[This is the second of a 4-part series on "Critical Criteria" for me considering the president of the SBC. Click here for part one.]
Secondly, a criterion I would lean heavily upon is whether the candidate abstains from even the appearance of impropriety. What do his lifestyle choices reveal? What do his interests reveal? What motivates this person? What things can be distractions?
While we can all agree that sin is sin, many of us divide on what is and what is not – the gray areas of darkness. One man’s temptation is another man’s downfall. One man’s downfall is another man’s victory. One man’s victory is another man’s struggle and ultimately could be a stumbling block for many. The president would be representing the entire SBC, not just a section, portion or group.
Therefore, I would not vote for a nominee whose lifestyle suggested to me that he directly opposed what I believe to be in keeping with Southern Baptists generally and the Scriptures specifically. I would therefore want a man who could speak to cultural problems and global concerns with a knowledge superseded by the wisdom of God.
I would not vote for anyone given to waves of pride and self-exaltation by drawing attention to himself. I feel anyone who seeks the praise of man is not fit to serve our convention. If he thinks he’s the best man we need to lead us, I’d rather he not. I’d rather see a man who is hesitant than a man too eager.
“Do not boast of [yourself and] tomorrow, for you know not what a day may bring forth. Let another man praise you, and not your own mouth; a stranger, and not your own lips.” Proverbs 27:1,2.
It would be my desire to see a man of humility. One who could readily admit an error and apologize without defense. I would pray this would be representative of his private character among his peers as well as with fellow church members. I think a man who did not hold grudges or carry offenses as a man noteworthy of receiving my raised ballot. I’d like to see a man who is willing to fall on his knees to wash someone’s feet, than to stand on his own to remove specks from someone’s eyes.
I think he needs to be a man who loves his wife like Christ loves the church. I’d want to know she would remain his highest priority; his commitment to her, and her well-being, would supersede his commitment to the convention. It would be wonderful if she shared his love for the convention and supported him in his role as president. I would like to see a man who enjoys his children and counts time he spends with them as priceless, not a duty or as prerequisite to earning the “Dad of the Year Award”.
I would not vote for anyone who held to the belief that recreational alcohol consumption was okay in any amount. Alcohol does more to destroy lives of individuals than any other mind-altering substance in the world. To promote its use by condoning moderation and interpreting scripture to compliment that position will give me the number one reason why not to vote for a nominee. I would want someone bold enough to stand on principles and against anything that undermines society’s health and welfare. I’d rather he have Biblical standards as backbone than political correctness as crutches.
I’d want a man who could control his tongue and his spirit – a man not given to rumor, gossip and innuendo. “A soft answer turns away wrath, but grievous words stir up anger.” Proverbs 15:1.
A great nominee’s conversation should be such that it does not provoke others to anger and strife. He must not be a man whose life has been negatively spotlighted in the public arena of opinion. After all, our president would be put in the public forums of secular press. I would hope his life would not be encumbered with things which could cast negativity upon our convention. I’d like to know when he is invited to speak on the evening news, or in other public forums, his responses would be ones in which I could trust to be Christ-like and filled with the Gospel of Jesus Christ our Lord.
“The tongues of those who are upright and in right standing with God are as choice silver…The lips of the [uncompromisingly] righteous feed and guide many…” Proverbs 10:20a, 21a.
“Hear, O heavens, and give ear, O earth! For the Lord has spoken…Whom shall I send? And who will go for us?” selahV
I am not running for president, so this question is entirely theoretical.
I do not drink, have never had an intentional drink of alcohol (been surprised a couple times) in my life. However, I do not believe that the Bible forbids alcohol completely.
Is it the consumption of alcohol that you would use to eliminate a presidential candidate, or is it the interpretation of scripture which you would demand?
I don’t drink, but I think you will find support for the Evil Empire of Fenway in scripture before you find a total prohibition against the consumption of alcohol.
