Ever since Adam’s sin in the Garden of Eden, men have sought to shift the blame for their sins to someone else. Adam blamed Eve and God for his sin. "The woman whom thou gavest to be with me, she gave me of the tree, and I did eat." It was no excuse for Adam, and it is no excuse for any of his descendants. People by nature refuse to accept responsibility for their actions when they can "pass the buck to someone else. However, God is not mocked, and He, as the Judge of all the earth, will do right when all individuals stand before Him on Judgment Day, to give account for their words, thoughts and deeds.

Ironically, people continue to do today what Adam started at the beginning -- boldly pointing at God himself as the reason for sin. They cleverly hide behind a scripture verse or phrase which they have redefined, in order to justify their continued practice in sin. This is a very common and serious problem among professing Christians today -- the "just following orders" syndrome. It hasn’t worked for Hitler’s men who are still tried for Nazi war crimes today, and it certainly won’t work when violators of God’s Law stand before the Judge of all the earth. God’s Word is the Law, above which there is no other authority.

How many children hope to appease the anger of God one day for their sins, by saying, "But my parents told me to do so, and I was just obeying my parents, just as the Bible says." Will God excuse a child’s violation of His Word based on some alleged Scripture that allows him to do so? Does God contradict himself?

Many will claim passages in the Bible, "Honour thy father and thy mother" and "Children, obey your parents" as support that a child is automatically exempt from anything bad his parents tell him to do. However, they must leave off part of the passage to hold such a warped interpretation, for the Bible says, "Children obey your parents IN THE LORD; for this is right" (Eph 6:1). Children are ultimately responsible to God. They must be careful to obey God first, for their parents are not the supreme authority, God is. It is the responsibility of parents to teach, to train and to enforce God’s law. There is no honor in sin. If a parent commands his child to sin, how can the child sin honorably? Is he really honoring his parents by sinning as they wish? Is such a sin honoring unto God?

When a mother counsels her wayward daughter to get an abortion, can the daughter get an abortion as unto the Lord? Will the Lord be pleased with the young lady’s willingness to "honor her mother." Or would it have been much more honorable if she had explained by the Bible why she could not, and then been willing to face the wrath of her mother? Better to face the wrath of a frail, finite creature than to face the wrath of God! To set a person’s authority above God’s authority is to practice idolatry, which is contemptible.

If most people who had the "just following orders" syndrome were consistent, they wouldn’t ever give the Gospel to children whose parents were against Christianity, because by doing so they would be encouraging the children to go contrary to their parents’ wishes. Is God pleased with a child who grows up in a Buddhist home and does exactly what his parents want him to do, and becomes a "good" Buddhist and dies a "good" Buddhist? Shall God commend the boy on the Day of Judgment for honoring his parents? How silly! All throughout history,children have faced the wrath of unbelieving parents, so they wouldn’t have to face the wrath of God! Should they have remained unconverted and "honored" their parents wishes? If so, they would have gone to hell. So much for making their parents happy!

Every child is responsible ultimately to the Lord. When Joseph and Mary realized Jesus was not with them on their journey back from Jerusalem (Luke 2:40-52), they scolded him as being disobedient child, and even wrongfully called him Joseph’s son. The answer that Jesus gave was, "Wist ye not that I must be about my Father’s "business?" He corrected them in an honorable fashion and let them know that they were usurping God’s authority. God must come first. And as Jesus was "made under the law," this instance is appropriate for all children who are children of God. We must first be about our Father’s business.

"When parents permit children to do wrong -- to dress immodestly, to watch inappropriate television, to listen to ungodly music –their allowance does not automatically curb back the wrath of God for their disobedience to His Law. God will hold those children accountable to His Law – not the law of the parents, unless their law is good. God will also hold the parents responsible for attempting to be a law unto themselves.

How many employees, servants and slaves hope to avoid the wrath of God one day because their boss or master told them to do something wrong, and they obeyed, "just following orders," all the while claiming support from the Bible. Is it ever right to do wrong? The Bible does tell servants to obey their masters, but it doesn’t end there! It goes on to say "as unto Christ" and "doing the will of God" (Eph. 6:5-6). Is it appropriate to lie, cheat and steal "as unto Christ"?

When Joseph was tempted by Potiphar’s wife (Gen. 39: 1-23). He flatly disobeyed one who was above him, and far from belonging to a union, he was a slave. Had the incident happened today, many "fundamentalists" would have reasoned, "Well, I have certain personal convictions against this certain conduct but since the Bible says I’m responsible to obey those over me, it looks like I must do what I’m told." How easily people excuse their sins under the pretext of Biblical conviction! Joseph obeyed God, who happens to be above even Pharaoh, and lost his job. It seems that Joseph never heard of "business ethics."

