““Judge not, that you be not judged. For with the judgment you pronounce you will be judged, and with the measure you use it will be measured to you. Why do you see the speck that is in your brother’s eye, but do not notice the log that is in your own eye? Or how can you say to your brother, ‘Let me take the speck out of your eye,’ when there is the log in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take the speck out of your brother’s eye. “Do not give dogs what is holy, and do not throw your pearls before pigs, lest they trample them underfoot and turn to attack you.” (Matthew 7:1–6, ESV)
This passage has a parallel passage in Luke:
““Judge not, and you will not be judged; condemn not, and you will not be condemned; forgive, and you will be forgiven; give, and it will be given to you. Good measure, pressed down, shaken together, running over, will be put into your lap. For with the measure you use it will be measured back to you.” He also told them a parable: “Can a blind man lead a blind man? Will they not both fall into a pit? A disciple is not above his teacher, but everyone when he is fully trained will be like his teacher. Why do you see the speck that is in your brother’s eye, but do not notice the log that is in your own eye? How can you say to your brother, ‘Brother, let me take out the speck that is in your eye,’ when you yourself do not see the log that is in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take out the speck that is in your brother’s eye. “For no good tree bears bad fruit, nor again does a bad tree bear good fruit, for each tree is known by its own fruit. For figs are not gathered from thornbushes, nor are grapes picked from a bramble bush. The good person out of the good treasure of his heart produces good, and the evil person out of his evil treasure produces evil, for out of the abundance of the heart his mouth speaks.” (Luke 6:37–45)
Here’s what a well-known and widely respected commentary says about Matthew 7:
7:1–6 (Luke 6:41–42). A final illustration of Pharisaic practices pertains to judging. The Pharisees were then judging Christ and finding Him to be inadequate. He was not offering the kind of kingdom they anticipated or asking for the kind of righteousness they were exhibiting. So they rejected Him. Jesus therefore warned them against hypocritical judging.
This passage does not teach that judgments should never be made; Matthew 7:5 does speak of removing the speck from your brother’s eye. The Lord’s point was that a person should not be habitually critical or condemnatory of a speck of sawdust in someone else’s eye when he has a plank—a strong hyperbole for effect—in his own eye. Such action is hypocritical (You hypocrite, v. 5; cf. “hypocrites” in 6:2, 5, 16). Though judgment is sometimes needed, those making the distinctions (krinÅ, judge, means “to distinguish” and thus “to decide”) must first be certain of their own lives.
Furthermore when seeking to help another, one must exercise care to do what would be appreciated and beneficial. One should never entrust holy things (what is sacred) to unholy people (dogs; cf. “dogs” in Phil. 3:2) or throw … pearls to pigs. Dogs and pigs were despised in those days.
*Louis A. Barbieri and Jr., "Matthew" In , in The Bible Knowledge Commentary: An Exposition of the Scriptures, ed. J. F. Walvoord and R. B. Zuck (Wheaton, IL: Victor Books, 1985), Mt 7:1–6.
Thursday, September 26, 2013
Are we called to a childlike faith and simple understanding?
“At that time the disciples came to Jesus, saying, “Who is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven?” And calling to him a child, he put him in the midst of them and said, “Truly, I say to you, unless you turn and become like children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven. Whoever humbles himself like this child is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven.”” (Matthew 18:1–4 ESV)
“Truly, I say to you, whoever does not receive the kingdom of God like a child shall not enter it.” (Mark 10:15, Luke 18:17)
Oftentimes, these verses are presented in an effort to back up the assertion that God wants us to have a “childlike faith” and to view Scripture in light of its apparent “simplicity.” What they usually mean by this is that Christians should not be intellectual in their walk with Christ, but “simple” in their thought life about God because the Gospel is simple or the word of God is simple.
However, I find a great number of problems with such a “simple” outlook on faith. For one thing, the verses above actually mention nothing about “faith” per se, or even anything about intellectual pursuits directly. Those who interpret the text in such a way are reading their anti-intellectual biases into the Bible, rather than drawing the meaning out of it. What all these texts actually teach are to be “childlike” in terms of HUMILITY. Whether that means being that way in my intellectual pursuits is presupposed, not by a thorough reading of the Bible, but by the impressions the biased reader has about intellectual pursuits, which he got from his culture or traditions. The irony is that being “childlike” actually means to put away such faulty persuasions, so that the student may sit at the knee of the Father and learn from Him.
Another problem I have with such an outlook are the number of verses which inevitably pop into my head to contradict it. For example, in his first letter to the Corinthians, the apostle Paul exhorts that church in the following way:
“When I was a child, I spoke like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child. When I became a man, I gave up childish ways.” (1 Corinthians 13:11)
Notice how the topic here is not about humility, but about how one speaks, thinks, and REASONS. He is telling the Corinthians, through his own example, that they are to stop speaking, thinking, and reasoning like children, but to grow up and mature to wisdom.
The writer of Hebrews addresses the same thing, but with much harsher words:
“About this we have much to say, and it is hard to explain, since you have become dull of hearing. For though by this time you ought to be teachers, you need someone to teach you again the basic principles of the oracles of God. You need milk, not solid food, for everyone who lives on milk is unskilled in the word of righteousness, since he is a child. But solid food is for the mature, for those who have their powers of discernment trained by constant practice to distinguish good from evil. Therefore let us leave the elementary doctrine of Christ and go on to maturity, not laying again a foundation of repentance from dead works and of faith toward God…” (Hebrews 5:11–6:1).
According to this, the trouble with Christians who just want to keep things “simple,” is that they have become “dull,” “unskilled,” as well as ‘immature,’ and ‘childish.’ They are not progressing much in their understanding of divine things because they won’t wean off the milk to sink their teeth into the meat of spiritual matters. I don’t see a Christian here who is being faithful, but one who is afraid. It isn't the ones who think deeply about the complexities of their faith who are being unfaithful, but the ones who keep clinging to the breast, like babies, perhaps because they are impressed and feel threatened by the learning of nonbelievers?
The apostle Peter actually refers to parts of Scripture as not simple, but difficult to understand:
“Therefore, beloved, since you are waiting for these, be diligent to be found by him without spot or blemish, and at peace. And count the patience of our Lord as salvation, just as our beloved brother Paul also wrote to you according to the wisdom given him, as he does in all his letters when he speaks in them of these matters. There are some things in them that are hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the other Scriptures. You therefore, beloved, knowing this beforehand, take care that you are not carried away with the error of lawless people and lose your own stability. But grow in the grace and knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. To him be the glory both now and to the day of eternity. Amen.” (2 Peter 3:14–18)
I will let those verses speak for themselves, but I also did a word search on the term “simple” in the ESV. The term appeared twenty times in nineteen verses and not a single one of them said anything good about being “simple,” but condemned it in a wide variety of ways:
Being “simple” means to lack in knowledge. It is not good to lack in knowledge, particularly when the simplicity is voluntary and self imposed. Part of our walk with Christ is to be transformed by the renewal of our minds, to take every thought captive for Him, and to love God with our minds. We do not stand on the alleged “simplicity” of the Gospel. Instead, we stand on the Gospel. There simply is nothing in the Bible to warrant attitudes which foster anti-intellectualism. Rather, the problem with such thinking is that it causes all manners of miseries and troubles, even apostasies and heresies. It causes endless quarreling because irrationality denies reality, falsely divides over doctrines which belong together, and attempts to unify things that God has divided.
The simple cannot be as wise as a serpent, nor can he destroy the lofty arguments raised against the glory of God because he does not understand them. He commends those who contradict him and attacks those who agree with him. He does not act out of knowledge, faith, or wisdom, but out of impulse, fear, and ignorance. He usually loathes instruction but is quick to chastise others. He should learn to listen to wisdom as child, so that he might mature in the faith.
“Truly, I say to you, whoever does not receive the kingdom of God like a child shall not enter it.” (Mark 10:15, Luke 18:17)
Oftentimes, these verses are presented in an effort to back up the assertion that God wants us to have a “childlike faith” and to view Scripture in light of its apparent “simplicity.” What they usually mean by this is that Christians should not be intellectual in their walk with Christ, but “simple” in their thought life about God because the Gospel is simple or the word of God is simple.
However, I find a great number of problems with such a “simple” outlook on faith. For one thing, the verses above actually mention nothing about “faith” per se, or even anything about intellectual pursuits directly. Those who interpret the text in such a way are reading their anti-intellectual biases into the Bible, rather than drawing the meaning out of it. What all these texts actually teach are to be “childlike” in terms of HUMILITY. Whether that means being that way in my intellectual pursuits is presupposed, not by a thorough reading of the Bible, but by the impressions the biased reader has about intellectual pursuits, which he got from his culture or traditions. The irony is that being “childlike” actually means to put away such faulty persuasions, so that the student may sit at the knee of the Father and learn from Him.
Another problem I have with such an outlook are the number of verses which inevitably pop into my head to contradict it. For example, in his first letter to the Corinthians, the apostle Paul exhorts that church in the following way:
“When I was a child, I spoke like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child. When I became a man, I gave up childish ways.” (1 Corinthians 13:11)
Notice how the topic here is not about humility, but about how one speaks, thinks, and REASONS. He is telling the Corinthians, through his own example, that they are to stop speaking, thinking, and reasoning like children, but to grow up and mature to wisdom.
The writer of Hebrews addresses the same thing, but with much harsher words:
“About this we have much to say, and it is hard to explain, since you have become dull of hearing. For though by this time you ought to be teachers, you need someone to teach you again the basic principles of the oracles of God. You need milk, not solid food, for everyone who lives on milk is unskilled in the word of righteousness, since he is a child. But solid food is for the mature, for those who have their powers of discernment trained by constant practice to distinguish good from evil. Therefore let us leave the elementary doctrine of Christ and go on to maturity, not laying again a foundation of repentance from dead works and of faith toward God…” (Hebrews 5:11–6:1).
According to this, the trouble with Christians who just want to keep things “simple,” is that they have become “dull,” “unskilled,” as well as ‘immature,’ and ‘childish.’ They are not progressing much in their understanding of divine things because they won’t wean off the milk to sink their teeth into the meat of spiritual matters. I don’t see a Christian here who is being faithful, but one who is afraid. It isn't the ones who think deeply about the complexities of their faith who are being unfaithful, but the ones who keep clinging to the breast, like babies, perhaps because they are impressed and feel threatened by the learning of nonbelievers?
The apostle Peter actually refers to parts of Scripture as not simple, but difficult to understand:
“Therefore, beloved, since you are waiting for these, be diligent to be found by him without spot or blemish, and at peace. And count the patience of our Lord as salvation, just as our beloved brother Paul also wrote to you according to the wisdom given him, as he does in all his letters when he speaks in them of these matters. There are some things in them that are hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the other Scriptures. You therefore, beloved, knowing this beforehand, take care that you are not carried away with the error of lawless people and lose your own stability. But grow in the grace and knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. To him be the glory both now and to the day of eternity. Amen.” (2 Peter 3:14–18)
I will let those verses speak for themselves, but I also did a word search on the term “simple” in the ESV. The term appeared twenty times in nineteen verses and not a single one of them said anything good about being “simple,” but condemned it in a wide variety of ways:
Being “simple” means to lack in knowledge. It is not good to lack in knowledge, particularly when the simplicity is voluntary and self imposed. Part of our walk with Christ is to be transformed by the renewal of our minds, to take every thought captive for Him, and to love God with our minds. We do not stand on the alleged “simplicity” of the Gospel. Instead, we stand on the Gospel. There simply is nothing in the Bible to warrant attitudes which foster anti-intellectualism. Rather, the problem with such thinking is that it causes all manners of miseries and troubles, even apostasies and heresies. It causes endless quarreling because irrationality denies reality, falsely divides over doctrines which belong together, and attempts to unify things that God has divided.
The simple cannot be as wise as a serpent, nor can he destroy the lofty arguments raised against the glory of God because he does not understand them. He commends those who contradict him and attacks those who agree with him. He does not act out of knowledge, faith, or wisdom, but out of impulse, fear, and ignorance. He usually loathes instruction but is quick to chastise others. He should learn to listen to wisdom as child, so that he might mature in the faith.
Considerations on the Destruction of Society Pt. 1
Been thinking....
A progressive liberal is like a barren mother, a childless viper who steals the eggs from another bird's nest.
Why would I say that?
Statistically speaking, progressive liberals, who tend to be academically minded, are not having enough children to replace themselves. They tend to focus much more on their careers in the university or in politics, opting to have children later in life, if they have any at all. So to whom do they spread their views about the way things are?
...To the impressionable children of unsuspecting religious people of course.
And they do it on someone else's dollar to someone else's kid, all across the country, in colleges and schools. What do they teach? Liberal progressivism. But to understand the worldview of a these progressives, one must understand it's core, foundational principle--the DNA of its view about the world. And what is that?
The Hegelian Dialectic.
This is the DNA of their entire worldview, the core philosophy through which they evaluate reality. It works something like this: Thesis + Antithesis = Synthesis. Hegel was a German philosopher who, in the wake of Immanuel Kant, rejected the notion that human beings had access to objective, absolute truths, or the essences of things. Instead, what Hegel did was to promote what he called the "zeitgeist," meaning the "time spirit." What this meant was that, throughout time, humankind was progressively becoming more and more knowledgeable...enlightened, so to speak. It's the idea that the history of mankind was a like a spirit, moving closer by degrees toward a purer truth. So, out with the old, traditional ways of thinking, and in with the new.
The dialectic is like the engine of this process. The old traditional views (the thesis) would be challenged by the new views (the antithesis), usually held by younger people, and would gradually produce a changed society (the synthesis). The new synthesis would become the old thesis, and on and on it goes. Old views would be held to be "primitive," "outdated," or "obsolete," while new views would be seen as "cutting edge," "innovative," and so forth.