Is it those who drink you would eliminate, or would you demand that anyone who wants to be SBC president share your interpretation?
SelahV,
Thank you for this continued discussion. I appreciate the thoughtfulness with which you have approached this discussion.
Sola Gratia!
“I’d rather he have Biblical standards as backbone than political correctness as crutches.”
You wrote the above concerning why you would not vote for a candidate who thought drinking alcoholic beverages in moderation was acceptable. It is ironic that you closed with the quoted sentence because your criteria has less to do with Biblical standards than it does with political correctness in the SBC! Just my opinion.
“I would not vote for anyone who held to the belief that …alcohol consumption was okay in any amount. To promote its use by condoning moderation and interpreting scripture to compliment that position will give me the number one reason why not to vote for a nominee.”
* sigh * This flies in the face of biblical teaching and disqualifies Jesus from being the head of the SBC.
(“The Son of Man came eating and drinking, and they say, ‘Behold, a gluttonous man and a drunkard, a friend of tax collectors and sinners!’”)
Who are we to be more religious than God?
Blessings,
Jack
I am not trying to be combative, just wondering. If I were running for president – a lifelong SBCer, an inerrantist, who has never had a drink in my life, but I don’t see scripture as prohibiting someone else from taking a drink if their conscience permits – you would say I am unqualified to be SBC president.
Am I understanding you rightly?
Brothers Dave, Scott S., and Jack,
I believe that you will find the SBC has consistently taken stands against drinking in moderation. As late as 2006, we debated this issue and it was passed by a clear majority that we do not believe in drinking in moderation.
Brother Jack,
I also encourage you that when you quote something for a reference you include the entire quote. You left out the word “recreational“. We certainly believe that Nyquil is okay to drink when you have to take medicine. That is what Paul was informing Timothy how to overcome his stomach ailments.
Blessings,
Tim
Well fellas, look what happens when I don’t keep an eye on the computer screen. Sorry I’m late for my party. I had to make a pot of coffee. :)
Dave: Please understand that these are my opinions. I’m not asking you to agree with me. That’s the beauty of an opinion. It’s mine and I own it. While I can fully understand another’s need to debate it, I am comfortable with the statement with which I led into my post: “Therefore, I would not vote for a nominee whose lifestyle suggested to me that he directly opposed what I believe to be in keeping with Southern Baptists generally and the Scriptures specifically.” Operative words here are “lifestyle opposed what I believe to be”. As long as I’ve been a Southern Baptist, they have generally stood for abstinence. And as Tim has so kindly inserted, we have voted to stand for the same in our convention as late as 2006.
That said, I would hope any nominee we had would be one in which I could wholeheartedly endorse with the same mind as the convention held to in 2006.
The crux of my opinion is based on what I believe to be compatible with what I’ve seen Southern Baptist generally holding to throughout history.
Does this help you see my thoughts? selahV
Scott Gordon, thanks. I rather expected to catch some heat on this one. selahV
Just for my own information, is there a forum in which the candidates for president get asked all of these questions? While I have been a Southern Baptist my whole life and have been doing ministry in SB churches for 10 years, I have never had the opportunity to go to the convention, so i really don’t know how this process works. Is there a Q&A session? Do the candidates submit their positions in some form? I guess I am asking because I would like to know how you would know that a candidate met all of your criteria.
Tim,
Be that as it may, but that doesn’t mean “moderationists” (is there such a word?) don’t have Biblical standards. And it doesn’t mean they are giving in to political correctness. In fact, moderationists could easily hurl the same accusation at teetotalers. Actually, some have.
Scott Shaffer, Hello, I don’t believe I’ve ever had the pleasure of conversing with you. Thanks for commenting.
Well, now, the jury is still out on the Biblical standards, in my opinion. That’s still being debated amongst us and until the SBC votes otherwise, I think we should hold to their standards as well.
Political correctness allows about anything these days while disallowing about everything at the same time. Truly confusing generation we’re living in.
