Amid a years-long battle with postpartum depression, anxiety and insomnia, a therapist gave Jenny Morrison what proved to be a life-altering suggestion: "Why don't you try drinking a small glass of wine at night?"
When Morrison, a longtime follower of Jesus and Southern Baptist, tried it that night, "it made me sleepy and gave me almost immediate" relief "from the depression and anxiety," she said.
So over the course of several years, she drank more, and more, and more -- until she nearly lost her family and her life.
For well over a century, Southern Baptists have opposed drinking alcoholic beverages, in part over concern for the destruction alcohol has brought to people like Morrison. Amid national discussion this fall of Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh's youthful drinking and a mounting number of news reports on alcohol's negative effects, the reasons for Baptist opposition to...
Hal wrote, “I think Baptists today are not the same as the Baptists of yesterday.†That depends on what Baptists you are referring to. Some are still following the old paths despite what the unscriptural denominational churches do.
I think Baptists today are not the same as the Baptists of yesterday. SA already had stories about how some Baptist churches have removed the word Baptist from their names. Thus, the old issues of alcohol, abortion, homosexuality, are being put away in the closet so they won't disturb the New People that those Church Growth Experts say the Church today must seek out. No, Bible-based preaching will not bring them in, unless you can apply a coat of varnish of modern psychological findings to it.
Unprofitable Servant wrote: James I know you are no longer responding. You said, "Solomon's temple had silver and gold but God did not dwell there see Acts 7:48" not 49 which is from the passage in Isaiah 66.
verse 48, to which you referred me, is from Solomon's prayer not Isaiah's prophecy and verses 46-48 of Acts 7 back up my last post. Appreciate you brother, God bless.
Hey Bro, I appreciate you as well and I admit at struggling a bit lately with just simply not having enough time to sit down and focus so that I may string some thoughts together so that someone else can follow my thought trail. I'd be happy to discuss the Acts 7 verse you had a question on. I see what you said but As I understand it, Stephen says Solomon built God a house, howbeit the Most High does not dwell in temples made with hands and I believe those words were his own. In order to back up what he had just asserted, Stephen cites Isa 66:1 and 2 as a validation of his statement. To me, Solomon building the house for God is not a good thing.
Psalm 127:1 Except the LORD build the house, they labour in vain that build it:
Redeemed, how I love to proclaim it! Redeemed by the blood of the Lamb; Redeemed through His infinite mercy, His child and forever I am. Redeemed, redeemed, Redeemed by the blood of the Lamb; Redeemed, redeemed, His child and forever I am.
James Thomas wrote: This will be my last post on this, so last word is yours. John, In regard to the text, Peter says they were NOT redeemed with all of the mentioned items in verse 18 to which this mention of silver and gold is grouped with.
I am quite content for you to have the last word, James, seeing as we both agree that we are redeemed solely by the precious blood of the precious Saviour.
James I know you are no longer responding. You said, "Solomon's temple had silver and gold but God did not dwell there see Acts 7:48" not 49 which is from the passage in Isaiah 66.
Backup to verse 47 Speaking of the place of God's dwelling in Israel (which was the tabernacle (tent) in verse 46)
But Solomon built Him a house (not tent)
verse 48 Howbeit the Most High dwelleth not in temples made with hands
II Chronicles 6:18 from the prayer of Solomon
But will God in very deed dwell with men on the earth? Behold, heaven and the heaven of heavens cannot contain Thee; how much less this house which I have built!
verse 48, to which you referred me, is from Solomon's prayer not Isaiah's prophecy and verses 46-48 of Acts 7 back up my last post.
This will be my last post on this, so last word is yours.
John, In regard to the text, Peter says they were NOT redeemed with all of the mentioned items in verse 18 to which this mention of silver and gold is grouped with.
1 Peter 1:18 (18) Forasmuch as ye know that ye were not redeemed with corruptible things, as silver and gold, from your vain conversation received by tradition from your fathers;
But redeemed with...
(19) But with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot:
The vain traditions of the fathers taught works of the law as spoken of here in Romans 10:3 For they being ignorant of God's righteousness, and going about to establish their own righteousness, have not submitted themselves unto the righteousness of God.
The spiritual currency for righteousness per the traditions of the Fathers was their own works of their own hands.(Jer. 1:16) which Jesus testified was evil(John 7:7). Paul says God's is... Rom 5:1.. by faith. Rom 5:9...justified by his blood.
Justified by faith or by blood? Or are they simply one in the same? I think so.
UPS- ON Acts 7:48, I believe Stephen is quoting the prophet Isaiah in Isa 66:1-2.
Thanks again James for your gracious response. I am somewhat puzzled that you used the quote of Solomon at the dedication of the temple (Acts 7:48) to say God did not dwell there. Solomon humbly acknowledged the ubiquity of God by stating there is no place where He is not, yet he certainly saw and expected God to dwell there. The Bible clearly indicates the temple (and previously the tabernacle) were considered the place of God's dwelling.