Progressivism redefines the role of the politician as well as the role of the educator. In education, the goal is "change" and "moving on to a better tomorrow." The schools are the most important battleground for the progressive thinker because, in it, there are all sorts of malleable minds waiting to be shaped for tomorrow. The schools become the place where students learn to reject the obsolete views of their primitive parents (thesis), and replace it with new and cutting edge ideas (antithesis), which leads society into a new age, with different ideas and beliefs about the world (synthesis). Who pays the educator and the politicians to undermine them? The parents. Who produces the children and unwittingly hands them over to a system designed to undermine their traditional views? Mostly, religious parents.
What is important to understand about Liberal Progressivism and the Hegelian Dialectic is that the conflict never ends. Since society is always moving toward an infinite truth, then it never really reaches it. New ideas will always become old, and will always give way to a new challenge. The State will always be there to manipulate its citizenry and the educator will always undermine the values of the parent. The son will always despise his father, and society will always keep on fragmenting until it falls apart.
Nazi Germany believed in this notion of progress, and Socialism became the new fad of government all throughout Europe. Karl Marx co-opted the dialectic, viewing mankind as a material commodity, and applied it to class warfare. The new dialectic would now mean the bourgeois versus the proletariat and would eventually synthesize into a new utopia, the Communistic State.
In terms of the American classroom, truth is a temporary, fleeting thing. Old, traditional models of knowledge give way to new models of learning and knowing...until those, likewise, grow old and become replaced by a new controversy. The student is not subjected to an emphasis on "factual based" knowledge. He is defintely not taught logic. Rather, he is encouraged to read the opinings of other progressives and talk about his feelings and speculations with a group, directed by a progressive facilitator, of course. His thoughts on the matter, where they convey any semblance of traditional values (such as those taught to him by his father), are discouraged by the facilitator and the group. It is the acquisition of knowledge on the basis of peer-pressure, authority, and group consensus, in short, "herd mentality."
This is why the world is changing. This is what it means to be a "Progressive" or a "Socialist" or a "Communist." This is what it means to be a "Liberal" and to constantly embrace change. The only thing truly evil to such people is yesterday, always yesterday. But in some sort of cosmic design of bittersweet irony, they are forever cursed to repeat all those yesterdays. Like a mouse trapped in a caged wheel, always running but never arriving anywhere. Always reaching a group consensus, but forever fragmenting...until society crumbles and they start anew.
Why would I say that?
Statistically speaking, progressive liberals, who tend to be academically minded, are not having enough children to replace themselves. They tend to focus much more on their careers in the university or in politics, opting to have children later in life, if they have any at all. So to whom do they spread their views about the way things are?
...To the impressionable children of unsuspecting religious people of course.
And they do it on someone else's dollar to someone else's kid, all across the country, in colleges and schools. What do they teach? Liberal progressivism. But to understand the worldview of a these progressives, one must understand it's core, foundational principle--the DNA of its view about the world. And what is that?
The Hegelian Dialectic.
This is the DNA of their entire worldview, the core philosophy through which they evaluate reality. It works something like this: Thesis + Antithesis = Synthesis. Hegel was a German philosopher who, in the wake of Immanuel Kant, rejected the notion that human beings had access to objective, absolute truths, or the essences of things. Instead, what Hegel did was to promote what he called the "zeitgeist," meaning the "time spirit." What this meant was that, throughout time, humankind was progressively becoming more and more knowledgeable...enlightened, so to speak. It's the idea that the history of mankind was a like a spirit, moving closer by degrees toward a purer truth. So, out with the old, traditional ways of thinking, and in with the new.
The dialectic is like the engine of this process. The old traditional views (the thesis) would be challenged by the new views (the antithesis), usually held by younger people, and would gradually produce a changed society (the synthesis). The new synthesis would become the old thesis, and on and on it goes. Old views would be held to be "primitive," "outdated," or "obsolete," while new views would be seen as "cutting edge," "innovative," and so forth.
Progressivism redefines the role of the politician as well as the role of the educator. In education, the goal is "change" and "moving on to a better tomorrow." The schools are the most important battleground for the progressive thinker because, in it, there are all sorts of malleable minds waiting to be shaped for tomorrow. The schools become the place where students learn to reject the obsolete views of their primitive parents (thesis), and replace it with new and cutting edge ideas (antithesis), which leads society into a new age, with different ideas and beliefs about the world (synthesis). Who pays the educator and the politicians to undermine them? The parents. Who produces the children and unwittingly hands them over to a system designed to undermine their traditional views? Mostly, religious parents.
What is important to understand about Liberal Progressivism and the Hegelian Dialectic is that the conflict never ends. Since society is always moving toward an infinite truth, then it never really reaches it. New ideas will always become old, and will always give way to a new challenge. The State will always be there to manipulate its citizenry and the educator will always undermine the values of the parent. The son will always despise his father, and society will always keep on fragmenting until it falls apart.
Nazi Germany believed in this notion of progress, and Socialism became the new fad of government all throughout Europe. Karl Marx co-opted the dialectic, viewing mankind as a material commodity, and applied it to class warfare. The new dialectic would now mean the bourgeois versus the proletariat and would eventually synthesize into a new utopia, the Communistic State.
In terms of the American classroom, truth is a temporary, fleeting thing. Old, traditional models of knowledge give way to new models of learning and knowing...until those, likewise, grow old and become replaced by a new controversy. The student is not subjected to an emphasis on "factual based" knowledge. He is defintely not taught logic. Rather, he is encouraged to read the opinings of other progressives and talk about his feelings and speculations with a group, directed by a progressive facilitator, of course. His thoughts on the matter, where they convey any semblance of traditional values (such as those taught to him by his father), are discouraged by the facilitator and the group. It is the acquisition of knowledge on the basis of peer-pressure, authority, and group consensus, in short, "herd mentality."
This is why the world is changing. This is what it means to be a "Progressive" or a "Socialist" or a "Communist." This is what it means to be a "Liberal" and to constantly embrace change. The only thing truly evil to such people is yesterday, always yesterday. But in some sort of cosmic design of bittersweet irony, they are forever cursed to repeat all those yesterdays. Like a mouse trapped in a caged wheel, always running but never arriving anywhere. Always reaching a group consensus, but forever fragmenting...until society crumbles and they start anew.
Is the consumption of alcoholic drinks, such as beer or wine, permitted by Scripture?
Is the consumption of alcoholic drinks, such as beer or wine, permitted by Scripture?
The short answer is yes, moderate consumption of alcoholic beverages is permitted by the word of God. It is not sinful to drink an alcoholic beverage, per se. There are exceptions, of course, some of which I will address later, but first let’s have a look at a list of Bible verses that seem to contradict my stance on the permissibility of alcohol. The list posted below consists of seventy-one verses, by my count, nicely organized into thirty-one counterarguments. Since it was offered as a refutation, let’s take a quick look at it to see what some of those counterarguments are:
1) Leviticus 10:9-11 - God commanded priests not to drink so that they could tell the difference between the holy and the unholy.
2) Numbers 6:3 - The Nazarites were told to eat or drink nothing from the grape vine.
3) Deuteronomy 29:5-6 - God gave no grape juice to Israel nor did they have intoxicating drink in the wilderness.
4) Judges 13:4, 7, 14 - Samson was to be a Nazarite for life. His mother was told not to drink wine or strong drink.
5) Psalm 75:8 - The Lord’s anger is pictured as mixed wine poured out and drunk by the wicked.
6) Proverbs 4:17 - Alcoholic drink is called the wine of violence.
7) Proverbs 20:1 - Wine is a mocker, strong drink is raging.
8) Proverbs 23:19-20 - A wise person will not be among the drinkers of alcoholic beverages.
9) Proverbs 23:31 - God instructs not to look at intoxicating drinks.
10) Proverbs 23:32 - Alcoholic drinks bite like a serpent, sting like an adder.
11) Proverbs 23:34 - Alcohol makes the drinker unstable
12) Proverbs 31:4-5 - Kings, Princes, and others who rule and judge must not drink alcohol. Alcohol perverts good judgment.
13) Proverbs 31:6-7 - Strong drink could be given to those about to perish or those in pain. Better anesthetics are available today.
14) Ecclesiastes 10:17 - A land is blessed when its leaders do not drink.
15) Isaiah 56:9-12 - Drinkers seek their own gain and expect tomorrow to be just like today.
16) Jeremiah 35:2-14 - The Rechabites drank no grape juice or intoxicating wine and were blessed.
17) Ezekiel 44:21 - Again God instructed the priests not to drink wine.
18) Daniel 1:5-17 - Daniel refused the king’s intoxicating wine and was blessed for it along with his abstaining friends.
19) Habakkuk 2:5 - A man is betrayed by wine.
20) Habakkuk 2:15 - Woe to him that gives his neighbor drink.
21) Habakkuk 2:16 - Drinking leads to shame.
22) Luke 1:15 - John the Baptist drank neither grape juice nor wine.
23) Romans 14:21 - Do not do anything that will hurt your testimony as a believer.
24) 1 Corinthians 5:11 - If a Christian brother is a drinker, do not associate with him.
25) 1 Thessalonians 5:6-7 - Christians are to be alert and self-controlled, belonging to the day. Drunkards belong to the night and darkness.
26) 1 Timothy 3:2-3 - Bishops (elders) are to be temperate, sober, and not near any wine.
27) 1 Timothy 3:8 - Deacons are to be worthy of respect and not drinkers.
24) 1 Corinthians 5:11 - If a Christian brother is a drinker, do not associate with him.
The short answer is yes, moderate consumption of alcoholic beverages is permitted by the word of God. It is not sinful to drink an alcoholic beverage, per se. There are exceptions, of course, some of which I will address later, but first let’s have a look at a list of Bible verses that seem to contradict my stance on the permissibility of alcohol. The list posted below consists of seventy-one verses, by my count, nicely organized into thirty-one counterarguments. Since it was offered as a refutation, let’s take a quick look at it to see what some of those counterarguments are:
1) Leviticus 10:9-11 - God commanded priests not to drink so that they could tell the difference between the holy and the unholy.
2) Numbers 6:3 - The Nazarites were told to eat or drink nothing from the grape vine.
3) Deuteronomy 29:5-6 - God gave no grape juice to Israel nor did they have intoxicating drink in the wilderness.
4) Judges 13:4, 7, 14 - Samson was to be a Nazarite for life. His mother was told not to drink wine or strong drink.
5) Psalm 75:8 - The Lord’s anger is pictured as mixed wine poured out and drunk by the wicked.
6) Proverbs 4:17 - Alcoholic drink is called the wine of violence.
7) Proverbs 20:1 - Wine is a mocker, strong drink is raging.
8) Proverbs 23:19-20 - A wise person will not be among the drinkers of alcoholic beverages.
9) Proverbs 23:31 - God instructs not to look at intoxicating drinks.
10) Proverbs 23:32 - Alcoholic drinks bite like a serpent, sting like an adder.
11) Proverbs 23:34 - Alcohol makes the drinker unstable
12) Proverbs 31:4-5 - Kings, Princes, and others who rule and judge must not drink alcohol. Alcohol perverts good judgment.
13) Proverbs 31:6-7 - Strong drink could be given to those about to perish or those in pain. Better anesthetics are available today.
14) Ecclesiastes 10:17 - A land is blessed when its leaders do not drink.
15) Isaiah 56:9-12 - Drinkers seek their own gain and expect tomorrow to be just like today.
16) Jeremiah 35:2-14 - The Rechabites drank no grape juice or intoxicating wine and were blessed.
17) Ezekiel 44:21 - Again God instructed the priests not to drink wine.
18) Daniel 1:5-17 - Daniel refused the king’s intoxicating wine and was blessed for it along with his abstaining friends.
19) Habakkuk 2:5 - A man is betrayed by wine.
20) Habakkuk 2:15 - Woe to him that gives his neighbor drink.
21) Habakkuk 2:16 - Drinking leads to shame.
22) Luke 1:15 - John the Baptist drank neither grape juice nor wine.
23) Romans 14:21 - Do not do anything that will hurt your testimony as a believer.
24) 1 Corinthians 5:11 - If a Christian brother is a drinker, do not associate with him.
25) 1 Thessalonians 5:6-7 - Christians are to be alert and self-controlled, belonging to the day. Drunkards belong to the night and darkness.
26) 1 Timothy 3:2-3 - Bishops (elders) are to be temperate, sober, and not near any wine.
27) 1 Timothy 3:8 - Deacons are to be worthy of respect and not drinkers.
28) 1 Timothy 3:11 - Deacons’ wives are to be temperate and sober.
29) Titus 1:7-8 - An overseer is to be disciplined.
30) Titus 2:2-3 - The older men and older women of the church are to be temperate and not addicted to wine.
31) 1 Peter 4:3-4 - The past life of drunkenness and carousing has no place in the Christian’s life.
While the list appears very large, perhaps even overwhelmingly incriminating to my stance on alcoholic drinks, the truth of the matter is that not a single one of them actually forbids Christians from having a beer, or a glass of wine. Almost all of these are actually prohibitions against drunkenness and alcoholism, and do not pertain to moderate use of alcohol. Others refer to special priestly restrictions, like those given to the “Nazarites,” [sic] and are no longer relevant today any more than the Old Testament prohibitions against shell fish or pork. And a good number of these are rather misleading, or irresponsible in their handling of sacred texts.
For example, the very first set of verses on this list, says that Leviticus 10:9-11 means that “God commanded priests not to drink so that they could tell the difference between the holy and the unholy,” giving the impression that God commanded priests not to drink, ever. The part that it omits, however, is a rather important detail to the question we are investigating: It tells priests not to drink “when you go into the tent of meeting.” The inference here is obvious enough—priests may drink outside the tent of meeting, but not in it.
