 |
Actscelerate.com
Open Any Time -- Day or Night
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Message |
Author |
 Re: Looking on the COG website |
Tom Sterbens |
| Mat wrote: | Looking on the COG website under "Practical Commitments":
ADDICTION AND ENSLAVEMENT
One of the primary benefits of our liberty in Christ is freedom from the domination of negative forces (John 8:32, 36; Romans 6:14; 8:2). We are counseled not to put ourselves again under bondage (Galatians 5:1). Therefore, a Christian must totally abstain from all alcoholic beverages and other habit-forming and mood-altering chemical substances and refrain from the use of tobacco in any form, marijuana and all other addictive substances, and further, must refrain from any activity (such as gambling or gluttony) which defiles the body as the temple of God or which dominates and enslaves the spirit that has been made free in Christ (Proverbs 20:1; 23:20-35; Isaiah 28:7; 1 Corinthians 3:17; 5:11; 6:10; 2 Corinthians 7:1; James 1:21).
My position is, if there is liberty on alcoholic beverages such as beer and wine (as some argue for), I see little to no scripture addressing tobacco, marijuana or even opiate based substances. If the line between sinner and saint is drawn at the line of intoxication, then the individual can "walk up" to the door of indulging as much as he desires as long as he does not pass over the threshold into the house of drunkenness. Its similar to the old game "ring and run", where you go to a house, ring the doorbell and run away before the "strongman" of the house opens the door and catches you. If one generation can drink as long as they do not get drunk and profess Christ, the next generation can smoke marijuana as long as they don't get stoned. You tell me I'm wrong for not drinking and I'll tell your kids that its OK with Jesus to smoke a joint.
A term used when I was young for those who did not drink was that of being a "lightweight", in the since that we were somehow weaker and less experienced in the things of the world. Some today say those Christians who believe in abstinence are "spiritual lightweights". I say a commitment to abstinence as a Christian is a "radical" spiritual position. Some Christians seek the "lukewarm" life of being like the culture, radicals seek to transform the culture for Christ (in my opinion).
As has been said, some Christians today know more about brewing beer than the know about the Bible.
Mat |
Abstinence is a discipline I advocate.
What I don't advocate is that scripture teaches it as a command. |
Golf Cart Mafia Capo Famiglia
Posts: 4508
9/17/17 10:57 pm
|
|
|
|  |
 |
|
|
| |
Nature Boy Florida |
I have no problem with denominations taking a position on what should be allowed and what should not.
It's called spiritual guidance.
This day and age where we no longer feel men and women leaders can interpret scriptures in light of their current culture - is a sad state of affairs that will lead to destruction of the sheep.
The COG based their holiness standards on what they learned from the Method-ists - where living a Christian life is better accomplished by following a method. Abstinence from strong drink, from the studies of men like Dr. Arrington, would fall into that category.
I just don't get why we can see leaders like Nick Saban preach "follow the method" and every thing else will take care of itself regarding football - but church leaders can not take position regarding "a method, a path to holy living" anymore.
We are failing those coming behind us.
Should Christians aspire to be Crimson Tide followers or Volunteer followers. Both play football. But both don't excel at it.
Being a mediocre Christian seems to be ok anymore.
I guess that's why we see the results we see today.
Strong drink, has ruined many a preacher, and their followers. It is as simple as 2 + 2 = 4.
_________________
Whether you like it or not, learn to love it, because its the best thing going today! |
Acts-pert Poster
Posts: 16646
9/18/17 6:51 am
|
|
|
| |
|
| Re: Looking on the COG website |
Mat |
| Tom Sterbens wrote: | | Mat wrote: | Looking on the COG website under "Practical Commitments":
ADDICTION AND ENSLAVEMENT
One of the primary benefits of our liberty in Christ is freedom from the domination of negative forces (John 8:32, 36; Romans 6:14; 8:2). We are counseled not to put ourselves again under bondage (Galatians 5:1). Therefore, a Christian must totally abstain from all alcoholic beverages and other habit-forming and mood-altering chemical substances and refrain from the use of tobacco in any form, marijuana and all other addictive substances, and further, must refrain from any activity (such as gambling or gluttony) which defiles the body as the temple of God or which dominates and enslaves the spirit that has been made free in Christ (Proverbs 20:1; 23:20-35; Isaiah 28:7; 1 Corinthians 3:17; 5:11; 6:10; 2 Corinthians 7:1; James 1:21).
