiday to be celebrated). There is no doubt Easter and Christmas, and even Thanksgiving–to a lesser degree–offer wonderful benefits. But the question and the opening presupposition is that Lent is not biblical therefore it should not be practiced in the Church. If that is the case, then the question is not whether one day (or Season) is more beneficial than the other, but rather is it explicitly stated in the Bible or not? If the “explicit reference” argument is used, then Duncan will have to conclude that this is faulty reasoning.

I concur with Vance Freeman that “each of his (Duncan’s) reasons for not observing Lent are undercut by the observance of Christmas and Easter.” Mr. Freeman also concludes:

The biggest threat to Christianity today is not the church in Rome, or that Americans are prone to elevate traditional Christian rituals, like Lent, over discipleship. The biggest threat to the church is that our rituals are increasingly only secular ones. We are Americans before we are Christians. Super Bowl Sunday not only competes with the Lord’s Day, it dominants it. And when we relegate the Christian life to a mere facet of our American lives we fall into Moral Therapeutic Deism.

The formation of godly habits is the issue at hand. In other words, is there an adequate time of the year where the Church should have an explicit focus on the cross of Jesus and how that cross must shape our understanding of sin? Is there room for setting aside a season for a cruciform hermeneutic? I believe there is.

As Peter Leithart so ably summarizes:

Lent is a season for taking stock and cleaning house, a time of self-examination, confession and repentance.  But we need to remind ourselves constantly what true repentance looks like.  “Giving up” something for Lent is fine, but you keep Lent best by making war on all the evil habits and sinful desires that prevent you from running the race with patience.

If this is true, then Lent serves an enormously important role in the life of the Christian. Naturally, to quote Luther’s first thesis, “the Christian life is a life of daily repentance.” A faithful understanding of the Lord’s Service provides that for us weekly. However, an extended period where our sins are deeply brought to our attention by the preaching of the Word and prayer (and fasting) are regularly considered, practiced and meditated upon can provide great benefits for all Christians on each Lord’s Day and throughout the week.

The legalism concern is legitimate. We are all tempted to fall into this trap, but it does not have to be so. If we view Lent as a time to additionally focus our attention on mortifying our sins and killing those habits that so easily entangle us, we can then consider the cross in light of the resurrection, not apart from it. If we do so, Lent will become legalism’s greatest enemy and repentance’s best friend.

Posted on

Divine Butler and Cosmic Therapist

A post by Melinda Penner in 2005 reminded me of the great responsibility pastors have to project and express a biblical view of life and the world. According to a 2005 study:

Most religious youth couldn’t coherently express their beliefs and how it is different from other faiths. Their view of God is “something like a combination Divine Butler and Cosmic Therapist” who solves their problems. And the most troubling finding is that religious teens don’t believe there are theological objective truths; effectively they are pluralists.

What is the cause of such naivete? The Church has certainly failed to educate their youth when their youth were only little babes (Psalm 22:9). Undoubtedly there is a parental blame in the picture. Parents need to equip early on. They need to fulfill their duties (Ephesians 6). At the same time, what is the modern Church offering their youth? Pizza parties? Pep talks about modern movie trivia?

The Church is losing her youth, though her youth may still be attending the Church. It won’t be long before they become Church corpses–offering little to nothing to the life and sanctification of the Church body–or completely abandon the pews and run to Richard Dawkins for nurture.

Posted on

Alcohol: Random thoughts

#1 As one who drinks wine during the week and during the Lord’s Supper every Sunday, the issue surrounding whether one should consume or not is not a debate I have in my circles. In the CREC drinking is common, and those who do not drink in the CREC find those who drink to be reasonable and moderate men. What I find is that non-drinkers in my small confederation ( by non-drinkers, I mean those who do not drink throughout the week, but partake of wine during the Eucharist) actually find a sense of freedom in seeing others partake. This may be due to the joy of seeing godly men drink as opposed to the ungodly examples around us.

#2 If a fundamentalist comes to our community and sees men and women drinking moderately and responsively this will have an incredible impact on the way he thinks about alcohol. Most fundamentalists assume alcohol drinkers are non-sober beasts. Yet exposing them to sober drinking is a revolutionary concept.

#3 Our series Wine Defined caused some reaction, mostly positive. But even those who struggle with the idea of a Christian drinking still struggles with the exegetical implications of his thinking. Biblically, God loves wine. It is His gift; His shalom to the nations.