Since the very first item on this list is actually shown to be misleading, it makes one wonder what the rest of them have to offer. While I’ll briefly comment on all of them at the end of this paper, let’s take another example. Consider item number nine—does anyone seriously think that God is really restricting that all Christians in all times are not to even “look at intoxicating drinks?” Obviously, someone’s interpretation has gone awry, so let’s look at the context of the passage:
“Who has woe? Who has sorrow? Who has strife? Who has complaining? Who has wounds without cause? Who has redness of eyes? Those who tarry long over wine; those who go to try mixed wine. Do not look at wine when it is red, when it sparkles in the cup and goes down smoothly. In the end it bites like a serpent and stings like an adder. Your eyes will see strange things, and your heart utter perverse things. You will be like one who lies down in the midst of the sea, like one who lies on the top of a mast. “They struck me,” you will say, “but I was not hurt; they beat me, but I did not feel it. When shall I awake? I must have another drink.”” (Proverbs 23:29–35, ESV)
The context deals with that of a very severe alcoholic, so much so that his addiction causes him to hallucinate, a rare psychosis induced by lots of alcohol, and to pass out. This passage from Proverbs advises readers not to fall into such a state. It is a poetic form of writing intended to offer wise counsel, or advice, about the dangers of such temptations. It is a warning against the temptations that lead to loss of self-control, not an apodictic command to not even look at red wine. Poetry and wisdom literature should never be read as though they were more technical, legal writings. They are very different genres of literature, with very different conventions of writing and rules of communication. Poetic language is figurative, as the proverb here shows. Applying this proverb as legal speech to someone having a glass of wine with their dinner seems like a long stretch of the imagination, not to mention the text.
With two of the items addressed, and twenty-nine more to go, let us leave this list for now, and turn to Scriptures that actually do cause problems for those who would want to universally prohibit what God has allowed.
“Give strong drink to the one who is perishing, and wine to those in bitter distress; let them drink and forget their poverty and remember their misery no more.” (Proverbs 31:6–7)
This one actually shows up as number thirteen on that list, but the compiler attempts to refute it by saying, “Better anesthetics are available today.” Of course, this is not true for everyone, and it is also beside the point. The point is that the Bible allows intoxicating amounts of alcohol to be given to those who are perishing. Notice how the compiler wants to believe that alcohol consumption is unilaterally wrong, even though the Scriptures clearly contradict him?
“You cause the grass to grow for the livestock and plants for man to cultivate, that he may bring forth food from the earth and wine to gladden the heart of man, oil to make his face shine and bread to strengthen man’s heart.” (Psalm 104:14–15)
29) Titus 1:7-8 - An overseer is to be disciplined.
30) Titus 2:2-3 - The older men and older women of the church are to be temperate and not addicted to wine.
31) 1 Peter 4:3-4 - The past life of drunkenness and carousing has no place in the Christian’s life.
While the list appears very large, perhaps even overwhelmingly incriminating to my stance on alcoholic drinks, the truth of the matter is that not a single one of them actually forbids Christians from having a beer, or a glass of wine. Almost all of these are actually prohibitions against drunkenness and alcoholism, and do not pertain to moderate use of alcohol. Others refer to special priestly restrictions, like those given to the “Nazarites,” [sic] and are no longer relevant today any more than the Old Testament prohibitions against shell fish or pork. And a good number of these are rather misleading, or irresponsible in their handling of sacred texts.
For example, the very first set of verses on this list, says that Leviticus 10:9-11 means that “God commanded priests not to drink so that they could tell the difference between the holy and the unholy,” giving the impression that God commanded priests not to drink, ever. The part that it omits, however, is a rather important detail to the question we are investigating: It tells priests not to drink “when you go into the tent of meeting.” The inference here is obvious enough—priests may drink outside the tent of meeting, but not in it.
Since the very first item on this list is actually shown to be misleading, it makes one wonder what the rest of them have to offer. While I’ll briefly comment on all of them at the end of this paper, let’s take another example. Consider item number nine—does anyone seriously think that God is really restricting that all Christians in all times are not to even “look at intoxicating drinks?” Obviously, someone’s interpretation has gone awry, so let’s look at the context of the passage:
“Who has woe? Who has sorrow? Who has strife? Who has complaining? Who has wounds without cause? Who has redness of eyes? Those who tarry long over wine; those who go to try mixed wine. Do not look at wine when it is red, when it sparkles in the cup and goes down smoothly. In the end it bites like a serpent and stings like an adder. Your eyes will see strange things, and your heart utter perverse things. You will be like one who lies down in the midst of the sea, like one who lies on the top of a mast. “They struck me,” you will say, “but I was not hurt; they beat me, but I did not feel it. When shall I awake? I must have another drink.”” (Proverbs 23:29–35, ESV)
The context deals with that of a very severe alcoholic, so much so that his addiction causes him to hallucinate, a rare psychosis induced by lots of alcohol, and to pass out. This passage from Proverbs advises readers not to fall into such a state. It is a poetic form of writing intended to offer wise counsel, or advice, about the dangers of such temptations. It is a warning against the temptations that lead to loss of self-control, not an apodictic command to not even look at red wine. Poetry and wisdom literature should never be read as though they were more technical, legal writings. They are very different genres of literature, with very different conventions of writing and rules of communication. Poetic language is figurative, as the proverb here shows. Applying this proverb as legal speech to someone having a glass of wine with their dinner seems like a long stretch of the imagination, not to mention the text.
With two of the items addressed, and twenty-nine more to go, let us leave this list for now, and turn to Scriptures that actually do cause problems for those who would want to universally prohibit what God has allowed.
“Give strong drink to the one who is perishing, and wine to those in bitter distress; let them drink and forget their poverty and remember their misery no more.” (Proverbs 31:6–7)
This one actually shows up as number thirteen on that list, but the compiler attempts to refute it by saying, “Better anesthetics are available today.” Of course, this is not true for everyone, and it is also beside the point. The point is that the Bible allows intoxicating amounts of alcohol to be given to those who are perishing. Notice how the compiler wants to believe that alcohol consumption is unilaterally wrong, even though the Scriptures clearly contradict him?
“You cause the grass to grow for the livestock and plants for man to cultivate, that he may bring forth food from the earth and wine to gladden the heart of man, oil to make his face shine and bread to strengthen man’s heart.” (Psalm 104:14–15)
According to this section, God makes wine to make men happy, which is a very strange thing for the psalmist to say if we are unilaterally forbidden to drink it, let alone look at it.
The truth of the matter is that in the ancient world of the Bible, alcoholic drinks such as wine were very commonplace. Grapes were the biggest business in agriculture, and most of that went into making wines. Wine was so pervasive to the typical near-easterner that the entire Bible has countless references and allusions to it. It was a part of their everyday life. Jesus himself spoke of wineskins, vineyards, wine presses, and even produced wine clearly intended for consumption. His first miracle, at the wedding at Cana, was turning water into choice wine.
“On the third day there was a wedding at Cana in Galilee, and the mother of Jesus was there. Jesus also was invited to the wedding with his disciples. When the wine ran out, the mother of Jesus said to him, “They have no wine.” And Jesus said to her, “Woman, what does this have to do with me? My hour has not yet come.” His mother said to the servants, “Do whatever he tells you.” Now there were six stone water jars there for the Jewish rites of purification, each holding twenty or thirty gallons. Jesus said to the servants, “Fill the jars with water.” And they filled them up to the brim. And he said to them, “Now draw some out and take it to the master of the feast.” So they took it. When the master of the feast tasted the water now become wine, and did not know where it came from (though the servants who had drawn the water knew), the master of the feast called the bridegroom and said to him, “Everyone serves the good wine first, and when people have drunk freely, then the poor wine. But you have kept the good wine until now.” This, the first of his signs, Jesus did at Cana in Galilee, and manifested his glory. And his disciples believed in him.” (John 2:1–11)
Something interesting to note is that it was customary for the best wine to be consumed first by the wedding guests, then they would move on to drink the lesser quality wines. However, Jesus’ wine was superior to all the wine previously offered at the wedding, and according one commentary, he made approximately 120 gallons of it as a gift to the couple. Does anyone seriously believe that He forbade the drinking of it?
Moving on, I am rather pleased that our list brings up John the Baptist being forbidden to drink wine because it helps to establish my next point. Just as the Nazirites had accepted the total prohibition against wine, so too did John the Baptist.
“And you [Elizabeth] will have joy and gladness, and many will rejoice at his birth, for he [John the Baptist] will be great before the Lord. And he must not drink wine or strong drink, and he will be filled with the Holy Spirit, even from his mother’s womb.” (Luke 1:14–15)
However, if the compiler of the list mentioned above wants to argue that the vows of the Nazirites should apply to Christians, then all of those vows must apply as well. He cannot cut his hair, for example. He must give offerings at the tent of meeting (which would constitute a denial of the sufficiency of Christ’s sacrifice), he must not eat grapes or raisins either. John, much like the Nazirites, lived under the laws of Moses, so all of those would apply as well. (See Numbers 6:1-21)
Nonetheless, the real reason I bring up John the Baptist is not to point out his prohibitions, but to contrast his prohibitions, which are under the law, with the freedom of Jesus, who is greater than the Law of Moses. Regarding John, the Scriptures record Jesus saying, in Matthew 11:18, “For John came neither eating nor drinking, and they say, ‘He has a demon.’”
After proclaiming to an unbelieving people that John was the greatest prophet, Jesus indicates John’s abstinence from wine and strong drink. However, about Himself Jesus continues to say, “The Son of Man came eating and drinking, and they say, ‘Look at him! A glutton and a drunkard, a friend of tax collectors and sinners!’ Yet wisdom is justified by her deeds.”” (Matthew 11:19).
Note that Jesus is saying that John abstained, but that He, Himself, did not. It is irrefutable that the inference here is that Jesus drank alcoholic beverages. His contrasting Himself to John’s abstinence makes no sense otherwise. To some, Jesus’ eating and drinking with tax collectors and sinners would likely fall under the category of having the “appearance of evil.” They certainly condemned Him as a “glutton and a drunkard,” much like some folks do today when they see a Christian with a beer or a glass of wine. However, according to this passage he does not abstain from any alleged “appearance of evil,” but rebukes them for their hypocrisy and uncharitable judgments.
The truth of the matter is that in the ancient world of the Bible, alcoholic drinks such as wine were very commonplace. Grapes were the biggest business in agriculture, and most of that went into making wines. Wine was so pervasive to the typical near-easterner that the entire Bible has countless references and allusions to it. It was a part of their everyday life. Jesus himself spoke of wineskins, vineyards, wine presses, and even produced wine clearly intended for consumption. His first miracle, at the wedding at Cana, was turning water into choice wine.
“On the third day there was a wedding at Cana in Galilee, and the mother of Jesus was there. Jesus also was invited to the wedding with his disciples. When the wine ran out, the mother of Jesus said to him, “They have no wine.” And Jesus said to her, “Woman, what does this have to do with me? My hour has not yet come.” His mother said to the servants, “Do whatever he tells you.” Now there were six stone water jars there for the Jewish rites of purification, each holding twenty or thirty gallons. Jesus said to the servants, “Fill the jars with water.” And they filled them up to the brim. And he said to them, “Now draw some out and take it to the master of the feast.” So they took it. When the master of the feast tasted the water now become wine, and did not know where it came from (though the servants who had drawn the water knew), the master of the feast called the bridegroom and said to him, “Everyone serves the good wine first, and when people have drunk freely, then the poor wine. But you have kept the good wine until now.” This, the first of his signs, Jesus did at Cana in Galilee, and manifested his glory. And his disciples believed in him.” (John 2:1–11)
Something interesting to note is that it was customary for the best wine to be consumed first by the wedding guests, then they would move on to drink the lesser quality wines. However, Jesus’ wine was superior to all the wine previously offered at the wedding, and according one commentary, he made approximately 120 gallons of it as a gift to the couple. Does anyone seriously believe that He forbade the drinking of it?
Moving on, I am rather pleased that our list brings up John the Baptist being forbidden to drink wine because it helps to establish my next point. Just as the Nazirites had accepted the total prohibition against wine, so too did John the Baptist.
“And you [Elizabeth] will have joy and gladness, and many will rejoice at his birth, for he [John the Baptist] will be great before the Lord. And he must not drink wine or strong drink, and he will be filled with the Holy Spirit, even from his mother’s womb.” (Luke 1:14–15)
However, if the compiler of the list mentioned above wants to argue that the vows of the Nazirites should apply to Christians, then all of those vows must apply as well. He cannot cut his hair, for example. He must give offerings at the tent of meeting (which would constitute a denial of the sufficiency of Christ’s sacrifice), he must not eat grapes or raisins either. John, much like the Nazirites, lived under the laws of Moses, so all of those would apply as well. (See Numbers 6:1-21)
Nonetheless, the real reason I bring up John the Baptist is not to point out his prohibitions, but to contrast his prohibitions, which are under the law, with the freedom of Jesus, who is greater than the Law of Moses. Regarding John, the Scriptures record Jesus saying, in Matthew 11:18, “For John came neither eating nor drinking, and they say, ‘He has a demon.’”
After proclaiming to an unbelieving people that John was the greatest prophet, Jesus indicates John’s abstinence from wine and strong drink. However, about Himself Jesus continues to say, “The Son of Man came eating and drinking, and they say, ‘Look at him! A glutton and a drunkard, a friend of tax collectors and sinners!’ Yet wisdom is justified by her deeds.”” (Matthew 11:19).
Note that Jesus is saying that John abstained, but that He, Himself, did not. It is irrefutable that the inference here is that Jesus drank alcoholic beverages. His contrasting Himself to John’s abstinence makes no sense otherwise. To some, Jesus’ eating and drinking with tax collectors and sinners would likely fall under the category of having the “appearance of evil.” They certainly condemned Him as a “glutton and a drunkard,” much like some folks do today when they see a Christian with a beer or a glass of wine. However, according to this passage he does not abstain from any alleged “appearance of evil,” but rebukes them for their hypocrisy and uncharitable judgments.
At any rate, not only did Jesus provide wine for a wedding, and not only did He drink wine Himself, He also commanded His disciples to drink it and instituted its consumption in the Lord’s Supper:
“And when the hour came, he reclined at table, and the apostles with him. And he said to them, “I have earnestly desired to eat this Passover with you before I suffer. For I tell you I will not eat it until it is fulfilled in the kingdom of God.” And he took a cup, and when he had given thanks he said, “Take this, and divide it among yourselves. For I tell you that from now on I will not drink of the fruit of the vine until the kingdom of God comes.” And he took bread, and when he had given thanks, he broke it and gave it to them, saying, “This is my body, which is given for you. Do this in remembrance of me.” And likewise the cup after they had eaten, saying, “This cup that is poured out for you is the new covenant in my blood.” (Luke 22:14–20)
The phrase “fruit of the vine,” quite obviously refers to wine. This is how countless scholars and theologians have understood that phrase throughout history, and wine was definitely used for the Lord’s Supper as per the Apostle Paul’s instructions in 1 Corinthians 11:20-34, since he rebukes that church for becoming drunk from it.