My position is, if there is liberty on alcoholic beverages such as beer and wine (as some argue for), I see little to no scripture addressing tobacco, marijuana or even opiate based substances. If the line between sinner and saint is drawn at the line of intoxication, then the individual can "walk up" to the door of indulging as much as he desires as long as he does not pass over the threshold into the house of drunkenness. Its similar to the old game "ring and run", where you go to a house, ring the doorbell and run away before the "strongman" of the house opens the door and catches you. If one generation can drink as long as they do not get drunk and profess Christ, the next generation can smoke marijuana as long as they don't get stoned. You tell me I'm wrong for not drinking and I'll tell your kids that its OK with Jesus to smoke a joint.
A term used when I was young for those who did not drink was that of being a "lightweight", in the since that we were somehow weaker and less experienced in the things of the world. Some today say those Christians who believe in abstinence are "spiritual lightweights". I say a commitment to abstinence as a Christian is a "radical" spiritual position. Some Christians seek the "lukewarm" life of being like the culture, radicals seek to transform the culture for Christ (in my opinion).
As has been said, some Christians today know more about brewing beer than the know about the Bible.
Mat |
Abstinence is a discipline I advocate.
What I don't advocate is that scripture teaches it as a command. |
Tom,
To me, the absence of scripture (some see and some don't) undercuts the call to abstinence as a discipline. My wife practices recycling and is a disciplined
advocate. She studies the charts of what can and cannot be recycled, she washes the inside of the items before putting them in the container and takes shopping bags back to the store to be recycled. However, not even Greenpeace can convince me not recycling is a sin, only scripture could do that. If you see no Biblical injunction to abstain, why put that stumbling block before your people. As Luther said (since this is the 500th anniversary), “Whoever drinks beer, he is quick to sleep; whoever sleeps long, does not sin; whoever does not sin, enters Heaven! Thus, let us drink beer!”
The question still remains, what are Christian parent who drink in moderation teaching their children about the use of marijuana in moderation? Many teach today there is a moral equivalency between moderate use of alcohol and marijuana. If the contention is the COG teaching on alcohol lacks scriptural imperatives, than the other substances listed suffer from the same lack.
Mat |
Acts Enthusiast
Posts: 1994
9/18/17 7:32 am
|
|
|
| |
|
| Re: Looking on the COG website |
bradfreeman |
| Mat wrote: | Many teach today there is a moral equivalency between moderate use of alcohol and marijuana.
Mat |
They are the same (where marijuana is legalized).
Nothing that goes into a man defiles him...nothing.
Nothing is unclean of itself...nothing.
The issues are not: "What are you ingesting?" or "Will ingesting this cause religious people to look down on me?"
The issues are: "Does it master you?" or "Does it cause the one who is weak in faith to be emboldened to do something he believes is sin?"
_________________
I'm not saved because I'm good. I'm saved because He's good!
My website: www.bradfreeman.com
My blog: http://bradcfreeman.tumblr.com/ |
Acts-dicted
Posts: 9027
9/18/17 7:49 am
|
|
|
| |
|
| Re: Looking on the COG website |
Mat |
| bradfreeman wrote: | | Mat wrote: | Many teach today there is a moral equivalency between moderate use of alcohol and marijuana.
Mat |
They are the same (where marijuana is legalized).
Nothing that goes into a man defiles him...nothing.
Nothing is unclean of itself...nothing.
The issues are not: "What are you ingesting?" or "Will ingesting this cause religious people to look down on me?"
]The issues are[/b]: "Does it master you?" or "Does it cause the one who is weak in faith to be emboldened to do something he believes is sin?" |
Well, twice you have referred to those (including me) who believe abstinence (no matter what the substance) is the Christian lifestyle that is pleasing to the Lord as being weak in faith. It is interesting you would judge us who abstain as "weak in faith", or as I said earlier, we are spiritual "lightweights" who are substandard in comparison to those who take their liberty to smoke and drink in the Name of the Lord.