Posted on

Training Little Ones Through New Eyes…

This is a topic dear to me. I have one daughter and another child on the way. My theological community places a great emphasis on children and their participation in the community. We do not place them in a special category, they are already–by virtue of God’s grace (Psalm 22:9) and by being born in a Christian home (I Corinthians 7:14)–in the only category that exists in the church, the righteous ones. In the assembly there is wisdom to be imparted and the mysteries of the gospel are revealed each week as we eat and drink and commune with one another and our children.

In light of this, our children need to treated with a new perspective; they need to be viewed with new eyes. Biblically, the gathering community is elevated to the heavens to the presence of her Lord when they meet together (Eph. 2:6). Christ summons us–by His Spirit– into His presence so we may feast with Him at His table and in the Holy of Holies. Worship is heavenly and our children need to be trained from the earliest days to see worship as heavenly. They need to be active participants in this heavenly worship. They need to see models of this at home, so they may partake of this joy at church.

Training little ones is no easy task. It requires a theological commitment that is a minority view in our own day. It is looked down upon in most evangelical churches (and sadly, in most reformed churches). Circumstances dictate much of our practices, yet, no circumstance should take away the necessity of training little ones in the home. This can be done in several ways. There are three common practices in our household that embody what I have been arguing. These are significant and necessary features, but by no means essential in every detail.

First, prayer needs to be modeled at home. Every meal is prefaced with: “Child (name), let us pray to God and give thanks to Him.” Children must understand that the life of faith is a life of thankfulness. God in His rich mercy poured out all blessings on us. He has given us His Spirit and His Son for our benefit and for our salvation. Children who are catechized in this context of thankfulness grow up to be appreciative of all God’s good gifts.

Second, singing needs to be central as the background of any covenant home. I am not speaking of random music or even music that purports to be Christian; rather, I am speaking of music that is uplifting, whether dance-like or meditative music. Classical music is to be preferred above many styles, but it should not be the sole choice of the Christian home. Children need to be exposed to a diversity of music. In my opinion, the best music for covenant children available is the music of Jamies Soles. This is Christian music that is not afraid of the hard or the obscure passages. Jamie’s music actually reflects the words of Paul that all Scripture is given for our instruction, and we may add, our singing.

Finally, family worship is indispensable. Whether five or ten minutes a day, every family needs to do it. If it is unattractive at first, keep pressing on. Family worship, like church worship, is a maturing process. No congregation sings Psalm 45 (in the Cantus Christi) successfully the first time. In our congregation, it took at least three tries before we mastered this divine psalm. In the same manner, worship is hard. Parents can seek many models available. In our home, we follow the similar pattern of Sunday morning worship. In fact, we keep our Sunday bulletins and use them throughout the week (see an example here). We begin with a salutation (Daddy: Jesus Christ is Risen! Mommy and Children: Jesus Christ is Risen Indeed!) and then kneel for confession (see an example of a confession in the bulletin). We all rise after kneeling and hear a word of assurance from God’s word that our sins are forgiven in Jesus’ name (see Romans 5:1). Typically that is followed by a reading from the Scriptures. The passage will most likely be the text for the coming Sunday sermon (our bulletin provides the reading for the following week). The reading is followed by a hearty, “This is the Word of the Lord! Thanks be to God!” Then, I choose a hymn or a psalm (one advantage of the Cantus Christi is that it includes about 100 of the 150 psalms). Usually–as the father–I will lead our family in a prayer for our needs and the needs of others. We always begin by exalting God for Who He is and what He has done. At this point, my 18 month-old knows that when daddy says amen it is time for the doxology. We raise our hands together as a sign of adoration and conclude with praise to the Father, Son, and Spirit. All this takes approximately 5-7 minutes. It is not overwhelming, but incredibly rich in substance.

You begin to train your little ones with new eyes; the eyes of faith that sees that their worship is pure worship before the Father of all glory.

Posted on

Vos, Misconceptions, and Legalism

Those who have survived the fury of legalism,1 understand its deadly claim on individuals. After many years under legalistic teaching one begins to realize that the overwhelming nature of duty can never be alleviated or diminished by/through the nature of grace. Legalism, as a particular adherence to a code, may in a powerful sense be Screwtape’s tool to entrap the young and vigor-filled Christian.