There used to be a day in our country when people would do right, no matter the cost, and pay the consequences cheerfully. Today, "ethics" classes are teaching Christians how to bend with the times, compromise and still affirm they’re fundamentalists.

One man in Greenville, SC, used to be a top salesman for the Campbell’s Soup Company. He had a very good paying job and a promising future with no ominous clouds on his horizon. Then came a day when Campbell’s Soup Company spake out openly in favor of Sodomy. They went further and attested that The Campbell’s Soup Company, as a company and business, was in support of Sodomy. This particular man was in a dilemma. What was he to do? Keep his good paying job and forget about the fact that he was working for a company which included him among others who favored Sodomy? Or leave? What would you have done, O Christian?

He decided, by conviction, to leave his high dollar job, all the benefits, comforts and retirement behind, with no promise of any other job to follow. Was he a fool? The world would call him so. God have mercy on any Christian who would dare try. The Bible says we are fools for Christ’s sake. Are you willing to be esteemed a fool for your faith? Many employees all across this nation are facing increased religious persecution in the workplace. Are you willing to lose your job for your faith, in a day when most people are losing their faith for their job? The love of money continues to be the root of all evil.

How many wives hope one day to bypass the judgment of God because they did exactly what their husbands told them to do? Was the husband in the place of God? Did they really think of their husbands that much? Yes, the Bible does say that wives are to "submit" to their own husbands, but it doesn’t end there! It goes on to say "as unto the Lord"(Eph. 5:22). Can a wife sin as unto the Lord? I Peter 3 goes into detail that Christian wives who have unsaved husbands are to be an example to their husbands in the way they live. But how can they be a good example if they are partakers in their husband’s evil deeds? A wife is responsible ultimately unto the Lord. Her finite husband’s headship does not automatically negate her responsibility to obey the law of the Infinite Sovereign Lord.

How many wives have won over their husbands to true religion, when the husbands saw that the wives were willing to gracefully suffer wrath, cruelty and even death for their faith! And how many wives have lost any hope of winning over their husbands, because they put a sinful husband in the place of a holy God? What sinner will respect a wife who claims to be pious yet puts her husband above her God?

In I Samuel 25:1-19, the account is given of David, Nabal and Abigail. David wanted aid for his men from Nabal, and Nabal (whose own name means, "fool") rejected David’s request and treated him contemptibly. Before David could come to arms, Abigail, Nabal’s wife saved the day, by taking provisions to David and his men.

What did she do? She disobeyed her husband’s wishes and took of his very provisions to a man whom he despised! Was she an honorable wife? Had she been living today and attended a typical "fundamental" church, she would have probably said, "Well, I would help you David, but you see, I’ve got to submit to my dear Nabal."

Her first responsibility was to God, and her next responsibility was to honour her husband. Was it honorable that she saved his life, avoided a scuffle and helped a man of God in need? She had complete authority to do what she did, because what belonged to Nabal also belonged to her ("all my worldly goods I thee endow.") God blessed Abigail, took Nabal’s life, and Abigail became David’s wife.

How many people hope one day to be exempted from the laws of God, because their government required that they do something which God said was wrong. Just because the government says something is right does not make it right; Nor should they be obeyed when they cross over their God-ordained bounds expressed in Romans 13:3-6. How great an issue is this today! Most people read and claim and swear by the first two verses of Romans, but they don’t go far enough into the passage! The passage goes on to describe, explain, qualify and define the "higher powers" mentioned in verses 1-2. Am I a power because I say I am? If a group of thugs get together and claim they are high powers, does that mean they should be obeyed?

The Bible says rulers are a terror to evildoers, and a glory to the good! The Bible says rulers are set up by God for the praise of them who do good and the punishment of them who do evil (that’s morality and religion). The Bible even says rulers bear not the sword in vain, but are ministers of God! The Bible says to render to all their dues -- tribute, custom and honour. It does not say you are to render to them what is NOT their lawful due, or whatever they demand. It does NOT say to give honour to those who are not due honour. How great an issue is this today!

It is not by accident that the one man in all history who represents the Law of God was born against the law of man. The birth of Moses violated Egyptian law (Ex. 1,2). What thinkest thou, O Christian? Shall we call the parents of Moses lawbreakers? Should they have slain their son in order to honour the "powers that be"?