Speaking of Paul, he also instructs the elder Timothy to drink wine for his maladies:
“No longer drink only water, but use a little wine for the sake of your stomach and your frequent ailments.” (1 Timothy 5:23)
So not only are there no biblical passages or verses that forbid the moderate consumption of alcoholic beverages to Christians, many of those offered to support such a notion actually end up inferring the opposite (see my refutation of the list below). Furthermore, there are the additional problems that Jesus provided wine for others to drink, instructed others to drink it, and actually drank it Himself. And not only does Paul tell Timothy to consume it, but the Bible actually celebrates wine as gift from the Lord, given to make men happy.
Romans 14 describe the actions and the mindset of Christian maturity. The brother who is free to partake is always portrayed as the stronger brother because he understands that everything that has been made clean, and made by God for him to partake…this includes wine. The weaker brother, however, stumbles over his freedom, thinking some things profane and unclean. To partake in them violates his conscience because of his lack of belief, and to him it is sin.
Nonetheless, both brothers are God’s workmanship: His song, and His poem. And just as any of God’s poems, His verses shall not be construed to be opposing one another. He causes both to stand—the stronger and the weaker. The stronger brother is free to partake in wine, but not as to cause his brother to stumble. The weaker brother is not to judge the stronger brother, bringing him back under the law.
The stronger brother, while free to drink, should not drink, if it violates the weaker one, tempting him to sin. In such a case, both would be guilty of the weaker brother’s sin. The weaker brother sins because he did not honor God, but went against his conscience, drinking evil to himself. The stronger brother sins because he cherished wine more than he loved his brother. Our brothers and sisters in the Lord are infinitely more valuable than wine.
However, the church also should not allow the tainted consciences of its weaker brothers to become bondages to those who are free because we no longer live under the law. It would be a denial of God’s provisions and grace to the church. Consider what is written to the Colossians:
“If with Christ you died to the elemental spirits of the world, why, as if you were still alive in the world, do you submit to regulations— “Do not handle, Do not taste, Do not touch” (referring to things that all perish as they are used)—according to human precepts and teachings? These have indeed an appearance of wisdom in promoting self-made religion and asceticism and severity to the body, but they are of no value in stopping the indulgence of the flesh.” (Colossians 2:20–23)
God does not judge the one who eats or the one who drinks, and neither should any Christian. Passing prohibitions, where God does not judge, is to deny God’s judgment on such matters. It elevates the mere opinions of weaker brothers over the God-given freedoms of stronger brothers, causing the weaker to rebuke those who are free. Also, as Paul points out, they are of no value in stopping the indulgences of the flesh anyway. So why institute them? Is it because we believe in the power of laws and prohibitions more than the presence of God? So I submit Romans 14 to the reader for careful examination and study.
For those of you interested, my refutation of the remaining issues compiled are below. My response comes after each one:
1) Leviticus 10:9-11 - God commanded priests not to drink so that they could tell the difference between the holy and the unholy.
“And when the hour came, he reclined at table, and the apostles with him. And he said to them, “I have earnestly desired to eat this Passover with you before I suffer. For I tell you I will not eat it until it is fulfilled in the kingdom of God.” And he took a cup, and when he had given thanks he said, “Take this, and divide it among yourselves. For I tell you that from now on I will not drink of the fruit of the vine until the kingdom of God comes.” And he took bread, and when he had given thanks, he broke it and gave it to them, saying, “This is my body, which is given for you. Do this in remembrance of me.” And likewise the cup after they had eaten, saying, “This cup that is poured out for you is the new covenant in my blood.” (Luke 22:14–20)
The phrase “fruit of the vine,” quite obviously refers to wine. This is how countless scholars and theologians have understood that phrase throughout history, and wine was definitely used for the Lord’s Supper as per the Apostle Paul’s instructions in 1 Corinthians 11:20-34, since he rebukes that church for becoming drunk from it.
Speaking of Paul, he also instructs the elder Timothy to drink wine for his maladies:
“No longer drink only water, but use a little wine for the sake of your stomach and your frequent ailments.” (1 Timothy 5:23)
So not only are there no biblical passages or verses that forbid the moderate consumption of alcoholic beverages to Christians, many of those offered to support such a notion actually end up inferring the opposite (see my refutation of the list below). Furthermore, there are the additional problems that Jesus provided wine for others to drink, instructed others to drink it, and actually drank it Himself. And not only does Paul tell Timothy to consume it, but the Bible actually celebrates wine as gift from the Lord, given to make men happy.
Romans 14 describe the actions and the mindset of Christian maturity. The brother who is free to partake is always portrayed as the stronger brother because he understands that everything that has been made clean, and made by God for him to partake…this includes wine. The weaker brother, however, stumbles over his freedom, thinking some things profane and unclean. To partake in them violates his conscience because of his lack of belief, and to him it is sin.
Nonetheless, both brothers are God’s workmanship: His song, and His poem. And just as any of God’s poems, His verses shall not be construed to be opposing one another. He causes both to stand—the stronger and the weaker. The stronger brother is free to partake in wine, but not as to cause his brother to stumble. The weaker brother is not to judge the stronger brother, bringing him back under the law.
The stronger brother, while free to drink, should not drink, if it violates the weaker one, tempting him to sin. In such a case, both would be guilty of the weaker brother’s sin. The weaker brother sins because he did not honor God, but went against his conscience, drinking evil to himself. The stronger brother sins because he cherished wine more than he loved his brother. Our brothers and sisters in the Lord are infinitely more valuable than wine.
However, the church also should not allow the tainted consciences of its weaker brothers to become bondages to those who are free because we no longer live under the law. It would be a denial of God’s provisions and grace to the church. Consider what is written to the Colossians:
“If with Christ you died to the elemental spirits of the world, why, as if you were still alive in the world, do you submit to regulations— “Do not handle, Do not taste, Do not touch” (referring to things that all perish as they are used)—according to human precepts and teachings? These have indeed an appearance of wisdom in promoting self-made religion and asceticism and severity to the body, but they are of no value in stopping the indulgence of the flesh.” (Colossians 2:20–23)
God does not judge the one who eats or the one who drinks, and neither should any Christian. Passing prohibitions, where God does not judge, is to deny God’s judgment on such matters. It elevates the mere opinions of weaker brothers over the God-given freedoms of stronger brothers, causing the weaker to rebuke those who are free. Also, as Paul points out, they are of no value in stopping the indulgences of the flesh anyway. So why institute them? Is it because we believe in the power of laws and prohibitions more than the presence of God? So I submit Romans 14 to the reader for careful examination and study.
For those of you interested, my refutation of the remaining issues compiled are below. My response comes after each one:
1) Leviticus 10:9-11 - God commanded priests not to drink so that they could tell the difference between the holy and the unholy.
Already commented on this.
2) Numbers 6:3 - The Nazarites were told to eat or drink nothing from the grape vine.
Already commented on this.
3) Deuteronomy 29:5-6 - God gave no grape juice to Israel nor did they have intoxicating drink in the wilderness.
2) Numbers 6:3 - The Nazarites were told to eat or drink nothing from the grape vine.
Already commented on this.
3) Deuteronomy 29:5-6 - God gave no grape juice to Israel nor did they have intoxicating drink in the wilderness.
God also did not give them bread, but this hardly constitutes a restriction against eating it. The compiler isn’t being honest with the context of this passage, since it is not a prohibition.
4) Judges 13:4, 7, 14 - Samson was to be a Nazarite for life. His mother was told not to drink wine or strong drink.
I already dealt with Nazirites above.
5) Psalm 75:8 - The Lord’s anger is pictured as mixed wine poured out and drunk by the wicked.
Elsewhere, the Lord’s anger is also portrayed as a consuming fire, but it does not follow that fire is forbidden. Likewise, it does not follow that wine is forbidden. This is a logical fallacy.
6) Proverbs 4:17 - Alcoholic drink is called the wine of violence.
I already addressed wisdom literature and the use of poetry and figurative speech, the same thing applies here.
7) Proverbs 20:1 - Wine is a mocker, strong drink is raging.
I already addressed wisdom literature and the use of poetry and figurative speech, the same thing applies here.
8) Proverbs 23:19-20 - A wise person will not be among the drinkers of alcoholic beverages.
That is not what these verses say. The compiler has equivocated “drunkards” with “drinkers of alcoholic beverages,” evidently in an attempt to mislead. Here’s what these verses really say:
“Hear, my son, and be wise, and direct your heart in the way. Be not among drunkards or among gluttonous eaters of meat, for the drunkard and the glutton will come to poverty, and slumber will clothe them with rags.” (Proverbs 23:19–21)
9) Proverbs 23:31 - God instructs not to look at intoxicating drinks.
Already commented on this.
10) Proverbs 23:32 - Alcoholic drinks bite like a serpent, sting like an adder.
Already commented on this.
11) Proverbs 23:34 - Alcohol makes the drinker unstable
Already commented on this.
12) Proverbs 31:4-5 - Kings, Princes, and others who rule and judge must not drink alcohol. Alcohol perverts good judgment.
Context refers to drunkenness of rulers, not moderate use.
13) Proverbs 31:6-7 - Strong drink could be given to those about to perish or those in pain. Better anesthetics are available today.
Already commented on this.
14) Ecclesiastes 10:17 - A land is blessed when its leaders do not drink.
Explicitly says “drunkenness” in the verse, not moderate use.
15) Isaiah 56:9-12 - Drinkers seek their own gain and expect tomorrow to be just like today.
Context refers to drunkenness, not moderate use. It explicitly says that they filled themselves with strong drink.
4) Judges 13:4, 7, 14 - Samson was to be a Nazarite for life. His mother was told not to drink wine or strong drink.
I already dealt with Nazirites above.
5) Psalm 75:8 - The Lord’s anger is pictured as mixed wine poured out and drunk by the wicked.
Elsewhere, the Lord’s anger is also portrayed as a consuming fire, but it does not follow that fire is forbidden. Likewise, it does not follow that wine is forbidden. This is a logical fallacy.
6) Proverbs 4:17 - Alcoholic drink is called the wine of violence.
I already addressed wisdom literature and the use of poetry and figurative speech, the same thing applies here.
7) Proverbs 20:1 - Wine is a mocker, strong drink is raging.
I already addressed wisdom literature and the use of poetry and figurative speech, the same thing applies here.
8) Proverbs 23:19-20 - A wise person will not be among the drinkers of alcoholic beverages.
That is not what these verses say. The compiler has equivocated “drunkards” with “drinkers of alcoholic beverages,” evidently in an attempt to mislead. Here’s what these verses really say:
“Hear, my son, and be wise, and direct your heart in the way. Be not among drunkards or among gluttonous eaters of meat, for the drunkard and the glutton will come to poverty, and slumber will clothe them with rags.” (Proverbs 23:19–21)
9) Proverbs 23:31 - God instructs not to look at intoxicating drinks.
Already commented on this.
10) Proverbs 23:32 - Alcoholic drinks bite like a serpent, sting like an adder.
Already commented on this.
11) Proverbs 23:34 - Alcohol makes the drinker unstable
Already commented on this.
12) Proverbs 31:4-5 - Kings, Princes, and others who rule and judge must not drink alcohol. Alcohol perverts good judgment.
Context refers to drunkenness of rulers, not moderate use.
13) Proverbs 31:6-7 - Strong drink could be given to those about to perish or those in pain. Better anesthetics are available today.
Already commented on this.
14) Ecclesiastes 10:17 - A land is blessed when its leaders do not drink.
Explicitly says “drunkenness” in the verse, not moderate use.
15) Isaiah 56:9-12 - Drinkers seek their own gain and expect tomorrow to be just like today.
Context refers to drunkenness, not moderate use. It explicitly says that they filled themselves with strong drink.
16) Jeremiah 35:2-14 - The Rechabites drank no grape juice or intoxicating wine and were blessed.
This one’s particularly misleading. The Recabites were not rewarded just for not drinking wine. They were used as an example of obedience to Israel because they obeyed every word of their master, Jonadab. This included Jonadab’s prohibition on drinking wine, yes, but it also included his prohibitions on building houses and sowing seeds. They were instructed to live in tents as nomads for all their days. The point was not about prohibitions against alcohol—which Jonadab (who is not God) gave to the Recabites—but to illustrate the point that if the Recabites could so faithfully obey Jonadab, why can’t the Israelites obey God?
17) Ezekiel 44:21 - Again God instructed the priests not to drink wine.
This one’s particularly misleading. The Recabites were not rewarded just for not drinking wine. They were used as an example of obedience to Israel because they obeyed every word of their master, Jonadab. This included Jonadab’s prohibition on drinking wine, yes, but it also included his prohibitions on building houses and sowing seeds. They were instructed to live in tents as nomads for all their days. The point was not about prohibitions against alcohol—which Jonadab (who is not God) gave to the Recabites—but to illustrate the point that if the Recabites could so faithfully obey Jonadab, why can’t the Israelites obey God?
17) Ezekiel 44:21 - Again God instructed the priests not to drink wine.
And once again we have another important omission: “…when they enter the inner court.” They may drink when they are not in the inner court. Also, laws ascribed to Levitical priests do not apply to Christians.
18) Daniel 1:5-17 - Daniel refused the king’s intoxicating wine and was blessed for it along with his abstaining friends.
He also would not eat the food because it was “unclean” to him, and would defile him as a Jew. Furthermore, Jews would dilute their wine to avoid intoxication—because they drank wine in moderation and avoided drunkenness—but a Babylonian like Nebuchadnezzar would not have diluted his wine. So the reason Daniel did not partake was because foods and drinks prepared by Gentiles would have defiled him and he probably did not want to become intoxicated. But to the church, God has made all things clean, all things are permissible. Jews, like Daniel, did not have such a luxury.