No one living in a monarchy will deny obedience to his new king, especially if disobedience means death. Nevertheless, the reality is in the nature of this obedience. What is obedience? Further, why is legalism so detrimental in light of the clear commands of the ever-relevant law-word of God? It is answering the second question that one finds some clue into the first. My assumption, unlike so many, is that the Old Testament revelation bears both ethical and salvific ramifications for the New Covenant Christian. The central problem in understanding these sorts of questions is that the idea of “legalism” has been so injuriously associated with the Old Covenant laws and demands. However, nothing could be further from the truth. It is in the Old Testament where the Orthodoxical Shema is first given; it is in the pages of the Old (er) Testament where the command to love our neighbor (Leviticus 19:18) is made first explicit; and it is in the Old Testament where the grace of God is pervasive in the lives of the saints despite their many eggeregious sins. Hence, my contention is that if any case law, ceremonial or moral law is to be interpreted, it is to be interpreted in the context of grace; totus gratia.

The Reformed heritage and its current manifestation have not carefully sorted through such nuances. Sonship theology has exercised little time in considering the Old Testament demands of obedience for fear that it may make modern Christians “legalists.” The fact is modern Christian are miles away from the dreaded, and, rightly so, despised idea of legalism. Modermn Christians are too pagan to even become legalists. Let me note, lest it be misunderstood, that legalism is not in any sense equivalent to obedience to Old Testament law. It is rather the opposite of faithfulness to God’s law, since legalism makes God’s revelation irrelevant and substitutes it with man’s code or standard. Any time autonomous man makes laws and regulations outside of Biblical imperative he has become a legalist. Hence, legalism is obeying laws that find no Biblical grounds;2 and as a result, using that pseudo obedience to attain something that they cannot earn.

Legalism and faithfulness to covenant demands are diametrically opposed. In popular discourse, the two ideas have been used interchangeably when in reality they do not belong in the same sentence, except to explain their great contrast. Micah 6:8 tells us:

He has told you, O man, what is good; and what does the Lord require of you but to do justice, and to love kindness, and to walk humbly with your God?

If to do these things is being understood as legalism, then I want all of it. But far from legalism this is God’s command to His covenant children of all ages. Fidelity and faithfuless to the covenant demands express loyalty; a loyalty that is grounded on grace from beginning to end. The problem with evangelicalism is anti-nomianism. After all, when was the last time you heard a pastor castigating his parishioners for doing too much for God’s kingdom? The opposite is true; parishioners are castigated for being too detached from their Christianity.

On the other hand, (In stark contrast to Sonship theology) the Reformed faith has also been castigated for its Puritan heritage, which some have labeled as legalistic.3 Geerhardus Vos summarizes the criticism:

A consciousness of strict accountability in view of God’s sovereign rights over man has always characterized the Reformed religion, even to such extent as to invite the charge that its puritanic practice savors of a spirit of legalism more at home in the Old Testament than in the New.4

Later Vos defines legalism as those who “obey but do not adore.” Two comments will suffice at this point and the first one is that there ought not to be any distinction between the ethical demands of the Old and New Testaments. If we are aware of the nature of the sacrificial system, then the Christo-centric implications and the ethical implications will leave no doubt that Christ in no sense ever eliminated or abolished the Old Testament obligations for the New Testament believer. Such distinctions are dangerously Marcionite. The second observation is that Vos’ definition is in some sense flawed if one should observe that the very nature of Old Testament law is doxological. You cannot claim to obey the law (first commandment) and yet not adore Jehovah alone.

As a final point, obedience, true obedience, stems from an inward response. It is gratitude to God’s grace, but it is also loyalty to God’s kingship over our lives. In the end, legalism offers death, but God’s laws offer life and to obey Him is the Christian’s delight.

Footnotes

  1. For instance, in the case of Renee Altson in her book: Stumbling Toward Faith [↩ back]
  2. Fundamentalists here can list a vast selection of do’s and dont’s. [↩ back]
  3. One may be aware of the idea of something being Puritanical to indicate it is too strict or tedious [↩ back]
  4. Redemptive History and Biblical Interpretation, pg. 232 [↩ back]
Posted on

C.S. Lewis, Mere Christianity: Analysis and Application Part VI

In this final book,[1] Lewis speaks about the “so what” of the Christian life. Book III on Christian Behaviour goes far beyond the theological snobbery. In past times in Church History, theology was not seen as being application. This idea changed radically with William Ames (the Puritan), and more contemporary thinkers in the Reformed and Anglican tradition that stress theology is practical.[2] After all, what would be the sense of theological inquiry if it had no application beyond the classroom or Star Bucks? Biblical theology is ethical and so are all things. If we deny that, we return to the abstractionism of the Greeks.

