CHRIST: Sinless or not?

[rbell]

The "you believe in a corrupt Jesus because you believe He drank" is a logical fallacy. People who believe the simple accounts given by the KJV and other versions simply believe that Jesus interacted with people who drank wine. Those people fully believe in the sinlessness of Christ. You're appproaching it from your perspective--the a priori that drinking wine is evil--and then you infer that we somehow "give Jesus a pass" on this one.

Let's try another, less hot-button issue. Let's take Commandment #11..."Thou shalt not run in church." And let's throw Jesus in the mix. Here we go...

• Is it sinful to run in church?
• Did Jesus do it when He was little? If so, we must draw one of two conlcusions:
  • It ain't sinful, because He doesn't sin.
  • Because we know it to be a sin, He thus committed a sin, and we have a "different Jesus."

You see, the focus very subtly is shifted from the Incarnate Perfect God to the acceptability of a particular action. Wrong order. If your Christology is right, the other stuff is gonna get in line.

God knows right from wrong. Poor, mistaken, or incomplete understanding about how Christ handled a singular issue does not mean we worship "a different Jesus."

It very well is a Salvation issue, mc.

If one utters a lie and lives a lie, can it truly be said that one is saved? Since the Word of God declares that those who lie will not enter into the Kingdom?

I believe it is a Salvation issue. Are they believing in a Christ that is sinless? or one that has sin?

HBSMN...

First, this shows and apallingly bad leap of logic. But then it shows a more sinister edge IMO. Get your definitions straight...having a mistaken point of view (mistaken in your eyes) is not the same as lying.

And you just questioned the salvation of a bunch of posters (in red). Bad move. You redefine "lie," make it mean something it doesn't, decide that people who disagree with you on a point of theology are "liars," and pull out your favorite verse that lists the "hellbound sins." It bothers me for two reasons: one, because you are doing the very thing that you are incensed about others supposedly doing:

You're mad that other folks are "redefining sin" to include drinking...they're "changing the rules to suit them" according to you. Yet...you redefine the word "lie" to mean "to speak of a theological point I disagree with."

NNE here believes that the Son of God ever, EVER sinned. Put your "liar" labels away. And let's lay off the backhanded questioning of others' salvation. I don't do it. I'm sure you lie awake at night and try to figure out ways to be like me. :laugh: Here's yer chance.

 

[Dale-c]

I really do see a problem when something like this divides brothers in Christ so deeply. I would not refuse to fellowship with you despite our disagreements. I have a feeling you wouldn't even consider me a brother!

A feeling? He said as much.
Oh, and dinner wasn't ready yet

 

[npetreley]

having a mistaken point of view (mistaken in your eyes) is not the same as lying.

I got my kids to understand that when they were about 6, and I was a bit worried that they were too old for that to be a difficult concept.

 

[Baptist Believer]

Some have weighed in on this issue and state that one need not have all their ducks in a row. I can agree in principle. But in the practical outworking of this position I must disagree.

If the practical outworking of the position is not valid, then either the conclusions you are drawing or the principle is incorrect, or both.

For example. You believe alcohol to be a good thing; but like all good things it can be abused and it is the abuse of such which becomes sin and not the thing itself.

That is actually my position.

At the judgment seat of Christ you learn that alcohol is an evil thing and you must now answer for your use of it and your advocacy of it.

The Lord will know that I acted in faith, with utter sincerity, openness and devotion to the truth as I understood it, and He will be gracious toward me.

A better example. You believe the same as I stated above and are quite vocal about it. You even vehemently support your view in a worldwide forum (such as this). A young believer sees this exchange, trusts that you know what you are talking about and in short order finds himself trapped in alcoholism and dies a drunkards death.

Anyone who pays attention to the position I (and almost everyone else) advocates regarding the responsible Christian use of alcohol would be unlikely to find themselves “trapped in alcoholism.” But for the sake of your point, I’ll let that slide.

It all began with a glass here and a glass there but soon he falls victim to the deceitfulness of booze. What shall you answer? They were your words which emboldened said young man to think he can safely partake.

The Lord will know that I acted in faith, with utter sincerity, openness and devotion to the truth as I understood it, and He will be gracious toward me.

And yet one more. You believe the same philosophy as above and teach men such things. The truth is revealed in days to come that Jesus did NOT use alcohol and it is totally contrary to His character.

