Posted on 08/26/2015 2:25:08 PM PDT by SeekAndFind
Maybe; but since I don't do Greek (I leave that to experts to do it for me) I can only go by what various English translations tell me.
HMMMmmm...
THIS sure SOUNDS Catholic:
...unless you agree with how I interpret the Bible
I wonder about Mormons...
The BEST stuff MUST mean SOMETHING!
Oh?
Then WHERE did the 'cheaper' stuff come from?
Yeah!
Ain't it great!
Wait!
There’s MORE!
Verse 10 pretty much eviscerates the argument that the “wine” references in this passage are just speaking of unfermented grape juice. There would be no point talking about people “well drunk” on grape juice, or serving up poor quality grape juice later. The fact that this is mentioned proves the beverage in question was alcoholic, because it is only alcoholic beverages that have this effect (where people don’t notice the declining quality of the drinks because they become more impaired as they drink them).
Which is taken out of context if meaning an older man as an pastor cannot be rebuked for what he publicly preached.
MacArthur is a very dedicated and mostly sound Bible teacher of holy motive and means who has much challenged and edified me and multitudes, and one i wish i did not warrant any reproof. However, he is wrong on cessationism, plus in his reaction against excess and desire for order, he has mixed truth with false conclusions, and his treatment of it manifests a false balance.
He has written three books in support of his position: The Charismatics (1978), Charismatic Chaos (1993), and Strange Fire: The Danger of Offending the Holy Spirit with Counterfeit Worship (2013). In October 2013, MacArthur hosted a conference called "Strange Fire" at his church, to mark the launch of his book of the same name. The event featured a number of speakers who argued for a cessationist theology and strongly critiqued the Charismatic Movement.[22]
In his opening remarks, MacArthur stated, Watching the behavior of some Hindus who belong to the Kundalini cult. Their body movements are almost identical to that of people in the charismatic movement, the extreme behavior of pagans. This is the work of Satan, it is the work of darkness, and not to be attributed to the Holy Spirit." And that, "The Charismatic movement as such has made no contribution to biblical clarity, interpretation, or sound doctrine..It detracts and confuses." "It has only produced distortion, confusion, and error." "Have people truly been saved in Charismatic churches? Yes. But nothing coming from that movement has been the reason they were saved." "Evangelicalism has thrown its arms open and has welcomed the Trojan horse of the charismatic movement into the city of God. Its troops have taken over and placed an idol in the city of God."[23]
He broadly calls modern "visions, revelations, voices from heaven...dreams, speaking in tongues, prophecies, out-of-body experiences, trip to heaven, anointings, miracles all false, all lies, all deceptions attributed falsely to the Holy Spirit." And that "The Charismatic movement has stolen the Holy Spirit and created a golden calf, and theyre dancing around the golden calf as if it were the Holy Spirit."[24][25] He has made a list of Gifts of the Spirit, mostly from 1 Cor. 12-14, but holds that "once the New Testament was finished, those sign gifts ceased to have a function", and ended with the conclusion of the Apostolic Age, around 100 AD.[26]
In a subsequent teaching, "What has happened after the 'Strange Fire' Conference" (2013), MacArthur allowed that within the Charismatic movement there were those who believed in the authority of Scripture, honored the Lord, and pursued Godly living, and that the movement retained enough gospel truth so that souls could be saved within it. However, he saw its interdenominational presence as being "a testimony to the absence of any theology." He further criticized the modern Charismatic movement, stating that in 1967 "a bunch of Jesus freak people.. go to Calvary Chapel...and for the first time...that I know of in history, the church lets the very defined subculture dictate what it will be," citing "the hippie culture, communal living...kids coming out of drugs and free sex, and all that" as displacing "all the normal and formal things," and typifying the charismatic church, with the movement becoming Calvary Chapel.[27]
In the past (1991) however, MacArthur commended Chuck Smith (1927 2013), founder of the Calvary Chapel movement, for writing "a straight forward critique of charismatic extremism," and stated that "there are many like him who have taken their stand and I thank God for their courage and their desire to be Biblical."[28] In response to MacArthur's Strange Fire conference, Calvary Chapel expresses a fundamental disagreement with MacArthur's understanding of spiritual gifts among God's people today, but affirms "charisma, not charismania," and commends Chuck Smiths book "Charisma versus Charismania" as being one of the best short, popular works on the subject.[29]
Two books were written in response to the Strange Fire conference, arguing for the continuationist position: Authentic Fire: A Response to John MacArthur's Strange Fire by Michael Brown and Holy Fire: A Balanced, Biblical Look at the Holy Spirit's Work in Our Lives by R.T. Kendall. Addressing the Strange Fire conference, continuationist Calvinist Baptist John Piper concurs that there are many abuses in the charismatic church, however he adds that "we really need to keep in mind that every charismatic abuse has its mirror image in non-charismatic abuses...In some of these cases, the non-charismatic church is more guilty than the charismatic," such as, "the absence of emotion, which is probably more deadly than the excesses."[30] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_F._MacArthur#Cessationism
Poster here: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/3316498/posts
Exception, with good balance. Hear him now here .