The argument that the use of marijuana is not a sin, unless it is illegal poses some issues as well. We seem to pick and choose our laws as we wish. Many parents have no problem with their underage children taking a drink from time to time. In other areas, there are those who come to this country in violation of our laws, yet we call them brother and sister in church. Gambling is legal in most states and prostitution is legal in NV. It is against the law for a teacher to pray and read the Bible in a classroom, but not to take God's Name in vain. The law of the land is a poor substitute for the Word of God.
Mat |
Acts Enthusiast
Posts: 1994
9/18/17 9:01 am
|
|
|
| |
|
| Re: Looking on the COG website |
bradfreeman |
| Mat wrote: | | Well, twice you have referred to those (including me) who believe abstinence (no matter what the substance) is the Christian lifestyle that is pleasing to the Lord as being weak in faith. It is interesting you would judge us who abstain as "weak in faith", or as I said earlier, we are spiritual "lightweights" who are substandard in comparison to those who take their liberty to smoke and drink in the Name of the Lord. |
Thanks Mat,
Just being scriptural. I called no one a "lightweight".
Now accept the one who is weak in faith, but not for the purpose of passing judgment on his opinions. 2 One person has faith that he may eat all things, but he who is weak eats vegetables only. Rom 14:1,2
The weak brother has rules about what he is allowed to eat.
The strong brother is free to eat anything.
More faith = more freedom
Less faith = more rules
| Quote: | The argument that the use of marijuana is not a sin, unless it is illegal poses some issues as well...The law of the land is a poor substitute for the Word of God.
Mat |
I am simply saying that it being criminal activity would be an argument one could make for abstinence. This argument doesn't work for abstaining from preaching the gospel.
_________________
I'm not saved because I'm good. I'm saved because He's good!
My website: www.bradfreeman.com
My blog: http://bradcfreeman.tumblr.com/ |
Acts-dicted
Posts: 9027
9/18/17 9:44 am
|
|
|
| |
|
| Re: Looking on the COG website |
Tom Sterbens |
| Mat wrote: | | If you see no Biblical injunction to abstain, why put that stumbling block before your people. |
Because (as I have posted on here a half dozen times) I do see abstinence in general as restraint...and I see restraint as the power to say, "No"...and I see the power to say, "No" as fundamental aspect of functional mercy (believe it or not). And as the great prophet Stephen Covey  said 30 years ago, "To be able to say yes to something, you will always have to say no to something else," (paraphrase). But not everyone needs to say, "No" to things that I need to say "No" to.
That being said - I will be glad to post my ad nauseam brief treatise on the subject of drinking and alcohol, again.
Mat - the biggest point for me is that I am passionate about NOT speaking dogmatically or definitively where I feel scripture does not. I think that is one of the big things that has undermined the credibility of the church for centuries. |
Golf Cart Mafia Capo Famiglia
Posts: 4508
9/18/17 1:19 pm
|
|
|
| |
|
| |
Tom Sterbens |
Let's Have a Drink!
Part One
Recently I was on the edge of a conversation discussing/debating the use of alcoholic beverages by followers of Jesus Christ. There were individuals on both sides of the issue. Eventually this particular conversation landed on the occasion where Jesus turned the water in to wine (the wedding celebration in Cana - John 2) and more specifically the verse of scripture (vs. 10).
John 2:9-10 (NASB95)
9When the headwaiter tasted the water which had become wine, and did not know where it came from (but the servants who had drawn the water knew), the headwaiter called the bridegroom,
10and said to him, "Every man serves the good wine first, and when the people have drunk freely, then he serves the poorer wine; but you have kept the good wine until now."
One individual involved in the discussion asserted confidently that the wine Jesus had created was more like grape juice and even further went on to say that the phrase, "drunk freely" didn't mean that they were inebriated in the least. Those on the other side rejected those assertions and argued for drinking from a place of Christian liberty.
