Why does it keep coming up from some Young Leaders? It seems that every two to three years we have another Young Leader to proclaim that alcohol in moderation is something that we need to accept. There usually are two arguments for this issue that seems to get the dander up of many.
First, the argument that one cannot find in Scripture a prohibition against the consumption of alcohol. This seems to be the strongest argument around. However, turn the tables to another argument from silence, on that says; Scripture does not encourage alcohol consumption in moderation and listen to the comments. Both arguments are arguments from silence because Scripture neither encourages, nor prohibits alcohol consumption. However, if one were to peruse the scripture one will find text prohibiting any alcohol consumption concerning ‘strong drink’. What exactly is ‘strong drink’? I do not desire to get into the debate of when one is drunk or when one is not. The amount of alcohol that one drinks varies when it comes to being past moderation and being considered drunk. Also, can one experience a slight ‘buzz’ and still be considered drinking responsibly, thus being within the limits of moderation. Of course one could argue that drinking one beer or one glass of wine at a meal is what it means to drink in moderation.
The second argument that inevitably comes to the forefront is the culture. It seems that in the culture we live there are many who now drink in moderation and find it offensive for others to insist on abstinence. It seems that some churches are having Bible studies in bars in order to attract those that frequent the bars, or to make the church appeal to the culture it is striving to impact. This argument is a good one and it seems that many, as I, have a hard time agreeing with its conclusions. While I will be the first to say we must impact our culture, I see this as more of a compromise for the culture than I do as a confrontation of the culture. Let’s say that I was going to hold a Bible study for men and really wanted to draw a bunch of men for this bible study. Let’s say that I decided the best way to attract men was to meet at a local Gentleman’s club. What would be some of the pitfalls for such a promotion? Would we be engaging and confronting culture or would it be more of an enticing and compromising within culture? This leads me to my point.
In a recent blog post entitled Alcohol Unplugged Revisited, Dr. Nathan Finn openly suggested that the young leaders he was teaching would end up doing away with the position of alcohol abstinence. He suggests that those who take an abstinence-only view on alcohol are not relying on the sufficiency of Scripture. He then states: “This is where Scripture ought to be sufficient to guide our private choices. This is the aspect of this debate that troubles so many younger future leaders. Which is why they will change it one day…” Dr. Finn seems to base his argument on the thesis; “the main point of the post was to argue against mandating a total abstinence position”. However he goes on to say; “It is not legalistic to abstain, just like it is not hedonistic to imbibe in moderation.”
I wonder, first of all, if Dr. Finn would agree with Dr. John Piper on salvation being one of Christian Hedonism? Dr. Piper defines Christian Hedonism as; God is most glorified in us when we are most satisfied in him. If Dr. Finn defines hedonism in the same vein Dr. Piper defines Christian Hedonism, then I do take issue with such a definition. Hedonism is sinful period. You cannot place adjectives around hedonism and define it differently. It is like saying adultery is alright as long as it is a loving committed relationship until the relationship is discovered. I do not desire for this to spiral into a discussion of hedonism so I will presume that Dr. Finn, in his use of the term, does not agree with Dr. Piper’s position.
I do agree with Dr. Finn when he says “It is not legalistic to abstain.” For one to see scriptural content that would lead one to believe that abstinence is the preferred rendering of the biblical text is not legalism. However, I would like to expand this statement to say; neither is it legalistic for the SBC to require of her employees a commitment to abstinence. The reason is the same reason one can say it is not legalistic to abstain. While there is no place in Scripture found to advocate a position of abstinence, neither can one find a scriptural injunction that directs one to consume beverage alcohol in moderation. If one were to concede to an argument of moderation, when would one be able to tell they have passed the mark of moderation into drunkenness? Also, if it really does not matter for them in terms of drinking the one drink; why not drink cola, water, sparkling water, grape juice or milk? One may respond that consuming an alcoholic beverage is a freedom they desire to exercise. However, I submit that abstaining from the moderate use of beverage alcohol is an exercise of freedom in the same way that Paul admonished the believers in Corinth to abstain from eating meats. It is all about the weaker brother.
With this in mind, I would like to advance Dr. Finn’s position: It is not legalistic to abstain. Neither is it legalistic for a corporate body to implement employment standards of abstinence. In the SBC, these standards are implemented based on the biblical beliefs of the majority in the body. This majority is not being legalistic when they clearly advocate their personal biblically based belief. To reference such a belief on a personal level, as Dr. Finn has already conceded, is not legalism. Thus, to advocate this personal belief together with a majority of others that believe the Bible teaches the same thing is not legalism. If as Dr. Finn suggests, younger leaders come along and change this belief they would not be implementing a hedonistic attitude on the convention. Unless, he agrees with Dr. Piper, then I would have to revisit my argument. :)
Where does this take us? Dr. Finn mentioned these younger leaders are members of his classes that he teaches at SEBTS. It does seem that Dr. Finn would serve the convention well as a professor being paid by CP funds to encourage younger leaders to stay within the SBC and not just seemingly throw up his hands in surrender because of an issue that is heatedly debated, and one where he is not in the majority. I lived through a time when professors, whose beliefs were in the minority, were questioning everything the leaders of the convention enacted. I remember the contentious feelings aroused in some of my fellow classmates when professors openly disagreed with the direction of the convention. I remember the threats issued by professors of leaving the convention if things did not change. I remember beginning my studies and seeing many friends that began with me leaving to go outside of the convention, following their favorite professors. I certainly believe that Dr. Finn would do well to learn from the history he teaches concerning the Conservative Resurgence and how it was made more difficult because professors openly in class stood in opposition to the decisions of the Baptist in the pew. While he has not threatened to leave the convention, he certainly has placed himself in a precarious position. His students are questioning things to the point that Dr. Finn believes they are about to leave. Dr. Finn is on the front lines concerning the young leaders. Why would he not engage these young leaders to remain and follow the decisions of the Baptist in the pew, instead of issuing statements that sometimes come across as threats concerning the future of the convention?
Why a Gentleman’s Club?
Why not a rooster fight? Why not a big Poker game at a “friend’s” house? Or computer Blackjack?
Tim, it is really hard to “moderately” get into trouble at a Gentleman’s Club. As soon as you go through the door you are in trouble and probably were before you went through the door. Otherwise a Christian man would never step foot in such a place, right?
Now, you take a good Rooster Fight and you got a good chance of not loosing all of your children’s milk money or diaper money if you know a good rooster when you see one.
If you are a good card player you might win a big pot or two and not loose any of the milk and diaper money at the Poker game or playing Blackjack on your computer in the privacy of your own home. Whose to know? Unless, of course you loose the milk money, your car, your computer and your home.
But, then again, you might just loose a little of the milk money. Your kids can do without some things so that you can play cards or fight roosters to reach your gambling friends, right?
So, see, Tim, a little buzz won’t hurt as long as you get home without killing yourself and causing your wife to have to rear your kids the best way she can. Of course you may kill someone else and have to deal with that for the rest of your life. I guess that might be a little bad.
After all life is a gamble no matter what you do; Right, Tim?
So, it may be rooster fightin’ or card playin’ or drinkin’ beverage alcohol for pleasure. It is all the same little gamble as long as it is in moderation. Moderation involving a vice is the key.
Roosters, Poker, or alcohol; It is all the same, right? Just as long as it is in moderation. No one ever got addicted to gambling, alcohol, or drugs even, who practiced moderation and that goes for Catholics and baptist alike. Right, Tim?
I wonder if anyone in these debates has ever considered the admonition of Romans 14:22? It seems that we are so quick with our opinions on this issue that we might be violating this command – and that is for both sides of the debate. Paul seems to make a pretty straightforward argument here. I am not interested in stating my position because Romans 14:22 tells me not to. Verse 21 applies this directly to the issue of wine, as does verse 17. At least that is how I read it when I read the Bible literally.
But, what do I know?
You argue in your article:
“With this in mind, I would like to advance Dr. Finn’s position: It is not legalistic to abstain. Neither is it legalistic for a corporate body to implement employment standards of abstinence. In the SBC, these standards are implemented based on the biblical beliefs of the majority in the body. This majority is not being legalistic when they clearly advocate their personal biblically based belief.”
Quite clearly you are making the jump from a personal conviction [which can sometimes be from legalism], to a corporate decision where the personal stance of some [the majority] is imposed on the minority. Thus freedom of conscience is taken away in favor of a declared ‘legal’ position which is enforced.
This is legalism in its purest form, nothing less. For those that want to advocate their personal position “together with a majority of others” is fine, just don’t impose it on all, because then it is legalism.
Early Baptists valued liberty, but clearly many within the SBC prefer the opposite.
It is so odd, as a lifelong teetotaller, to be put in the position of defending moderate alcohol use. But it is clear to me that Bible intepretation without preconceptions or traditions will lead to one clear conclusion: the Bible prohibits drunkenness. It does not prohibit the moderate use of alcohol.
In 1 Corinthians 11, Paul warned the Corinthians about getting drunk at communion. They were using intoxicating beverages to observe the supper. He did not tell them to switch to grape juice.
He told Timothy to drink a little wine.
Jesus turned water into wine. Those who comment on the quality of the wine remarked about how it was normal to serve cheap wine after guests were intoxicated, but this was good wine. There is not even the slightest hint that this wine was non-alcoholic.
In Deuteronomy 7:13, one of the signs of God’s blessings was a blessing on the wine. How can God bless wine if it is a sin?
Under Levitical law, wine was an offering to God. Could a sin be an offering?
Psalm 104:15 says God gave us wine to gladden the hearts of men.
Proverbs 3:10 promises that those who honor God with the firstfruits will have vats that brim over with wine.
I will skip several positive references to wine in Ecclesiates and Song of Songs, because of the nature of those books.
Jesus talked about putting new wine in old wineskins. Shouldn’t he have warned us to not make wine at all?
New Testament commands that we not get drunk because it leads to debauchery, and warns that church leaders should “not be addicted to much wine.”
If God had wanted us to believe that all alcohol consumption was wrong, a simple wording change in Ephesians and 1 Timothy would have helped.
Tim, your reasoning about the argument of silence is obviously flawed. The Bible DOES talk about wine. Certainly, many references warn of the dangers of drunkenness, but there are also many positive references to wine. The Bible is NOT silent on this issue.
The scriptural evidence is pretty clear and consistent. Wine is a product of God’s creation and in non-intoxicating amounts is not sinful. Drunkenness is sin and leads to many wrong choices.
Now, I need a Diet Coke.
And I believe you are misusing Dr. Finn’s words. He was saying that it is not legalistic to abstain, as you said. But he was saying that it is legalistic to force abstinence on everyone.
Using alcohol is unwise.
Brother CB,
Ok, a rooster fight. :)
Brother Alan,
The reason I do not use Romans 14:22-23 applying to the use of alcohol in moderation is the difference in ceremonial issues and moral issues. Alcohol is a moral issue.