Now that you mention it, Scott, I should have had that statement you quoted, “I’d rather he have Biblical standards as backbone than political correctness as crutches”, to stand on its own in the middle of the post. I think it would have served my point much better. Smack dab in the middle. Enlarged. And emboldened. Yep, smack dab in the middle and capitalized. I appreciate your opinion. selahV
Brother Jake,
The forum is basically the open media. I know that many state papers run interviews they have had with the candidates somewhere in the May time line. Problem with that is many of the state papers never ask the same questions.
As you have noticed we have already interviewed Dr. Cox. We have others to interview and plan on asking pretty much the same questions. I know that SBC Outpost has already conducted an interview with Dr. Wagner, the other Presidential candidate. Dr. Wiley Drake is another candidate and some say that he is a joke candidate.
If you go to Indy this year you will note the time of the Presidential vote and then the candidates will be nominated. There will not be any Q & A sessions with the various candidates. As a matter of fact in the Oklahoma state convention, I believe it was in 2000, Brother Wade Burleson was nominated and won the presidency that year. He never was an announced candidate. The state paper had interviewed the other candidates and everyone knew where they were on the issues that mattered to the folks in Ok. But Brother Wade was presented as a candidate and no one knew where he stood on any issue.
That is how they are elected. You must begin now praying about who God is leading you and follow some of the people that you hear are being nominated. Then when you go to the convention you ask God to lead you to vote for the one he would have you vote.
Blessings,
Tim
Jack, Indeed, who are we to be more religious than God? None of us are righteous, no not one. For we have all fallen short of the glory of God. Which leads me back to the first lines of my post:
“I would lean heavily upon is whether the candidate abstains from even the appearance of impropriety. What do his lifestyle choices reveal? What do his interests reveal? What motivates this person? What things can be distractions?” :)
Surely there would be no distractions if the SBC President abstained. But if he imbibed, what would happen in the convention? In the media circuses of the world. When in doubt, leave it out. selahV
Brother Scott,
Sister Harriette has expressed to you the problem with the statement. However, I believe I would disagree with you to a certain extent. I would not say that someone who believes in moderation would be a non-biblicist. I would probably say that a person that believes in moderation would not be biblically wise. While the Bible does not, per say, specifically say; “thou shalt not drink”, neither does it say; “thou shalt not smoke marijuana”. Would you be an advocate for a president that “did a doobie” sometime? I do not think so.
I am not trying to be coy. I am just trying to show that the argument cannot hold up under its own merit.
Blessings,
Tim
Jake, don’t you think that would be wonderful to have a Q & A at the convention before we voted? That would be an excellent idea.
And are you a pastor? Your church ought to send you as their representative. And if you don’t have the money (as most young pastors, and pastors of small churches, don’t), then I think the mega churches within the convention ought to foot some bills and send you and many others.
My criteria is my utmost for our highest, Jake. I have some really, really great Baptist friends whom I highly respect that would not fit in these criteria. But I believe there is a man that God is calling out from among us who does fit. selahV
I like your idea about the megachurches helping foot the bill for pastors of small churches. It really might help get some younger pastors and pastors in pioneer areas more involved.
For me, when it has come to attending the convention, I have had to choose between spending my own money and vacation time on going to the convention or going to be with family over the holidays. Family wins every time.
When it comes to your criteria, I respect the fact that you want what you believe would be best for the convention. They may not all be the criteria I would use, but I appreciate your desire to see God’s work done in and through the SBC.
and yes, I am the English pastor of a Chinese church. They just aren’t quite to the place of seeing the value of sending our staff and other representatives to the national convention. Maybe some day.
Jake, it has been bandied about on the internet for quite some time that we are in an age of techonology where we will one day be able to virtually attend the convention via cyberspace. I’m sure that is many years down the road.