Perhaps the most disturbing part of this experience for me was not the topic itself but the extreme positions that had been taken by either side. One side advocated that drinking (not drunkenness) was a sin and held the possibility of separating you from God for eternity. While the other side seemed to represent that those who exercised any such ideas were enemies of grace and liberty, not to mention that they were the cause for people not coming to Christ and the church. Each were equally convinced and as a result held a very condemning and at times, even condescending view of the other.
First - I am a non-drinker...period. Always have been. Further I believe that we presently live in one of the most self-entitled, addicted (and addictive) and excessive cultures ever. Further � the church where I am the pastor actively supports a residential substance recovery ministry and requires that we be sensitive to their reality. Second - I have no sense whatsoever that drinking alcohol will send you to hell or that it is prohibited in scripture.
But let's use the talking point and current scripture reference at hand as sort of the jumping off point from:
John 2:10 (NASB95)
10and said to him, "Every man serves the good wine first, and when the people have drunk freely, then he serves the poorer wine; but you have kept the good wine until now."
Initially I would like to note that the primary point of this segment of scripture is NOT to establish a Biblical position on the use of alcoholic beverages - and it's a shame that we might get so caught up in debating the lesser point that we would miss the greater value and purpose of this wonderful event recorded here. Oh well.......
Disclaimer: I am no scholar...I just offer the following as a student.
At any rate...probably 95% of the commentaries I've read and the linguistics studies I have examined all support that this was wine as wine was understood to be wine. And that linguistically each of the 5 or 6 times that "methuo" ("drunk freely") is used it is very clear that drunkenness is understood. (Notwithstanding, some have made efforts to redirect that understanding by a couple of extraneous poetic uses of the term in the Septuagint).
The following is not intended to be seen as definitive "research" in any way...but just a quick listing of some sources that are pretty reliable and I have made a notation about the writer's opinion of the text and language...I have probably 20 more that could be cited.
- Pulpit Commentary (it was wine/and drunk means drunk)
- Word Studies in the New Testament (Vincent) (wine/drunk)
- Robertson's Word Pictures (disagrees perhaps with drunk - but confirms real wine)
- Matthew Henry (agrees/drunk-confused/wine was real)
- A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel According to St John, Volumes 1 & 2 � (senses dulled by drinking of the wine � which was wine)
- A Translator's Handbook on the Gospel of John (drunk/it was wine)
- Preacher's Commentary ("Have well drunk" so that they were unable to differentiate in the quality of wine)
- Preaching the Word: Gospel of John (Hughes) It was wine and they were drunk
- Dictionary of Biblical Languages with Semantic Domains 3499 to get drunk, be drunk, be intoxicated
- Theological Dictionary of the New Testament (Kittel) drunk or drunkenness
Personally, I have never felt that I can build an airtight case for abstinence from John 2...or really support it at all. But admittedly I don't think one can build an airtight case for abstinence from the larger consideration of the entire Bible. |
Golf Cart Mafia Capo Famiglia
Posts: 4508
9/18/17 2:54 pm
|
|
|
| |
|
| |
Tom Sterbens |
Part Two
As I've watched and mused over the passion and sheer volume of discussion on this matter through the years - among those in leadership in the church in particular - I have thought, "Is this the biggest deal on the horizon here?" And yet here I am jumping on the bandwagon. Too much temptation I guess - I just couldn't abstain.
The two recurring positions in debate on this issue:
(1) The Bible disallows the drinking of anything with alcohol.
(2) Drinking alcohol is OK and the Bible says we can.
To me the most compelling passages on these types of matters come from the following passages of scripture:
Principle 1 - Just doing something because we "can" sets us up to be MASTERED (enslaved?).
1 Corinthians 6:12 (NASB95)
12All things are lawful for me, but not all things are profitable. All things are lawful for me, but I will not be mastered by anything.
Principle 2 - Just doing something because we "can" is not ordinarily "constructive," (cf. edify).
1 Corinthians 10:23 (NASB95)
23All things are lawful, but not all things are profitable. All things are lawful, but not all things edify.
I love the original language for "build" here...clearly the idea of "construction" and once again...semantic domains and contemporary colloquialism probably tell us more than we want to hear.
(I Corinthians 10:23) Tom's paraphrase: "Certainly there are lots of things we can do...but is it CONSTRUCTIVE (edify)?."