19) Habakkuk 2:5 - A man is betrayed by wine.
Actually this is from another poetic form where God is pronouncing judgment on the Babylonians for their deep wickedness. The Babylonians were known for their drunkenness, so the biblical author personifies wine as traitor and an arrogant man, but he’s really talking about the Babylonians.
19) Habakkuk 2:5 - A man is betrayed by wine.
Actually this is from another poetic form where God is pronouncing judgment on the Babylonians for their deep wickedness. The Babylonians were known for their drunkenness, so the biblical author personifies wine as traitor and an arrogant man, but he’s really talking about the Babylonians.
20) Habakkuk 2:15 - Woe to him that gives his neighbor drink.
The context has to do with God pronouncing the condemnation of the cruel Babylonians because of the evil things they did to the Jewish people. This is the fourth “woe” in a series. The reason for the judgment was not merely the giving of wine (which Jesus Himself did at Cana), but the giving of wine with the intention of fornication. The verse explicitly says, “in order to gaze at their nakedness.”
The context has to do with God pronouncing the condemnation of the cruel Babylonians because of the evil things they did to the Jewish people. This is the fourth “woe” in a series. The reason for the judgment was not merely the giving of wine (which Jesus Himself did at Cana), but the giving of wine with the intention of fornication. The verse explicitly says, “in order to gaze at their nakedness.”
21) Habakkuk 2:16 - Drinking leads to shame.
God pronounces shame on the Babylonians due to their intentions, as shown in the section above.
22) Luke 1:15 - John the Baptist drank neither grape juice nor wine.
Already commented on this.
God pronounces shame on the Babylonians due to their intentions, as shown in the section above.
22) Luke 1:15 - John the Baptist drank neither grape juice nor wine.
Already commented on this.
23) Romans 14:21 - Do not do anything that will hurt your testimony as a believer.
That is not what this verse says. Already commented on this.
24) 1 Corinthians 5:11 - If a Christian brother is a drinker, do not associate with him.
The context applies to those who are in the church. The entire section is about church discipline. There are steps leading up to removing a brother from the church, and it is done as a last resort, and only if he is stubborn enough to persist in his sin (in this case being a drunk). The church community removes him as a whole, not just one or two overzealous Christians. Furthermore, the goal is to remove those persistent in their sins as a means of discipline, not to ostracize them. A Christian still may speak to his chastised brother outside the church, particularly if he trying to give counsel and support to his brother.
25) 1 Thessalonians 5:6-7 - Christians are to be alert and self-controlled, belonging to the day. Drunkards belong to the night and darkness.
25) 1 Thessalonians 5:6-7 - Christians are to be alert and self-controlled, belonging to the day. Drunkards belong to the night and darkness.
Correct…but being a drunkard is not the same thing as drinking in moderation.
26) 1 Timothy 3:2-3 - Bishops (elders) are to be temperate, sober, and not near any wine.
That is not what the text says. It does not say “don’t be near any wine.” How would Timothy drink wine for his stomach if Paul told him not to be near it? How would Timothy partake in the Lord’s Supper if he was not allowed “near any wine?” The text actually says that bishops and elders are not to be drunkards.
26) 1 Timothy 3:2-3 - Bishops (elders) are to be temperate, sober, and not near any wine.
That is not what the text says. It does not say “don’t be near any wine.” How would Timothy drink wine for his stomach if Paul told him not to be near it? How would Timothy partake in the Lord’s Supper if he was not allowed “near any wine?” The text actually says that bishops and elders are not to be drunkards.
27) 1 Timothy 3:8 - Deacons are to be worthy of respect and not drinkers.
Actually, the text says: “Deacons likewise must be dignified, not double-tongued, not addicted to much wine, not greedy for dishonest gain.” (1 Timothy 3:8)
28) 1 Timothy 3:11 - Deacons’ wives are to be temperate and sober.
The word used here for “sober” means “sober-minded,” or “temperate in their use of wine.”
29) Titus 1:7-8 - An overseer is to be disciplined.
Actually, the text says: “Deacons likewise must be dignified, not double-tongued, not addicted to much wine, not greedy for dishonest gain.” (1 Timothy 3:8)
28) 1 Timothy 3:11 - Deacons’ wives are to be temperate and sober.
The word used here for “sober” means “sober-minded,” or “temperate in their use of wine.”
29) Titus 1:7-8 - An overseer is to be disciplined.
No objection here. But moderate use of wine, does not mean to be lacking in discipline.
30) Titus 2:2-3 - The older men and older women of the church are to be temperate and not addicted to wine.
30) Titus 2:2-3 - The older men and older women of the church are to be temperate and not addicted to wine.
Exactly.
31) 1 Peter 4:3-4 - The past life of drunkenness and carousing has no place in the Christian’s life.
31) 1 Peter 4:3-4 - The past life of drunkenness and carousing has no place in the Christian’s life.
Once again, correct. But temperate use of alcohols, like beer or wine, hardly constitutes drunkenness and carousing. This would be like saying that someone is a glutton because he enjoys an occasional hamburger, which is equivalent to what non-believers were doing to Jesus, as mentioned earlier.
Limiting God with Libertarian Free-Will
"Be aware of FALSE spirits whom the teachers of "ISM" peddle with many words and false pretense, for example. that GOD sent HIS son to save the selected Lost and that the Redemption of God was only for selected sinners of the world against John 3:16 with great pretense of "ISM" and nonsense of human falsehood...." ~Anonymous
...Of course, the irony is that the person who said this peddles the doctrines of Secular Humanism, which is both an "ism" and born of the human imagination. IT secularizes our understanding of man's freewill, creating a sovereignty of the autonomous man, which exists quite independently of the Creator, outside the scope of His power and freedom. As a consequent, believers of such a position elevate human liberty to either possess equality with God or superiority over Him.
This unfortunate aspect of elevating human freedom above divine liberty also manifests insecurities about the future. Because eschatology depends on the freewill actions of human agents, and human liberty rests not upon anything within God's control but in the random actions of mortals, the Christian faith comes to depend upon obscurity, as opposed to God. So the life of the mind within such believers becomes one of amazing cognitive acrobatics, since defending error is an infinitely complicated process. Others behold the complexity brought on by their error and choose to attribute it God's massiveness and inscrutability, raising the white flag of "simplicity" as a justification for not thinking about it. We just simply accept it.
Both the the Arminian and the Calvinist limit the atonement of Christ. As many know, the Calvinist limits the scope of cross, so that the shedding of blood is only efficacious, in terms of our eternal salvation, to a particular elect, chosen by God. Lesser known, however, is that while the Arminian widens the scope to include all people, he lessens the power of Christ's blood to be efficacious unto salvation, making it depend wholly on the random freewill actions of human beings. The Universalist is an Arminian who sees the problem, but attempts to "solve" it by retaining both the scope and the power of Christ's blood, so that everyone becomes saved. Ironically, this causes the Universalist to lose humanistic autonomy, of course, but he seems to prefer that debate over weakening the blood of Christ.
One of the staple texts of the Arminian, referenced in the above quotation, reads:
“For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life.” (John 3:16, ESV)
I think a critical mistake the Arminian makes occurs when he assumes that Calvinism denies that human persons possess freedom of the will, when it does not; and so reads this passage, assuming that it necessitates their position on libertarian freedom. However, the assumption arrives quite independently of the text here, the context necessitates no such thing. Where are the words "freedom," "choice," "choose," etc...? All it says is "whoever believes."
What does the Bible say about who causes the sinner to believe?
“For by the grace given to me I say to everyone among you not to think of himself more highly than he ought to think, but to think with sober judgment, each according to the measure of faith that God has assigned.” (Romans 12:3)
This verse says faith is given by God.
“For it has been granted to you that for the sake of Christ you should not only believe in him but also suffer for his sake....” (Philippians 1:29)
...and this verse teaches that belief is granted by God.
“Jesus answered them, “This is the work of God, that you believe in him whom he has sent.”” (John 6:29)
Jesus teaches that our belief is produced by the working of God, a rather peculiar doctrine if our choosing and our believing exists independent of God's sovereignty.
So returning to John 3:16, the Arminian ignores the clear teachings of Scripture concerning who actually produces faith and belief when they interpret this text. They unwittingly appeal to Secular Humanism, to a corrupted philosophy of human autonomy, instead of allowing the Bible, or common sense, to shape their view of human agency.
Let us consider something, just on the level of simple, common sense. If I rob you at gun point, saying, "Your money or your life," I have effectively reduced your ability to choose. In your human freedom, my gun and the threat of it, has reduced the very autonomy some elevate to a divine level to a mere two choices: the money or your life. And that's only if I'm graciousness enough to not kill you anyway!
So if I can so drastically limit your autonomy with a gun, then how is it your weak and fragile freedom should be able to limit the all-powerful God who created it in the first place? Doesn't that defy simple common sense?
Notice how many things are affected by introducing libertarian freewill into the system of the biblical worldview? The Arminian actually nests his doctrine of man to an equal or superior status with his doctrine of God. This bit of yeast spreads to his doctrine of Christ and his doctrine of Salvation. It also spreads to his doctrine of sin as well as his doctrine of the heart and mind. It affects his interpretation of Scripture, how he preaches, how he conducts and participates in the orchestration of the church. Indeed, because he elevates human beings choosing to such a divine state, church becomes almost exclusively involved with the the types of choices one makes. The Arminian has become legalistic and does not know it.
What we say about God affects everything else. Just because something is not essential to salvation, does not mean it is not essential to the Christian faith. An essential is an essential not because it is the least common denominator. It is an essential because upon it everything else stands. It is the hinge of everything else within the system. Weaken God at any single point, and everything else collapses, as the yeast manifest itself in the life of the church over time.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A response:
The Calvinist, however, does need to temper his view of election with the clearly revealed truth in Ezekiel 18:23: "Do I take any pleasure in the death of the wicked? declares the Sovereign Lord. Rather, am I not pleased when they turn from their ways and live?" Too often, we hear Calvinists say that the damnation of the non-elect is "the good pleasure of His will." But here, God states explicitly that He takes no pleasure in damning anyone but prefers that they turn from sin and live. How this idea fits into the Calvinist scheme is not at all clear.
Nor is it clear, from a Calvinistic standpoint, why Jesus should weep over Jerusalem in Matthew 23:37: "O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, you who kill the prophets and stone those sent to you, how often I have longed to gather your children together, as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, but you were not willing."
This poses a thorny difficulty for the Calvinist. First of all, he must assume that the reprobation of Jerusalem was "the good pleasure" of the Father. If that is so, why was it so displeasing and heart-rending to Jesus, who was always in agreement with the divine will? Shouldn't Jesus have also been "pleased" with the Father's reprobation of these people?
Secondly, Jesus is here attributing the lost condition of Jerusalem to her own unwillingness, not the want of election. Jesus was willing to receive them but they were unwilling. This seems to contradict the confident assertions of Calvinists about Unconditional Election.
So what doctrine do we put in the place of the Calvinist's Unconditional Election? Do we opt for one of the many Arminian forms of election? Tempting as that may be . . . I don't think so . . . Perhaps further theological works by thoughtful Christians will reveal a more satisfactory resting place for our convictions. I tell you what Jim; I, find the Holy Bible, the most fascinating book that I have ever read! I never tire of reading and contemplating the uniqueness of scripture . . . If we are to take the measuring line of Scripture (which is what canon means) and bend it to fit the wall that one is building in the present. In the end one has neither a measuring line nor a straight wall. Love ya Jim . . . enjoy reading your posts . . . good night my friend . . .
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
My reply:
Well, what if God, desiring to show his wrath and to make known his power, has endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction, in order to make known the riches of his glory for vessels of mercy, which he has prepared beforehand for glory— even us whom he has called, not from the Jews only but also from the Gentiles?
What shall we say then? Is there injustice on God’s part? ...or does Jesus disapprove of what His Father desires? ...By no means!
The doctrine of (unconditional) election does not teach that God pleasures in the death of the wicked. I cannot really speak for other Calvinists, any more than you can speak for those within your own denomination, but I am sure folks who say such things can be found in any denomination or tradition.
I see no reason why Jesus would not weep over the destruction of Jerusalem. God desires the destruction of many, not because He is sadistic, but because He is the very essence of justice...and justice desires to punish evil.
When we are dealing with human desire and what a human wills, it gets very complicated quickly, if we are really thinking about it in any depth. The same is true of God, since He is a person, and not an inanimate, static thing. Indeed, Scripture teaches that God desires one thing, but does quite another all over the place! For example:
What God desires:
"And the master said to the slave, ‘Go out into the highways and along the hedges, and compel them to come in, that my house may be filled," (Luke 14:23).
What God does:
"And for this reason God will send upon them a deluding influence so that they might believe what is false...." (2 Thess. 2:11).
What God desires:
Therefore, just as the Holy Spirit says, “Today if you hear His voice, Do not harden your hearts as when they provoked Me, As in the day of trial in the wilderness...." (Heb. 3:7).
What God does:
"And the Lord said to Moses, "When you go back to Egypt see that you perform before Pharaoh all the wonders which I have put in your power; but I will harden his heart so that he will not let the people go...." (Exodus 4:21).
"So then He has mercy on whom He desires, and He hardens whom He desires...." (Rom. 9:18).
Likewise, the Jesus who spoke in Matthew 23:37, also says, “I thank you, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, that you have hidden these things from the wise and understanding and revealed them to little children; yes, Father, for such was your gracious will.” (Matthew 11:25–26)
Indeed, consider the reason Jesus actually gives for speaking in parables:
“And when he was alone, those around him with the twelve asked him about the parables. And he said to them, “To you has been given the secret of the kingdom of God, but for those outside everything is in parables, so that “they may indeed see but not perceive, and may indeed hear but not understand, lest they should turn and be forgiven.” (Mark 4:10–12)
So why does the Jesus who weeps over Jerusalem also rejoice at such a thing? Maybe it's because God's freedom and God's will and God's glory that is the superior thing? And, perhaps, the moment we question God's motives for doing all that He accomplishes, we actually lose our own moral ground to even question the Potter?