However, what I like about the blogworld is the ability to see the kind of people who are making their voices known among Southern Baptist folk about Southern Baptist folk and issues. While we are far from perfecting the art of communicating via the written word, we are learning. And I think it is a good thing. Much is brought to light, much.
I do hope you are able to go to convention and I do understand the tug-of-war with family. Been there, did that. selahV
“Brothers Dave, Scott S., and Jack,
I believe that you will find the SBC has consistently taken stands against drinking in moderation. As late as 2006, we debated this issue and it was passed by a clear majority that we do not believe in drinking in moderation.”
-So The Bible can be overruled by majority vote at the SBC convention?
—
“Brother Jack,
I also encourage you that when you quote something for a reference you include the entire quote. You left out the word “recreational“. We certainly believe that Nyquil is okay to drink when you have to take medicine. That is what Paul was informing Timothy how to overcome his stomach ailments.
Blessings,
Tim”
I did use ellipsis to indicate that the quote omitted the word “recreational” because I don’t use that term.
But since you insist…
“The Son of Man came eating and recreationally drinking, and people say, ‘Look at him! He’s a glutton and a drunk…”
“For I tell you I will not recreationally drink again of the fruit of the vine until the kingdom of God comes.”
-Seems silly to me, but what do I know?
—
“While the Bible does not, per say, specifically say; “thou shalt not drink”, neither does it say; “thou shalt not smoke marijuana”. Would you be an advocate for a president that “did a doobie” sometime?
Blessings,
Tim”
No, but thank you for recognizing that the Bible does not forbid drinking and thus amplifying my objections to a policy that would have disqualified the Lord himself…
—
“Jack:
Surely there would be no distractions if the SBC President abstained. But if he imbibed, what would happen in the convention?”
-He would be accused of being a drunkard by our “religious leaders” just as the “religious leaders” of the day accused Jesus (as evidenced by the posts in this comment stream).
To be clear:
I love all of you.
I understand the rationale and wisdom of encouraging people not to drink alcohol.
I do not think those who have chosen to abstain are any less wise than those who drink wine but abstain from drunkenness.
But the Bible clearly teaches that Israel was a wine-producing country, that Jesus and The Apostles drank wine, and that Jesus’ first miracle produced wine.
Most non-Christians know this.
To twist the teachings of the Bible in this regard into prohibiting consumption of wine reveals us to be fools and hypocrites in the eyes of the world we are charged to reach.
Jack, why I love you, too. Thanks. If the lost call me fool, I’ll be a fool for the Lord.
“The plans of the foolish and the thought of foolishness are sin, and the scoffer is an abomination to men. If you faint in the day of adversity, your strength is small.”Prov. 24:9,10
“It is not for kings, O Lemuel, it is not for kings to drink wine, or for rulers to desire strong drink, lest they drink and forget the law and what it decrees, and pervert the justice due any of the afflicted.” Prov. 31:4,5.
While the SBC President is not a king, nor a ruler, I think his position warrants a higher righteousness. I liken it to someone with the constitution of Daniel and his friends. Of John the Baptist. Just the way I look at the position of leadership when it comes to me. I wouldn’t want my pastor to imbibe, nor deacons, nor my husband. Nor would I want to have my Youth Minister teaching the youth in the church that as long as you just drink in moderation, then it is okay. Sorry, Jack. Can’t go there, no matter what moderationists say or how they interpret scripture.
Know how many young people today aren’t abstaining from other things society has seen fit to glamourize? So they have a few cocktails when they turn 21 because it’s okay. And where do they have these cocktails? Las Vegas where everything stays? Aruba where you go and don’t come back? Know how many babies are being born with Fetal Alcohol Syndrome and face a life of mental and emotional imprisonment due to their parents moderation? I don’t. But one is too many. Know how many abortions are a result of giving in to impulses dulled by one beer after a football game? I don’t. But one is too many.
I make no apologies for my views on alcohol consumption. Nor on my views on who I’d want to see lead me in the convention. If you want a moderationist, then put him up there and we’ll each hold up our one ballot and see where we go from there.