Not only Moses, but many other children were saved by midwives who the Bible says "feared God." Those midwives knew then what most "fundamental" preachers don’t seem to understand today - that God is also a "higher power." He is above all the alleged powers that be; His Laws are above man’s laws; and, "We ought to obey God rather than men."

What happens when laws are passed that forbid a Christian to obey Jesus, the judge of all the earth, who commanded us to go into all the world and preach the Gospel to every creature? What happens when laws are passed that forbid Christians to pray in various locations; when the Bible says, "I will that men pray every where"? What happens when laws are passed that forbid a Christian from speaking out against false religions and sins of the day? In all times of Christian persecution, there is an established, politically-correct, visible church that does whatever the government tells them to do, and there is an underground, offensive, narrow-minded, unbending church which will not yield conscience or render unto Caesar those things which belong to God.

The submission God requires of all people is according to His Word. It is not a submission of conscience to a "package-deal" prepared by some group of priests. Christians are not to lay their conscience at the feet of any person, church, board, organization or committee. They must do right by faith, no matter what the cost, as Luther, whose conscience was captive to the Word of God, confessed, "to go against conscience is neither safe nor wise. Here I stand. I can do no other. God help me! Amen."

back to top

A cult is designed and controlled by man’s wisdom;

True religion is defined and governed by God’s Word.

A cult requires blind loyalty and allegiance from its members;

True believers are autonomous and free to disagree by conviction.

A cult is secretive, mysterious and obscure;

True believers are open, plain and bold.

A cult keeps its members at various levels of ignorance;

True believers are set free by the knowledge of the truth.

A cult leader must define his followers’ beliefs;

True believers can give an answer of their own faith.

A cult must guard its members from strangers;

True believers can speak with the enemies in the gate.

A cult holds its members by fear;

True religion keeps its members by love.

A cult must measure its success by its number of followers;

True believers are successful no matter how few.

A cult has a date of founding and no promise of lasting;

True religion began with time and will last throughout eternity.

A cult reforms the natural man;

True religion transforms into a new creature.

A cult cannot tolerate truth;

True religion cannot tolerate error.

A cult carries as much authority as another cult;

True religion must reign supremely alone.

A cult will satisfy the devil -- any cult will do;

True religion infuriates the devil and all his cults, too.

On January 9,2000, I married Miss Andrea Faith Ripley of Ft. Myers, Florida. After spending 28 years around ten thousand "Christian" young girls my age, I thought that in this apostate generation it was just about impossible for me to find a good young lady who would put up with a radical, notorious, narrow-minded, religious fanatic like me. But what is impossible with men is possible with God. Truly I can say, many daughters have done virtuously, but Andrea excelleth them all. She is such a picture of the grace and mercy of God, that even my enemies must hold their peace and take notice that I have found favor in the eyes of God.

I had known Andrea for over 13 years, but only as a friend of my sister’s. My family saw her family progress tremendously from being immodest, convictionless "hippies" attracted to "Christian" Rock "music," to becoming separated and respectable churchgoers who cherished good music, sound doctrine and separated dress. They put most Christians to shame today, who are no better now than they were 13 years ago.

After I got up the muster to write her dad, I found that he had been praying over a year that I would ask him. With the blessings of both sides of parents, we became engaged on Christmas Eve—the same date my parents were engaged. We married just two weeks later, and have been enjoying the blessed and Divine institution of marriage ever since.

The story is by no means finished, for since her engagement Andrea has faced the wrath of the BJU church she had been attending in Ft. Myers. It seems they were quite upset that a Calvinist who evangelistically picketed BJU was about to marry the best girl at their church! After all, the queen of BJU, Benneth Jones, was scheduled to speak on marriage to the ladies of the church, and I – a recently banned BJU alumnus –was marrying their best young lady! To top it off, they had at least one BJU board member in the church.

They solved the problem the good ole BJU way –they banned us both from their church property! They excommunicated Andrea (who had never joined that entertainment facility anyway), and denied to us and our future children any of their blessings. I told the pastor to give all his blessings to his son, who was one of the worst students I ever knew at BJU. Incidentally, he is their Sunday school Superintendent.

They have called down the wrath of heaven upon us, said we would have a miserable marriage, early death, etc. but God evidently hasn’t heard their prayers. He has been blessing us: we love each other dearly, we are attending a real church, and Andrea is expecting our first child. Hallelujah! Our God has eyes, and He sees; He has ears, and He hears, He has a will, and He does whatsoever seemeth Him good. Their god? Perhaps he’s at the Barnum and Bailey circus?