Brother Gordon,
You write; Quite clearly you are making the jump from a personal conviction [which can sometimes be from legalism]. No. It was a given that Dr. Finn and I do agree that one’s personal conviction the Bible teaches abstinence does not mean one is being legalistic.
Brother Dave Miller,
Since you referenced a Levitical regulation, there is an argument that I have not used based on the Old Testament Priestly prohibitions. Do you realize that Leviticus 10:9-11 instructs Aaron’s and his sons on what they are to do. The reason was in order for them to teach the people. Also, it concerned their ministering in the presence of God. As a New Testament saint we believe strongly in the Priesthood of the Believers. As a part of that Priesthood we may enter the very throne room of God at the very mention of the name Jesus. As part of the Priesthood there is a strong argument for abstinence.
Also, I am not misusing Dr. Finn’s words. I have pointed to the weakness of his argument. You cannot argue that it is not legalism to have a personal conviction of abstinence that is based on Scripture. Then turn around and argue that it is legalism for a majority of people with like-minded beliefs based on scripture to implement those beliefs in their corporate body. Of course some do, but it is not logical. If it is not legalistic to hold it personally, it cannot be legalistic to implement it corporately.
Brother CB,
Amen.
Blessings,
Tim
Finn is exactly right and the series he’s doing is tremendously helpful. I’m thankful for his openness with his students (and us through his blog). I would submit that people like him are one of the things keeping these ‘younger leaders’ around. He’s doing the SBC a bigger favor than many of them, Tim included, realize.
Brother Rogers,
You have gone to the kitchen and found most of the cans of worms….no wonder you have not answered me on your site…
:)
I have actually never drank alcohol willingly… as cb has stated and since I have studied what it does to the capillaries in the brain it is apparently unwise to drink (so if you read enough you will probably abstain from the substance),…but as David Miller has testified and the bible concurs… it is not a sin to drink alcohol.
My main concern with the article, besides its assumed paranoia, is the use of the Romans passage of the weaker brother. Who is this masked marauder? Every time I teach through this section, I get some puzzled looks…until those that are puzzled begin to understand what Paul is really talking about here.
Romans 14:13-17 Therefore let us not judge one another anymore, but rather determine this–not to put an obstacle or a stumbling block in a brother’s way. (14) I know and am convinced in the Lord Jesus that nothing is unclean in itself; but to him who thinks anything to be unclean, to him it is unclean. (15) For if because of food your brother is hurt, you are no longer walking according to love. Do not destroy with your food him for whom Christ died. (16) Therefore do not let what is for you a good thing be spoken of as evil; (17) for the kingdom of God is not eating and drinking, but righteousness and peace and joy in the Holy Spirit.
Many think this is a testimony issue with the stronger brother…well, not really. The weaker brother is weak because of a lack of understanding. Not “knowing” that these things are permissible continues to hinder his understanding of freedom that Paul has spent the previous major portion of the letter describing. The stronger brother abstains because he loves his weaker “uninformed” brother….we should all do the same when necessary. While at the same time we should continue to teach the “weaker brother” to mature and get past his dependence on fear and paranoia, and move to maturity. Obviously eating the meat is not a sin and has no effect on a mature believer,….only on the “weaker brother”. We should love him though this difficult time and help him mature…this is how we love him.
The principle goes for all other things that tend to get an evil label because of past traditions and abuse.
Blessings,
Chris
Tim,
Do you follow all of the priestly regulations or just the one about wine? How can you pick one part of the law and not be under the whole thing? It seems that the Bible says something about that.
As far as Romans 14:22-23 being about ceremonial issues and not moral issues, that is a very novel interpretation – one I have never heard before. I don’t think that you can dismiss that entire passage is such a cavalier fashion. What ceremonial issues DO apply to the Christian? Hebrews is pretty clear that all of that has been done away with in Christ. Romans 14:23 says that everything done without faith is sin – that is directly in the context of this issue. We use that with the decisions that we make all the time. There is no ceremonial context in view here. No, Tim, Paul is talking about the conscience here and issues that cause weaker brothers to stumble. He is teaching about the law of love (Rom. 13:8) toward those whose faith is weak (Rom. 14:1).
If we learn anything from that passage it is that those who understand that they have liberty to drink wine should not pass judgment on the weak faith of those who would make it a law to not drink wine. This is a “disputable matter” (Rom. 14:1) and what one believes about it should not be made known so that he is not condemned by what he approves (Rom. 14:22).
I am not saying what my personal position is on this issue, but the biblical proofs put forward in this post are less than convincing.
Brother Brent,
I agree that Dr. Finn is a fine gentleman. No one is arguing against him as a person. I am merely stating his argument is flawed.
Brother Chris,
I did not point to the Romans 14 passage, Brother Alan did. As you have very clearly pointed out it speaks about freedom. What is it freedom in? The ceremonial issues of the Old Testament. As I have stated, I believe in freedom. We are free to abstain and not get caught up in the bondage of rebellion. It seems that those who advocate a moderation approach desire to rebel against abstinence of a drink that clearly is not the same drink the Scripture refers to as “wine”. Even what we refer to as “wine” today is not the same wine the Biblical writers had in their day. The alcohol that is being advocated as being used in moderation is the same as the “strong drink” of Biblical times. It seems there is clear scripture teaching on abstaining from “strong drink”.
Blessings,
Tim
PS Brother Chris, I forgot to tell you that I played with worms and ate dirt as a young lad. :)
Brother Alan,
You say, If we learn anything from that passage it is that those who understand that they have liberty to drink wine should not pass judgment on the weak faith of those who would make it a law to not drink wine. This is a “disputable matter” (Rom. 14:1) and what one believes about it should not be made known so that he is not condemned by what he approves (Rom. 14:22). No place in this chapter or the next does the Apostle Paul reference any moral issue. His reference to “disputable matters” clearly are about ceremonial issues that doctrinally needed to be handled. Remember, Romans is a book on doctrine.
Blessings,
Tim
Tim,
You said, regarding Romans 14, “I did not point to the Romans 14 passage, Brother Alan did. As you have very clearly pointed out it speaks about freedom. What is it freedom in? The ceremonial issues of the Old Testament. As I have stated, I believe in freedom. We are free to abstain and not get caught up in the bondage of rebellion.”
You should really read Romans 14 again. If that is how you interpret that passage, then it is clear that we are not working from the same rules of logic or hermeneutics.
Where did you get your hermeneutic from? I am really interested.
Tim,
We are talking past each other. I’ll say this and let you catch up. Romans is a book about faith being the means by which God justifies the wicked. How do you seperate doctrine from morality?
You said, “No place in this chapter or the next does the Apostle Paul reference any moral issue. His reference to “disputable matters” clearly are about ceremonial issues that doctrinally needed to be handled. Remember, Romans is a book on doctrine.”
Romans 14:23 says that everything that does not come from faith is sin. Romans 14:1,2 talks about the weak faith of the brother who stumbles over disputable matters. Hebrews 11:6 says that without faith it is impossible to please God, so according to Romans 14:23, if someone has a doubt about what he is eating or drinking, he should not partake of it because he will sin because he is not acting by faith. Are you saying that sin has nothing to do with morality?
This is truly absurd.
Brother Tim,
No doubt that the manufactured alcoholic beverages of the day aid in the abuse of the substance.
I do agree that abstinance certainly is not legalistic,…just plain good thinking,…but consuming alcohol is not sin and should not be characterized as such.
There is a difference….
Nathan is probably not popular among those that preach alcohol consumption as sin, but he is accurate to correct them as to there poor scriptural hermenuetic. He is actually bringing encouragement to them,…they just have not realized it yet….
Blessings,
Chris
Brother Alan,
I have never once called into question your education. But since you are questioning my hermeneutics, which is very precious to me, let me inform you. My hermeneutics is correct.
Romans 11 speaks about a remnant that God has in Israel that will come to salvation; Romans 12 speaks about the purpose of our service; Romans 13 speaks about how we are to live in this word with Christians an non-Christians alike. Also, how we are to be subject to the civil authorities. Romans 14 speaks about freedom that we have serving in Christ. He references the ceremonial issues of the Old Testament laws. Isn’t it interesting that Paul gives the okay to eat meat in contrast to the Jerusalem Council’s verdict of Acts 15:29 not to eat meat. However, the Jerusalem Council also issued a verdict to abstain from fornication, which the Apostle Paul never said anything about here in Romans 14. Clearly a difference in ceremonial and moral issues.
Speaking of hermeneutics, if I were to follow your directions of this passage, I would be able to own slaves as long as I could do it in faith. I could say that I believe the Bible teaches that we could own slaves because in Romans 14:4 the Bible says; 4 Who art thou that judgest another man’s servant? to his own master he standeth or falleth. Then in Romans 14:23 it says for whatsoever is not of faith is sin. This is the logical conclusion of your hermeneutics of this passage.
I am not speaking past you, I am merely trying to exegete the text as you are pressing. If this text does not deal with ceremonial law and the freedom we have in it, please tell me what it deals with. You say the Weaker Brother. No. That is Romans 15. Romans 14 speaks about the differences and Romans 15 speaks about how the stronger is to respond to the weaker.
Blessings,
Tim
Chris,
1 Corinthians 10: 23-33 speaks to this issue also, I would assume if the other passages do. it says nothing about the weaker brother. The idea seems to include Jews, Gentiles and the church of God when speaking of those we should not offend. In verse 28 we find the mandate to be; “if any man say unto you”…. Any man would be just that; any man. It does not specify “weaker brother” here.
It is still a fact that to use alcohol as a beverage is unwise.
cb
Brother Chris,
Thank you for getting me back to the point of my post. I am not concerned with whether Dr. Finn is popular or not, I am merely pointing out a flaw in his argument. I will confess it concerns me that Professors are not taking a strong stand on this issue in class, but that is left up to the Administration.
As we agree that abstinence is not legalistic, then the natural conclusion is that a corporate injunction of abstinence on those employed by the SBC is not legalistic either. Especially if the people in the pew say abstinence is the policy.
Blessings,
Tim
Brother Tim,
I agree with you that policy must be set to maintain some order and direction. Having to publish a policy on abstaining from alcohol is indicative of the poor biblical teaching on sanctification. Even though I drink milk, water, and fruit juice without alcohol,…I still believe that scripture is absolutely clear and true concerning the consumption of alcohol (wine that contains alcohol). There is no prohibition except to drunkenness. So I would be the first to vote to rescind a policy that establishes an unbiblical mandate. In my opinion it is a poor policy and there are much better ways to handle teaching those we fellowship with concerning the importance of preaching the gospel.
But, on the other hand, there are lots of poor policies….and I would just hand in there and try to change them in a civil manner and lay out as much biblical truth as I can try to explain.
It is certainly not legalistic to abstain,… nor is it a biblically based policy to require abstaining from drinking alcohol.