Question: "OK then...is IT constructive?"
Reply: "Well maybe it's not constructive...but I don't care...I CAN do it anyway! I have the right!"
So then the issue is far more than just, "Can I do this thing" and still be a believer or saved - or whatever.
Bigger question: What does it say about us believers (or shepherds or leaders) who are called to constantly pursue the "diminished life" in the greater interest of the "building up" others?
What does it say of us if we are to conclude that we agree a particular thing/action/behavior is not necessarily constructive but then turn around and respond with, "Who cares it won't send me to hell so I'm gonna do it," ???
Scripture seems to indicate that, that when we embrace that type of entitled attitude, we only present ourselves as a candidate to become "mastered" BY a thing or to become a slave TO a thing? (I Cor. 6:12).... Danger, danger!
By the way...the same term (edify) is used here:
1 Corinthians 8:1 (NASB95)
1Now concerning things sacrificed to idols, we know that we all have knowledge. Knowledge makes arrogant, but love edifies.
That this scripture appears nearly at the halfway point between the first two is interesting. And the larger context deals with the issue of imposing our liberty to the point that it may hinder others around us.
Rewind and summary:
All things are "lawful" ...but not profitable...and they don't "edify." (1 Cor. 10:23)
And then...in this latest verse (1 Cor. 8:1) it's amazing to see what appears to be an assessment of the person who:
(#1) alleges to hold some particular enlightenment or great "knowledge" and that
(#2) as a result of this great "knowledge" takes the license to disregard "love," and edification as their primary cause in life. WOW!
"Arrogant Knowledge" -The Bible doesn't prohibit drinking, so because I can and I will!
"Disregarded Love that Builds Up" - "I don't care who it affects!"
Do we get that?
Many of us seem to be able to see it so clearly when it appears that self-entitled leaders displace the regard for the elementary considerations of Christian love in its simplicity...and yet we would license ourselves to work the very edges of "liberty" so that we might entitle our superior enlightenment (drinking)? Is one more "loveless" than the other? Is one less edifying than the other?
The answer according to scripture: "Arrogance."
This comes from a word that means, "to blow, to inflate, to puff up," and generally represents the disposition of pride extreme self-entitlement. Further this term is a derivative of the term for, "natural, nature or instinct." Could it be said that this puffed up disposition is nothing more than the "natural instinct" responding; or the true "nature" of that individual coming to the surface? Tough considerations no doubt. |
Golf Cart Mafia Capo Famiglia
Posts: 4508
9/18/17 3:37 pm
|
|
|
| |
|
| |
Tom Sterbens |
| Nature Boy Florida wrote: |
The COG based their holiness standards on what they learned from the Method-ists - where living a Christian life is better accomplished by following a method. |
Brother...
I have watched you for years defend people on this forum against legalistic individuals who would seek to choke the joy out of our faith over such issues as clothing and attire...and musical styles, preaching styles, etc. My point in mentioning that is that legalism by any other definition is most certainly a "method" or system of thought.
The article presented by the polity committee does indeed (as you said) represent a "method" or a system of thought. I would ask you rhetorically if every method was equally legitimate just because it was a "method," but I am confident of your answer to that question. I appreciate methods and systems of thought and paths to righteousness...but where I get lost on this issue is when people speak definitively concerning scripture where it appears scripture itself does not speak definitively. Again - this kind of thing has hurt the church for centuries.
You and I know each other...you know of my respect for you.
That has not changed.
But as with Dr Arrington - I guess so it is with you, I humbly, yet passionately disagree.
Nothing but love for you brother... |
Golf Cart Mafia Capo Famiglia
Posts: 4508
9/18/17 3:57 pm
|
|
|
| |
|
| |
Quiet Wyatt |
| I would like to point out that asceticism should not be confused with legalism. |
[Insert Acts Pun Here]
Posts: 12817
9/18/17 4:01 pm
|
|
|
| |
|
| |
diakoneo |
Tom,
Thanks for posting this..AGAIN! I guess I didn't see it the other times or I just ignored it because it was from you.
Anyway good stuff!