On March 3, 2000, Dr. Bob Jones III, President of Bob Jones University, while speaking on Larry King Live in defense of his school, publicly announced to the world that BJU was dropping their long-standing policy against "interracial dating."

The World does not respect a school that will drop long-standing policies that were supposed to be policies of convictions, in order to save their reputation before the ungodly, who don’t love BJU anyway. "Is this vile world a friend to grace to help me on to God?" "A righteous man falling down before the wicked is as a troubled fountain, and a corrupt spring" (Prov. 25:26). Instead of asking for the old paths, BJU is asking for the well-favored paths. Instead of standing without apology for the old time religion and the absolute authority of the Bible, BJU is falling while apologizing for the old time religion they once held dear, and is resorting to the ever-changing "mind of man."

The previous policy against interracial dating was Biblical. It was God who divided up the earth into peoples, tongues, kindreds, tribes and nations. God should be able to find the same groups he divided, when He returns to earth, instead of a homogenization of all peoples into one hodgepodge. It is the liberal and basest of people who are attempting to mix all distinct groups together. We believe we should have love for our fellow man, and we have black folks attend our church and have had Indians and others. The church is the body of Christ which is composed of all born-again believers. However, we believe it is best to marry within God-ordained bounds and keep the distinctions which God has made. And certainly, God can and does save even people of mixed blood. But his salvation does not change their skin pigment or physical makeup –they have to live with the consequences of their choices until glory.

The liberals congratulate BJU and acknowledge the school as heading in the right direction, while the school crucifies their own founders and condemn themselves for previously holding to a policy the now reject. At what point did they reject the policy? Did they all come to the same conviction at the same time? Did it take a preacher or a wooing of the Holy Spirit for them to change a policy supposedly based on the Bible? Or did they change because of popular unrest and media pressure? What comes next on the spiral of decline? BJU doesn’t need preachers to make a change on campus; all they need is some "negative" media coverage. Dr. Bob Jones Sr. used to say, "Do right till the stars fall," but, if he was honest, the current president would have to update such a worn-out, old-fashioned statement –"Do right till the media attacks you."

Dr. Bob called interracial dating a non-issue, a matter unimportant and hardly worth all the bad publicity the school was getting. But 73 years it has been considered important enough for the school to expel students guilty of it. Will the school apologize for punishing these students over a non-issue? Or has Dr. Bob denied his own faith, his school and his heritage to curry the favor of an apostate, liberal generation? I wonder when the first mixed couples will flaunt themselves before the students. Perhaps Bob Jones IV will marry a girl from Africa or China in order to save the school’s reputation. Whether he does or not, the name of his first son should be Ichabod, for the glory has departed from that school.

It doesn’t matter what long-standing rules BJU drops next—most of their parishioners wouldn’t care anyway. The next rule likely will involve pants on the girls, since BJU no longer has problems with women wearing men’s clothing. I’m still waiting for a daring you man to ear a dress to class so he can get scorned by hypocrites. Hair isn’t an issue any more either, not even for men, according to what Dr. Bob told me in front of a forum of hundreds of students a few years ago. According to Dr. Bob, long hair on men is cultural anyway, so as times change, it shouldn’t be surprising to see culture change at BJU either. In fact, it is not improbable at all within the near future, to see a shorthaired, black male student at BJU holding hands with a shorthaired, pant-wearing white girl. That’s what the most fundamental school on the planet has in store for the education of your children. Just give the news media a few more months. Alas, BJU is learning how to become all things to all men! How have the mighty fallen! And how the worldly will wag their heads when they walk by so great destruction!

"My brethren, be not many masters, knowing that we shall receive the greater condemnation" (James 3:1).

On the same program, Dr. Bob, seeking to describe the love of God to Larry King, expressed that God loves homosexuals and even the Pope. Such an anti-Scriptural message gives sinners comfort to remain as they are – after all, if God loves them just the way they are, then why should they bother to change?

Contrary to Dr. Bob, David prayed, "Do not I hate them, O LORD, that hate thee? And am not I grieved with those that rise up against thee? I hate them with perfect hatred: I count them my enemies" (Psalm 139:2). But Dr. Bob was not desirous of making enemies; he was seeking, as Jehoshaphat, to make friends with the ungodly and love them that hate the Lord (II Chron. 19:2). When Dr. Bob had the opportunity to preach the righteousness of God against evil men, he appealed to a love which God knows nothing about. Had Dr. Bob quoted Psalm 5:5,6 – "the foolish shall not stand in thy sight: thou hatest all workers of iniquity. Thou shalt destroy them that speak leasing; the LORD will abhor the bloody and deceitful man" – it would not have been in politically correct character for a man seeking the praise of liberals.