Blessings,
Chris
Tim,
I never called into question your education. You are very educated. I believe that you are quite educated in a faulty hermenuetic, however.
You are breaking Romans into a bunch of parts as though Paul were writing about different things. This is where your perspective on systematic theology is getting you into trouble, in my opinion. Romans is about the justification of the wicked by faith and how that faith then guides you through the Christian life. He is applying faith to multiple issues. Romans 1:17 says that through the gospel a righteousness from God has been revealed – a righteousness that is by faith from first to last. The just shall live by faith. The issue of being justified by faith never falls from view throughout Romans. It even applies here in Romans 14 because our righteousness is by faith from first to last. We are not to do as the Galatians did when they started with faith but then abandoned it (Gal. 3:1-14). How are you distinguishing ceremonial law from moral law anyway? All of the Law portrays the character of God. There are no degrees of disobedience. All disobedience, and therefore all sin, is punishable by death. Jesus fulfilled all of the Law and we are no longer under the wrath of God. But, even if Romans 14 was only talking about the ceremonial law (which it is not), it is still a moral issue because to break any part of the Law is to offend a Holy God. Offending God is a moral issue because our sin is primarily against Him. Thank God for the grace that we receive by faith.
Your comment about owning slaves displays your faulty hermeneutic here, in my opinion. Romans 14:4 is not talking about slavery. It is talking about not judging someone who is a servant of God. It uses the analogy of judging a servant, but then quickly shows that it is talking about not judging another Christian because he is the servant of God – “for the Lord is able to make him stand.” To say that that verse is a defense of slavery if you take a moral view of Romans 14 is ludicrous.
You have Romans 14 all wrong, Tim. If Romans 15 is about the strong bearing with the failings of the weak (Romans 15:1), then the context for who is strong and who is weak is established in Romans 14 (14:1-3).
Tim, it seems that you are reading abstentionist perspective on alcohol into the text of Romans 14 and you are missing the larger point.
Brother cb,
I agree with you,….it doesn’t take a rocket scientist to figure out that alcohol consumption is for the most part unhealthy and certainly unwise for a lot of reasons….. and even sinful for those that get drunk on alcohol or any other toxic substance.
The Apostle Paul uses the Law in many circumstances to demonstrate and deal with the overall principle of freedom throughout many of his letters? The point of the passage is focused at 14: 13-14 using the Law to lead into the principle. Even the Gentiles in the audience benefited from the example.
I think the 1 Corinthian passage casts a slightly different shadow…but nonetheless important….
1Corinthians 10:23-24 “All things are lawful, but not all things are profitable. All things are lawful, but not all things edify. (24) Let no one seek his own good, but that of his neighbor.”
The Romans passage is brother to brother exposing fear and paranoia from the Law or other objects of worship where we love them to maturity beyond those things.
I completely agree with you though….we should use wisdom to take advantage of every opportunity to expose the gospel in its clearest light.
Blessings,
Chris
btw…still looking for that email reply, I value your knowledge…I can use all the help I can get. :)
Did you ever notice that the word “sober” in the New Testament is almost universally applied metaphorically rather than literally? Yet the word has a long and well-attested history of meaning something along the lines of “not corrupted in the least by alcohol.” The verb form, nepho, is the opposite of methuo (“intoxication”), and means to be “completely unaffected by wine.”
What does it mean to be “completely unaffected” by wine? The adjectival nephalios, most important for our purposes, is fortunately attested not only in reference to people but also in reference to pagan offerings. Pagan offerings that were nephalios were offerings that contained no wine whatsoever. “Completely unaffected by wine” quite simply means to be absolutely sober. I submit that, apart from the items brewed to have low alcohol, there’s not much, if anything, in the beverage alcohol that leaves you entirely sober after even just one serving.
Make no mistake about it: Moderate consumption really equals moderate drunkenness. How drunk can I get before I’m “drunk”—what BAC? There’s a conversation that no advocate of “moderation” wishes to engage. If we were encountering people sincerely desirous to avoid intoxication, we would see:
1. A vigorous discussion ongoing AMONG moderationists as to where sinful drunkenness beings. But not only is that conversation not vigorous, it is nonexistent.
2. An extolling of the technology now in place to brew beverage alcohol that is less potent, the better to lessen the risk of drunkenness for those choosing to imbibe in moderation. But that conversation also is nonexistent.
3. Serious preaching against drunkenness from moderationist pulpits. Sadly, neither moderationists nor abstentionists are preaching against drunkenness, which causes me to question the sincerity of both sides. This is the great debate where we roar on the blogs what we dare not squeak in our sanctuaries. Yet certainly a greater responsibility falls upon those who proclaim the virtues of moderation. Bringing people to alcohol without giving frequent warning as to the dangers of drunkenness is like giving a four-year-old a Sigsauer without showing him how to set the safety.
I don’t doubt that our moderationist brethren are opposed to someone drinking until transformed into a sorry heap of puking flesh perched on a toilet lid somewhere, but I see no evidence of any serious opposition to a little buzz now and then—at least not any opposition serious enough to give rise to any careful thought or action.
This seems to be a matter of wisdom, doesn’t it?
“Wine is a mocker, strong drink is raging: and whosoever is deceived thereby is not wise.”
Proverbs 20:1
Chris,
The passage I referenced is extremely inclusive as to who we should not offend. 1 Cor. 10:32 “Don’t give offense to Jews or Gentiles or the church of God.”
That pretty much includes everybody, I think.
The remainder of the chapter states; “33. That is the plan I follow, too. I try to please everyone in everything I do. I don’t just do what I like or what is best for me, but what is best for them so they may be saved.”
Chris, I am at a loss on the email. I may have deleted it by mistake. I am sorry. Would you please send it to me again. I try to answer emails and I did not fail you by willful intent, although I realize I have failed you and seek your forgiveness for my apparent slothfulness in paying attention to what I am doing.
cb
All,
Just wondering if Finn is right about something. Would you all be willing to testify to your age, thereby demonstrating if this is an old vs. young thing? As I wrote on Finn’s blog, I find that mandating abstinence as the only biblical position (see the State Convention in Florida, for example) is unbelievably untenable from a fair reading of the Bible. I’m no ‘leader’ by any sense of the word, but I do consider myself young. I am 32 and agree that this issue will pass away in 10-15 years. What about the rest of you? Is this issue ‘age-related’?
Brother Malcolm,
I completely agree,….it is a matter of wisdom. Drunkenness is a matter of choice,…obviously a lack of wisdom. Scripture does make a distinction of being drunk and not being drunk as wine is consumed, so it stands to reason that there is a distinction and definition to the terms with one to the positive. I don’t disagree with Bart on the woe’s of drunkenness, but even he would have to admit that scripture is clear that a distinction is present from the negation expressed in the text.
How it is dealt with is truly the concern.
Blessings,
Chris
Dr. Yarnell,
Do you believe that unfermented grape juice helps curb heart ailments, or is it the alcohol in the wine that ‘does the trick’? If it is the former, was Paul sinning when he instructed Timothy to drink wine? If it was the latter, was Paul unwise in his instructions to his ‘son in the faith’?
I almost forgot.
Let me say again; The use of beverage alcohol is unwise.
I especially believe that is true for all of us who have obtained mercy of the Lord. We should be faithful to seek to be wise. I think that is appropriate for this present distress.
cb
Brother cb,
no problem my friend…I’ll send it your way …..
I think we are in sync on these passages. What I meant by a slightly different shadow was the overall context with Corinth was extremely corrective, while the Roman church was receiving a doctrinal thesis clarifying the wondrous doctrine of justification.
Thanks my friend,
Blessings,
Chris
Tim,
Regarding your Levitical priesthood argument – It is not convincing to me. As Alan said above, it would seem that would mean that you would have to then observe all levitical law.
My point in the recitation was to demonstrate that there are many scriptures in which wine is viewed positively. That being the case, you cannot use the argument from silence to support abstentionism. The Bible assumes consumption of wine throughout. If God were against ANY use of alcohol, some scriptures (Ephesians 5:18, etc) would need to be worded differently.
I do not agree with your understanding of Nathan’s argument (which he can certainly make himself).
His view (and mine) is that moderate consumption of alcohol is a clear example of “disputable issues” in Romans 14-15. Each of us should follow our convictions remembering that we must answer to Christ and we must not demand that other Christians adhere to our personal convictions.
A disputable issue (to me) assumes the absence of a clear biblical command. Adultery – clear. Idolatry – clear. Gossip – no doubt. Moderate alcohol consumption – there is not a clear biblical prohibition. So, it is an issue of dispute.
As I read Nathan, he is dealing with questions from students. “When the Bible does not clearly condemn moderate alcohol consumption, why do Southern Baptists?”
It is my question as well. Why, in the absence of clear biblical prohibition, do we enforce total abstinence?
If the SBC desires, it has the clear right to set this policy as a test of fellowship. What it cannot do is claim biblical authority for that test of fellowship.
James,
Obviously Paul was giving medical advice to Timothy. The text you refer to may indicate Timothy did not use wine regularly. Therefore, Paul had to tell him, specifically, to use it as medicine for his stomach.
Paul was not telling Timothy to go hang with the guys at the lounge and kick back a couple to break the ice for an effective evangelism encounter. Would you not agree?
cb
I’m 38.
And I’m with C.B.: The statement to Timothy is a perfect example of employing alcohol as a drug to be used medicinally and not recreationally.
Chris,
We are in sync on the passages. I think we are a Neo-Corinthian culture in the United States. It is for that reason I lean on the two letters to the church of God at Corinth so much when examining my own culture and God’s prescriptive Word for it.
cb
CB,
The question is not whether he drank only sparingly, or in moderation, or ‘to hang out at the lounge and kick back a couple’. The question is was Paul sinning by giving such advice to his protege or was he simply unwise? Either way, Paul falls from the lofty perch upon which most Protestants place him if we read this text at face value.
If, on the other hand, people like Finn are correct that the Bible ONLY condemns drunkenness and not simply consumption, then those who argue that alcohol is never wise or appropriate might need to re-evaluate their position. No one (from my side) is saying everyone should drink. We are simply saying that alcohol in and of itself is not evil (or even unwise). It is the abuse of such an instrument (which also includes the abuse of food towards gluttony or the abuse of hording money towards greed) that is sinful.
Thanks for interacting with me. We might disagree, but I know you have a heart for your Lord, and no one can accuse you of serving two masters.
Brother cb,
bingo… (and I’m not Catholic)
Bart…I’m older than 38 and graying rapidly…and have never drank a Bud Light or any alcoholic drink in my lifetime.