You may not be a scholar but I have learned a lot from you on Actscelerate. |
Golf Cart Mafia Consigliere
Posts: 3382
9/18/17 5:00 pm
|
|
|
| |
|
| |
Tom Sterbens |
| Quiet Wyatt wrote: | | I would like to point out that asceticism should not be confused with legalism. |
True...
But all too often the two paths seem to have the same final destination: religious or spiritual pride. |
Golf Cart Mafia Capo Famiglia
Posts: 4508
9/18/17 6:33 pm
|
|
|
| |
|
| To the Original Topic and Document |
mytwocents |
Thoughts just off the top of my head:
1) No pastors on the committee than presented the document. Hmmm.
2) What do we do with the entirety of Romans 14? Just ignore it?
3) I suspect the assignment was given to prepare a document that defends a position on total abstinence, NOT, openly prepare a document that says what the Bible says on total abstinence. In other words, we have a conclusion, now justify it. |
Acts-celerater
Posts: 813
9/18/17 9:28 pm
|
|
|
| |
|
| Re: To the Original Topic and Document |
Old Time Country Preacher |
| mytwocents wrote: | | I suspect the assignment was given to prepare a document that defends a position on total abstinence ... In other words, we have a conclusion, now justify it. |
And that Doctrine/Polity Committee did just that, they justified it.
COG Greek scholar emeritus, Dr. French Arrington
Dr. Terry Cross and Dr. Jerald Daffe, professors in the School of Religion at Lee
PTS Professors Dr. David Han, Dr. Lee Roy Martin, and Dr. Steven Land
Retired leader with Church of God World Missions, Dr Victor Pagan
Second Assistant General Overseer, liaison to the committee, Bishop J. David Stephens
Then ya got wannabe exegetes--Strong's Concordance scholars--tossin their two cents into the pot. Reminds me a several neurosurgeons discussin a given technique in the discipline an in walks Jethro Bodine talkin bout his brain surgery skills.  |
Acts-pert Poster
Posts: 15570
9/18/17 10:51 pm
|
|
|
| |
|
| OTCP |
JimmieDavis |
| Actually you have idolized your theologian heroes. They made no such case neither did they scripturally exegete a defense of abstinence. The reason they didn't is because it doesn't exist. |
Friendly Face
Posts: 219
9/19/17 6:38 am
|
|
|
| |
|
| Re: To the Original Topic and Document |
Tom Sterbens |
| Old Time Country Preacher wrote: | | mytwocents wrote: | | I suspect the assignment was given to prepare a document that defends a position on total abstinence ... In other words, we have a conclusion, now justify it. |
And that Doctrine/Polity Committee did just that, they justified it.
COG Greek scholar emeritus, Dr. French Arrington
Dr. Terry Cross and Dr. Jerald Daffe, professors in the School of Religion at Lee
PTS Professors Dr. David Han, Dr. Lee Roy Martin, and Dr. Steven Land
Retired leader with Church of God World Missions, Dr Victor Pagan
Second Assistant General Overseer, liaison to the committee, Bishop J. David Stephens
Then ya got wannabe exegetes--Strong's Concordance scholars--tossin their two cents into the pot. Reminds me a several neurosurgeons discussin a given technique in the discipline an in walks Jethro Bodine talkin bout his brain surgery skills. |
Perhaps...
Since I have written so much in this particular thread, and...
Given that I have no post nominal letters after my name, and...
Since I offered a cursory sampling of commentary reference to a particular term from an original language...
I will respond without the assumption I am excluded from your broad stroke indictment of those unworthy to engage in the dialog.
To be clear once again - I make no claim to scholarship.
Having said that, of the names you listed, four of the men there would readily attest to my faithful study of scripture and of being invited by them into academic circles of study and consideration of biblical and theological concerns.
In terms of coming to a conclusion in opposition to their conclusion:
#1 - I am a son of the south - respect and honor for those who have any sort of proven track record in a field, or who have simply lived longer, is a default position for me.
#2 - I think my personal strength is, "Being suspicious of my own righteousness" (or rightness)...therefore I am rarely caught off guard when someone else may declare their suspicion of the same. So, approaching with humility and hesitation is not a difficult thing for me.