Many liberals have since, expressed a closer attraction to BJU, and a South Carolina liberal said he would now consider visiting the school and seeking for them financial aid. He that hath ears...

back to top

The woman shall not wear that which pertaineth unto a man, neither shall a man put on a woman’s garment: for all that do so are abomination unto the LORD thy God. -- Deut: 22:5

It is indeed noteworthy that as Christian preachers and laymen become more loose and liberal in their attitudes towards unisex clothing (trousers on women, necklaces and earrings on men, etc.) there is an alarming increase in homosexual boldness and promiscuity in our country. Now, many Christians will argue that this relationship cannot be proved. We must agree that they are right in that we are making spiritual judgments. Still, those, who would argue this point cannot prove that the removal of God, the Bible, and prayer from the public schools has any-thing to do with the drugs, rebellion, violence, and immorality in these schools, for this also is a spiritual judgment.

Nevertheless, righteousness still exalteth a nation, and sin is still

a reproach to any people. We, of course are commanded to judge righteous judgments, and Christian history remembers and honors spiritual giants, who stood up and exposed and condemned the sins of their day. Personally, we cannot see how Christians can militantly oppose homosexuality and its deviate life-style without opposing and exposing its deviate dress style.

Abstain from all appearance of evil. -- I Thess. 5:22

"Transvestism is a form of behavior in which a person has a compulsive desire to dress in the clothes of the opposite sex." –Robert B. Greenblott, M.D.

If it were not for the Word "compulsive" in the above quote, many Christians would find themselves classified under a very embarrassing label. To be found so close to a sin of homosexuality, is too close for comfort. The alternative, of course, is to abstain from the very appearance of evil!

The woman shall not wear... Deut. 22:5

The trick today, if you do not choose to tithe or to observe certain moral precepts of the Bible, is to place them under the law or to relegate them to another dispensation, or in the case of Deuteronomy 22:5, to argue that it is ceremonial law, because the prohibition against wearing wool and linen together (verse 11) is found within the context of the prohibition. Since grace always lives above the law, one such a pat argument can be immediately dismissed.

The wool and linen prohibition, to be sure, is a ceremonial law. Linen is man-made and signifies the righteousness of the saints (Lev. 19:8). Wool is formed by God and signifies imputed righteousness. They both are to remain distinct from one another and are not to be mixed together. Moreover, the prohibition in the context against sowing diverse or mingled seed (verse 9) signifies mixing God’s word or the gospel with some other word or gospel. Also, the prohibition in the context against plowing an ox with an ass (verse 10) signifies the unequal yoke of a believer with an unbeliever.

Now, if the prohibition against wearing the opposite Sex’s clothing in verse 5 is "ceremonial" then what is the symbolic or spiritual significance of this so-called ceremonial instruction? Furthermore, while we are dealing with the context, WHY does the incest of verse 30, the rape of verse 25, the adultery of verse 22 to 24, and the apathy and laziness of verse 1 to 4 go unnoticed by the contextual critics? Do the wool and linen make these instructions also ceremonial? Moreover, do the wool and the linen prohibition of Leviticus 19:19 make the holding of grudges in verse 18 and the lying carnally with a bondmaid in verse 20 "ceremonial?" No! The woman shall not wear!

All that do so are abomination unto the LORD thy God. (Deut 22:5)

The sin of wearing unisex clothing is called "abomination" unto the LORD thy God, classifying this abomination with other moral abominations such as homosexuality (Lev. 20:13) and adultery (Ez. 22:11). The "moral" abomination of the Old Testament have never been abrogated, rescinded, or done away with and will still be in force at the time of Revelation 21:27.

Strange as it may seem, the attire of a harlot is never called an abomination. Even long hair on men is never called an abomination. Certainly, these things are wrong and are condemned by certain scriptures, but they are never called abominations. Our priorities are just not in the right order. Unisex clothing, the abomination that disgusts the Lord, should also disgust Christians.