C.S. Lewis discusses then the three ideas of morality:

Morality, then, seems to be concerned with three things. Firstly, with fair play and harmony between individuals. Secondly, with what might be called tidying up or harmonizing the things inside each individual. Thirdly, with the general purpose of human life as a whole: what man was made for: what course the whole fleet ought to be on: what tune the conductor of the band wants it to play.[3]

Allow me to summarize Lewis in three words: Human morality is concerned with a) relationships, b) internal, and c) eternal. In this last point, the reader needs to realize that morality goes far beyond our lives here. It prepares us for a life to come. In my own thinking I have tried to ameliorate that absurd notion that our goal is to forget this evil world and prepare for the next. This does not seem to be the idea of the apostle Paul nor of Jesus. Nevertheless, the world to come is of significance to all because our morality may be motivated by it. This should not be a meritorious motivation (Ephesians 2:8-10), but as a sign that there is more to life than this world. C.S. Lewis writes:

Christianity asserts that every individual human being is going to live forever, and this must be either true or false. Now there are a good many things which would not be worth bothering about if I were going to live only seventy years, but which I had better bother about very seriously if I am going to live forever.[4]

This is brilliant logic! Why should anyone live decently if this is all there is to it? Sartre would be right. Nietzsche would be right. But existential atheism is immoral, because it denies the life to come. This is the already, but the not-yet is around the corner for any of us. Morality is crucial in this respect. As in Pascal’s wager, if you live immorally you have everything to lose, but if you live morally under the guidance of a sovereign authority, you have nothing to lose.

This world is not eternal. The hyper-Preterist (probably unheard of in Lewis’ day)[5] is wrong in denying that this present world will end one day. Christ will make all things new through the purification of all things. He will not annihilate this world, but bring it to its intended use. It will be a sort of perfect, perfect Eden. Since the earth, in its present form is not eternal, then some elements of this earth are also not eternal, like the state.

If individuals live only seventy years, then a state, or a nation, or a civilization, which may last for a thousand years, is more important than an individual. But if Christianity is true, then the individual is not only more important but incomparably more important, for he is everlasting and the life of a state or a civilization with his, is only a moment.[6]

The idea that the state is only a temporary tool in the hands of God to preserve justice is powerful indeed.[7] In the New Heavens and New Earth, justice will have been completed and civil government as we know it will be done away with, since there will be no more role for justice, since all justice has been fulfilled in Christ’s second Advent. Nevertheless, in hell, the state will also not exist, though that righteous justice will be applied negatively forever. This is what Gary North would term, the eternal negative sanctions of the covenant.

This holistic theme in Lewis leads to the idea of the intellect. We have been speaking of Lewis’ idea of morality. But true morality is implicit is true theology. The thinking is not absent. In fact, God hates slack (Proverbs 10:4; 18:9). The slacker or lazy will have a hard time entering into a new kingdom where strength, courage, and honor are exalted. This has nothing to do with height or physical strength (consider Frodo). Lewis explains:

God is no fonder of intellectual slackers than of any other slackers. If you are thinking of becoming a Christian, I warn you you are embarking on something, which is going to take the whole of you, brains and all.[8]

Christianity is not alluring at first sight. It is like Christian’s journey in Bunyan’s Pilgrim’s Progress. It is filled with difficulty and turmoil. Bumper stickers that speak of “Have Joy, Have Jesus” are speaking devilish non-sense. One must count the cost if he is to embrace the gospel. It may even require leaving family and friends. And your brain always comes with you in this new journey. As Lewis mentioned, it requires brain and all. The modern aversion to intellectual endeavor is sinful. In fact, the Christian faith calls for believing intellectuals who at one hand can read the mysteries of Revelation and on the other hand, read of the details of daily living in Proverbs. It is an unbroken unit.