#3 - At this point in life I've accepted the fact that engagement in academic or theological topics requires I come to the table with evidence of fact and logic of position due to NOT having the degree that may entitle me to any level of unquestioned acceptance of opinion. I've accepted that as a "thorn in my side" that demands a posture of humility when engaging in such. I've come to be grateful for it actually. I always realize I have no business "being in the room."
I thought I would offer a statement of accountability for having an opinion on this issue. Thanks... |
Golf Cart Mafia Capo Famiglia
Posts: 4508
9/19/17 7:06 am
|
|
|
| |
|
| Re: To the Original Topic and Document |
Nature Boy Florida |
| Tom Sterbens wrote: | | Old Time Country Preacher wrote: | | mytwocents wrote: | | I suspect the assignment was given to prepare a document that defends a position on total abstinence ... In other words, we have a conclusion, now justify it. |
And that Doctrine/Polity Committee did just that, they justified it.
COG Greek scholar emeritus, Dr. French Arrington
Dr. Terry Cross and Dr. Jerald Daffe, professors in the School of Religion at Lee
PTS Professors Dr. David Han, Dr. Lee Roy Martin, and Dr. Steven Land
Retired leader with Church of God World Missions, Dr Victor Pagan
Second Assistant General Overseer, liaison to the committee, Bishop J. David Stephens
Then ya got wannabe exegetes--Strong's Concordance scholars--tossin their two cents into the pot. Reminds me a several neurosurgeons discussin a given technique in the discipline an in walks Jethro Bodine talkin bout his brain surgery skills. |
Perhaps...
Since I have written so much in this particular thread, and...
Given that I have no post nominal letters after my name, and...
Since I offered a cursory sampling of commentary reference to a particular term from an original language...
I will respond without the assumption I am excluded from your broad stroke indictment of those unworthy to engage in the dialog.
To be clear once again - I make no claim to scholarship.
Having said that, of the names you listed, four of the men there would readily attest to my faithful study of scripture and of being invited by them into academic circles of study and consideration of biblical and theological concerns.
In terms of coming to a conclusion in opposition to their conclusion:
#1 - I am a son of the south - respect and honor for those who have any sort of proven track record in a field, or who have simply lived longer, is a default position for me.
#2 - I think my personal strength is, "Being suspicious of my own righteousness" (or rightness)...therefore I am rarely caught off guard when someone else may declare their suspicion of the same. So, approaching with humility and hesitation is not a difficult thing for me.
#3 - At this point in life I've accepted the fact that engagement in academic or theological topics requires I come to the table with evidence of fact and logic of position due to NOT having the degree that may entitle me to any level of unquestioned acceptance of opinion. I've accepted that as a "thorn in my side" that demands a posture of humility when engaging in such. I've come to be grateful for it actually. I always realize I have no business "being in the room."
I thought I would offer a statement of accountability for having an opinion on this issue. Thanks... |
Thank you Bro. Clampett.
_________________
Whether you like it or not, learn to love it, because its the best thing going today! |
Acts-pert Poster
Posts: 16646
9/19/17 7:51 am
|
|
|
| |
|
| |
bonnie knox |
| Quote: | | Thank you Bro. Clampett. |
|
[Insert Acts Pun Here]
Posts: 14803
9/19/17 8:42 am
|
|
|
| |
|
| |
Da Sheik |
| Quote: | | COG Stance on Total Abstinence is Biblical |
Actually it isn't. But let's not let that get in the way of a good debate. To say a Christian "ought" to do something is much different than saying that a Christian "must" do something. This article seems to employ the latter technique. And for that reason, I must disagree.
The book of Revelation warns about the dangers of taking away from what Scripture says. It also warns of what happens when adding to what God has said. If the bible doesn't say one must abstain in order to be a Christian, then what right do I have to make that declaration?
I have tremendous respect for Dr. Arrington and the others involved in the project. I agree with the spirit of their effort. I believe abstinence to be the wisest position to take. But it is an exegetical leap I'm not willing to take to say that the bible teaches anyone who has a glass of wine is living in sin and lacks self-control. And no I don't drink, even though my doctor told me I could |
Acts Enthusiast
Posts: 1865
9/19/17 3:09 pm
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