:)
Blessings,
Chris
Dr. Yarnell,
Yes, it does seem to be a matter of wisdom. Are you saying that Jesus was not wise? Are you saying that Paul was not wise? Perhaps Proverbs 20:1 means something a little different than total abstinence in the context of the rest of Scripture. Perhaps being deceived by wine and strong drink is what is in view here and that deception delivers one to drunkenness, which is clearly sin and foolishness. We should let Scripture interpret Scripture, shouldn’t we? I think that is the wise thing to do.
Bart,
The word “sober” does not always deal with alcohol. Read Romans 12:3.
Somehow the NT writers were able to distinguish between having a cup of wine and drunkenness. Was there ANY alcohol at all in the wine that was served? The answer is an absolute yes. Bart, under your definition of sober, Jesus was wrong to turn water into wine and Paul was wrong to tell Timothy to take a little wine for his stomach. Even if this wine was diluted as some of you say, it still had some alcohol in it. Even the items brewed to have low alcohol have some alcohol and for some, it only takes some alcohol to be slightly affected. Clearly, people were affected by the alcohol at the Wedding at Cana.
I am not arguing for alcohol consumption. I believe that you make excellent points for the wisdom of abstention, as does CB and others. It is just that a Biblical argument for abstention falls apart quickly. If we are teaching our people to be Biblicists, as you say the Baptist Identity requires, then it seems that you are contradicting yourself here. You guys keep ending up by saying that abstention is wise. I do not disagree. It is also a completely permissable position. It is just not the position that the Bible requires and no hermeneutical gymnastics can make it so. It seems that we would do much better to promote spiritual maturity amongst our members than we would to put them under a law that does not find its origins in Scripture. If we start doing that, we lose our authority to say “the Bible says” very quickly.
“For the Kingdom of God is not a matter of eating and drinking, but of righteousness, peace and joy in the Holy Spirit, because anyone who serves Christ in this way is pleasing to God and approved by men.” Romans 14:17,18
The abstentionist position, as far as I know, almost always acknowledges the propriety of using alcohol MEDICINALLY. Thus, yours is a false dilemma. Paul did not violate abstentionist belief by advocating the medicinal use of alcohol as treatment of Timothy’s ailment.
Just like it is fine to be administered opiates in the hospital but not to purchase them on a street corner for recreational use.
Alan,
I’m not arguing that it always refers to the consumption of alcohol. I’m just wondering why, in translations, commentaries, and analyses by moderationists, it seems NEVER to refer to alcohol.
CB,
If i understood your post #34, culture determines how believers behave? If it a culture enslaved to alcohol, then believers should not drink? If this is the case, then should believers give up watching college football, because we all know that folks in the south are addicted to the SEC. (I have no intent to mock you, but simply to press what i think you are saying into a different scenario).
Second, if we are to model our lives so that we impact culture, is it ok for believers to drink in countries that are not enslaved to alcohol? Is it ok for IMB personal to drink in countries where drinking is a normal way of life without the struggles of abuse?
Thanks in advance for providing your thoughts on these scenarios.
Dave,
If “the Bible assumes consumption of wine throughout, is it not even more valid that maybe the reason for that is because the Bible certainly assumes mankind to be unwise. Therefore, we have much of Scripture dedicated to telling us to seek wisdom and to be wise.
I believe Nathan would agree that the use of beverage alcohol is unwise.
The Scripture teaches us to seek to be wise.
The Spirit is constantly convicting me for things I do that are not wise.
If the use of beverage alcohol is unwise, would not we be convicted as unwise in the use of it if we are seeking to be wise as plainly instructed by Scripture?
cb
OK, cleaning up here.
1. Comment #38 was addressed to James, as I had not yet seen Alan’s at #37, although reading Alan’s I see that portions of his position presume the same false dilemma. But just to clarify, I was interacting with James at that point.
2. Alan, I am not arguing that the least bit of alcohol consumption necessarily leads to drunkenness. I’m trying to open a conversation as to where sinful drunkenness begins, and I’m noting that I have never been able to get a moderationist to engage the topic at all. The human liver is capable of dealing with some alcohol consumption to keep it from impairing moral judgment. If, as you say, the Bible strictly and sternly prohibits drunkenness, and if, as you say, people are somewhat drunk after any alcohol consumption at all, then aren’t you destroying your own position?
About 10 comments came in while I was typing my last comment so I did not read them. I did not mean to just repeat the same thing that everyone else was. It just happened that way.
Let me reiterate: I think that abstention is a very wise position. I just don’t think that you can enforce it biblically, and as pastors, we should not go beyond Scripture. If someone is forced to enforce this biblically and they do not see it in Scripture, then wouldn’t this be causing them to sin in that they would be doing something without faith (Romans 14:23). At the very least, this falls into the “disputable matters” category and to make brothers enforce abstenance when they do not see this as the Biblical position seems to be quite non-Baptist, in my opinion.
Brother Alan,
Very well said my friend…. You can possess wisdom and consume wine, without diluting your wisdom……that’s simply the truth of the Word of God.
Drunkeness is never an option.
Blessings,
Chris
Why would Paul have to tell Timothy to consume? Was Timothy not aware that a little wine in his drink would help him?
Just a thought. We can never know these answers.
I agree with CB that alcohol consumption is unwise, but so is eating too many chili dogs on memorial day.
Bart,
Why do you suspect, if Baptists are ‘people of the Book’ and who use Scripture to guide their theology and their practice, does the first confession adopted by Southern Baptists SPECIFICALLY declare the use of wine as the proper liquid element in communion, even though unfermented grape juice was clearly available.
And, to top it all, the 1925 confession was adopted during the heyday of the Prohibitionist movement. Was it wise then to drink wine but not so now?
Thank you Lord, “Temperance” was finally my anti-spam word!
Chris, “Drunkenness is never an option” is a toothless dog if we’re unable even to engage in a conversation as to what constitutes “drunkenness.”
James,
The use of wine in the Lord’s Supper is not a recreational use of beverage alcohol. You show me somebody who employs wine only liturgically and I’ll not be lobbing any stones in his direction.
Brother Bart,
Fair enough,….
I know that many of you think Piper is a hedonist, but he addresses the very issue that we are discussing here.
It is a very good read (or listen) and I feel that he hits the nail on the head.
Bart,
just a point of clarification. Alan did not say that “people are somewhat drunk after any alcohol consumption.” What he said was that “and for some, it only takes some alcohol to be slightly affected.”
I don’t suspect you meant to misrepresent his words, but I wanted to point out where I think you unintentionally misread him.
James,
The basis of my argument throughout this post has been that to drink alcohol as a beverage is unwise. That would transcend our culture as it did the Corinthian culture.
Scripture spoke to that culture and it does to ours also.
James, does not Scripture speak to all cultures?
The primary readers of the Corinthian letters was the church of God at Corinth. Are we not the secondary readers of the same truth in our present culture as were all cultures before us after the Corinthians read the letter?
James, I do not feel mocked by you. It is a fact that I have posted many times on the addiction all Sabanites have for true football as we play it here. I understand that all of you other folks have no temptation to this addiction due to the weak dosage of football to which you all are accustomed.
:-) :-)
cb
James,
“Slightly affected” = “A little bit drunk”
For those people, then, at least, the first drink is a sin, right?
Bart,
I did not say that people are “somewhat drunk” after drinking a glass of wine. I said that some are “slightly affected.” It has been proven that the reason that people eat when they are stressed or depressed is because dopamine is released in the brain giving a pleasurable sensation. The same thing happens to runners. There are lots of things that we intake that slightly affect us. Many people cannot function in the morning without a cup of coffee because their body is craving the caffeine. I do not drink coffee regularly, so I arise every morning needing not the least bit of coffee to start my day. Should I look down on the brother who just HAS to have a cup of coffee or he has headaches, cannot wake up, and is grouchy? Is that cup of coffee sin? If so, I would be interested to see what Southern Baptists think about that.
Lots of things affect us. A little wine can slightly affect someone in that it might relax them a little. It does not mean that they are drunk or that they have lost control. A hot bath can relax a person in the same way. As far as knowing when someone has gone too far, that is an interesting question and is one that would be very profitable to engage in. I would welcome that discussion and I think that we would find that agreement would come quickly. But, that is not the argument in the SBC. We have had missionary candidates denied appointment because as a newlywed couple they drank a glass of champagne in their hotel room on their wedding night. I know the couple and heard their story from the man’s mother. When they were asked if they had had any alcohol in the past year they answered honestly and were denied. Is that what you are talking about here? Because that is what I am talking about. Can you please tell me where that is a biblical position? After you answer that question I will be happy to discuss with you when a person starts to become affected to the point of drunkenness. Somehow the Biblical writers were able to discern the difference. Perhaps we will be able to as well.
Bart,
Thanks for engaging my question. Let me ask it a different way. If it is unwise for ‘recreational’ use, then how is it wise for ‘liturgical’ use? And, keep in mind, Baptists of yesteryear partook of Communion much more often than we do now and, unlike now, they didn’t have Lifeway stores from which to purchase one ounce plastic cups. I suspect the elements were of greater proportion then (though, admitidly, this is only conjecture)
Thanks
James,
I am not arguing for the sinless infallibility of “Baptists of yesteryear.” I know it to be a fact, as Nathan has pointed out, that these Baptists sometimes paid their pastors in whiskey. Keep in mind, now, whiskey is a beverage of a class entirely unknown in biblical times—a beverage distilled to increase its alcoholic potency an order of magnitude. It is far stronger even than the “strong drink” so strongly condemned as a beverage in the Bible. The mere production or possession of a distilled liquor is an advocacy of drunkenness.
I would also point out that your conjecture is, I believe, unfounded. “Baptists of yesteryear” were, largely, dirt poor. I doubt that many of them were splurging on Dixie cups full of booze for their Lord’s Supper observances. But if they were drinking large quantities of wine liturgically, they were doing so clearly in violation of Paul’s words in 1 Corinthians.
CB,
Certainly Scripture speaks to culture. I read you as saying that we are in a neo-Corinthian culture. I was asking “What of believers who do not live in a neo-Corinthian culture?” Can IMB personal drink in such a culture?
Your answer is that it is never wise, but why not? If it is not taboo, and the person handles himself under the control of the Holy Spirit, then why is it not wise?
Thanks
Alan,
Indeed, I begin to be more than slightly affected by this conversation!
Yet every driver’s ed student in the U.S. of A. knows that a moderate serving of alcohol can make a person illegal to operate a motor vehicle. That’s how much it takes to impair motor skills. Every such student also learns that the infamous “lessening of inhibitions” comes much earlier than that. And I’m convinced that the Bible, with no reason to give a rip about motor skills, is far more concerned with the departure of those inhibitions. Inhibitions are our friends.
Brother Bart,
The Apostle Paul gives a clear answer to our dilemma……that I am sure everyone knows by heart…..