...Women adorn themselves in modest apparel... I Tim. 2:9

Clothing was instituted by God (Gen. 3:21) to hinder and prevent sin – not to encourage it. Forgive us, but may we speak plainly? Any clothing that accents or emphasizes or exposes the woman’s buttocks, breasts, crotch, or delicately formed thighs (Is. 20:4; 47: 3,4) is not only immodest but is downright sexually provocative to the lusts of sinful men. Pants on women, not only appeal to the lusts of men by emphasizing their private parts, but they also appeal to the Lesbian society, when they are placed in a masculine context.

It is good neither to eat flesh, nor to drink wine, nor any thing whereby thy brother stumbleth, or is offended, or is made weak. --Rom. 14:21

But take heed lest by any means this liberty of yours becomes a stumblingblock to them that are weak... when ye sin so against the brethren, and wound their weak conscience, ye sin against Christ. – I Cor. 8:9-12

Paul’s attitude greatly differs from the attitude of certain brethren (and sisters), who, instead of protecting a weaker brother from stumbling, they "flaunt" their so-called liberty in front of them. The fact remains that if there is the slightest sexual provocation or wicked identification, the Christian’s duty is clearly to protect the weaker brethren by abstaining from all appearance of evil and abstaining anything whereby his brother stumbleth or is offended or is made weak.

What follows, after relaxing the Christian’s public dress code, is a situation where churches begin to look like burlesque shows. To remedy such a sorry situation, pants and pantsuits are condemned in church services and then winked at in public (literalism not intended). All this after people have been told repeatedly not to live one way in church and another way in the world, an obvious double standard (more correctly a double-double or quadruple standard as we shall see below). Of course, the scriptures are never used to condemn women wearing pants in church services, for there are none. That is…unless you use the text that also condemns the pubic wearing too – the only Text that checks Unisex – Deuteronomy 22:5.

Recently, a young convert related to us an episode, where a Christian woman went into a Pizza shop and found pictures of men dressed up in women’s attire. The lady pitched a "righteous indignation" fit, vowing to take her business elsewhere. I commended her action, but I reminded the young convert that if she wears "men’s" clothing (pants) she is just as guilty. There is no scripture that condemns effeminate clothing on men that does not condemn masculine clothing on women. Prohibiting one without prohibiting another is a double standard.

"But it is cold outside!" Wear a longer dress and heavy stockings. "But they are not in style!" Be not conformed to this world (Rom. 12:6)! "Well, how about wearing that which pertaineth unto a man underneath that which pertaineth unto a woman?" The woman shall not wear! "Well, you can’t participate in certain sports, wearing a dress, without being immodest." Then don’t participate or wear culottes. Be a lady! Don’t replace immodesty with an abomination. The woman shall not wear!

"But the women and men all wore robes back then." Are you sure about that? How could the prohibition be understood, if that was the case? Actually, women wore vails that wrapped about their bodies (Gen. 24:65; 387:14; Ruth 3:15). Women’s garments were not only distinct from men, they were distinct from each other: woman’ garments (Deut: 22:5), widow’s garments" (Gen. 38:19), and the attire of an harlot. (Prov. 7:10)

Men wore robes (Pharisees wore long ones - Luke 20:46) or mantles or outer garments and all that pertaineth unto a man (Deut. 22:5). Moreover, only men girded up their loins (Job. 38:3; 40:7)

"Well, my trousers have the zipper in the side, and men’s trousers have the zipper in the front." (Even that has changed; we knew it would.) Imagine a man wearing a dress or skirt with the zipper in the front, and you will see the foolishness of your objection. The woman shall not wear! Neither shall a man put on! That’s equal rights!

We need to quit closing the barn door after the horse is gone. Imagine a fundamentalist, who will either license or ignore scanty dress on Christian women. Then, after society degenerates another rung into mass fornication (because the salt has lost its savor), and he begins to lift up his voice like a trumpet against that fornication and even joins the fight against it. Oh, yes, there are Christians, who would insist that their scanty clothing have nothing to do with things like that and will even challenge you to prove it. Nevertheless, chickens do come home to roost, and we are ready to stand before the judgement seat of Christ with confidence that we had nothing to do with lowering the bars. Are you? Romans 14:23

\\\!///

0(o o)0

-----o00o---(_)---o00o-----

back to top

The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? ...Ye cannot drink the cup of the Lord, and the cup of devils: ye cannot be partakers of the Lord’s table, and of the table of devils. – I Cor. 10:16-21

Most Protestants, most Calvinistic (Sovereign Grace Baptists), and the Catholics argue for alcoholic wine in the Lord’s supper (or Lord’s breakfast as some practice it). There is a clear physical and spiritual difference between their cup and our cup, their wine and our wine, the cup of the Lord and the cup of devils, the table of the Lord and the table of devils.