You are familiar with the objects of both and know that in the holy of holies there were two cherubim that stretch forth their wings over the mercy seat. Note that Moses (Numbers 7:89),Samuel(I Sam. 4:4), David (II Sam. 6:2, Psalm 99:1)), and Hezekiah (Isaiah37:16) to name a few acknowledged that was God's dwelling place. Those cherub were found in the house of the Lord. Where did David believe he would find God? Read Psalm 27:4
There are many more verses I could bring to show the truthfulness of what I have said. You might want to reconsider your statement
James, let us also never forget that it was the Lord who instructed his people regarding redemption and atonement in both OT and NT.
Exodus 30:11-16 KJV (11)Â And the LORD spake unto Moses, saying, (12)Â When thou takest the sum of the children of Israel after their number, then shall they give every man a ransom for his soul unto the LORD, when thou numberest them; that there be no plague among them, when thou numberest them. (13)Â This they shall give, every one that passeth among them that are numbered, half a shekel after the shekel of the sanctuary: (a shekel is twenty gerahs) an half shekel shall be the offering of the LORD. (14)Â Every one that passeth among them that are numbered, from twenty years old and above, shall give an offering unto the LORD. (15)Â The rich shall not give more, and the poor shall not give less than half a shekel, when they give an offering unto the LORD, to make an atonement for your souls. (16)Â And thou shalt take the atonement money of the children of Israel, and shalt appoint it for the service of the tabernacle of the congregation; that it may be a memorial unto the children of Israel before the LORD, to make an atonement for your souls.
If a Hebrew waxed poor and had to sell himself into bondservice, his near kinsman could redeem him, or, if he somehow came into a windfall, he could redeem himself from servitude with literal silver and gold. The apostle is making it clear that this is a whole different level of redemption that requires the payment of a much higher price, the price of divine blood. A bondsman may be a pretty good fellow or an absolute rogue, so his righteousness is not the issue. His access to riches is the issue, and the blood of Christ is infinitely more valuable than all the physical wealth of the universe.
1 Peter 1:18-19 KJV (18)Â Forasmuch as ye know that ye were not redeemed with corruptible things, as silver and gold, from your vain conversation received by tradition from your fathers; (19)Â But with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot:
...you are saying that "silver and gold" is none other than self-righteousness?
redeemed with silver and gold redeemed with your self-righteousness
Bro, I have met plenty of self-righteous people, and they try to get heaven by their own righteousness. But none of them have sought to be redeemed with their righteousness.
Redemption implies that men are sinful, unrighteous and need salvation by grace. In the OT redemption was always by payment separate from the person redeemed. Thusly it was by paying money (shekels) or a life-for-life sacrifice. The latter brings in another theological term to do with this - atonement.
Thusly, the silver and gold (money) in the text can be taken quite literally, and this is how the Jews in particular would understand Peter's comment. The whole text is about the redemption of sinners.
James Thomas- Wine in the Bible may be alcoholic or juice. The word "wine" in contemporary times means booze but that wasn't always the case. The word "drink" ,for example, can mean alcohol or non depending on the context in which it is used.
Thanks John and US for your thoughts. Let me cut to the chase. I believe there is silver and gold that belongs to God and then there is silver and gold that is not his but their own...and God hates it.
Hosea 8:4 They have set up kings, but not by me: they have made princes, and I knew it not: of "their silver and their gold" have they made them idols, that they may be cut off.
Hosea 8:14 For Israel hath forgotten his Maker, and buildeth temples;
Solomon's temple had silver and gold but God did not dwell there... see Acts 7:48. Ezek 16 does speak of God's gold and silver to which God did adorn them with,but then they began to trust in their own beauty of self righteousness.
This makes sense when one ponders, How does one buy wine and milk without money here in Isaiah 55? The answer is given.
Isa 55:1... and he that hath no money; come ye, buy, and eat; yea, come, buy wine and milk without money and without price.
Isa 55:2 Wherefore do ye spend money for that which is not bread? and your labour for that which satisfieth not? hearken diligently unto me, and eat ye that which is good, and let your soul delight itself in fatness.
Labor that satisfies not...works of self righteousness. This also renders that grape juice debate as futile.
Hello James, here is something which might help. You know the apostles had to convince all that there was a transition between old and new covenant? So they often said a negative followed by a positive, as in:
Hebrews 9:11-12 KJV (11)Â But Christ being come an high priest of good things to come, by a greater and more perfect tabernacle, not made with hands, that is to say, not of this building; (12)Â Neither by the blood of goats and calves, but by his own blood he entered in once into the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption for us.
Here we have the old tabernacle made with hands replaced with the greater and more perfect tabernacle (in heaven); and the sacrificial blood of animals being replaced with the precious blood of Christ.