Wednesday, June 5, 2013
Philosophy 4: Faith and Reason
In the previous writing, we looked at the relationship between greater and lesser things. I gave a few examples of the types of distortions that can occur when lesser things are elevated over the weightier matters. I showed that this often occurs when one takes a perfectly good word, like pragmatic, and attaches an “-ism” as a suffix, making it the central purpose for everything else, foundational, or the “greatest thing.” Then we then went on to look at how logic flows from the appropriate order and relationship of things, arranging them in categories or classes. We looked at the three most basic laws of proper inference (logic), showing that they cannot be refuted, and why that is so.
To refresh the reader’s memory, here are the three most basic laws again:
1) The Law of Identity: a thing is what it is; and is not what it is not. (A=A)
2) The Law of Noncontradiction: something cannot be both true and false at the same time and in the same relationship. (A≠~A)
3) The Law of Excluded Middle: A thing either is or it is not. (A v ~A)
Essentially, these are three ways of looking at the same thing. All of them are saying that a thing is itself, and not not itself.
Logic judges statements, or propositions. The terms “married bachelor” and “square circle” are statements. They are proposing that two mutually exclusive categories or classes belong together, when they cannot. Therefore, the two statements are a meaningless combination words. Likewise, a sentence contains a subject and a predicate. When the subject is negated by its predicate, the terms do not cohere, meaning, they cannot go together. So if I write, “This apple is not an apple,” the same laws apply to the statement and I've contradicted myself.
But what if the so-called “apple” was mistakenly called apple? In such a case, we are dealing with a different state of affairs. Such expressions like, “This “apple” is not an apple after all,” are not violating the laws of proper inference, but affirming them. The sentence is affirming that the object mistakenly called an “apple,” did not belong to the class of apples after all, since it is not an apple. Logic studies the coherency of proposed states of affairs, the relationships of classes of things, signified by the words or symbols which represent them. It deals with systems of truth-claims. It doesn’t deny the use of poetic expressions or non-literal speech. The point is that apples that are not apples do not exist. They are non-things—nothing. There is nothing behind the words. They are nonsense, meaningless states of affairs, empty words. The philosopher is after the reality behind the words, not semantics.
What we're driving at here is that logical coherence precedes actuality. The scientist, for example, doesn’t need to scour the universe looking for evidence of square circles or married bachelors because these are false, analytically. They are false by definition. What we are doing here is formal thinking. A thing must be possible before it can be actual. In other words, logic precedes evidence. Logic is the greater thing. Philosophy exists prior to the evidential. Whether the evidence is based on experience, empirical data, sensory perception, or anything else, it must be possible before it can be actual.
The basic building blocks of logic apply not only to a couple of words or a sentence, but to entire arguments as well, and from entire arguments to an entire thesis, and, once again, from an entire thesis to an entire worldview. Logic mirrors the order behind the entire universe (Rom 1:20). It judges our statements, our sentences. A meaningful sentence consists of a subject and a predicate, something the subject of the sentence is predicated of—being and essence.
Logic precedes creation. It is prior to nature, the physical things. When I say this, I am not talking about the symbols and expressions which man formulates to express it, but to the reality behind the symbols and the language. I am saying that truth is an invisible, spiritual, real object that creates, designs, and unifies all things according to classifications, structure, and order. A created thing, an earthly, physical thing, for example, HAS being. However, truth IS being. God is self-existent; creation is utterly and irrefutably dependent on His being. This is the metaphysical relationship between Creator and creation we are looking at. It is monotheism. Christians affirm this metaphysically, but deny it epistemologically.
They do this by pitting faith against reason. Fide vs Logos
What they do is affirm this as a metaphysical truth, but say that we cannot know it by “human reasoning.” What this does is separate epistemology from metaphysics as though they were two, separate realties. They try to overcome this divide by redefining the term “faith” (“pistis” in the Greek) as though it were an entirely blind leap into the dark. This strips the Christian of his intellectual faculties, which God commands us to use, and reduces faith to a private experience inaccessible to the mind. So in faith, we can have square circles writ large, because that’s “man’s way of knowing.” As the fideist will tell us, with God ALL THINGS ARE POSSIBLE. This anti-systematic system of thought is called “Fideism,” from the Latin word “fide” or “faith.”
“I believe it because it is absurd” is a statement often attributed to the church father, Tertullian. Whether he said it, I don't know and don't care. But it is essentially what Fideism is saying. So as a matter of course, I claim that God is an ant named Willie who the lives under my front porch. He lies to me all the time. It is because of this type of non-reasoning that atheists have created a mock-deity called the “Flying Spaghetti Monster,” and refer to themselves as “Pastafarians.” Speaking gibberish and using empty words as though embracing absurdity was wise is not truth-telling, but speaking falsehoods.
It is true that God can accomplish “all things,” but those things are just that—things! They are things with a nature that actually exist, states of affairs that really are possible. Things are not non-things. God cannot create square circles any more than He can lie or cease being what He is. He is the ultimate thing and cannot be anything other. If he could, then He couldn’t be God! There would be nothing. So, epistemology (“pistis”+”ology”) is the study of how we can know that what we believe is true. It studies the nature of faith in a coherent, systematic way. To believe something is also to claim it as a metaphysic—a real and true state of affairs.
Metaphysics and epistemology cannot be divided into two, separate and opposing realities, no matter how much we may dislike the word “systems.” God loves “systems.” He wants us to notice them, to notice what He says about Himself through their mind-boggling intricacies, and their beauty. He did not give us minds just so that we can see these things, and loathe them. God is well-pleased with His creations. He gave us minds so that we cannot wait to look at the things He has made, how He organized them, created complex and intricate systems, by His speech. So that by studying these things, we may hear Him, and behold His glory through the things He has made. So let us return to the question of faith, to see how it coheres with reason.
Although we do not normally think of faith this way, consider this: When I sit in my chair at the dinner table, I do so trusting the integrity of the chair. Will it support me? Will it break? Will I get injured? Normally, I just take for granted the chair’s structural integrity and plop right down on it, with barely a thought. However, if I noticed something about the chair that caused me distrust its ability to hold me up, I am not likely to sit on it. My decision would be based on the evidence perceived through my senses. It is a matter of practical wisdom that I do not sit in the chair and risk injuring myself. But what, according to our own metaphysic, has more integrity? Is it the chair that I take for granted everyday or God? If it is God, then why does the Christian claim faith as a “great leap,” while taking the structural integrity of almost every chair he sits in for granted? Doesn’t trusting the chair require a greater leap of faith?
Sin is unfaithfulness to God. It is irrational.
We define “faith in God” as a “great leap” because of our sinfulness. We have contradictions in our faith, every single one of us. The Christian is a sinner, a saint, and a skeptic all at the same time. However, what makes matters worse is that our current definition of faith is not from the Bible, but from secular humanists that have no faith. To them, faith in God very much seems to be an irrational leap in the dark. According to Webster's Dictionary faith is "an unquestioning belief that does not require proof or evidence." The authors of this dictionary must have been listening to fideists. However, our concern is what does the word of God mean by the term “faith?”
“Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen. For by it the people of old received their commendation. By faith we understand that the universe was created by the word of God, so that what is seen was not made out of things that are visible.” (Hebrews 11:1–3, ESV)
The translation of the first sentence is slightly unfortunate, but notice that the Scriptures draw together the first and the third sentences into a coherent unity, epistemology and metaphysics into one reality. To put a finer point on it, let’s look at how other English versions translate the first sentence, then I'll provide a very literal translation of that verse.
“Now faith is being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see.” (NIV84)
“Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.” (NKJV)
"Now faith is the reality of things being hoped for, the proof of things not being seen." (a literal translation)
The first word in question is “hypostasis.” For those of you that are more theologically informed, you might recognize this word from the theological term “hypostatic union,” which refers to the two natures of Christ existing within one person—“the God-man.” The word literally means “substance,” “nature,” or “essence.” And it also means “trust,” “confidence,” and “certainty.” What is being claimed here is that essence of something is causing the believer to trust in that something. What are those “things” that causes the trust? They are invisible things, things not seen.
The writer of Hebrews is talking about things that are not physical, that are not material, earthly things. It is referring to spiritual things, things that we cannot see with the naked eye or detect by our five senses. What most Christians mean by “not seeing” nowadays, are things they say cannot be known, meaning, spiritual things. They mean they cannot be “seen” with the mind’s eye. But that’s not what the Bible says because the other word, “elenchos,” means “evidence” and “proof,” which can only be considered by the mind, but not with physical sight. Indeed, the verbal form of this word, “elencho,” means “to rebuke” or “to refute” using rational arguments.
Part of our hesitancy about logic, and about philosophy in general, is due to Rationalism. In this worldview, existence is reduced to what I can conceive of in my head. It is that kind of thinking that says, “Well, I've never seen it, so it must not exist.” “If I cannot wrap my head around it, surely it is bogus.” Being a rational person is a good thing. We were created to be rational. Rationalism, on the other hand, is not good because reality is much bigger than what we can comprehend. This is one of the crucial differences between Rationalism and Realism. In Realism, reality is much larger than what I can grasp in my mind. It is the mind that is informed by what is real, actual, and objective, not the other way around. I can know real things about real things because those things really are there, and the ordering of them is actually there too.
It is not us reaching all the way up to God, but God condescending to reveal Himself to us, informing our minds. Our knowledge of all things depends upon revelation, God revealing them to us. So faith is not a leap of anything, but resting on something certain. Faith is not doubt, but quite the opposite. It doesn’t mean, “Well, I'm not too sure about God, but I'll take my chances.” That’s gullibility, credulity, and foolishness. That is the skeptic and the sinner talking in us. The answer is to seek the truth about the matter, to seek after His knowledge and His wisdom because those are what produce faith.
Although men cannot “grasp” or “comprehend” everything that exists (like God, for example), this is not to say that men cannot understand or know. What men cannot have is a comprehensive knowledge, having knowledge about all things. That would make him omniscient, “all-knowing.” Only God can be all-knowing. However, people do not have to know all things in order to know some things. I only mention this because there are some who claim that in order to know anything, one must know everything. My rebuke to them is: Really? How do you know? The mud does not need to see the inside and the outside of the shoe to receive the imprint of its sole. Likewise, my mind does not need to possess infinite or exhaustive knowledge in order for God’s speech to be known by it.
We live according to what we believe. The question is whether or not what we are believing is real. Is it really knowledge? Or is it the mind viciously turning away from the piercing light of truth and reason, falling into the irrationality and the madness of darkness, seeking the alluring comfort of empty words?
To refresh the reader’s memory, here are the three most basic laws again:
1) The Law of Identity: a thing is what it is; and is not what it is not. (A=A)
2) The Law of Noncontradiction: something cannot be both true and false at the same time and in the same relationship. (A≠~A)
3) The Law of Excluded Middle: A thing either is or it is not. (A v ~A)
Essentially, these are three ways of looking at the same thing. All of them are saying that a thing is itself, and not not itself.
Logic judges statements, or propositions. The terms “married bachelor” and “square circle” are statements. They are proposing that two mutually exclusive categories or classes belong together, when they cannot. Therefore, the two statements are a meaningless combination words. Likewise, a sentence contains a subject and a predicate. When the subject is negated by its predicate, the terms do not cohere, meaning, they cannot go together. So if I write, “This apple is not an apple,” the same laws apply to the statement and I've contradicted myself.
But what if the so-called “apple” was mistakenly called apple? In such a case, we are dealing with a different state of affairs. Such expressions like, “This “apple” is not an apple after all,” are not violating the laws of proper inference, but affirming them. The sentence is affirming that the object mistakenly called an “apple,” did not belong to the class of apples after all, since it is not an apple. Logic studies the coherency of proposed states of affairs, the relationships of classes of things, signified by the words or symbols which represent them. It deals with systems of truth-claims. It doesn’t deny the use of poetic expressions or non-literal speech. The point is that apples that are not apples do not exist. They are non-things—nothing. There is nothing behind the words. They are nonsense, meaningless states of affairs, empty words. The philosopher is after the reality behind the words, not semantics.
What we're driving at here is that logical coherence precedes actuality. The scientist, for example, doesn’t need to scour the universe looking for evidence of square circles or married bachelors because these are false, analytically. They are false by definition. What we are doing here is formal thinking. A thing must be possible before it can be actual. In other words, logic precedes evidence. Logic is the greater thing. Philosophy exists prior to the evidential. Whether the evidence is based on experience, empirical data, sensory perception, or anything else, it must be possible before it can be actual.
The basic building blocks of logic apply not only to a couple of words or a sentence, but to entire arguments as well, and from entire arguments to an entire thesis, and, once again, from an entire thesis to an entire worldview. Logic mirrors the order behind the entire universe (Rom 1:20). It judges our statements, our sentences. A meaningful sentence consists of a subject and a predicate, something the subject of the sentence is predicated of—being and essence.
Logic precedes creation. It is prior to nature, the physical things. When I say this, I am not talking about the symbols and expressions which man formulates to express it, but to the reality behind the symbols and the language. I am saying that truth is an invisible, spiritual, real object that creates, designs, and unifies all things according to classifications, structure, and order. A created thing, an earthly, physical thing, for example, HAS being. However, truth IS being. God is self-existent; creation is utterly and irrefutably dependent on His being. This is the metaphysical relationship between Creator and creation we are looking at. It is monotheism. Christians affirm this metaphysically, but deny it epistemologically.
They do this by pitting faith against reason. Fide vs Logos
What they do is affirm this as a metaphysical truth, but say that we cannot know it by “human reasoning.” What this does is separate epistemology from metaphysics as though they were two, separate realties. They try to overcome this divide by redefining the term “faith” (“pistis” in the Greek) as though it were an entirely blind leap into the dark. This strips the Christian of his intellectual faculties, which God commands us to use, and reduces faith to a private experience inaccessible to the mind. So in faith, we can have square circles writ large, because that’s “man’s way of knowing.” As the fideist will tell us, with God ALL THINGS ARE POSSIBLE. This anti-systematic system of thought is called “Fideism,” from the Latin word “fide” or “faith.”