Ephesians 5:15-19 Therefore be careful how you walk, not as unwise men but as wise, (16) making the most of your time, because the days are evil. (17) So then do not be foolish, but understand what the will of the Lord is. (18) And do not get drunk with wine, for that is dissipation, but be filled with the Spirit, (19) speaking to one another in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing and making melody with your heart to the Lord;
The “for that is dissipation” clause reflects a not to common use of Greek for those that cause riotous behavior. So there is a reflection to get to some point of unbecoming behavior. The Apostle could have easily put in an abstinence clause here if the Spirit of God had inspired, but Paul did give direction nonetheless without a call for abstinence. He interposes his negation once again, which subscribes to a choice that is informed by the Spirit of God. That choice is wisdom, which clearly leads not to riotous behavior,…yet in the context of Paul here, would not even approach it, but would gain strength moving away from such behavior. The call to our so-called abstinence is squelched by the call of the Spirit of God to wisdom.
Blessings,
Chris
Bart,
I didn’t mean to imply that early 20th century Baptists were getting a buzz at Communion by droppin’ back 20 oz cups of wine. For some, that would no doubt lead to drunkenness. My question, however, is how is it wise to drink liturgically, but not socially?
Thanks
Bart,
Every resource I could find for “sober” gave the word a metaphorical meaning. I don’t think they were all moderationist resources.
Gentlemen,
I’ve been blogging while watching the Spurs-Lakers game. It is now over (thanks to a bad no-call on the last play) so I will retire for the evening. I’ve enjoyed the conversation and will check back tomorrow for any follow-up answers to any questions or responses directed towards me.
Good evening and God bless you, my brothers in Christ.
Bart, as I just stated over at your blog, this conversation has been quite intoxicating, hasn’t it? :)
I do not disagree with the thrust of your last statement, although I have seen many people lose their inhibitions at a college football game. Let’s make a stand against caffeine and college football, since both fall under things that are apparently disallowed by Scripture. :) The discussion here is whether drinking a glass of wine is a sin. We are struggling to discern if the Bible says that it is or not. You are bringing in a lot of other arguments that, while helpful in buttressing our disapproval of drunkeness, hardly equate to a biblical defense of your position.
We all agree that drunkeness is wrong. I would be happy to discuss with you what drunkeness is and what it is not. I am sure that the Bible can give us some clues if we look at what it means to lose self control and act foolishly. But, does that happen with a glass of champagne drunk as a toast on a wedding night in someone’s bedroom? Did it happen at the Wedding at Cana? This is pertinent not as a defense of drinking alcohol, but as Nathan Finn said, as a defense of the sufficiency of Scripture.
Dave Miller,
Read the entire article in the Theological Dictionary of the New Testament. The root meaning of the word is as the opposite of “drunk.”
James,
This comment thread is moving with the same speed I used to when going to a rooster fight. That is fast.
I did not answer your question about gluttony and maybe ABC’s as well.
Glutton is also unwise and definitely a sin. Here is my own quick testimony.
In my early life I stayed in a top physical condition. It was very necessary for my occupation and “chosen” life-style.
After I became a Believer I also stayed in very good shape, but not top shape. For some reason I do not quite understand around the time I went to work at SEBTS I just let myself go. I ate like a hog and was soon bigger than one. I did not work out with weights, run, nor practice Martial Arts for a long time.
Eating like I did without exercise was very unwise and sinful. For my lack of wisdom and sinfulness relating to food and lack of proper exercise I developed type 2 diabetes. That is a bad boy to live with, I tell you what.
I have been working hard the last three years to correct my unwise ways. It is a hard road.
An old soldier once told me; “God forgives, but nature never does.” I know that is not biblical in origin, but I have found it to be true in my struggle to get my proper health back. Gluttony is a sin. I knew better than to let myself go. I was very unwise.
By the same token, I know what alcohol has done to some very brave men. Therefore, I can see its use as nothing but unwise.
cb
Chris,
“Riotous” is an unfortunate word choice to translate asotia, since in English it conveys something of a brawl. Surely you are not suggesting that the “quiet drunk” can consume all he wishes?!
Rather, asotia derives from the alpha-privative of sozo (“salvation”) and, according to Foerster, has been “used in essentially the same sense from classical to Byzantine times…The original meaning is ‘incurable’ [my interpolation here: "beyond salvation"]…then denotes ‘one who by his manner of life, esp. by dissipation, destroys himself’;…thus has the sense of ‘dissipation.’”
The meaning of the text in Ephesians is not that “drunkenness” consists of “riotous” behavior toward others, but that being “drunk with wine” amounts to a self-destructive life.
CB,
You make the best argument here for abstaining from alcohol and it is the one that I employ. I would stop short of saying that drinking a glass of wine on occasion when not around weaker brothers is a sin because I do not see the Bible saying that and I cannot in good conscience call sin what the Bible does not. But I can definitely say that the regular use of alcohol is unwise for many reasons and I think that anyone that takes a personal abstinence position is making a profitable decision.
Alan,
I think I may disagree with the IMB decision that you mentioned. A single indiscretion ought not to disqualify a person from missionary service. Nevertheless, champagne is a distilled beverage—something specifically and technologically enhanced to make it make you drunker quicker. To talk about consumption of wine is even a different matter than to talk about consumption of champagne. It is stronger than “strong drink” in the Bible. To consume it is wrong.
But a single sin ought not to disqualify a person from missionary service. Now, if they were saying, “And we don’t see a thing wrong with it,” then the issue goes to their ongoing believe, not their one-time honeymoon activity, doesn’t it?
Also, you can certainly put me on record that a lot of what goes on at college football games is sinful, especially among Sabanites.
OK, I’m now officially too tired to spell “belief” instead of “believe.” Must be time to close the office and drive home.
Alan,
I’m not sure you know my position well enough to know whether I’m defending it well or not. Grow some grapes. Press them. Let them ferment a bit if it happens. Mix the resultant stuff with about three parts water to one point wine. Drink a little of that in moderation, and you’ll have no problems with me. And I don’t think you’ll even be a little bit drunk.
They just don’t happen to sell that in the bar at Chili’s. Nor is it likely that any oinophile would bother with a beverage so indisposed to give him a buzz.
Strengthening mine at #66, then I’m really quitting.
Supporting this interpretation is the fact that the Greek text at 5:18 reads not “for that is dissipation” but “in which is dissipation.” The thrust is not to define methuskesthe but to describe the effect of it that arises out of it—it is a lifestyle that leads to incurable self-destruction.
Bart,
You certainly do know more about the development of alcohol than I do. I don’t know how to make it, nor do I know much about which drink does which to a person. You’ll likely win that argument. I do not know if a single glass of champagne is enough to cause people to be drunk. I only know that the Bible does not seem to prohibit any alcohol at all, just the use of it for intoxication. I agree with you on that point.
I also agree with you on the Sabanite statement. Much of what goes on in that tribe is truly unspeakable and can only happen with the abuse of “strong drink.” :)
There seems to be a fatal flaw in logic here: “If it is not legalistic to hold it personally, it cannot be legalistic to implement it corporately.”
Yes it is, because a massive change has occurred. The abstention is no longer a personal conviction when forced on others.
Forcing it on others removes their freedom to decide for themselves, and imposes the personal preferences of the majority on the minority.
And as consumption of alcohol can lead to dismissal it is absolutely ‘legalistic’. I find it hard to believe that what pastors or missionaries do in their own homes or spare time can be something that is regulated in this fashion. If I abstain and my brother does not, that is of no business to me.
Of course if others are engaging in immoral behaviour that is a serious issue but this is about a choice we make according to our hermeneutics and our own conscience.
To All,
I go to bed and you guys take off!! I awaken this am to 55 comments posted while I was asleep. There is no way for me to re-engage the comments of everyone. Thus, I will (as some would like to advocate my use of Scripture) pick and choose the comments to engage. :)
Brother Alan,
I do not possess a faulty hermeneutics of Romans. Romans is book of Doctrine. As to the slavery issue, I was merely point to you that your hermeneutics of Romans 14 would logically lead to that argument in support of slavery. Your argument appears to be one of no difference in ceremonial and moral issues as Paul clearly dealt with the weaker Brother issue on ceremonial issues. If I take your position that Paul was addressing any issue for the weaker Brother he would have definitely presented an outline for allowing fornication to continue in hopes not to offend the weaker brother. Remember, the Jerusalem Council already dealt with eating meats and Paul’s instructions are completely different from the instructions of the Jerusalem Council, except where it concerns moral issues.
Brother James #25,
You say; I am 32 and agree that this issue will pass away in 10-15 years. What about the rest of you? Is this issue ‘age-related’? Whether this is age related or not, I do not know. I am 48, soon to be 49, and have had to live through much concerning the abuse of alcohol in my personal life. I received Christ at 29, and from the very start I have believed that alcohol imbibing was a violation of Scripture. Mind you that I did not know how to argue that at 29, but I believed it. At 25 I had to walk my favorite uncle around the hospital room dodging the holes in the floors that he saw there because of the halucinations he was experiencing going through DT’s. I had to change my clothes and clean myself up many times through the long nights of sitting up with him because of his vomit he would direct my way, not knowing who I was. My mother told me stories of having to leave the house she lived in because her father, my grandad, came home drunk and begin shooting the guns. I could go on, but I will not bore you with the details of my life. Even with all of these warning signs I still drank. I was drunk the night I ran into a ditch in front of a Deacons’ house and completely crushed my face. It was nothing but the Grace of God that I did not die that night. So to ask if this is an age thing. It could be. But I can promise you. In 10-15 years from now, you will be closer to my position than I am to yours at this time. :)
Blessings,
Tim
Brother Gordon,
Go play golf with your deacons and consume two or three bud lights. Get in the car and leave the golf course with a BAC below .05, but impaired enough to not clearly judge the accurate distance and speed of the car I am driving. Pull into the street and cause an accident with my family and your choice and hermeneutics just became my problem.
What you do in your own home does have an effect on society. What you do as a Christian in your own home is my business as a fellow believer. Unless you do not believe in accountability.
Blessings,
Tim
Brother Bart,
I am not disagreeing with you on several of your findings.
1. That alcohol or any substance for that matter has an effect on the body. Some are more toxic quicker. And your point about the production of alcohol these days is absolutely true. I liked your analogy of pressing your own grapes and find out how long it takes to get drunk. There is wisdom in that approach. So you are going to find me agreeing with you by “conviction” on how one should be cautioned to use this substance. I have always said, it seems the wisdom of the day is to stay away. Fortunately, my son and daughter have learned there are more satisfying things to drink through rightly dividing the word and without me having to write a “family policy” that frankly would be meaningless. They make choices and it is not based upon a policy.
