I think this author is at least as guilty, if not more so, than MacArthur was.
2. That if it is irresponsible to tell your congregation to drink alcohol, then how might one explain this part of Deuteronomy? I think it’s at least a good question.
Perhaps. But it seems to me like we have a lot of options that render this unnecessary.
Overall, I didn’t find it a good article. I think it probably demonstrated exactly what MacArthur was talking about. All this guy needed to say, if anything, was “That’s not me.” Instead he went on a rant about legalism, etc.
As much as perhaps MacArthur “played to his base,” I think this guy did the same thing. I doubt anyone who wasn’t already on his side is going to be persuaded by it.
I think this author is at least as guilty, if not more so, than MacArthur was.
2. That if it is irresponsible to tell your congregation to drink alcohol, then how might one explain this part of Deuteronomy? I think it’s at least a good question.
Perhaps. But it seems to me like we have a lot of options that render this unnecessary.
You’re missing the point in point 2. God implores his people to spend money on strong drink. If that were such a bad idea, why does Deuteronomy mention it? Is this a hickup in God’s law? Can you explain it away that easily? I think not.
On point 1, I think you’re right. But that doesn’t mean he doesn’t have a good point. For example, I think MacArthur has some good points. He just portrays them in ways his audience won’t listen. This blog is guilty of the same, but still he has good points.
Shaynus…your reading of Deut. is incorrect. The passage says to use the money to buy ‘what your heart desires’, including strong drink, not that God is ‘imploring people to buy strong drink’ as you stated. You’re reading too much into that passage.
Furthermore, while you are very interested in the one passage that seems to support your position, you haven’t really interacted with the passages that I quoted above which are clear in the call of blood bought believers being a holy and distinct people from the unsaved. Would you please explain how the call to be distinct and separate is in agreement with the continued insistence on aping the world’s sinful behaviors and fashions?
"Our task today is to tell people — who no longer know what sin is...no longer see themselves as sinners, and no longer have room for these categories — that Christ died for sins of which they do not think they’re guilty." - David Wells
You shall tithe all the yield of your seed that comes from the field year by year. 23And before the LORD your God, in the place that he will choose, to make his name dwell there, you shall eat the tithe of your grain, of your wine, and of your oil, and the firstborn of your herd and flock, that you may learn to fear the LORD your God always. 24And if the way is too long for you, so that you are not able to carry the tithe, when the LORD your God blesses you, because the place is too far from you, which the LORD your God chooses, to set his name there, 25then you shall turn it into money and bind up the money in your hand and go to the place that the LORD your God chooses 26and spend the money for whatever you desire—oxen or sheep or wine or strong drink, whatever your appetite craves. And you shall eat there before the LORD your God and rejoice, you and your household. 27And you shall not neglect the Levite who is within your towns, for he has no portion or inheritance with you.
If we’re going to apply Deut 14 to our lives, then let’s do it correctly. We’ll need to: 1. pay tithes of approx. 33% on all that we have and earn. 2. bring that tithe to a now destroyed Temple and offer it to a currently inactive priesthood. 3. Take our entire families with us when we do it.
Or we could just realize that this portion of the Law is binding for only people who are keeping all of the Levitical law and not NT believers.
Your choice.
"Our task today is to tell people — who no longer know what sin is...no longer see themselves as sinners, and no longer have room for these categories — that Christ died for sins of which they do not think they’re guilty." - David Wells
God doesn’t do things inconstant with his character. He won’t ask you in one millennia to buy strong drink (at least in part) but then make it irresponsible in another millennia. If it is irresponsible for us, I think it’s at least a “good point” to consider Deut. 14. I was responding to Larry asking for the good points in the blog that I posted. All I’m arguing here is that there are some. No Christian thinks you have to take all of the law and apply it to our society in order to at least learn some lessons. You’re putting more of a burden on me in this passage than you would want for yourself in another. The law is a guide for us on the character of God. I think it is the character of God that he desires us to celebrate, and that sometimes with strong drink. Wine is a symbol for both OT and NT believers of a coming kingdom. That kingdom is a feast of celebration. One major component of that feast is wine.
Furthermore, while you are very interested in the one passage that seems to support your position, you haven’t really interacted with the passages that I quoted above which are clear in the call of blood bought believers being a holy and distinct people from the unsaved. Would you please explain how the call to be distinct and separate is in agreement with the continued insistence on aping the world’s sinful behaviors and fashions?
Way back up there, you said this:
I think it’s interesting that Jesus died to make us a distinct people (I Peter 2:9-12, Romans 12:1-2), and we can model that distinction by mocking the world’s styles in our speech, dress, and behavior.
What are the world’s styles of speech, dress, and behavior? Is it the corporate world of suits and glam? Is it the hipster world of tight, cuffed jeans? Is it the punk world of tattoos, piercings and chains? What makes us a holy and distinct people is going to be different according to context. I think you can be worldly wearing a nice suit (depending one what you’re trying to show by wearing that suit) as you can by wearing dark, tight, hipster jeans. I live in Washington DC. The suits are out there walking around K Street being worldly impressing their clients with power-suits. The hipsters are walking around Georgetown where I work being worldly by being non-conformists to everyone but each other (I recently saw a hipster stop to fix the cuff on his jeans and nearly get run over by a bus!), and in my office we have mostly the tatted up artists, coding, designing and making iPhone apps for companies such as Delta, Volkswagen, and Nike. That’s really of the world isn’t it? What makes them worldly is not what they’re wearing, but what they’re communicating. I think you can be a holy and distinct person wearing a suit or wearing shorts. The passages you mentioned don’t mention these things with an authoritative answer on how Ordinary Pastor lives his life, or describes himself. The just don’t. Have a good one.