Now, while you have this verse fresh in your mind, read the text in question, and see the comparison between the two, because the two passages use exactly the same technique.
1 Peter 1:18-19 KJV (18)Â Forasmuch as ye know that ye were not redeemed with corruptible things, as silver and gold, from your vain conversation received by tradition from your fathers; (19)Â But with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot:
Plain Old Tim wrote: Corruptible=temporal. Ye were not redeemed with [temporal] things, [such] as silver and gold, but with the [eternal] blood of Christ. I must be missing something; I don’t understand what is hard to understand about this.
It is not hard for most, bro. But some just love to play Gnostics.
The redemption in the old covenant times was a price paid on account of disobedience. Imagine then, someone trying to pay a price with his obedience for his disobedience. The self-righteous do not believe they "were" disobedient.
Peter - not being a Gnostic but a plain, ordinary fisherman - called a spade a spade, and wouldn't waste his time trying to make scripture flowery and indiscernible. He was well versed in the OT from birth, and knew all about the ceremonial and sacrificial laws set out by the Lord Jehovah, and he knew that the new covenant in Christ's blood made all those obsolete, Christ having fulfilled them. The temporal, as you say, needed an infinite and eternal fulfilment, which was our Lord Jesus Christ, our Bible saying that he was God manifest in the flesh, and you can't get more infinite or eternal than that.
There are many verses that would indicate the Israelites would associate silver and gold with redemption and worship of God. Solompn's temple (where they worshiped God) had very much actual silver and gold in it. False worship was set up by Aaron and Rheaboam with golden calves and said basically that they brought Israel redemption Speaking of His chosing Israel to be His people in Ezekiel 16 He speaks of their redemption in figurative language of going from being naked and bloody to being adorned with silver and gold. When God speaks of the glory of the House of God in Haggai He states the silver and the gold are His. When speaking of purifying the sons of Levi, He calls the process the same as purifying gold and silver in Malachi. The vessels of honor in II Timothy 2 were gold and silver. There are too numerous to name verses about things redeemed for a price in Leviticus and other parts of the Penteteuch. I am certainly not saying that calling silver and gold an analogy for good works is not good Bible teaching. I am saying that taking it to mean literal silver and gold is also accurate. Don't throw out the obvious because there are other truths that can be garnered.
Corruptible=temporal. Ye were not redeemed with [temporal] things, [such] as silver and gold, but with the [eternal] blood of Christ. I must be missing something; I don’t understand what is hard to understand about this.
Unprofitable Servant wrote: The literal silver and gold is an acceptable interpretation and shouldn't be thrown out because other meanings can be found.
If the above direction is found in the bible, I haven't come across it. I have read hold fast to what is good and that after proving it up from Scripture though.
Psalm 115:3 But our God is in the heavens: he hath done whatsoever he hath pleased.
Psalm 115:4 Their idols are silver and gold, the work of men's hands.
The above, to me is one of the more clear descriptions Scripture provides for us on what silver and gold mean in that context. They held to their own self righteousness as means for justification. That is what I see Peter is sharing.
Peter said they were not redeemed with the corruptible things which he lays out for us as vain conversation received by tradition from your fathers; {Their inventions of traditions to which Paul counted his own as dung.} and the works thereof which would be their silver an gold.
James Thomas wrote: Thanks for your thoughts Bro, Let me address, if I may, your opinion of "Assuming what you see is not what you get." as the only flaw of interpretation. I hope I got that right, if not please correct me. ..... Objective as it gets....sourced from Scripture alone. There are instances which definitions are clearly given. Wheat and tares are defined in Matthew 13. Peter said the Joel prophecy in Ch.2 was occurring per Acts 2:17-22. Paul used Deut 25:4 in 1 Cor. 9:9 and teaches us what it means. That is the hermeneutic at the root. I hope that clears it up some. Blessings to you.
Thank you for your gracious reply
James as you know I already commended your thoughts on the verses. I am also saying that as someone aptly stated Our Lord didn't pay temporary currency for an eternal transaction. The literal silver and gold is an acceptable interpretation and shouldn't be thrown out because other meanings can be found. Redemption of an individual by cash would have been a concept that people would have understood in Peter's day. In other words, what you see is what you get is an acceptable way to understand this passage, one doesn't need to throw it to the wayside. . Hope that makes sense, God bless
James Thomas wrote: hmmm...I see what you mean...but something else to consider...read on in the context I see this explaination. as though by our own power or holiness we had made this man to walk? I'LL Look at examples you gave later when more time is available for me. Thanks for sharing.
You're welcome bro.
1 Peter 1:18 KJV (18)Â Forasmuch as ye know that ye were not redeemed with corruptible things, as silver and gold, from your vain conversation received by tradition from your fathers;
COMMENTS 
locked 
System Notice