2. You said…..“Riotous” is an unfortunate word choice to translate asotia, since in English it conveys something of a brawl. Surely you are not suggesting that the “quiet drunk” can consume all he wishes?!” I am ok with the translation as understanding is applied. Certainly there is a “quiet drunk” as well and he is just as sinful as the brawling one. Since the term is only used twice in the NT, the context of the passage brought forward the translation from the scholars I would suppose, and it is effective to make the point. Asotia is effective to teach us by comparison to move toward the Spirit of God, not something that has the potential to control whether in a stooper or brawling fashion. So that is the point ….you cannot consume all that you wish…or you will at some point become drunk and not be controlled by the Spirit of God. God says make a choice, because you are able.
Blessings,
Chris
Gordon,
To say; “If I abstain and my brother does not, that is of no business to me” is not a biblical concept.
You might need to rethink that one.
cb
The typical oinos used in the day of Jesus made water potable and did not contain the alcohol modern types of wine do unless intentionally fortified.
Tim is correct with regard to his argument about freedom. Freedom, in the New Testament, refers primarily to obedience to Christ. To be free in and for Christ is to be free from sin, death, and Satan. We should be careful not to transform the idea of freedom into the modern mindset of how far we can push the envelope without losing the letter.
Now, rather than engage any further in what is obviously a heated debate with passionate interlocutors, may I point you to three excellent articles written in previous years by some wise men, whose thoughts run largely parallel to those of Tim Rogers:
Dr. Daniel Akin
http://www.baptistpress.com/bpnews.asp?ID=23576
Dr. Paige Patterson
http://www.baptistpress.com/bpnews.asp?ID=23601
Dr. Richard Land and Dr. Barrett Duke
http://www.baptisttheology.org/documents/OnAlcoholUse.pdf
Brother CB,
I was not speaking of you when I mentioned about chili dogs on memorial day, that was directed toward me :-)
I don’t know if anyone has listened to or really cares to listen to the Piper Link in Post # 50 but he makes a really good comment.
he says, “God hates legalism more than he hates the consumption of alcohol”.
This statement does imply that God hates the consumption of alcohol, but I don’t think that is the point of the comment Piper made. He was cautioning, as I believe is correct, that anytime we go beyond what the bible explicitly says and make rules for ourselves, we become no better than the Pharisees with their Talmud and attempt to establish a righteousness of our own.
I know that this is not the heart of those who oppose consumption and who have been arguing for abstinence here, but we must be very careful as it is a slippery rock that we are balancing on.
Grace and Peace…
ABClay
Dr. Yarnell,
Your comments also seem to fall in line with the context of the Ephesians passage.
Blessings,
Chris
Brother Tim,
My dear soul, Tim, how dare you defend abstentionism in such a well-watered garden where spring time buttercups bloom into the beautiful bouquet of boozing-it-up advocates.
Are you some sort of weird sadist who likes pain, agony and—if they have their way—defeat? When I first saw your post, there was scarcely a comment. I get up this morning and I declare, you’ll be past 100 by noon or a Starbucks on me (Sorry, if I offend all the ‘weaker brothers’ here who thinks caffeine is prohibited by Scripture. You need to know I’ll stand on that liberty with my life!).
I followed the thread and I count it telling those who argue for moderation are apparently not aware—or if they are, they are hiding it very well—of the more sophisticated case for abstention that is available. In fact, from my conversations with moderationists, while most of them are very familiar with either Ken Gentry’s nifty little book—the standard debate manual for moderation’s case—or G.I. Williamson’s more hardcore study—hardcore, in the sense that Williamson explicitly says “those who desire to impose a law of abstinence upon Christians are departing from the truth of God and following the doctrine of demons…There is no greater need in the Church today than to reject this doctrine of devils”—very few seem aware of studies by abstinence writers.
A nice little pastoral volume is “Should Christians Drink?” by Dr. Peter Masters, present Minister at London’s Metropolitan Tabernacle. Master’s follows his old predecessor, Mr. Spurgeon, who not only was a strong proponent of the Temperance Movement, but insisted on non-fermented wine for congregational communion.
Old Testament scholar, Dr. Stephen Reynolds, who served on faculty at Gordon Conwell, dug up bones in Israel with famed archeologist, William Albright and served on the translation committee of the NIV, penned an almost exhaustive study entitled “The Biblical Approach to Alcohol.” From my view, he does a pretty good job dismantling the strange charge Williamson makes that those of us who teach and advocate abstentionism are following doctrines hatched in hell.
Not to mention the unpublished doctoral dissertation at Dallas Theological Seminary of Professor Robert Teachout whose exhaustive study of wine in the Old Testament—including both linguistic analysis and grape produce/usage–should put to rest the “proof-texting” approach that seems the preferred method of those seeking to crush the doctrine of demons.
Nor does it include some classics like Baptist theologian and scholar G. W. Sampson, who was, according to William Cathcart, the most well known Baptist in his day, and was commissioned by the two Baptist conventions to write a study on “wine in Religious Uses.” He did and published a volume exceeding 600 pages entitled “Divine Law As To Wines.” What did Dr. Sampson conclude? Let’s just say all would agree that, from G.I. Williamson’s standpoint, Sampson was satan himself.
The string that runs without end throughout the arguments of all those advocating moderation is the assumption of a one-wine theory imposed, it seems to me, on the Biblical record, and that without the least bit of argument. Without that assumption, advocacy for alcohol consumption drains down to advocacy for hedonism, the pursuit of pleasure. And, do not be fooled, my friend, it is about pleasure. How many times uttered in the course of conversation concerning wine-bibbing something like this is offered to tell the abstentionist to hold his pharisaical tators: “Some find it refreshing to have a glass of wine after a hard day’s work. What’s so wrong about that?” Of course, it’s far from settled that the Bible reveals a ‘one-wine-theory.” To be honest, there are compelling reasons it does not.
One final note: the vocal hullabaloo about the ‘weaker brothers’ is interesting—especially from the way our Dr. Finn employs it. From my reading of his position, he seems to assume that those of us who are advocating abstentionism constitute the many “weaker brothers in the SBC who just doesn’t get it.”
I cannot speak for other “weaker brothers” but only for myself. Let me be clear: Dr. Finn, you do not tempt me in the least to go out and grab a beer with the boys before bedtime. Nor does any other who advocates that’s it’s perfectly alright to drink my martinis while witnessing about Christ. I am sorry to disappoint you. I may be a ‘weaker brother’ in many, many areas of my life—indeed I know I am. But you or others affecting me in that way? Hardly.
On the other hand, Dr. Finn is correct: there are a lot of ‘weaker brethren in the SBC who just doesn’t get it.’ And these are the ‘weaker brothers’ about which concerns most of us.
The sad irony is, many of them sit under Dr. Finn’s teaching, learning to respect him as a scholar, a friend, an authority, a voice of reason and a voice of wisdom.
They also hear him as their friend, mentor and authority offer his wisdom and voice of reason about alcohol:
Unfortunately for Dr. Finn, the ‘weaker brothers’ are not necessarily out in the Convention somewhere. Rather, they are sitting right under his feet.
Grace. Tim.
With that, I am…
Peter
ABC,
Was Piper correct to say that God hates one thing more than another in reference to that which is destructive to people in general and specific in relationship and fellowship to Him and others?
Legalism “nailed Jesus to the cross” no more than did gluttony, adultery, gossip, lying, stealing, alcohol abuse or self-centeredness.
I could be wrong here, but I contend God hates sin of any stripe.
It is seemingly evident that some sins have greater consequences to us who commit them than do others, but the ultimate consequence of all sin is death, is it not?
cb
Tim,
I am very confused as to how you say that Romans is just a book on doctrine as though doctrine is seperate from moral or devotional issues. Doctrine is not some thing in and of itself. It is a display of the truth about God and the Christian life.
Context will lead the way in the rest of our disagreements on Romans 14. Paul’s interest was in “disputable matters.” Some issues are disputable. This is one of them and someone should not look down on a brother who must stay away from these things for the sake of his conscience, even though abstinence on some issues is not something that defines holiness. As to the slavery issue, I would not end up defending it because the passage clearly states that the servanthood that is being talked about is servanthood to God. The passage itself keeps me from going there because it does not go there. To end up in a defense of slavery from that passage, I have to completely ignore what it is actually saying and derive my own meaning for it.
Re: fornication, that is clearly not a disputable matter as the forbiding of fornication is well established in Scripture in a very clear way. There are not verses where Paul says, “engage in a little fornication to help your stomach.” Jesus does not initiate an orgy at the Wedding at Cana. Nowhere in Scripture is fornication ever spoken of in a positive way or in a way that it is allowed in moderation. You are comparing apples and oranges here and appealing to the Jersualem Council does nothing to further defend your position. The Jerusalem Council was not the first time (or the last) that sexual immorality was disallowed. In the preaching of the gospel to the Gentiles, those in Jerusalem wanted them to know that sexual immorality was not what God had intended. It was allowed in the religions that they were coming out of. Christianity is different. As far as eating food sacrificed to idols, Paul explains why this should not be done if a weaker brother is present. But, he goes on to explain that if your faith is strong enough, it really does not make a difference because it is still just food. Wine is just wine. True holiness is not connected to such issues. I do not believe that the Jerusalem Council, in the issues that they mentioned, were breaking things apart the way that you are doing here. I think that they gave some guidance to former pagans in some problem areas. Clearly there are other issues that are sin that Paul explains that are not listed here. They were just pointing out issues that dealt with their former Pagan lifestyle and their past religions. Paul further explains the rest in his teaching and letters.
Dr. Yarnell,
If wine in Jesus’ day is just potable water, then why are we told to not get drunk on wine in Ephesians 5:18? How can you get drunk on something that it is not possible to get drunk on?
Peter,
There are no “boozing it up” advocates here. No one has said that anyone should “booze it up.” No one is advocating drinking martinis while witnessing. Your caricatures of the opposing side muddy what has been a generally respectful debate. I know that you think that you are just using interesting language, but the not-so-subtle shift that you employ causes the other side to appear to be advocates for a “drink all you want” lifestyle. No one has said any such thing. We are discussing if whether or not the Bible says that drinking a glass of wine is a sin. The abstentionist side says that it is and uses arguments related to extreme drunkeness to prove their point. No one is advocating drunkeness. We are trying to discuss if having one glass of wine is a sin or not. There seems to be little biblical support for that position.
As far as drinking wine for pleasure being hedonism and therefore wrong, do you do anything for pleasure, Peter? Do you do something just because you enjoy it? What about your cup of coffee? What about the food that you eat? What about taking a vacation, going to a ball game, going fishing? Is doing something for pleasure in and of itself wrong? Where does the Bible say that? If it is, then we are all going to have to change a lot of things.
Again, lest the conversation be diverted, no one is advocating drunkeness or the chronic use of alcohol. No one is saying that “boozing it up” is allowed in the way that that term is thought of. We are asking one pointed question: Is it wrong to drink a glass of wine? If that is your definition of “boozing it up” then how do you define gluttony? Eating a sandwich?
Brother CB,
I agree with everything you said in post 82.
You are correct, God hates sin of every stripe.