Christian Behaviour touches on much more. Among them are the seven cardinal virtues. In order to briefly speak of one of these elements, let us hear the words of Lewis on the virtue of temperance:

Temperance referred not especially to drink, but to all pleasures; and it meant not abstaining, but going to the right length and no further.[9]

The inception of fundamentalism urged that Christians in all places cease to drink their beer and wine. Why? Because they limited temperance to drinking alone. The Sunday morning minister who shuns alcohol and proceeds to indulge his flesh in a buffet is a sinful hypocrite.The teetotalism that Lewis speaks of is a misapplication of the law of plentifulness. God has given us wine and drink so that we may enjoy his bountifulness. Christians forget that their liberties are not tools for abuse, but tools for refreshment.

Some struggle with certain sins, like alcohol and as a result they deny the cup of wine passed to them at the Eucharist. They think it will tempt them to return to their bad habits. This is once again foolish and has led to the unbiblical notion of grape juice in the supper. This is a result of the early anti-alcohol amendments. Do you think that there were alcoholics in the first century? Of course. Do you think alcoholics back then struggled with temptations in this area? Of course. Then, why did Paul still serve real wine in the Sacrament? He did because no sin or temptation can overcome the shedding of blood of our Lord. The wine serves as perpetual reminder that our sins are blotted out and we are made new through this covenant communion.

Some will try to impose their temptations on others by saying that since they do not drink, then you should not drink either. To which Lewis responds,

One of the marks of a certain type of bad man is that he cannot give up a thing himself without wanting every one else to give it up.[11]

Christian Behaviour is to be an impetus to all people enjoying all things.[12]This is similar to Luther’s idea that the abuse of something is not an argument for its proper use. Because someone enjoys that which you are tempted with, is no reason to expect that they give it up for your sake (unless mutually agreed upon).  When all things are used properly, then Christian Behavior is seen in its proper light—the light of Christ.

[1] There is a fourth book in this copy of Lewis’ Mere Christianity that deals with issues Trinitarian. They, as far as I know, were not originally part of the talks. Therefore, they will not be added to this discussion.

[2] Greg Bahnsen, John Frame, N.T. Wright and others all stress the ethics of the Bible.

[3] Mere Christianity, pg. 71.

[4] Ibid. 73.

[5] With the possible exception of the British author James Stuart Russell.

[6] Ibid. 73.

[7] Romans 13.

[8] Lewis, 75.

[9] Ibid. 76.

[10] At least on two grounds, gluttony and Sabbath breaking.

[11] Mere Christianity, pg. 76.

[12] Granted, I will not offer the alcoholic a drop of wine in my home. But the issue at the sacrament is an issue of command.

Posted on

Good Wine, Good Fellowship!

 


As is custom in my household, a little glass of red wine (any red wine) before my nightly rest is the culmination of my evening. After my glass of wine I know that the evening is coming to a close and all my endeavors of the day whether fulfilled or not are over.

Jesus our great King extends to us as it were a cup of delicious red wine and His friendship. He invites His closest neighbors and friends to join Him in an almost unending table reserved for those who have befriended the host. How about a toast? Posted by Picasa

Posted on

Does Scripture Permit Us to Drink Alcoholic Beverages?

Kenneth Gentry has played a tremendous role in shaping my thinking on matters of eschatology and ethics. What follows is a summary article based on his book entitled: God Gave Wine, a book thoroughly analyzing the Biblical issues in the drinking question. It defends the practice of moderation in alcohol consumption.This article’s purpose is to review the three major positions on the issue and acquaint the reader with the topic and the debate. As I’ve said before, “you can’t know, unless you understand.” By God’s grace the church will no longer make the same mistakes made by the revivalist in the early part of the 20th century. I’d like to hear your thoughts.

Kenneth L. Gentry, Jr., Th.D.
December 8, 2004

Few issues have generated more heated debate among Christians than that of the morality of alcohol consumption. The dispute has generated responses ranging from local educational temperance movements to federal amendments to the U.S. Constitution.

Certainly there is evidence of widespread abuse of alcoholic beverages today; this few would deny. Furthermore, the Bible clearly condemns all forms of alcohol abuse, by binding precept and by notorious example. Yet the ethical issue before us is, Does the Bible allow for a righteous consumption of the beverage alcohol? The fundamental question is ethical, not cultural or demographical; it requires an answer from a Biblical, not an emotional, base.