I love you Jack and all you other “jacks and jills”. selahV
SelahV:
I think you make strong and intelligent arguments for abstaining from alcohol in the last two paragraphs of your post above.
I think youth pastors would do well to abstain and explain his rationale as you did.
The wheels come off when one starts selectively quoting scripture to show that The Bible teaches against drinking when it clearly teaches against drunkenness. There is a difference.
John the Baptist was a great prophet and did not drink.
Jesus walked the earth as the Son of God and both produced and drank wine.
Promote a teetotaler for SBC President as one who has made a wise choice but please do not elevate that choice to a commandment from God when it is not.
Blessings,
-jack-
Jack, I’m sorry. I went back and read my post and comments. I don’t see where I elevated the choice to abstain from alcohol as a commandment from God. There are only ten of those that I can see. The one that may fit is not to have any idols before me. When an argument for something as unproductive to society as alcohol has proven itself to be, I think it becomes an obsession worth considering as idolatrous at worst and irrational at least. Just my opinion on something I find less likely worth defending in a public forum.
I appreciate your kindness in discussing this with me. selahV
Tim,
I have to disagree. The argument does not collapse. There are a number of fundamental differences between smoking a doobie and having a beer. You smoke a doobie for one reason – to get stoned.
Anyway, thanks for the discussion.
selahV,
Great article. Hang in there.
I do have one question. Decaf or regular coffee? Remember some tried months ago to make the issue over caffeene equal to alcohol. Just trying to give you a heads up!
Pour a cup of regular for me!
Tim, doesn’t matter. leaded or unleaded. I drink for the warmth of it and the fun of using my Christmas mug that my granddaughters got me two years ago.
Alcohol and caffeine. Apples and oranges. Or grapes and prunes. :) thanks for the kudos. selahV
Brother Scott,
Oh my, you have done it now. :>) Seriously, allow me to give you reason that I disagree with your assertion that alcohol and marijuana are used for different reasons.
According to this story alcohol was used because it would help someone feel at ease in speaking about Christ. Thus, the use of a intoxicating beverage makes one feel at ease. The question one has to answer seems to be a question of how much alcohol, found in one drink, constitutes too much alcohol. Also, some may argue that alcohol is legal and marijuana is not legal. There are still some towns that are dry and thus that argument cannot hold too much force. Marijuana has been approved for use in cancer patients to increase their appetite.
With all of this aside, I believe the key statement I would direct all of our attention was made by the “beauty” in this conversation–Sister Harriette. She said; ““I would lean heavily upon is whether the candidate abstains from even the appearance of impropriety. What do his lifestyle choices reveal? What do his interests reveal? Also, the SBC has voted on numerous occasions that we believe in abstaining. What does it say for one to desire the office of President, but does not desire to live out the ideals of those he desires to lead?
I have enjoyed this conversation. This is the first time I have disagreed with someone on alcohol and not been called a “right-winged-spooky fundamentalist” by them. :>)
Blessings,
Tim
jack,
the bible is not being over ruled by the sbc….lol. let me ask you something….do you believe that Jesus was also a glutton? jack, to be accused of things is not the same as actually doing them. Jesus was accused of being a drunkard and a GLUTTON. again, do you thinnk that Jesus was a glutton? i mean, you seem to be so ready to accept that he actually drank intoxicating wine….do you also think that He was gluttonous and committed sin?
david
David,
I think, perhaps the point that is being made is that Jesus was neither a glutton or a drunkard. He ate, but did so in the right amounts. He never overate or overdrank.
It would actually be your argument, that Jesus never had fermented beverages, which would require the idea that Jesus never ate.
And I will tell you what aggravates me about the discussion. I have never had a drink, and don’t intend to.