Yes, I believe Piper sort of undercut his argument when he said what he said, but I believe he said it in an effort to focus his congregation on the dangers of legalism as this was the main thrust of his sermon. Piper was not advocating recreational drinking, he was advocating what he believes a biblical position on alcohol.
ABClay
I was growing so frustrated with this post, until I read CB’s comments about gluttony. This may be the first time I have read an SBC pastor deal seriously with the sin of gluttony. Thank you CB. We may disagree on the issue of alcohol, but I appreciate your candor and testimony regarding gluttony. Thank you.
For the first 35 years of my life, I did not consume alcohol. I had never had a drink, ever. After I left vocational ministry, I began to drink moderately. I still have a beer on occasion, or perhaps a glass of wine with my meal.
From the time I was very young, I drank soft drinks. Coke, Dr. Pepper, Root Beer, you name it. At about the age of 18, I settled in on Diet Coke. I drank it every day for years. Sometimes several in a day. Yet I always struggled with my weight. Even when I would have fits of discipline, I would drink Diet Coke as I took weight off. When I started riding bicycles as an adult several years ago, I still struggled with my weight, and still drank Diet Coke every day.
On Easter Sunday, mainly because of a challenge from my brother, I stopped drinking Diet Coke, or any other type of soft drink. I will drink carbonated water in the evening, with a squeeze of lime. And I still have a cup of coffee in the morning. Outside of that, I don’t drink any soda pop at all. Since that Easter Sunday, I have dropped 31 pounds. I have massive amounts of energy. I sleep very deeply, and wake up feeling rested. I haven’t felt this good in a long time.
Perhaps we in the SBC should consider a resolution prohibiting Diet Coke. It seems unwise to consume a beverage, purely for the pleasure of it, that robs us of our energy, our sleep, and our ability to make it through the work day.
And while we are on the subject, let us not forget to consider the impact on our families that these computers have. Last night, my wife said to me, “tonight we are sitting on the back porch. No books, no computers, just us.” Message received. I see that some people’s comments are made late at night, or very early in the morning. Over-work can be a mistress just the same as any woman described in Proverbs 6. Let us not forget that while debating whether the Bible says it is wrong to drink a glass of wine.
ABC,
I must admit I have done the same when preaching against gossip. I said I believe God hates gossip more than anything else humanly possible.
I think the truth was that it was me who most hated gossip, especially when it was me the gossip was about.
cb
Brother Peter,
I have enjoyed your posts on the subject of wine. I thought that was very well done….
Teaching abstinence is not the same as understanding that to drink wine is sin. Abstinence has its share of advantages. Yet to drink wine is not a sin. Some find it difficult to understand why.
Peter, your coffee example is good…. It takes about LD_50 of caffeine (that is the lethal dosage reported to kill 50% of the population) which is estimated at 10 grams for oral administration in order to kill. In some folks that is sitting and drinking as few as 50 cups. It is not wise to sit and drink 50 – 200 cups of coffee.
I actually lowered my caffeine level some years back by getting away from the brew. It took about 3 months of headaches, but it was worth it…..and it saves me a lot of money too.
Blessings,
Chris
Dear Alan,
I do not make caricatures when I make a point. You’re welcome to deal with my points all you wish, though…
Dear Tim,
My earlier comment was way too long. Allow me, if you don’t mind, to pitch another piece of bacon in your pan. I do so with full understanding i may get grease splattered my way.
For years, many pro-abortion advocates have employed against those of us who stand for the sanctity of human life an argument that is, bar none, the structural equivalent of those who presently argue for moderation drinking. This is a favorite strategy of political candidates who want to avoid the wrath of either party. It may be good old Al Gore who was best at it.
It goes something like this:
Pro-lifers have politicians who squeal like this for breakfast. Yet, we hear our moderationists arguing the very same argument–structurally–that our pro-abortionists employ.
Indeed, evangelical moderationists may have had a hand in writing the infomercials about responsible drinking we see on TV. If not, they surely could have. Pop culture says you can drink but drink responsibly. If you drink, just don’t drive–do it responsibly. That’s the message every teenager gets from pop culture. The only difference is quibbling over the word “responsible.” Moderationists would insist on, well…You can drink, just do so moderately.
Grace, Tim. I trust you survive :^). With that, I am…
Peter
Peter,
Find me a verse where Jesus performed an abortion, and your argument will make sense. He did, however, turn water into wine.
You are really good at trying to make your point by distracting everyone from the argument. Kind of like Robert Preston in The Music Man. We got trouble, right here in River City, trouble with a capital “T,” and that rhymes with “p,” and that stands for pool! That character was a master of getting people all riled up over something that really had nothing to do with the point, and you’ve done it here at least twice, first with illegal drugs, and now with abortion.
You will find no verses in the Bible that support a woman’s right to murder her own unborn child. The Bible is filled with verses that implore us to protect children, to support life, and to defend the innocent.
You were right, some grease splashed your way.
Dear JasonK,
You write: “And while we are on the subject, let us not forget to consider the impact on our families that these computers have.” I suggest, JasonK, you listen to your wife. She had good wisdom.
With that, I am…
peter
Peter, that may be the most ridiculous analogy I have ever heard.
Equating abortion and a glass of wine?
*Murder is a clear prohibition in scripture. The teaching on moderate alcohol is, at best, ambiguous.
*There is no way to be moderate in abortion. Its done or not.
That may be a new low in Baptist Bluster.
Peter,
Once again you have revealed your propensity to avoid a challenge to your logic by casting an insult on anyone who would dare challenge you.
Deal with the issues, Peter, not the individuals.
Brother Peter,
I think your analogy or comparison can stand…. abortion is sudden death, ….drunkeness points the way to death.
1 Corinthians 6:9-10 Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals, (10) nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, will inherit the kingdom of God.
Drinking wine is not in the same category. Drinking to much wine is in the same category. The remedy, do not drink to much wine as the Apostle Paul cautioned Timothy while recognizing those that could lead the church.
1 Timothy 3:1-3 It is a trustworthy statement: if any man aspires to the office of overseer, it is a fine work he desires to do. (2) An overseer, then, must be above reproach, the husband of one wife, temperate, prudent, respectable, hospitable, able to teach, (3) not addicted to wine or pugnacious, but gentle, peaceable, free from the love of money.
Not only should he not be addicted to wine, but should be gentle and free from being drunk on money as well.
Blessings,
Chris
Peter, you proved my point in your very next comment. You are now connecting the logic behind a pro-life politician advocating a “woman’s right to choose” with the moderationist argument. Again, apples and oranges. Whether someone has a glass of wine can hardly be compared with murdering babies, unless you see the two as being the same thing. To say that the logic is the same is just ridiculous. If every drop of alcohol was removed from the earth, I would not even blink. I would not miss it in the least. But, the issue is not alcohol, at least as I see it. The issue is about the sufficiency of Scripture in defining sin. We are talking about whether drinking a glass of wine is a sin or not. We are not talking about whether or not aborting babies is a sin.
I know of a child right now in the childrens home in TN who has half of a brain, cerebral palsey, is blind, and had only 10% hearing, and he has other health issues due…in large part…to FAS. His mother drank alcohol. And, from what I understand about FAS, a child can have Fetal Alcohol Syndrome from his mother drinking just one drink…before she even knows that she’s pregnant.
So, all of you moderationists….do you think that the Lord would ok something that would hurt a child this bad?
I’m a tee totaller because I believe that the Bible teaches that drinking fermented, undiluted wine for pleasure is foolish….and drunkeness is sin. I believe this way because of what the Bible teaches, not because of my culture. And, I’m 46 years old, btw, whatever that has to do with the price of salt in China. I guess some people in here figure that young people want to drink, so God forbid that we should say anything negative about alcohol….cuz we sure dont want to run off the young people in the SBC. My cow, let’s not do anything that would cause the young people to feel uncomfortable or leave the SBC…..even if Lifeway found that they wanted strip shows at the Pastor’s Conferences….for goodness sake…let’s have strip shows….because, we dont want to get rid of the sacred cow(young people).
BTW, I have talked to many young, Southern Baptist Ministers in my area….they all beleive that it’s sin to drink alcohol. They cant even believe that any SB Minister would be teaching anything else. I always assure them that there is a crowd in the SBC that believes it’s ok to sip on Mogan David while witnessing….and they just cant hardly believe it.
Now, I used to be a partier before I got saved. I used to smoke maryjane and drink “spirits” of all sorts before the Lord pulled me out of the gutter of life. So, I know how that one beer can give you a buzz. I know how one shot of Jack Daniels can give you a buzz. So, along with Bart Barber, I want to say….how much is too much? When are we drunk? Because, my goodness, I dont want to sin against the Lord….so, please tell me how much moonshine does it take to get you drunk? And, where is the official drunkeness line taught in Scripture where when you cross over…you’re officially drunk and committing sin? Someone please tell so that I can pass this on to the drinking Christians around these parts so that they wont feel that they have to hide their drinking out of shame.
David
Brother David,
You have just defined what being drunk is like. Since I have never been drunk…what you described doesn’t sound pleasant or something that would be led by the Holy Spirit. That seems easy enough to know the difference. I say….don’t get drunk.
Blessings,
Chris
Dave Miller in comment #4 stated, “But it is clear to me that Bible intepretation without preconceptions or traditions will lead to one clear conclusion: the Bible prohibits drunkenness. It does not prohibit the moderate use of alcohol.”
I have heard this statement made by many people, but it fails to include the concept of changing times and conditions. Just as today’s “white slavery” (bondage of women in forced prostitution) is different from the type of slavery described in the Bible, so is today’s consumption of alcohol different from the alcohol consumption described in the Bible in terms of surrounding conditions and the composition of the alcohol itself. What I seem to be hearing from moderationists is a demand for a specific command from God to abstain from alcoholic beverages in all contexts and at all times. Otherwise, they do not think it is biblical to call for complete abstinence in our particular context and time. Unfortunately, the Bible does not always give such specific commands that apply in all situations and times. (Condemnation of homosexual behavior certainly is an example of such a specific command that does apply in all contexts and at all times.) The Bible would be too heavy to carry if it did give such specific commands for all situations and contexts; nevertheless, it is sufficient, and its principles should be applied correctly in our time and context. Bernard Ramm discussed this dilemma in interpretation:
“The Bible is more a book of principles than a catalogue of specific directions. The Bible does contain an excellent blend of the general and the specific with reference to principles for Christian living. If the Bible were never specific we would be somewhat disconcerted in attempting a specific application of its principles. If the Bible were entirely specific in its principles, we would be adrift whenever confronted with a situation in life not covered by a specific principle. The emphasis in Scripture is on moral and spiritual principles, not upon specific and itemized lists of rules for moral or spiritual conduct.”
Bernard Ramm, Protestant Biblical Interpretation: A Textbook of Hermeneutics (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1970), p. 186.
