Perhaps this sounds like an ambitious thing to tackle in a blog post, however, someone asked some good questions over twitter recently, and although I tried to answer her question, I'm not sure I was doing well over twitter. So, I'm going to give a more full answer here, where I have more space. The question was, basically, "Are we supposed to get baptized in Jesus name only, or in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit?" The question was raised because of a perceived conflict between two verses. The two verses are as follows:
Matt 28:19 Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, (ESV)
Act 2:38 And Peter said to them, "Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. (Also ESV)
There are two ways to approach this question. First, does it matter how we are baptized? Second, how do we know what to do with two verses that seem to contradict each other because of differing amounts of detail?
One of the answers to the question of how to be baptized was to point the questioner to a CARM page on baptism, which has a link to an explanation of what that verse has to do with baptism (http://carm.org/baptism-and-acts-238)
That web page has an in depth, technical explanation of the Greek in Act 2:38. However, I'm guessing that most people asking the question about which verse to follow aren't interested in a technical explanation of the Greek grammar behind one of those verses. If you skip that explanation, it also has a good explanation of the idea that salvation does not come because of getting baptized. So, it really doesn't matter (much) how you get baptized, because that's not what gets you saved anyway. I'm not saying it isn't important to do what God's word says. The idea of obedience is good, certainly. The biggest issue, though, is that a person is acting from right motives. So, if a person is honestly trying to do what is right, then that's what counts. If they are in a group that believes in Jesus only baptisms, and so they believe they should be baptized in the name of Jesus only because they don't realize that the Bible has anything else to say on the subject, God isn't going to punish that person for having acted out of a good conscience and for not having been baptized the "right" way. This goes for any other question regarding baptism, too. If you are in a group that practices dunking, sprinkling, immersion, whatever, it isn't the most important question. If you were baptized in any of those groups (regardless of what is "correct" in an objective sense), that's fine. If you did it as the answer of a good conscience towards God to make a public confession of faith towards God, you did it with right motives. That's what counts. That said, if your conscience is bothering you, by all means, do it again! If you've decided that the group who originally baptized you didn't have everything right and so you are concerned that it "didn't take" or something along those lines, go do it again. The Bible is pretty clear about maintaining a good conscience (see 1 John 3:19-23 or so). Also, if those around you don't believe that the way you did it in the past was valid, for their sakes, do it again.
The second question is the more important question. How do we know what to do regarding two verses that seem to contradict each other by giving differing amounts of information? First of all, this pair of verses (Matt 28:19 and Acts 2:38) don't contradict each other. If you are baptized in the name of the son of God, then you are baptized in the name of Jesus. The two things mean the same. If you are baptized in the name of the father and of the holy spirit, you are still being baptized "in the name of" God, which means you are doing it because he (God) commanded it. You are acting as his agent. Because God is one God, whether you do something in the name of Jesus, or in the name of the Father, or the Son or the Holy Spirit, it is all being done in the name of God. Now, if someone doesn't believe in the doctrine of the Trinity, then that's an issue, because there are a LOT of scriptures which substantiate that doctrine. If someone says, though, there is a difference in meaning because the one tells me to be baptized in three names and the other says only to be baptized in one name, that person needs to consider this:
If I go to a party and am telling everyone about a car accident that was really shocking that I witnessed on the way to the party, I might give a LOT of details to the first person I tell about it. I might be still trying to deal with what I saw and I need to just have a shoulder to cry on, so to speak. But if someone else comes over and asks what we are talking about, I'm probably not going to go into as much detail. If yet a third person comes over and asks what we are talking about, I might shorten my recap to just a few words. "Oh, I was talking about an accident I saw." Done. End of story. Say no more. Does it mean that I'm "changing my story?" Is there a contradiction present between my various retellings of what happened? Not at all. These changes are completely natural.
If I'm trying to find a job and so I apply to multiple potential employers, the job descriptions might vary quite a bit. If they each require three completely different skill sets, I might tailor my resume to match each of those three requirements. If I leave out my computer programming experience while applying for a sales job, it doesn't mean I haven't ever worked as a computer programmer. It just means I've changed the focus of my resume to match the needs of my audience.
We often see instances in the Bible of the same circumstances being recounted by multiple witnesses. Jesus life is retold once in each of the four Gospels and each one is different. What to do? If you get more detail from one account than from another, you have to believe the one with more details. 2Ti 3:16 states that, "All scripture [is] given by inspiration of God, and [is] profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness" So, you can't just toss out the longer verses because they seem to disagree with the shorter verses.
What do you think? Am I missing anything in my explanation of what to do with those two verses? Is my focus or set of priorities wrong? Can you give me any suggestions for improvements in my reasoning or my examples? Or, if this has been really helpful to you and you just think this is the most wonderful blog post you've ever read, either way, let me know! I love to get comments. Thanks in advance and God bless you!