My views are not based on a desire to drink or to justify it. I wish the Bible DID condemn all consumption of alcohol. But my study of scripture has convinced me that this is a matter of personal freedom and that the BIBLE requires me to give each believer the freedom to decide what God wants them to do here.
I have never cast aspersions on anyone for holding SelahV’s view. My own dad is so anti-alcohol it is hard to imagine.
But I resent the implication of some writers that i have compromised my love for the scriptures to believe what I believe.
it is my love for the scripture which forces me to leave this to the personal freedom of the believer.
Brother Dave Miller,
If any thing that I have asked or said concerning our disagreement in this comment stream that causes you to think that I do not believe you believe the scripture, I beg forgiveness.
However, in the same light, I want you to grasp a truth here. I do not believe that people who believe it is okay to socially drink are biblically unfaithful. I believe they are biblically unwise. The Scripture is full of warnings about alcohol. When the writer of Proverbs said not to look on it when it moves he had no idea about the distillery process of today. The wine in the first century is not the same wine we have today.
I just want you to know that I do not feel that way about you.
Blessings,
Tim
“Jack, the bible is not being over ruled by the sbc….lol. let me ask you something….do you believe that Jesus was also a glutton? jack, to be accused of things is not the same as actually doing them. Jesus was accused of being a drunkard and a GLUTTON. again, do you think that Jesus was a glutton? i mean, you seem to be so ready to accept that he actually drank intoxicating wine….do you also think that He was gluttonous and committed sin? –David/Volfan007”
Volfan:
I neither think that Jesus was a glutton or a drunkard, however the bible teaches that “The Son of man came eating and drinking.” Being without sin he neither ate nor drank to excess.
As for being “so ready to accept that he actually drank intoxicating wine” I can only refer you to the scriptures which are totally true and trustworthy. They reveal the principals by which God judges us and are the supreme standard by which all human conduct and religious opinions should be tried (see Baptist Faith & Message 2000).
—
“Jack, I’m sorry. I went back and read my post and comments. I don’t see where I elevated the choice to abstain from alcohol as a commandment from God. There are only ten of those that I can see. The one that may fit is not to have any idols before me. When an argument for something as unproductive to society as alcohol has proven itself to be, I think it becomes an obsession worth considering as idolatrous at worst and irrational at least. Just my opinion on something I find less likely worth defending in a public forum. –SelahV”
SelahV and others:
Can we remain faithful to scripture and teach that abstinence from alcohol is wise?
Yes.
Can we remain faithful to scripture and teach that abstinence from alcohol is a command from God?
No.
Can we remain faithful to scripture and teach that drunkenness is sin?
Yes.
Can we remain faithful to scripture and teach that drinking alcohol is sin?
No.
I lost my father to alcoholism when I was six and have tended to both the living and the dead at alcohol-related accident and crime scenes as an adult.
I understand the passion and the wisdom of those who choose or advise abstinence.
-However, I have also tasted the bitter fruit of extra-biblical legalism and have seen it drive too many from a relationship to Christ.
I realize that what I am posting on this subject is not popular, but it is scriptural.
If that is an obsession, so be it.
Tim, Selah & others: I too appreciate the grace all have shown during this discussion.
Thank you.
-jack-
Brother Jack,
You have a theology problem with your logic. You say; “Can we remain faithful to scripture and teach that abstinence from alcohol is wise?
Yes.
Can we remain faithful to scripture and teach that drinking alcohol is sin?
No.
Therein lies your theological flaw. If we can say Scripture teaches it is wise to abstain, then we say that the Scripture does not teach to abstain, then we have placed a contradiction in Scripture, IMHO. If Scripture teaches it is wise, then it teaches that is the road to follow.
Blessings,
Tim
Tim:
The only way one can arrive at the conclusion that drinking wine is a sin is to ignore that scripture that says Jesus drank and produced wine plus ignore six books of the Old Testament that refer to wine as a “Gift from God.”
Drunkeness – on the other hand – according to scripture clearly is a sin.