“I believe it because it is absurd” is a statement often attributed to the church father, Tertullian. Whether he said it, I don't know and don't care. But it is essentially what Fideism is saying. So as a matter of course, I claim that God is an ant named Willie who the lives under my front porch. He lies to me all the time. It is because of this type of non-reasoning that atheists have created a mock-deity called the “Flying Spaghetti Monster,” and refer to themselves as “Pastafarians.” Speaking gibberish and using empty words as though embracing absurdity was wise is not truth-telling, but speaking falsehoods.
It is true that God can accomplish “all things,” but those things are just that—things! They are things with a nature that actually exist, states of affairs that really are possible. Things are not non-things. God cannot create square circles any more than He can lie or cease being what He is. He is the ultimate thing and cannot be anything other. If he could, then He couldn’t be God! There would be nothing. So, epistemology (“pistis”+”ology”) is the study of how we can know that what we believe is true. It studies the nature of faith in a coherent, systematic way. To believe something is also to claim it as a metaphysic—a real and true state of affairs.
Metaphysics and epistemology cannot be divided into two, separate and opposing realities, no matter how much we may dislike the word “systems.” God loves “systems.” He wants us to notice them, to notice what He says about Himself through their mind-boggling intricacies, and their beauty. He did not give us minds just so that we can see these things, and loathe them. God is well-pleased with His creations. He gave us minds so that we cannot wait to look at the things He has made, how He organized them, created complex and intricate systems, by His speech. So that by studying these things, we may hear Him, and behold His glory through the things He has made. So let us return to the question of faith, to see how it coheres with reason.
Although we do not normally think of faith this way, consider this: When I sit in my chair at the dinner table, I do so trusting the integrity of the chair. Will it support me? Will it break? Will I get injured? Normally, I just take for granted the chair’s structural integrity and plop right down on it, with barely a thought. However, if I noticed something about the chair that caused me distrust its ability to hold me up, I am not likely to sit on it. My decision would be based on the evidence perceived through my senses. It is a matter of practical wisdom that I do not sit in the chair and risk injuring myself. But what, according to our own metaphysic, has more integrity? Is it the chair that I take for granted everyday or God? If it is God, then why does the Christian claim faith as a “great leap,” while taking the structural integrity of almost every chair he sits in for granted? Doesn’t trusting the chair require a greater leap of faith?
Sin is unfaithfulness to God. It is irrational.
We define “faith in God” as a “great leap” because of our sinfulness. We have contradictions in our faith, every single one of us. The Christian is a sinner, a saint, and a skeptic all at the same time. However, what makes matters worse is that our current definition of faith is not from the Bible, but from secular humanists that have no faith. To them, faith in God very much seems to be an irrational leap in the dark. According to Webster's Dictionary faith is "an unquestioning belief that does not require proof or evidence." The authors of this dictionary must have been listening to fideists. However, our concern is what does the word of God mean by the term “faith?”
“Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen. For by it the people of old received their commendation. By faith we understand that the universe was created by the word of God, so that what is seen was not made out of things that are visible.” (Hebrews 11:1–3, ESV)
The translation of the first sentence is slightly unfortunate, but notice that the Scriptures draw together the first and the third sentences into a coherent unity, epistemology and metaphysics into one reality. To put a finer point on it, let’s look at how other English versions translate the first sentence, then I'll provide a very literal translation of that verse.
“Now faith is being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see.” (NIV84)
“Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.” (NKJV)
"Now faith is the reality of things being hoped for, the proof of things not being seen." (a literal translation)
The first word in question is “hypostasis.” For those of you that are more theologically informed, you might recognize this word from the theological term “hypostatic union,” which refers to the two natures of Christ existing within one person—“the God-man.” The word literally means “substance,” “nature,” or “essence.” And it also means “trust,” “confidence,” and “certainty.” What is being claimed here is that essence of something is causing the believer to trust in that something. What are those “things” that causes the trust? They are invisible things, things not seen.
The writer of Hebrews is talking about things that are not physical, that are not material, earthly things. It is referring to spiritual things, things that we cannot see with the naked eye or detect by our five senses. What most Christians mean by “not seeing” nowadays, are things they say cannot be known, meaning, spiritual things. They mean they cannot be “seen” with the mind’s eye. But that’s not what the Bible says because the other word, “elenchos,” means “evidence” and “proof,” which can only be considered by the mind, but not with physical sight. Indeed, the verbal form of this word, “elencho,” means “to rebuke” or “to refute” using rational arguments.
Part of our hesitancy about logic, and about philosophy in general, is due to Rationalism. In this worldview, existence is reduced to what I can conceive of in my head. It is that kind of thinking that says, “Well, I've never seen it, so it must not exist.” “If I cannot wrap my head around it, surely it is bogus.” Being a rational person is a good thing. We were created to be rational. Rationalism, on the other hand, is not good because reality is much bigger than what we can comprehend. This is one of the crucial differences between Rationalism and Realism. In Realism, reality is much larger than what I can grasp in my mind. It is the mind that is informed by what is real, actual, and objective, not the other way around. I can know real things about real things because those things really are there, and the ordering of them is actually there too.
It is not us reaching all the way up to God, but God condescending to reveal Himself to us, informing our minds. Our knowledge of all things depends upon revelation, God revealing them to us. So faith is not a leap of anything, but resting on something certain. Faith is not doubt, but quite the opposite. It doesn’t mean, “Well, I'm not too sure about God, but I'll take my chances.” That’s gullibility, credulity, and foolishness. That is the skeptic and the sinner talking in us. The answer is to seek the truth about the matter, to seek after His knowledge and His wisdom because those are what produce faith.
Although men cannot “grasp” or “comprehend” everything that exists (like God, for example), this is not to say that men cannot understand or know. What men cannot have is a comprehensive knowledge, having knowledge about all things. That would make him omniscient, “all-knowing.” Only God can be all-knowing. However, people do not have to know all things in order to know some things. I only mention this because there are some who claim that in order to know anything, one must know everything. My rebuke to them is: Really? How do you know? The mud does not need to see the inside and the outside of the shoe to receive the imprint of its sole. Likewise, my mind does not need to possess infinite or exhaustive knowledge in order for God’s speech to be known by it.
We live according to what we believe. The question is whether or not what we are believing is real. Is it really knowledge? Or is it the mind viciously turning away from the piercing light of truth and reason, falling into the irrationality and the madness of darkness, seeking the alluring comfort of empty words?
Monday, June 3, 2013
Philosophy 3: The Logic of Things
Philosophy is the search for ultimate truth….
We have a strong tendency to begin our conversations in a pragmatic, moral framework and to work outward from there. “Does it work,” we might ask? “Is it equitable or fair?” In such a system, or way of thinking, usefulness and equality are heralded as the supreme virtues, the democratic ends of modern society. One does not need to go very far to see evidence of these virtues in our own country. Political debates concerning economics, for example, revolve around proposals for “responsible and fair budgeting.” Many conservative groups use the phrase, “balancing the budget,” as a utilitarian means of avoiding an economic crisis, such as the “fiscal cliff.” Meanwhile, more liberal groups often chirp back that conservative proposals do not work because the monetary distributions involved in such schemes give preference to the wealthy, which is neither equitable nor fair.
But political economics isn’t the only place we see the manifestations of such virtues. We observe them everywhere. Our conversations about education revolve around who’s not getting enough of it:”No Child Left Behind.” Speaking of children, we often teach them to disregard “being right” in exchange for “getting along.” We also say things like, “Well that might work in theory, but in the real world….” We even read the Bible through our consumer-driven, egalitarian, democratic lenses. “What does this verse mean to you?” or “What can God do for you?” We even tend to regard faith as “something that works” for us: “If you just trust God, He will make you feel less guilty,” or “boost your confidence,” or “bless you with success.” Recently, I even read an article that reinterpreted the biblical narrative of Jonah to mean being less “…narrow, nationalistic, racist and exclusive….”
The problem with being equitable and pragmatic is not that these are bad or undesirable virtues in themselves. The story of Jonah may very well be applied to speak to narrow-mindedness and exclusivity. We should also avoid any “fiscal cliffs” as well as favoritism. I agree that racism is wrong, partly because it isn’t fair and it doesn’t work. God’s forgiveness does indeed assuage feelings of guilt and of shame. The problem with these begins when they are plucked from their context, from their proper order within reality, and set up as what is central, or foundational, to it. In other words, while there is nothing wrong with being pragmatic; there is something wrong with pragmatism. There is nothing wrong with equality or equity per se, but egalitarianism is a denial of reality.
Are all people really equal? Are all people equally wise, intelligent, or strong? Do all people share the same economic status, physical abilities, or charisma? Are all men equally able to lead, or to inspire, or to speak? Upon what basis does one claim all men to be equal, if there is absolutely nothing intrinsic to man that even suggests that anything like equality should ever exist? (See my blogs, “Politics 101,” for an explanation on what sense all men are “created equal”)
Philosophy looks at the highest things in existence. When the pragmatists ask, “Does it work?” The philosopher asks, “What is “it”? Does “it” work for what?” Consider our modern day concern with our economic crisis: The pragmatist, both conservatives and liberals, wants a system that works. I do too. However, I also know that I must learn what economics is and for what purpose it exists PRIOR TO the development of any economic system. This pattern is really important: What precedes what in the order of things. To illustrate the magnitude of it, let me say that how we think about this will shape how we read the Bible, and even how we think about the Gospel.
If equality and performance are the highest virtues, what becomes of how we read and interpret the Bible? If those are the highest things in the church, then everything else is subordinated to those things, and brought into conformity with them. Jonah’s story is no longer seen as a story depicting a sovereign God moving all of history along as He pleases, according to His eternal plan of redemption, where even the vegetation and the creatures of the sea obey Him. Instead, it’s about being “open” to the perspectives of those different than you. It’s about not being “nationalistic” or “racist,” even though those concepts did not exist in those days.
How about the Gospel? Why did Jesus come to die? Well, He came to save sinners from death. Who would disagree with that? Obviously, no Christian would…at least until he realized that a “sinner” no longer means someone who is offensive to God’s holiness and that “death” no longer refers to eternal separation from, and damnation by, God. Instead, a sinner is a narrow-minded “bigot” who disagrees with progressive reinterpretations. “Death” means holding on to those old ways, which prevent us from pressing on to a “better tomorrow.” Jesus died for what works and so that we may all be treated equitably, or equally. At least, that is the Gospel I see many Christians, including some of my own friends, constantly post about.
The biggest things in life are invisible and spiritual. We know they are bigger because everything else is shaped by them, given meaning and existence by them. The lesser things are contained within the greater things. All of the biblical writers were very concerned that we thought this way about everything in existence. Jesus Christ even condemns those who get this wrong for their hypocrisy:
““Woe to you, blind guides, who say, ‘If anyone swears by the temple, it is nothing, but if anyone swears by the gold of the temple, he is bound by his oath.’ You blind fools! For which is greater, the gold or the temple that has made the gold sacred? And you say, ‘If anyone swears by the altar, it is nothing, but if anyone swears by the gift that is on the altar, he is bound by his oath.’ You blind men! For which is greater, the gift or the altar that makes the gift sacred? So whoever swears by the altar swears by it and by everything on it. And whoever swears by the temple swears by it and by him who dwells in it. And whoever swears by heaven swears by the throne of God and by him who sits upon it. “Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you tithe mint and dill and cumin, and have neglected the weightier matters of the law: justice and mercy and faithfulness. These you ought to have done, without neglecting the others. You blind guides, straining out a gnat and swallowing a camel!” (Matthew 23:16–24 ESV, emphasis added).
What did these men do but to exchange the heavenly things for the earthly things? Giving up the weightier matters for mint, dill, and cumin? And replacing the greater things with lesser things?
“It is beyond dispute that the inferior is blessed by the superior.” (Hebrews 7:7)
It is, indeed, “in Christ” that we have been saved. We are inferior to Christ; therefore, we are blessed by Him, and not because of who or what we are, but because of who and what He is. It is in Him that we are shaped and given our being. Everything in existence follows this pattern: The greater things blessing or informing the lesser. It is by the altar that the gift is sacred, not the other way around. When we swear by the altar, we are swearing by everything contained by the altar because it includes all of those things. The altar is the bigger classification, and the gift is contained within that classification, along with everything else on the altar. This is how all of existence works; it is also precisely how logic works.
Logic exists and works because of what the Logos is.
The Logos is the truth, the rational ordering principle of the entire universe. All things are as they are because of what the Logos is. It is this Logos which creates and designs all things, giving them order, substance and form, from the greater to the lesser. A thing is a thing because of the nature of truth itself. A thing is a thing? This also happens to be first law of logic.
Epistemology deals with logic, or truth criterion. How do we know that we know? How do we know that we know that this God-ordered universe and not something else? How do we know that we know the Bible actually is the word of God? What does it mean “to know?”
“To know” means to have the mind informed by the object of study. It is not man opining about how he feels about the object, whether it feels right or good to him. It is not man merely “thinking” in any way he pleases, so that he might build some sort of cognitive model out of words that point to nothing in particular. Those are vain imaginings, empty words, and are referred to as such in the Bible (Eph 5:6, Matt 6:7). Words and statements are true because they point at something real, something that exists and has a nature. Words have content and substance because they faithfully articulate the being and essence of the things spoken about. To be “informed” is to look at the object (truth, justice, faithfulness, etc…) that the mind might be transformed into its image (Rom 12:2, 2 Cor 3:18).
What philosophy does is to smash empty words, meticulously plucking them out of our faith. These are interferences—sin—dwelling in our minds, blinding us to what is real. It uses logic to this. Philosophy is superior to sophistry. Reason is greater than irrational babble, and checks the statements of poor thinking, or the speech of those who would use empty words to deceive. Pluck out the log that causes blindness from our own eye, and we can see clearly to remove the speck from our brother’s eye.
The first three laws of logic are like three sides of the same prism. Looking through this prism, falsehoods begin falling away. We've already mention one, the law of identity, which states that a thing is what it is, and is not what it is not. For example, a fish is a fish, and is not a rock, or a chair, or the Sun, and so forth. This law is often expressed as A=A, meaning A is equal to A. Therefore, a thing is equal to itself.