Sunday, March 24, 2013
Saturday, March 9, 2013
Weed and the Gospel
Many of the arguments against using drugs are the same regardless of the drug. However, many of us don't know those arguments (when it comes to drug use and Christianity), so I thought I'd write up a quick synopsis of them. There may well be more, and I'd love to hear your thoughts on this in the comments, but this is the way I'm thinking about it currently.
The first argument has to do with the meaning of the word from the Bible translated as sorcery. Although most of us don't think of sorcery today as having anything to do with drugs, in the time the new testament was written, it did. This comes as a surprise to most people I talk to when I'm out witnessing in the streets, but if you look it up in "Vine's Complete Expository Dictionary," it is right there in black and white. I had a hard time with this, although I heard friends of mine saying things about this on a regular basis, until I looked it up myself. The definition given in Vine's is pretty explicit, so I will quote extensively here.
If you haven't ever tried to witness to people about the Gospel and had them try to justify themselves, then it might be hard to imagine all the different ways people try to wiggle out of their responsibility to do what's right. In case you, like me, think the above things make "doing drugs" look like something we really ought to avoid, I'll try to help you see things from the point of view of those I witness to. They say things like, "Well, maybe it was some other drug that was being talked about there. How do I know that is really talking about weed?" In response, I try to explain to them the principle behind these prohibitions. I tell them this is no different from alcohol usage (1 Cor 6:9-10, no drunkard shall inherit the kingdom of heaven). The thing that unites the two is Matt 5:28, "But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart." The point here is not that a man can't look at a woman. The point is also not that a man can't feel attracted to a woman. Rather, if a man notices that he is being tempted to do something he should not (lusting after a woman he's not married to), he should avoid the source of the temptation. That is, a man being tempted by a woman's beauty should look away! The problem with both alcohol and weed is that they both dull the mind and prevent people from being able to choose right from wrong.
The third argument is that marijuana should be avoided because it is simply not good for you. This argument has a number of different approaches. We are told we are not to defile the temple, and the body of the believer is the temple of the Lord. (retort: What does it mean to defile the temple?) We are not to commit murder, and because we are killing ourselves by smoking (whether marijuana or tobacco), we are committing murder by smoking.
The obviousness of the above is pretty clear to me. However, when I bring this line of reasoning out into the streets, I'm often told, "Oh, no. Neither alcohol nor weed does that to me." I used to drink alcohol, and I find it hard to believe that it doesn't make it more difficult for ANYONE to do what is right. I've never used marijuana, but I've watched people who have, and having done that has been enough for me. Today, though, I found a book in the library that gives me further evidence to support my ideas. It is "Forensic Pharmacology," by Beth and Morris Zedeck, 2007. On p. 51, it says the following.
1Cr 10:31 Whether therefore ye eat, or drink, or whatsoever ye do, do all to the glory of God.
Now, knowing what marijuana does to people (from a medical/pharmacological perspective), is using it really something likely to be "to the glory of God?"
The first argument has to do with the meaning of the word from the Bible translated as sorcery. Although most of us don't think of sorcery today as having anything to do with drugs, in the time the new testament was written, it did. This comes as a surprise to most people I talk to when I'm out witnessing in the streets, but if you look it up in "Vine's Complete Expository Dictionary," it is right there in black and white. I had a hard time with this, although I heard friends of mine saying things about this on a regular basis, until I looked it up myself. The definition given in Vine's is pretty explicit, so I will quote extensively here.
Sorcery:The word "sorcerer" is only slightly different. The second meaning in Vine's for "sorcerer" is as follows.
A. Nouns
1. pharmakia (leaving out the greek spelling) (Eng., "pharmacy," etc.) primarily signified "the use of medicine, drugs, spells"; then, "poisoning"; then, "sorcery," Gal. 5:20, RV, "sorcery" (KJV, "witchcraft"), mentioned as one of "the works of the flesh." See also Rev. 9:21, 18:23. In the Septuagint, Ex 7:11, 22; 8:7, 18; Isa 47:9, 12. In "sorcery," the use of drugs, whether simple or potent, was generally accompanied by incantations and appeals to occult powers, with the provision of various charms, amulets, etc., professedly designed to keep the applicant or paitient from the attention and power of demons, but actually to impress the applicant with the mysterious resources and powers of the sorcerer.
2. pharmakos (greek spelling omitted), an adjective signifying "devoted to magical arts," is used as a nound, "a sorcerer," especially one who uses drugs, potions, spells, enchantments, Rev 21:8, in the best texts (some have pharmakeus), and 22:15.Both "Sorcery" and "Sorcerer" are sometimes the words used as the translation of words of another root, "magos", whose definition doesn't have anything overtly to do with "drugs" or "potions". However, for your ease of reading, I've included some of the above cited verses below.