One could just as easily use your reasoning to say that I cannot argue that abstinance is wise and be faithful to scripture (however I have no such problem) – so we’ll have to agree to disagree.
-jack-
jack,
we think that you are wrong…very wrong…in your interpretations. drinking intoxicating wine for pleasure…to get high…is at best foolish…unwise, and at some point it actually becomes sinful. that’s not extra biblical teaching….that’s biblical teaching.
do you not see that there could be two kinds of wine mentioned in the bible? intoxicating wine and wine that is not intoxicating?
david
“We think that you are wrong…very wrong…in your interpretations. drinking intoxicating wine for pleasure…to get high…is at best foolish…unwise, and at some point it actually becomes sinful. that’s not extra biblical teaching….that’s biblical teaching.”
I can’t speak for others, but – having spent 20 years in wine-producing regions- I drink wine not to “get high” but because I enjoy its taste and appreciate the unique character of different types of wines from different vineyards.
And while we both agree that the Bible teaches against drunkenness I also see passage after passage that affirms its use for pleasure:
“Go to the place which the Lord your God chooses, and spend the money for whatever you desire. Oxen or sheep or wine or strong drink, whatever your appetite craves, and you shall eat there before the Lord your God and rejoice.” Deuteronomy 14:22-29
“Go eat your bread with enjoyment, and drink your wine with a merry heart, for God has already approved what you do” Ecclesiastes 9:7
“Thou doest cause the grass to grow for the cattle …. and wine to gladden the heart of man.” Psalm 104 14
—
“Do you not see that there could be two kinds of wine mentioned in the bible? Intoxicating wine and wine that is not intoxicating?”
I’m sorry, I’ve missed the references to intoxicating and non-intoxicating wines during my studies of the scriptures. Please feel free to point those out to me.
Blessings,
-jack-
jack,
if you are really interested in studying this, then may i suggest that you to
peterlumpkins.typepad.com
and look up all the studies and the comments that are there. it goes into this subject very extensively. it is indeed a good study…with a lot of good discussion.
david
peter,
is there a way to give jack a clear, concise, short answer on this one? or, should he just go and read your old posts on this?
david
SelahV,
Great post on SBC president.
I wanted to add my agreement to your comments on alcohol. It is not, as some have said, that the majority of the SBC overrules biblical teaching about beverage alcohol. Rather, it is that the huge majority of the SBC believes the Bible teaches and speaks against it. If you want the reasons you can start with an excellent 2006 Baptist Press (bpnews.net) article about abstinence from alcohol by Paige Patterson. Also, as David (volfan) pointed out, Peter Lumpkins blog has several great articles on the subject. (Sorry, I don’t know how to do links.)
It is a fact that the biblical word “wine” was used in ancient times and in the Bible to refer to intoxicating, and non-intoxicating drink. To insist that Jesus made intoxicating wine is assuming at least as much as those who say that what He made was non-intoxicating new wine.
Yes, some Christian folks believe the Bible teaches you are free to take mind altering drugs for recreational use. But that is not what Southern Baptists believe. There are good Christian folks who don’t believe the Bible teaches eternal security. The huge majority of Southern Baptists, however, do believe the Bible teaches it. Try running for SBC president saying you don’t believe in eternal security and see how far you get.
Sorry I’m late to the post. I’ve been away a couple of days doing spiritual stuff :-).
David R. Brumbelow
David Brumbelow: so glad you had time to drop in and add a bit of meat to my stew. That is what I mean by what Southern Baptist believe “generally”. As long as I’ve been a Southern Baptist, 51 years, that is what I have been taught. Abstention. Did all Baptists believe this and hold to it? No. But the Southern Baptist majority did. And still do. I rather like the idea of my president holding to it also.
Peter does have some great articles on wine. I hope he has opportunity to continue those soon. I’m itching to see what he’s uncovered regarding the New Testament. He’s such a tease. selahV