Some of their number have gone so far, as to enlist the services of a chemist, to prove that fresh juice contains leaven and is impure and unfit to symbolize the Lord’s blood, as opposed to alcoholic wine, of which the leaven is chemically spent. The truth of the matter is that leaven is not found in the meat or juice of the grape. Leaven spores are airborne and come from the world; they collect on the grape’s outer skin and can be washed off. Still, the Lord pronounces the "blood of the Grape" as "pure" (Deut 32:14).

(Albeit, how do our friends handle the amoeba/protozoa infested "water" in the N.T. that symbolizes the Holy Spirit?)

When ye come together therefore into one place, this is not to eat the Lord’s supper. For in eating every one taketh before other his own supper: and one is hungry, and another is drunken. -- I Cor. 11:20-21

And ye shall eat fat till ye be full, and drink blood till ye be

drunken... -- Ezek. 39:19

I will make mine arrows drunk with blood ... - Deut. 32:42

...the sword shall devour, and it shall be satiate and made drunk with their blood... -- Jer. 46:10

And I saw the woman drunken with the blood of the saints, and with the blood of the martyrs of Jesus... -- Rev. 17:6

It is strange that folks, looking for an excuse to intoxicate and/or to use alcoholic wine in the Lord’s supper, will run to I Cor. 11:21, especially since verse 20 says this is not to eat the Lord’s supper. Whatever the Corinthians were doing, it was wrong and Paul is rebuking them, not commending them. The question is, "Were they intoxicated?" If they were, they brought the hootch to the church (B.Y.O.B); the church didn’t provide it. If they were, they were following their former idolatrous practices. If they were, their supper was invalidated. If they were, they were rebuked for it. If they were, it was the table of devils and cup of devils, not the Lord’s cup, table, or supper.

The word "drunken" does mean, "intoxicated" in many passages but does not always demand that definition in every passage. In some passages, the sense is drenched (one of Webster’s definitions), satiated, and saturated. The contrast in the context of the passage does not seem to bear the intoxicated interpretation, "One is hungry, and another is drunken." The interpretation, which seems more fitted to the context contrast is "One is hungry and another is drunken" in the sense of being saturated or satiated. Both sides, no doubt, would agree that the supper should be observed, in the same manner (I Cor. 11:25) as when it was instituted. SO, consider the following:

And he took the cup...And he said unto them, This is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many. Verily I say unto you, I will drink no more of the fruit of the vine, until that day that I drink it new in the kingdom of God. –Mark 14:23-25

...one of them, ran and took a sponge, and filled it with vinegar, and put it on a reed, and gave him to drink. –Matt. 27:48

When Jesus therefore had received the vinegar, he said... –John 19:30

Jesus used the "fruit of the vine" (new wine), at the last supper. He promised not to drink of that "fruit of the vine" until the kingdom. There were times, during the crucifixion, that Jesus was offered both vinegar and wine, mixed with narcotics (Prov. 31:6), and He refused it. Still, in John 19:30, Jesus received "vinegar," proving that it was not the "fruit of the vine" but the "fruit of double fermentation" (alcohol is the "fruit of single fermentation" and not the "fruit of the vine"). So it follows that Jesus did not use either alcoholic wine nor vinegar at the last supper.

(Editor’s note: For people to claim that Jesus used fermented wine at the last supper, they must claim there is fermentation in heaven too! There is no fermentation in heaven, just as there was no fermentation in the Garden of Eden. God did not create fermentation -- it came into the world when death came into the world -- as a result of sin. There was no death before sin, nor will there be death, sin or fermentation in heaven. Grapes will always be pure in heaven, and so will their juice be too. Selah!]

...he will also bless the fruit of the womb, and the fruit of thy land, thy corn, and thy wine... – Deut. 7:13

But the fruit of the Spirit... -- Gal. 5:22

The "fruit of the womb" is that which the womb produces. The "fruit of the land" is that which the land produces. The "fruit of the Spirit" is that which the Spirit produces. The "fruit of the vine" is that which the vine produces. The "fruit of fermentation" is that which fermentation produces. Jesus said that He was the "vine" not the distillery nor the brewery. The type of wine, which Jesus, God incarnate, produced at the wedding of Cana was the "fruit of the vine" or the wine found in nature, just as God produces it. Not as the merry wine maker produces it. Fresh, new, natural wine was found, in the last supper, a "cup of blessing." Alcoholic wine is everything but a blessing!