And u can watch CURTAINS FOR WALTER MARTIN & DOUG CLARK AT TBN
Excellent summary. On the above quote from Piper, I think he is accurate. His opinion is similar to his fellow pastor J.P. Moreland. Who also addresses the various continuationist-cessationist views and his observations. He quotes his opinions in "Kingdom Triangle." Excellent book IMO if you have the time to read it.
Thanks
That cannot be denied though it may be ignored. Nor the mutual from Prots, for to stand for anything is to oppose something else. If RCs would accept that rather than demanding or expecting freedom from challenges while promoting their provocative pronouncements then it would be encouraging, but that means the errors of Rome can be exposed, and thus they seek to censor all such.
The enemy of truth is not lies....it's half truths.
The context pretty much eviscerates your contention that the comment of the "governor of the feast" was talking about this particular event. He was not, if you read the text carefully.
As the governor speaks, "well-drunk" applies not to this event but to other feasts over which he has presided, and not even necessarily only wedding feasts. What he is saying is that so far, at this feast, the best-tasting wine (whether alcoholic or not) was not yet given out.
You cannot, as you desire, build a positive argument that any wine/juice has been offered to the guest before that made by Jesus. Furthermore, not knowing that it was made by Jesus, he doesn't and can't give the reader a clue as to whether the juice is an alcoholic beverage or not. He only says that from some unspecified aspect, it is the best in that quality parameter, whatever it is. Logically, you can guess, but you cannot prove the type of beverage this is. So don't keep on trying.
From my experience, having myself drunk good Burgundies and Beaujolais in Dijon, the Welch's grape juice of New York State Concord grapes, still retaining all the sugars usually consumed in fermentation, and without the acidity or lees, is far tastier and refreshing than any red wine you can find anywhere. So would the freshly created, not-yet-begun-to-ferment blood of the cluster, made from pure holy water, be very delightful to the jaded palate of the feast-master, and a highlight of the banquet.
"Thus saith the LORD, As the new wine is found in the cluster, and one saith, Destroy it not; for a blessing is in it: so will I do for my servants' sakes, that I may not destroy them all" (Is. 65:8 AV).
And even if the celebrants were plastered to the ears (though you cannot make that to be so), giving them fresh new sweet grape juice could not possibly be wrong or harmful, or sinful, whereas giving them about 150 gallons more of intoxicant could not be anything less than worthy of condemnation for anyone, much less the Holy Son Of God deliberately making them wretchedly nauseous and shamefully sodden.
I hope you are grasping this.
I’m sorry, but your argument makes absolutely no sense in light of verse 10.
You can’t get “well drunk” on unfermented beverages, so that would be a nonsensical statement. Unfermented beverages also do not produce the effect that is spoken of, where, as people consume them, they become impaired in detecting the quality of the beverage (which is why people bring out the cheap wine when people are drunk). Only alcoholic beverages produce the effect.
Not only that, but it flies in the face of common sense. People have always, since the beginning of recorded history, served alcoholic beverages at wedding ceremonies. That is why everyone who reads this verse assumes it is speaking of wine, because it is a completely understandable situation we can all relate to. Only people from cultures like the Mohammedans and Puritans (who came much later than the NT) would think that a wedding might NOT serve alcoholic beverages.
So, if we try to read verse 10 as talking about unfermented beverages, it makes no sense at all. Now, God does not write things in the Bible that are nonsense. So if the equation of: your interpretation + the Bible = nonsense, then it is obviously your interpretation that produced the nonsense.
Love ya, man!
“So, no, I do not and and never will in this life come to believe that Jesus made alcoholic beverage for the Cana wedding. “
I believe He made wine because the Bible says He made wine and wine has alcohol as the Scripture points out in the story. The Bible says it and I believe it.
You believe He didn’t make wine because you want to believe He didn’t make wine, no matter what Scripture says.
very true
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.