That would be quite surprising since that is what the Christian church has almost uniformly believed, until about 120 years ago. But for the sake of your point, I’ll pretend like it is true.

Yet you have taught others that this is within His character.

Because that is what the scriptures apparently teach.

You have presented a false Christ and encouraged men to trust this false Christ.

Not a false Christ, rather, a picture of Christ that is not 100% accurate. (I also believe that no one has a completely 100% accurate view of Christ.)

What will be your answer?

The Lord will know that I acted in faith, with utter sincerity, openness and devotion to the truth as I understood it, and He will be gracious toward me.

Do not presume to think you can turn this last scenario around upon the "teetotalers" since THEIR view is one of purity and not one of permission.

Nope.

The crusading “Christian” teetotalers judge others according to what they eat and drink (Colossians 2:16), not how faithfully they use it, and condemn them for their faith. Their view is “do not handle, do not taste, do not touch” (Colossians 2:22), and the make the kingdom of God about eating and drinking. These are matters which have the appearance of wisdom in self-made religion but are of no value against fleshly indulgence. (Colossians 2:23)

What will you say if you discover that Jesus did drink alcoholic wine (not to drunkenness) and that your unwillingness to accept the scripture for what it says, instead of relying on your man-made traditions, inspired the young people touched by your congregation to think that your faith (and Christianity in general) is phony? And don’t think that doesn’t happen... I grew up in a congregation that regularly beat us over the head regarding consumption of alcohol. Not only was it regarded as one of the chief distinctions between those who were lost and saved, it was defended at the expense of the clear teaching of scripture. Several people I grew up with (including a family member) decided that their childhood faith (and Christianity) was phony because of hypocrisies like these since scripture was used to justify flagrant racism, total abstinence from alcohol, and prohibitions against things like playing cards (“face cards” as they used to say) and asking hard questions about faith, doubt and the questions raised by modern science.

Just because you promote abstainence (which you claim is purity*) you are not exempt from misrepresenting God.

* Jesus plainly taught that the things you eat and drink DO NOT defile you (that is, make you impure). See Mark 7:17-23

 

[His Blood Spoke My Name]

I got my kids to understand that when they were about 6, and I was a bit worried that they were too old for that to be a difficult concept.

But stating it verbally and without accepting what the Word of God says makes it a lie

 

[His Blood Spoke My Name]

Anyone who pays attention to the position I (and almost everyone else) advocates regarding the responsible Christian use of alcohol would be unlikely to find themselves “trapped in alcoholism.” But for the sake of your point, I’ll let that slide.

No such thing as a Christian use of alcohol.

 

[Dale-c]

But stating it verbally and without accepting what the Word of God says makes it a lie

Then quit lying then.
The only one being backed in to a corner of lies by what you say it you.
Everyone is willing to extend grace to those that do not see things as we do except you.

Everyone else seems to realize that as fallen men, sinners saved by grace we are fallible.

Even if we are sincere, we are wrong sometimes.
Someone else may be sincere and still wrong but that does not make them lost.

Only you insist that ones salvation is thus dependent.
If you insist that someone is lying, then YOU are the one.

 

[Dale-c]

No such thing as a Christian use of alcohol.

Yeah, we got you about 85 pages ago.

 

[npetreley]

But stating it verbally and without accepting what the Word of God says makes it a lie

Maybe I can get my kids to explain the difference. They're 13 and 10 now, so they have a really good grasp of the concept.

 

[npetreley]

The crusading “Christian” teetotalers judge others according to what they eat and drink (Colossians 2:16), not how faithfully they use it, and condemn them for their faith. Their view is “do not handle, do not taste, do not touch” (Colossians 2:22), and the make the kingdom of God about eating and drinking. These are matters which have the appearance of wisdom in self-made religion but are of no value against fleshly indulgence. (Colossians 2:23)

What will you say if you discover that Jesus did drink alcoholic wine (not to drunkenness) and that your unwillingness to accept the scripture for what it says, instead of relying on your man-made traditions, inspired the young people touched by your congregation to think that your faith (and Christianity in general) is phony? And don’t think that doesn’t happen... I grew up in a congregation that regularly beat us over the head regarding consumption of alcohol. Not only was it regarded as one of the chief distinctions between those who were lost and saved, it was defended at the expense of the clear teaching of scripture. Several people I grew up with (including a family member) decided that their childhood faith (and Christianity) was phony because of hypocrisies like these since scripture was used to justify flagrant racism, total abstinence from alcohol, and prohibitions against things like playing cards (“face cards” as they used to say) and asking hard questions about faith, doubt and the questions raised by modern science.

