There is a regular visitor to this site, “Rachel.”
She writes:
I've never seen alcohol do one good thing for anyone. Aside from that, you do not understand scripture. Alcohol is excess is what is a sin. WINE is not a sin. Other alcohol is because it leads to drunkeness. So while it may not necessarily be a SIN to drink alcohol, we must remember our witness and realize what the appropriateness of it is. Look at things associated with alcohol...bars, strip clubs, drunks, DUI's, addiction and the like. These are not activities a true Christian should participate in. Therefore, it is better to SHUN even an appearance of evil. And yes, some believe the wine Jesus drank was not fermented. Scripture doesn't forbid us to drink alcohol, but Christians are commanded that our bodies are not to be mastered by anything...our bodies are the
Why did Paul urge Timothy to drink wine and stop drinking water? Theologians believe it was because the water was making him sick...as in most 3rd world countries, it was contaminated by bacteria.
Also, wine was not fermented in biblical times as it is today and was unlikely to cause drunkeness as easily.
Th bottom line is that each Christian has to make a moral choice for themselves. As I said before, you've chosen a denomination that doesn't preach conviction of sin. Homosexuality is okay, drinking alcohol is okay, using profanity is okay. You're all bound up in arguing legalism and why your sin is not sin. You need to be set free. Unfortunately, you're too blinded to see that. It sounds like you've always rejected the truth and you finally found a denomination that supports your sin. Lucky you, huh?
This is my pointed response:
This writer, “Rachel,” demonstrates the mental sloppiness common to Pentecostals and fundamentalist extremists. “I've never seen alcohol do one good thing for anyone,” she writes. There is much to be said about living in a box and not getting out much. Do these idiots know that socializing among friends with the use of alcohol strengthens the bonds of the community? “Alcohol is excess is what is a sin,” she writes. Well, no shit, Sherlock, but the problem with extremists like Rachel is that they have no concept of moderation – it is either all or nothing. So if you are an extremist, you will not understand that the use of alcohol is NOT a sin. If you are an extremist, you will interpret “all drunkards are going to hell,” as “all alcohol sends you to hell.” This is your typical extremist approach to life: dumb, stupid, and taken out of context and proportion. The stupid reasons from the extremist will be, “Where do you draw the line?” Well, idiot, you are an extremist, and thus, you want to take things to extreme – to the “line,” as it were. You fear the absence of “lines” because you take things to extremes, dumbass! Rachel goes further, “Therefore, it is better to SHUN even an appearance of evil.” Taken in moderation, this might be a prudent course, like, we do not want to go out of our way to piss people off. But and extremist will – as we know – take this to extremes, and take a knife to all things they think might in the most remote case look evil. Again, an extremist with a Bible is a very dangerous thing. Rachel says again, “Th bottom line is that each Christian has to make a moral choice for themselves.” Again, this is a sloppy statement from an extremist. The answer is NO, Christians do not have the privilege or the right to claim things about Christian living as sin when these things are NOT sins. One can make a personal choice not to drink alcohol based on one’s own weaknesses, but to make this a religious doctrine is wrong, and a serious heresy. To invent Christianity in one’s own extremist fantasies is heresy.
Now, Rachel gets personal, “As I said before, you've chosen a denomination that doesn't preach conviction of sin.” In here extremist mindset, she assumes that my “denomination” takes things to extremes to the point that if there is a debate on homosexuality that we are running around sodomizing anything and everything. Again, pure stupidity from an extremist who assumes that since they are an extremist, everyone else must be also – this is the fallacy of mirror-imaging – assuming others are just like us. Pure nonsense. Another Rachel gem, “Homosexuality is okay, drinking alcohol is okay, using profanity is okay.” Rachel is again using sloppiness in writing. Christianity teaches that sodomy is wrong, not homosexuality; drunkenness is wrong, not drinking; and obnoxiously offending our neighbors is wrong, not profanity per se. Again, this is an extremist mindset of all or nothing interpreting everyone else’s actions according to their own mental pathologies. Again, this is mirror-imaging or psychological projection.
Rachel’s final phrases are telling from an extremist psychological perspective, “It sounds like you've always rejected the truth and you finally found a denomination that supports your sin. Lucky you, huh?” Think about what she just wrote. She thinks I am “lucky” in her own mind because in her own mind, I can “do whatever I want to do.” In her mind I can “sin” and be lucky. Think about what she is saying. As an extremist, she interprets my experience through distortion to seeing it in extreme terms – screw 24 hours a day, drink 20 six-packs per night, use the F-word in every sentence, etc. What she is saying is that she thinks living such an extreme lifestyle would make HER lucky. Go back and read what she wrote very carefully. It is absolutely shocking and amazing at the level of Freudian slips extremists can make. She feels bound by her lifestyle and slips and calls the lifestyle of wantonness as “lucky.” This reveals that extremists are simply swinging the old pendulum: extreme austerity to rigid rules followed by periods of extreme indulgence in recklessness.