Three Viewpoints
Among evangelicals, the fundamental approaches to alcohol use may be distilled (no pun intended) into three basic viewpoints. (1) The prohibitionist viewpoint universally decries all consumption of the beverage alcohol. Adherents to this position do not find any Scriptural warrant for alcohol consumption, even in Biblical times. (2) The abstentionist perspective discourages alcohol use in our modern context, though acknowledging its use in Biblical days. They point to modern cultural differences as justification for the distinction: widespread alcoholism (a contemporary social problem), higher potency distilled beverages (unknown in Biblical times), and intensified dangers in a technological society (e.g., speeding cars). (3) The moderationist position allows for the righteous consumption of alcoholic beverages. This position, while acknowledging, deploring, and condemning all forms of alcohol abuse and dependency, argues that Scripture allows the partaking of alcoholic beverages in moderation and with circumspection.

The Importance of the Question
Often, non-moderationist argumentation inadvertently and negatively affects certain aspects of the Christian faith. It can undercut the authority of Scripture (in that any universal condemnation of what Scripture allows diminishes the authority of Scripture in Christian thought). It may distort the doctrine of Christ (in that any universal censure of something Jesus did detracts from His holiness). It adversely affects our apologetic (in that any denunciation of that which Scripture allows sets forth an inconsistent Biblical witness).

My approach to the issue before us involves three presuppositions: (1) the Bible is the inerrant Word of God; (2) therefore, the Bible is the determinative and binding standard for all ethical inquiry; and (3) the Bible condemns all forms of alcohol abuse and dependence. The moderationist viewpoint in no way compromises any of these three fundamental commitments. Continue reading “Does Scripture Permit Us to Drink Alcoholic Beverages?”

Posted on

A Brief Response to a friend concerning Christian Liberty and Evangelism

You wrote:

You did not respond to my conjecture that you are referring merely to the abuse of something as an excuse for avoiding it. If someone was falsely assured, it is the preacher who is in condemnation as a teacher (James 3:1).

First, you have now and before misquoted the statement. It goes as follows: “The abuse of something is not an argument against its proper use.” By the way, I am not the originator of that quote. It was written by someone (perhaps Luther) who certainly understood the extremes taken by some in order to avoid certain freedoms that we have in Christ.
Let me give you an example as to how that quote plays well with certain situations. One clear example is the often pulpit cry that drinking is associated with pagans therefore, as Christians we should not drink. This concept was also coincidentally an essential message of Charles Finney and other revivalists of the early 19th century. In this case, I plug in that quote immediately and say that since the Scriptures many times endorses or even demands the people of God to drink, then for the sake of Scriptures, drink (Psalm 104:15; Ecclesiastes 9:7). The abuse of some is not an argument against its proper use. In the case you used, I suggest that the quote cannot be used in that context. It contradicts its purpose. In other words, the abuse of something that is found in the Scriptures is not an argument against its proper use. However, I do not believe whether it be the invitational system, raising hands, walking down the aisle, or any of these Finneistic novelties in American evangelicalism are Scriptural, but rather are used to lead many to a false profession of faith and furthermore to guilt-bound “christianity.”

You went on to say:

Oh yeah, and my Dad was saved in an ice cream shop by a man who used the simple gospel via the four spiritual laws. Even though I have a pastor at my local body, he has been my pastor for almost 23 years. Indeed the four spiritual laws are the Truth and the gospel is simple, but it’s not merely an action one can claim to have taken, and we agree.

To this I would simply reply that I am not in any position to judge anyone’s conversion experience. The Four Spiritual Laws from my perspective do not contain an accurate representation of the gospel (though I am convinced it has been used for good, after all there are Scriptural quotations in them). It misleads the Christian to think wrongly of the concept of the Lordship of Christ by confusing categories of Christian experience (the false idea of “carnal Christianity is one o them). Thus, my contention is that this approach completely distorts Paul’s meaning in I Corinthians 3.

Finally, just a few corrections in order to help further dialogue. You mentioned a few strongly Reformed categories and distinctive such as Family Worship and Home Education. I deeply admire your parents for a strong emphasis on family and education. As I have come to know you and your family, it is evident that all of you have a strong passion for our Lord. However, family and education devoid of Reformed confessions and a strongly covenantal view of family denies the Reformed faith. As you may know Mennonites, the Amish, and others, also have a strong view of courting, family and so on; but yet they clearly deny the Reformed perspective on God’s sovereignty and Covenant Theology.
I hope this helps our future interaction…
Your brother in Christ.