Just because you promote abstainence (which you claim is purity*) you are not exempt from misrepresenting God.

* Jesus plainly taught that the things you eat and drink DO NOT defile you (that is, make you impure). See Mark 7:17-23

If you were a woman, I'd ask you if you were single. Your whole response (of which I've only quoted some) was excellent.

 

[dan e.]

I second that. I thought it was a good, thought provoking post that explains some things I've failed to explain.

 

[Dale-c]

I second that. I thought it was a good, thought provoking post that explains some things I've failed to explain.

Ditto.

I need more words to make the post long enough

 

[saturneptune]

Jesus Christ was and is sinless. It really does not matter what anyone on this thread thinks about what He might or might not have done. Whatever He did, He remained sinless. What we think as flawed being about the subject is a mute point. The bottom line is, I doubt anyone here really understands the depths of the word sinless, nor is God interested in the way one thinks Jesus might have acted out his life.

 

[Dale-c]

Jesus Christ was and is sinless. It really does not matter what anyone on this thread thinks about what He might or might not have done. Whatever He did, He remained sinless. What we think as flawed being about the subject is a mute point. The bottom line is, I doubt anyone here really understands the depths of the word sinless, nor is God interested in the way one thinks Jesus might have acted out his life.

An excellent summation.

 

[Baptist Believer]

If you were a woman, I'd ask you if you were single.

Fortunately, I am not a woman. I'd sure hate to see a woman with this heavy of a beard. :laugh: And I'm blessed to be married to one who is surely one of God's finest creations. :love2:

 

[npetreley]

Fortunately, I am not a woman. I'd sure hate to see a woman with this heavy of a beard. :laugh: And I'm blessed to be married to one who is surely one of God's finest creations. :love2:

Aw, that's sweet. She got a great guy.

 

[av1611jim]

Well there you have it folks!

Some will vehemently say that it does not matter what Jesus did or did not do, it is simply a matter of believing He was and is sinless.

Others, equally vehemently say it does matter what Jesus did or did not do and that is the basis of their faith in His sinlessness.

Thanks folks for wieghing in on the matter.

See you in the next life.

:saint:

 

[Conservative Christian]

Numerous biblical passages cite Jesus as drinking wine, and I think the view of some Christians that it was "just grape juice" is naive.

Drinking wine in moderation is not a sin, the key word being "moderation". One glass of wine with your meal is not a sin. Drinking enough to become inebriated and/or act in an unsavory manner, IS a sin.

Belief that Jesus did or did not drink wine has absolutely nothing to do with salvation.

 

[His Blood Spoke My Name]

Numerous biblical passages cite Jesus as drinking wine, and I think the view of some Christians that it was "just grape juice" is naive.

Drinking wine in moderation is not a sin, the key word being "moderation". One glass of wine with your meal is not a sin. Drinking enough to become inebriated and/or act in an unsavory manner, IS a sin.

Belief that Jesus did or did not drink wine has absolutely nothing to do with salvation.

Can you cite those 'several passages'? I can't find them in any of the old versions.

BTW, it is important we know Jesus, not a facsimile...

But I fear, lest by any means, as the serpent beguiled Eve through his subtilty, so your minds should be corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ. For if he that cometh preacheth another Jesus, whom we have not preached, or [if] ye receive another spirit, which ye have not received, or another gospel, which ye have not accepted, ye might well bear with [him]. (2 Corinthians 11:3-4)

But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed. As we said before, so say I now again, If any [man] preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed. (Galatians 1:8-9)

 

[Conservative Christian]

Can you cite those 'several passages'? I can't find them in any of the old versions.

**Insult removed**. Just one off the top of my head:

Matthew 11:19 (KJV)---"The Son of man came eating and drinking, and they say, Behold a man gluttonous, and a winebibber, a friend of publicans and sinners. But wisdom is justified of her children."