Rachel, I figured you out. I have been around for a while and have been many places. I know your type.
To regular readers, I ask your forbearance in being so blunt with this person, but in this case, it is warranted as a pointed rebuke.
derkrash-at-earthlink-dot-net
JP Istre
5 comments:
Lutherius:
The essential point that Rachel makes is this:
Luke 18:11
11 The Pharisee, standing by himself, prayed thus: ‘God, I thank you that I am not like other men, extortioners, unjust, adulterers, or even like this tax collector.
That is the gist of pentecostalism and it's subsequent legalism. The whole emphasis on being a good "witness" and the insistence of doing "religious" works shows that Pentecostalism is really very much like Medieval Catholicism. That is: "God will not deny his grace to those who do the good that lies within them" (Thomas Aquinas).
The Gospel is a forensic acquittal and justification of the sinner. God, through the mediator Jesus Christ does it all.
From St. John Chrysostom, his disputation with the judaizing Christians:
Suppose someone should be caught in the act of adultery and the foulest crimes and then be thrown into prison. Suppose, next, that judgment was going to be passed against him and that he would be condemned.
Suppose that just at that moment a letter should come from the Emperor setting free from any accounting or examination all those detained in prison. If the prisoner should refuse to take advantage of the pardon, remain obstinate and choose to be brought to trial, to give an account, and to undergo punishment, he will not be able thereafter to avail himself of the Emperor's favor. For when he made himself accountable to the court, examination, and sentence, he chose of his own accord to deprive himself of the imperial gift.
This is what happened in the case of the Jews. Look how it is. All human nature was taken in the foulest evils. "All have sinned," says Paul. They were locked, as it were, in a prison by the curse of their transgression of the Law. The sentence of the judge was going to be passed against them. A letter from the King came down from heaven. Rather, the King himself came. Without examination, without exacting an account, he set all men free from the chains of their sins.
All, then, who run to Christ are saved by his grace and profit from his gift. But those who wish to find justification from the Law will also fall from grace. They will not be able to enjoy the King's loving-kindness because they are striving to gain salvation by their own efforts; they will draw down on themselves the curse of the Law because by the works of the Law no flesh will find justification.
What does this mean? That he has justified our race not by right actions, not by toils, not by barter and exchange, but by grace alone. Paul, too, made this clear when he said: "But now the justice of God has been made manifest apart from the Law." But the justice of God comes through faith in Jesus Christ and not through any labor and suffering.
Rachel wrote:
"Also, wine was not fermented in biblical times as it is today and was unlikely to cause drunkeness as easily."
This is not true - there was no way to prevent fermentation as Pasteurization had not been discovered.
It's apparent that Penetecostals confuse sanctification with justification. That is, you have to have good behavior and good works in order to be saved. That is not Christianity. As I showed in my first post, with a quote from John Chrysostom, you are saved by grace alone through faith alone. And faith is something that Christ engenders in us (See Hebrews 12:2 and ff)
as a christian, I was a little surprised to see the personal attacks, using name calling like "idiot", "dumbass", and so on. Aren't we supposed to correct those in error with love? It seems to me like you have a lot of bitterness and instead of using a thoughtful, loving approach you are just as guilty of "baiting" as you accuse others of doing to "push their buttons" and make them angry
Anonymous said...
"as a christian, I was a little surprised to see the personal attacks, using name calling like 'idiot, 'dumbass', and so on."
I think Lutherius was very kind. The kindest thing that can be done for these Heretics is to give them a good dressing down for their imbecilities.
Let me relate my own pentecostal experience:
I was a volunteer at a nursing home and took care of a lady in the advanced stages of Multiple Sclerosis. One day some Pentecostals came and told this woman that the reason she was not healed was that she had no faith. Furthermore, her lack of faith, as evinced by her not being healed, was a sure sign that she was damned to hell.
Now I assert to you that that is the wost thing you can say to someone who is terminally ill.
My sincere hope is much worse than Lutherius comments. I hope that those who teach a false gospel (i..e. pentecostalism) are damned to hell.
I'm just wondering where is the "abiding love" in Rachel's rebuke? It sounds as though she's but another clanging, immature cymbal, and a clear demonstration as to reason #247 as why I left the UPCI church.
Post a Comment