...the first rain and the latter rain, that thou mayest gather in thy corn, and thy wine, and thine oil –Deut. 11:14

... thy presses shall burst out with new wine. -- Prov. 3:10

... the treaders shall tread out no wine in their presses; I have made their vintage shouting to cease. -- Is. 16:10

... As the new wine is found in the cluster, and one saith, Destroy it not; for a blessing is in it... -- Is. 65:8

I have drunk my wine with my milk: eat, O friends; drink, yea, drink abundantly, O beloved. – S of S 5:1

... thou didst drink the pure blood of the grape. —Deut. 32:14

Our wine, as opposed to our adversaries’ wine, may be gathered directive from the field. Our wine may be tread directly out of the wine presses. Our wine may be directly found in a cluster of grapes. Our wine may be mixed with milk, without causing us to retch. Our wine may be drunk "abundantly" without drunkenness and without fear of violating the scriptures against drunkenness and without God being a tempter, as the result of such an instruction. Our wine is "new" and may be preserved; if it is not put, in old bottles (which would cause it to ferment and burst the bottles (Matt. 9:17). Our wine is "blessing." Theirs is a curse.

For in the hand of the LORD there is a cup, and the wine is red; it is full of mixture; and he poureth the dregs thereof, all the wicked of the earth shall wring them out, and drink them. Ps.75:8

...they drink the wine of the condemned in the house of their god. -- Amos 2:8

Their wine is the poison of dragons, and the cruel venom of asps. Deut. 32:33

Look not thou upon the wine when it is red, when it giveth his

color in the cup, when it moveth itself aright. -- Prov. 23:31

The wine of our adversaries, as opposed to our wine, moves and gives its color in the cup. It is the wine of another god. Their wine is an impure mixture of a chemically changed juice and an addictive poison (yeast dung - alcohol), as opposed to our "pure blood of the grape." Their wine is poison, toxic, and intoxicating. Their wine is the "wine of the condemned" and not the saved. Their wine is "old" (which won’t burst old bottles because it has already fermented -- Matt. 9:17). Ask doctors, police, and the asylums; their wine has never been a blessing; it is a curse.

---------------------------------

SPECIAL THANKS TO HERB EVANS FOR PERMISSION TO REPRINT ALL HIS FINE ARTICLES. YOU CAN WRITE HIM –157 PATTIES PLACE, PORTERSVILLE, PA 16051. YOU CAN ALSO E-MAIL HIM AT - HERBEVANS@JUNO.COM

1. From a child thou hast known the ______________ (2 Tim 3:15)

          A. original manuscripts

          B. generic or mystical bible of all the translations

          C. possessed holy scriptures

2. The place of the________ which he read was this... (Acts 8:32)

          A. original Manuscripts

          B. generic or mystical bible of all the translations

          C. possessed scripture

3. Preach the __________________-- (2 Tim. 4:2)

          A. possessed word

          B. original manuscripts

          C. generic or mystical bible of all the translations

4. Ye do err, not knowing the _____________ (Matt. 22:29)

          A. original manuscripts

          B. generic or mystical bible of all the translations

          C. possessed scriptures

5. Did you never read in the__________________ (Matt. 22:29)

          A. possessed scriptures

          B. generic or mystical bible of all the translations

          C. original manuscripts

6. They searched the___________________ daily (Acts 17:11)

          A. generic or mystical bible of all the translations

          B. possessed scriptures

          C. original manuscripts

7. Christ died for our sins, according to the____________ (I Cor. 15:3)

          A. original manuscripts

          B. generic or mystical bible of all the translations

          C. possessed scriptures

8. Man shall live by__________________________

          A. every possessed word of God

          B. portions of the original manuscripts

          C. every word of God in all the translations

9. Hearing cometh by the___________________ (Rom. 10:17)

          A. possessed word of God

          B. original manuscripts

          C. generic or mystical bible of all the translations

10. The______________ is quick and powerful and a discerner (Heb. 4:12)

          A. original manuscript

          B. possessed word of God

          C. generic or mystical bible of all the translations

11. Thy________________ is a lamp unto my feet (Ps. 119:105)

          A. possessed word

          B. original manuscript

          C. generic or mystical bible of all the translations

12. Concerning the preservation of God’s word:___________

13. Our faith should________________________

          A. stand in the wisdom of men

          B. be regulated by scholarship

          C. not stand in the wisdom of men