Rev 21:8 But the fearful, and unbelieving, and the abominable, and murderers, and whoremongers, and sorcerers, and idolaters, and all liars, shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone: which is the second death.First of all, sorcerers are listed right along with murderers, whoremongers (RSV uses "fornicators" here. Several other translations say just, "sexually immoral people") and idolaters, each of which is worthy of death in the old testament law. Second, it says that these people "shall have their part in the lake which burn[s] with fire and brimstone: which is the second death." That sounds pretty bad to me. Going from Vine's definition alone, one might say, "Well, the problem with whatever it was these people were doing was that they were actually committing idolatry. It had nothing to do with the drug usage." But, idolatry is listed, too. So, if idolatry was the only problem going on, it wouldn't be listed separately. In Rev 22:15, we see that sorcerers are not going to be allowed to enter into the "New Jerusalem" with the murderers, whoremongers and idolaters. In Gal 5:20, the word for "witchcraft" is pharmakeia. In Gal 5:21, we find that people who practice "pharmakeia" (right along with, again, murderers and such) "shall not inherit the kingdom of God." There doesn't seem to be any symbolism there. As if "lake of fire" and shut out of "New Jerusalem" weren't enough, those who do "pharmakeia" won't inherit the kingdom of God.
If you haven't ever tried to witness to people about the Gospel and had them try to justify themselves, then it might be hard to imagine all the different ways people try to wiggle out of their responsibility to do what's right. In case you, like me, think the above things make "doing drugs" look like something we really ought to avoid, I'll try to help you see things from the point of view of those I witness to. They say things like, "Well, maybe it was some other drug that was being talked about there. How do I know that is really talking about weed?" In response, I try to explain to them the principle behind these prohibitions. I tell them this is no different from alcohol usage (1 Cor 6:9-10, no drunkard shall inherit the kingdom of heaven). The thing that unites the two is Matt 5:28, "But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart." The point here is not that a man can't look at a woman. The point is also not that a man can't feel attracted to a woman. Rather, if a man notices that he is being tempted to do something he should not (lusting after a woman he's not married to), he should avoid the source of the temptation. That is, a man being tempted by a woman's beauty should look away! The problem with both alcohol and weed is that they both dull the mind and prevent people from being able to choose right from wrong.
The third argument is that marijuana should be avoided because it is simply not good for you. This argument has a number of different approaches. We are told we are not to defile the temple, and the body of the believer is the temple of the Lord. (retort: What does it mean to defile the temple?) We are not to commit murder, and because we are killing ourselves by smoking (whether marijuana or tobacco), we are committing murder by smoking.
The obviousness of the above is pretty clear to me. However, when I bring this line of reasoning out into the streets, I'm often told, "Oh, no. Neither alcohol nor weed does that to me." I used to drink alcohol, and I find it hard to believe that it doesn't make it more difficult for ANYONE to do what is right. I've never used marijuana, but I've watched people who have, and having done that has been enough for me. Today, though, I found a book in the library that gives me further evidence to support my ideas. It is "Forensic Pharmacology," by Beth and Morris Zedeck, 2007. On p. 51, it says the following.
Marijuana has a range of behavioral effects, including feelings of euphoria, relaxation, mood changes, panic reactions, and paranoia. It also causes an altered time perception, lack of concentration, and impairs judgment, learning, and memory. [...] Other changes include psychosis, delusions, and hallucinations. [...] The physiological effects of marijuana include increased heart rate, dryness of the mouth and throat, increased appetite, enlargement of the blood vessels and pupils, sleepiness, decreased repiration rate, and psychomotor impairment. Ataxia (unsteady balance) and bloodshot eyes are characteristic of marijuana intoxication. Use of marijuana over a long period of time can cause lung damage, impairment of cognitive function, alteration of the immune system, reduced testosterone levels and enlarged breast tissue in males, and schizophrenia, a mental disorder that results in disorganized behavior and social withdrawal.A friend of mine once told me about a movie he considered to be completely ridiculous called, "Reefer madness," which he said claimed some of those same things. As I remember, his rationale was, "I've known a lot of people who have used pot, and none of them had the things happen that were portrayed in that movie." I've not seen that movie, but if a book on "Forensic Pharmacology" says these things happen, I believe it does happen. How often, I don't know. However, is it really something that should be risked? I personally don't want to mess with anything that could cause me to become schizophrenic.
1Cr 10:31 Whether therefore ye eat, or drink, or whatsoever ye do, do all to the glory of God.
Now, knowing what marijuana does to people (from a medical/pharmacological perspective), is using it really something likely to be "to the glory of God?"
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)