Doesn't that seem ridiculous and simple? But it’s violated all the time, as we shall see. For instance people will say God is unique, eternal, and unchanging. But then these same people will also claim that the God of the New Testament is nice, gentle, and merciful, while the God of the Old Testament is mean, vengeful, and full of wrath. Likewise, people will emphasize God’s mercy at the expense of His justice. However, the God of the OT is the same God of the NT! And while it is true that God is love, it is also true that He is justice. God’s justice is loving, and His love is just. The reason people fail to consider such things is because they do not have this law of logic, or the other laws, ingrained into their thinking. It takes practice. A bigger reason this is violated is because man is fallen, and suppresses the truth of God in his unrighteousness. But if we practice, then we can grow into maturity.
The second side of our prism is called the law of non-contradiction. This means that something cannot be both true and false at the same time and in the same relationship. Or to put it another way, a thing cannot be and not be at the same time and in the same relationship. A≠~A (≠ means “not equal to” and the ~ symbol is a negation, meaning “not” or “non”). In other words, “A” is not equal to “non-A.”
The third law of logic is called the law of the excluded middle: A v ~A, which means A or non-A (the “v” in logic means “or”). A thing either is or it is not. There is no third option and it cannot be both. Either a statement is true or it is false. The law of the excluded middle does not apply to gradations within a category or class, but to the existence of a class. Either it is a gradation or it is not. If I referred to a blue-green button as being “blue,” this does not violate the law just because the button is also green because it is also blue. However, if I said the blue-green button was not blue-green, then I just contradicted myself. Either it is blue-green or it is not.
When Christians seek to refute logic as “human reasoning,” they are refuting themselves in the process. One cannot deny these laws and still maintain validity in their arguments or claims, since all valid statements depend upon these. They just threw truth and reality out the window, so to speak. They have denied the very laws that their own statements depend upon. So when someone says, “I don't believe in human reasoning and logic, I only believe in the Bible,” they are refuting their own statement. When they said, “the Bible,” did they also mean “anything unbiblical?” Obviously not. Did they mean to indicate that “believing” and “not believing” were mutually exclusive categories? If not, then to believe is also not to believe. If so, then they are depending on logic, what they call “human reasoning,” in order to make the assertion.
What logic does is to wreck empty words, which deny or confuse the order—the classifications—of things. A bachelor, for example, refers to a man who is not married. A person is either married, or he is not. A bachelor is a man that belongs to the class of people. What kind of people? Unmarried people. So if I said, “married bachelor,” I am speaking gibberish because the categories “married” and “unmarried” are mutually exclusive. The same can be said of square circles. It cannot exist because a square cannot be a circle and a circle cannot be a square. Saying “square circles” is a meaningless combination of words. They point to nothing at all.
What does all of this have to do with Christianity?
Absolutely everything. If God created all things, then there is an order and a design to all things. All of the things that He created bear something of His stamp. When God spoke, out comes creation. Does any Christian seriously believe that God speaks gibberish? Or do the things that He spoke into existence bear His message? All things say something about God. Whatever God speaks into existence He speaks it out of His very being, it is filled with content and information about His own nature (Rom 1:20).
We have a strong tendency to begin our conversations in a pragmatic, moral framework and to work outward from there. “Does it work,” we might ask? “Is it equitable or fair?” In such a system, or way of thinking, usefulness and equality are heralded as the supreme virtues, the democratic ends of modern society. One does not need to go very far to see evidence of these virtues in our own country. Political debates concerning economics, for example, revolve around proposals for “responsible and fair budgeting.” Many conservative groups use the phrase, “balancing the budget,” as a utilitarian means of avoiding an economic crisis, such as the “fiscal cliff.” Meanwhile, more liberal groups often chirp back that conservative proposals do not work because the monetary distributions involved in such schemes give preference to the wealthy, which is neither equitable nor fair.
But political economics isn’t the only place we see the manifestations of such virtues. We observe them everywhere. Our conversations about education revolve around who’s not getting enough of it:”No Child Left Behind.” Speaking of children, we often teach them to disregard “being right” in exchange for “getting along.” We also say things like, “Well that might work in theory, but in the real world….” We even read the Bible through our consumer-driven, egalitarian, democratic lenses. “What does this verse mean to you?” or “What can God do for you?” We even tend to regard faith as “something that works” for us: “If you just trust God, He will make you feel less guilty,” or “boost your confidence,” or “bless you with success.” Recently, I even read an article that reinterpreted the biblical narrative of Jonah to mean being less “…narrow, nationalistic, racist and exclusive….”
The problem with being equitable and pragmatic is not that these are bad or undesirable virtues in themselves. The story of Jonah may very well be applied to speak to narrow-mindedness and exclusivity. We should also avoid any “fiscal cliffs” as well as favoritism. I agree that racism is wrong, partly because it isn’t fair and it doesn’t work. God’s forgiveness does indeed assuage feelings of guilt and of shame. The problem with these begins when they are plucked from their context, from their proper order within reality, and set up as what is central, or foundational, to it. In other words, while there is nothing wrong with being pragmatic; there is something wrong with pragmatism. There is nothing wrong with equality or equity per se, but egalitarianism is a denial of reality.
Are all people really equal? Are all people equally wise, intelligent, or strong? Do all people share the same economic status, physical abilities, or charisma? Are all men equally able to lead, or to inspire, or to speak? Upon what basis does one claim all men to be equal, if there is absolutely nothing intrinsic to man that even suggests that anything like equality should ever exist? (See my blogs, “Politics 101,” for an explanation on what sense all men are “created equal”)
Philosophy looks at the highest things in existence. When the pragmatists ask, “Does it work?” The philosopher asks, “What is “it”? Does “it” work for what?” Consider our modern day concern with our economic crisis: The pragmatist, both conservatives and liberals, wants a system that works. I do too. However, I also know that I must learn what economics is and for what purpose it exists PRIOR TO the development of any economic system. This pattern is really important: What precedes what in the order of things. To illustrate the magnitude of it, let me say that how we think about this will shape how we read the Bible, and even how we think about the Gospel.
If equality and performance are the highest virtues, what becomes of how we read and interpret the Bible? If those are the highest things in the church, then everything else is subordinated to those things, and brought into conformity with them. Jonah’s story is no longer seen as a story depicting a sovereign God moving all of history along as He pleases, according to His eternal plan of redemption, where even the vegetation and the creatures of the sea obey Him. Instead, it’s about being “open” to the perspectives of those different than you. It’s about not being “nationalistic” or “racist,” even though those concepts did not exist in those days.
How about the Gospel? Why did Jesus come to die? Well, He came to save sinners from death. Who would disagree with that? Obviously, no Christian would…at least until he realized that a “sinner” no longer means someone who is offensive to God’s holiness and that “death” no longer refers to eternal separation from, and damnation by, God. Instead, a sinner is a narrow-minded “bigot” who disagrees with progressive reinterpretations. “Death” means holding on to those old ways, which prevent us from pressing on to a “better tomorrow.” Jesus died for what works and so that we may all be treated equitably, or equally. At least, that is the Gospel I see many Christians, including some of my own friends, constantly post about.
The biggest things in life are invisible and spiritual. We know they are bigger because everything else is shaped by them, given meaning and existence by them. The lesser things are contained within the greater things. All of the biblical writers were very concerned that we thought this way about everything in existence. Jesus Christ even condemns those who get this wrong for their hypocrisy:
““Woe to you, blind guides, who say, ‘If anyone swears by the temple, it is nothing, but if anyone swears by the gold of the temple, he is bound by his oath.’ You blind fools! For which is greater, the gold or the temple that has made the gold sacred? And you say, ‘If anyone swears by the altar, it is nothing, but if anyone swears by the gift that is on the altar, he is bound by his oath.’ You blind men! For which is greater, the gift or the altar that makes the gift sacred? So whoever swears by the altar swears by it and by everything on it. And whoever swears by the temple swears by it and by him who dwells in it. And whoever swears by heaven swears by the throne of God and by him who sits upon it. “Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you tithe mint and dill and cumin, and have neglected the weightier matters of the law: justice and mercy and faithfulness. These you ought to have done, without neglecting the others. You blind guides, straining out a gnat and swallowing a camel!” (Matthew 23:16–24 ESV, emphasis added).
What did these men do but to exchange the heavenly things for the earthly things? Giving up the weightier matters for mint, dill, and cumin? And replacing the greater things with lesser things?
“It is beyond dispute that the inferior is blessed by the superior.” (Hebrews 7:7)
It is, indeed, “in Christ” that we have been saved. We are inferior to Christ; therefore, we are blessed by Him, and not because of who or what we are, but because of who and what He is. It is in Him that we are shaped and given our being. Everything in existence follows this pattern: The greater things blessing or informing the lesser. It is by the altar that the gift is sacred, not the other way around. When we swear by the altar, we are swearing by everything contained by the altar because it includes all of those things. The altar is the bigger classification, and the gift is contained within that classification, along with everything else on the altar. This is how all of existence works; it is also precisely how logic works.
Logic exists and works because of what the Logos is.
The Logos is the truth, the rational ordering principle of the entire universe. All things are as they are because of what the Logos is. It is this Logos which creates and designs all things, giving them order, substance and form, from the greater to the lesser. A thing is a thing because of the nature of truth itself. A thing is a thing? This also happens to be first law of logic.
Epistemology deals with logic, or truth criterion. How do we know that we know? How do we know that we know that this God-ordered universe and not something else? How do we know that we know the Bible actually is the word of God? What does it mean “to know?”
“To know” means to have the mind informed by the object of study. It is not man opining about how he feels about the object, whether it feels right or good to him. It is not man merely “thinking” in any way he pleases, so that he might build some sort of cognitive model out of words that point to nothing in particular. Those are vain imaginings, empty words, and are referred to as such in the Bible (Eph 5:6, Matt 6:7). Words and statements are true because they point at something real, something that exists and has a nature. Words have content and substance because they faithfully articulate the being and essence of the things spoken about. To be “informed” is to look at the object (truth, justice, faithfulness, etc…) that the mind might be transformed into its image (Rom 12:2, 2 Cor 3:18).
What philosophy does is to smash empty words, meticulously plucking them out of our faith. These are interferences—sin—dwelling in our minds, blinding us to what is real. It uses logic to this. Philosophy is superior to sophistry. Reason is greater than irrational babble, and checks the statements of poor thinking, or the speech of those who would use empty words to deceive. Pluck out the log that causes blindness from our own eye, and we can see clearly to remove the speck from our brother’s eye.
The first three laws of logic are like three sides of the same prism. Looking through this prism, falsehoods begin falling away. We've already mention one, the law of identity, which states that a thing is what it is, and is not what it is not. For example, a fish is a fish, and is not a rock, or a chair, or the Sun, and so forth. This law is often expressed as A=A, meaning A is equal to A. Therefore, a thing is equal to itself.
Doesn't that seem ridiculous and simple? But it’s violated all the time, as we shall see. For instance people will say God is unique, eternal, and unchanging. But then these same people will also claim that the God of the New Testament is nice, gentle, and merciful, while the God of the Old Testament is mean, vengeful, and full of wrath. Likewise, people will emphasize God’s mercy at the expense of His justice. However, the God of the OT is the same God of the NT! And while it is true that God is love, it is also true that He is justice. God’s justice is loving, and His love is just. The reason people fail to consider such things is because they do not have this law of logic, or the other laws, ingrained into their thinking. It takes practice. A bigger reason this is violated is because man is fallen, and suppresses the truth of God in his unrighteousness. But if we practice, then we can grow into maturity.
The second side of our prism is called the law of non-contradiction. This means that something cannot be both true and false at the same time and in the same relationship. Or to put it another way, a thing cannot be and not be at the same time and in the same relationship. A≠~A (≠ means “not equal to” and the ~ symbol is a negation, meaning “not” or “non”). In other words, “A” is not equal to “non-A.”
The third law of logic is called the law of the excluded middle: A v ~A, which means A or non-A (the “v” in logic means “or”). A thing either is or it is not. There is no third option and it cannot be both. Either a statement is true or it is false. The law of the excluded middle does not apply to gradations within a category or class, but to the existence of a class. Either it is a gradation or it is not. If I referred to a blue-green button as being “blue,” this does not violate the law just because the button is also green because it is also blue. However, if I said the blue-green button was not blue-green, then I just contradicted myself. Either it is blue-green or it is not.
When Christians seek to refute logic as “human reasoning,” they are refuting themselves in the process. One cannot deny these laws and still maintain validity in their arguments or claims, since all valid statements depend upon these. They just threw truth and reality out the window, so to speak. They have denied the very laws that their own statements depend upon. So when someone says, “I don't believe in human reasoning and logic, I only believe in the Bible,” they are refuting their own statement. When they said, “the Bible,” did they also mean “anything unbiblical?” Obviously not. Did they mean to indicate that “believing” and “not believing” were mutually exclusive categories? If not, then to believe is also not to believe. If so, then they are depending on logic, what they call “human reasoning,” in order to make the assertion.
What logic does is to wreck empty words, which deny or confuse the order—the classifications—of things. A bachelor, for example, refers to a man who is not married. A person is either married, or he is not. A bachelor is a man that belongs to the class of people. What kind of people? Unmarried people. So if I said, “married bachelor,” I am speaking gibberish because the categories “married” and “unmarried” are mutually exclusive. The same can be said of square circles. It cannot exist because a square cannot be a circle and a circle cannot be a square. Saying “square circles” is a meaningless combination of words. They point to nothing at all.
What does all of this have to do with Christianity?
Absolutely everything. If God created all things, then there is an order and a design to all things. All of the things that He created bear something of His stamp. When God spoke, out comes creation. Does any Christian seriously believe that God speaks gibberish? Or do the things that He spoke into existence bear His message? All things say something about God. Whatever God speaks into existence He speaks it out of His very being, it is filled with content and information about His own nature (Rom 1:20).
Subscribe to:
Posts
(
Atom
)