I’m having a serious disconnect here. Whenever OT verses about tattoos or gender distinctive apparel are brought forward as a pattern for a NT believer, scoffing ensues. But then a verse about strong drink is embraced as a pattern of permission to get toasted?
I think it is highly problematic to build a doctrine based on OT law and Jewish cultural norms. If you open that door a crack, you have to open it for polygamy and stoning adulterers and rebellious children. It’s in comparing Scripture with Scripture in context that we get a clear picture of expectations for a NT grafted-in Jew/Gentile hybrid body of Christ no longer under the law.
I kind of agree Susan. But I’m sure you’d be with me if I wouldn’t put wine and tattoos quite in the same category. Wine, and really celebratory eating in general, is a major sub-theme of the Bible from start to finish. And boy, what a finish in Revelation!
Discussion
NewQuote:1. On Tone and
Overall, I didn’t find it a good article. I think it probably demonstrated exactly what MacArthur was talking about. All this guy needed to say, if anything, was “That’s not me.” Instead he went on a rant about legalism, etc.
As much as perhaps MacArthur “played to his base,” I think this guy did the same thing. I doubt anyone who wasn’t already on his side is going to be persuaded by it.
NewLarry wrote: Quote: 1. On
On point 1, I think you’re right. But that doesn’t mean he doesn’t have a good point. For example, I think MacArthur has some good points. He just portrays them in ways his audience won’t listen. This blog is guilty of the same, but still he has good points.
NewShaynus
Furthermore, while you are very interested in the one passage that seems to support your position, you haven’t really interacted with the passages that I quoted above which are clear in the call of blood bought believers being a holy and distinct people from the unsaved. Would you please explain how the call to be distinct and separate is in agreement with the continued insistence on aping the world’s sinful behaviors and fashions?
"Our task today is to tell people — who no longer know what sin is...no longer see themselves as sinners, and no longer have room for these categories — that Christ died for sins of which they do not think they’re guilty." - David Wells
Newmore fun with Deut.
If we’re going to apply Deut 14 to our lives, then let’s do it correctly. We’ll need to:
1. pay tithes of approx. 33% on all that we have and earn.
2. bring that tithe to a now destroyed Temple and offer it to a currently inactive priesthood.
3. Take our entire families with us when we do it.
Or we could just realize that this portion of the Law is binding for only people who are keeping all of the Levitical law and not NT believers.
Your choice.
"Our task today is to tell people — who no longer know what sin is...no longer see themselves as sinners, and no longer have room for these categories — that Christ died for sins of which they do not think they’re guilty." - David Wells
NewGod's Character
God doesn’t do things inconstant with his character. He won’t ask you in one millennia to buy strong drink (at least in part) but then make it irresponsible in another millennia. If it is irresponsible for us, I think it’s at least a “good point” to consider Deut. 14. I was responding to Larry asking for the good points in the blog that I posted. All I’m arguing here is that there are some. No Christian thinks you have to take all of the law and apply it to our society in order to at least learn some lessons. You’re putting more of a burden on me in this passage than you would want for yourself in another. The law is a guide for us on the character of God. I think it is the character of God that he desires us to celebrate, and that sometimes with strong drink. Wine is a symbol for both OT and NT believers of a coming kingdom. That kingdom is a feast of celebration. One major component of that feast is wine.Way back up there, you said this:What are the world’s styles of speech, dress, and behavior? Is it the corporate world of suits and glam? Is it the hipster world of tight, cuffed jeans? Is it the punk world of tattoos, piercings and chains? What makes us a holy and distinct people is going to be different according to context. I think you can be worldly wearing a nice suit (depending one what you’re trying to show by wearing that suit) as you can by wearing dark, tight, hipster jeans. I live in Washington DC. The suits are out there walking around K Street being worldly impressing their clients with power-suits. The hipsters are walking around Georgetown where I work being worldly by being non-conformists to everyone but each other (I recently saw a hipster stop to fix the cuff on his jeans and nearly get run over by a bus!), and in my office we have mostly the tatted up artists, coding, designing and making iPhone apps for companies such as Delta, Volkswagen, and Nike. That’s really of the world isn’t it? What makes them worldly is not what they’re wearing, but what they’re communicating. I think you can be a holy and distinct person wearing a suit or wearing shorts. The passages you mentioned don’t mention these things with an authoritative answer on how Ordinary Pastor lives his life, or describes himself. The just don’t. Have a good one.
NewOT/NT
I think it is highly problematic to build a doctrine based on OT law and Jewish cultural norms. If you open that door a crack, you have to open it for polygamy and stoning adulterers and rebellious children. It’s in comparing Scripture with Scripture in context that we get a clear picture of expectations for a NT grafted-in Jew/Gentile hybrid body of Christ no longer under the law.
Scenescape Media
NewImportant sub theme
Tattoos not so much.