Haddon Robinson stressed the importance of applying biblical principles correctly:
“In order to apply a passage accurately, we must define the situation into which the revelation was originally given and then decide what a modern man or woman shares, or does not share, with the original readers. The closer the relationship between people now and people then, the more direct the application. . . . When the correspondence between the twenty-first century and the biblical passage is less direct, however, accurate application becomes more difficult. An expositor must give special attention not only to what modern men and women have in common with those who received the original revelation but also to the differences between them. . . . Application becomes more complex, however, when we must deal with problems biblical writers never encountered. . . . Whether we can say ‘Thus saith the Lord’ about particular issues not dealt with in the Bible depends on our analysis of the issues and our application of theological principles. . . . Have I determined all the theological principles that must be considered? Do I give the same weight to each principle? Are there other principles that I have chosen to ignore?”
Haddon W. Robinson, Biblical Preaching: The Development and Delivery of Expository Messages, 2d ed (Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 2001), 87-93.
One biblical principle which can be applied to the consumption of alcoholic beverages is stewardship of one’s resources and health. In biblical times it was good stewardship for most people to drink slightly alcoholic wine when they did not have a source of drinking water that would not cause life-threatening diseases. Today in America, it is good stewardship to abstain from alcohol in terms of mental functioning and preservation of one’s physical resources (cars, lives, etc.). In biblical times, potable water was not easily obtainable, and people did not have to make split-second decisions in cars while driving 65 miles per hour.
Let’s compare two passages and first look at Proverbs 31:4-5:
“4 It is not for kings, O Lemuel, It is not for kings to drink wine, or for rulers to desire strong drink, 5 For they will drink and forget what is decreed, And pervert the rights of all the afflicted.” (NASB)
The Hebrew word used for “drink” is “shawthaw.” It does not mean to get drunk; it simply means to imbibe. Gesenius’ Hebrew-Chaldee Lexicon to the Old Testament defines it as “to drink.” It is used to describe people drinking water in Genesis 24:14, 18, 44, 46; Exodus 17:6; and other passages. It was good stewardship for a king, who likely had access to plenty of potable water, to completely abstain from alcohol.
Today’s standard wine is quite strong. One drink of common table wine (5 ounces) gives a 220 pound man a blood alcohol content of .02 percent (impairment for some people) and a 140 pound man a BAC of .03 percent according to the following web site created by the University of Oklahoma Police Department:
http://www.ou.edu/oupd/bac.htm
Let’s next look at 1 Timothy 5:23:
“No longer drink water exclusively, but use a little wine for the sake of your stomach and your frequent ailments.” (NASB)
Notice that Paul said to use a “little” wine for medicinal use. That was good stewardship at that time and in that context.
Being able to correctly apply biblical principles is a mark of spiritual maturity. Ramm stated;
“If the directions were all specific, a man could live up to the letter of the rules, and yet miss the spirit of true godliness. Real spiritual progress is made only if we are put on our own. Unless we must take a principle and interpret its meaning for a given situation in life, we do not spiritually mature. It is this general nature of the New Testament ethics which helps prevent hypocrisy. As long as there is a specific code to obey, men can conform without change of heart. Obedience to a moral code with no change of heart may result in the discrepancy between inner life and outward conduct which is one of the characteristics of hypocrisy. But inasmuch as we must govern ourselves by principle, we are put on our own mettle. In each important decision we shall ask ourselves: what is the important principle involved? From this consideration we may then proceed to: what ought I do? If we so treat our moral and spiritual decisions we develop in spiritual insight and moral strength. Such development is central to a mature spirituality.”
Bernard Ramm, Protestant Biblical Interpretation: A Textbook of Hermeneutics (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1970), p. 187.
If my car breaks down in an isolated area of the Nevada desert at night, and if no one picks me up, and if I’m dying of thirst, and if I find a deserted cabin near the road with no running water, and if the refrigerator in the cabin contains nothing but beer, then under those circumstances I would not be sinning to drink alcohol. Under just about any other circumstance I can think of in America, I believe that I would be sinning to drink alcohol. Scripture is sufficient to direct me in any circumstance and at any time.
Alan,
Whether or not I proved your point, my brother, that will be for you and others to decide. What you fail, in doing, however, is dealing with the single structure of the two arguments I offered for illustration–one about liberty to abort and one about liberty to drink. Offering a generic pronouncement that it is “apples and oranges” is spiffy but simple an unproven assertion. Sorry.
With that, I am…
Peter
It appears that some panic is setting in. So far, drinking a glass of wine has been compared to extreme drunkeness, drunk driving, disabled babies, murdered babies, fornication, and having strip shows at the Pastor’s Conference. Wow. Who knew?
This debate is very telling of the way that we are engaging in Biblical scholarship in the SBC these days.
Alan,
Do you deny the effects of FAS?
David
Fine, Peter. Your illustration regarding abortion is ridiculous because saying that it is okay to abort a baby as long as I do not do it myself is the height of moral relativism. Abortion is the murder of the innocent. It is a very clear evil and is repeatedly condemned in Scripture. Drinking a glass of wine does not fit under the same category by any stretch of the imagination. It is a “disputable matter” that Paul allows liberty for on the basis of the faith of the person. Getting drunk is a clear sin. It is possible to drink a glass of wine without becoming drunk. Abortion is clearly murder. It is not possible to engage in a little bit of murder.
David,
Do you deny there was a second shooter on the grassy knoll?
What kind of other stupid questions are you going to ask Alan? Of course he’s not going to deny the effects of FAT. Do you take him for an idiot? Apparently so.
However, since FAT only applies to pregnant women, of which Alan is in no danger of ever becoming, then by your emotional argument he can still drink.
How do you like them apples?
Wow, my anti-spam word is “temperance.”
Alan, you said,
“Getting drunk is a clear sin. It is possible to drink a glass of wine without becoming drunk.”
According to the police website I cited above, one glass of wine can cause impairment in an average man. Is it good stewardship of one’s body to drink one glass of wine when doing such a thing could cause impairment? If doing such a thing is poor stewardship, then is it a sin (like overeating)?
James,
Now you’ve done it…. You have brought FAT women into the conversation.
:)
-Chris
James,
What is FAT?
And, James, my point about FAS is that one glass of alcohol…before the woman knows that she’s pregnant…..can cause FAS. Do you think…according to your view of moderation being ok…that the Lord would ok something that would destroy a child like FAS does?
David
Chris,
Now THAT’S funny. Thanks for the laugh.
BT,
Thank you for a well thought out response. It is a breath of fresh air. I can see your point and you make a lot of sense. In the same way, however, I can see where the Bible clearly says that becoming drunk is a sin. If we are looking at principles of interpretation, that would be the one that would seem to carry more weight than imposing a strict abstentionist view as being the only way to see this issue. My issue is in saying that drinking one glass of wine is a sin. If I go before my church and call something sin that cannot be proven by Scripture, I cheapen Scripture and create a sense of doubt in their minds as to whether we are preaching God’s Word or legalism. I want people to be tied to Christ and His commands, not man-made rules that seem sensible. There is no power in that.
David,
I do not deny the effects of FAS. It is a terrible thing. But, we are not talking about FAS. FAS is a very good common sense argument backing up the wisdom of abstaining from alcohol. But, common sense arguments do not carry the weight of Scripture. It is common sense to look both ways before crossing the street. It is common sense to not use the hair dryer in the bath tub. Both of those things are dangerous. But, do we tell our churches that it is sin? Adding rules and regulations to keep people from possibly sinning is exactly what the Pharisees did and Jesus condemned it. He called people into a relationship with Himself. The Holy Spirit will guide us and we need not add to Scripture to prove a point.
Much can be said about the dangers of eating BBQ and fried chicken. In many cases, it is not wise. But, is it sin? It is if gluttony occurs. It is unwise if there are health problems occuring. But, eating a baby back rib or a chicken leg is not a sin. To preach that it is leads people away from the sufficiency of Scripture.
David,
Sorry for the typo.
Apparently the answer to your question is yes, for Jesus’ first miracle was to produce that which could make one drunk. If the story is true as it is told (which i doubt any of us would argue), then Jesus made the ‘best’ wine. What do you think the ‘best’ would be? If best means unfermented, then wouldn’t it be easy just to press grapes and serve grape juice right away? Would it be the case that the older the grape juice got, the worse it tasted?
Doesn’t the story suppose that the best wine gets people drunk, and then the groom brings out the cheap stuff so that the guests are too affected to notice? If so, ‘best’ wine must have a sufficient alcoholic content, otherwise how else would the guests not complain about drinking the lesser wine later?
The book of Romans is more than a book on doctrine. Paul always seemed to write the first few chapters of any book that he wrote on Theology first then application to our lives. It is the whole Bible rolled into one book. This book has transformed more lives than most any other book in the Bible.
Martin Luther, William Tyndale, Augustine, Charles Spurgeon and many more I could name were literally transformed by the book of Romans. Interestingly it was the freedom that they read of that transformed them.
Tyndale, Luther, Augustine, read it through for themselves instead of through the Medieval Roman Catholic eyeglasses.
James,
BTW, thanks for calling me stupid. That was nice touch.
David
BT,
If you are going to say that drinking a glass of wine is poor stewardship because it causes slight impairment (so does Benadryl and other cold medicines, by the way), then you can possibly make an argument along the lines of stewardship. But, for the sake of consistency, how many other ways do we engage in poor stewardship? Are all of those things sin? If so, do we take the stance on those things that we do on this issue? Watching TV can certainly fall in the category of poor stewardship. Do we disqualify missionaries if they watch a TV program?
You and CB make the best points of all. But, I still do not think that they carry Biblical weight.
As I think about it, continuing to engage in this conversation is becoming poor stewardship on my part. There are certainly better things that I can do with my time at this point. It seemed profitable for a while because, as pastors, these are important issues to work out and they have direct consequences upon our discipleship, our view of Scripture, and the lives of the people in the pew. I know that other are reading this. My point from the beginning has only been, is drinking one glass of wine a sin? If so, where does the Bible say that drinking any wine at all is a sin? If is does not say that, then are we not adding to Scripture to call it sin? I am just concerned that this approach can actually damage people’s view of Scripture.
The gospel is the central theme of Romans, and it is this gospel that sets us free. Just as it did the men above and it was the gospel that these men found in this book. Not rules and regulations.
I am just concerned that this approach can actually damage people’s view of Scripture.
It has damaged people’s view of scripture.
The comparison between drunkenness and gluttony simply does not hold.
Gluttony is condemned in the Bible, if I understand it correctly, because it displays a lack of discipline and, in Biblical times and economies, very frequently was only an option for those who oppressed their neighbors in order to have the opportunity to become gluttonous.
Drunkenness is condemned in the Bible because it impairs the moral judgment (or, in the passage cited in BT’s VERY EXCELLENT comment above, the jurisprudential judgment) of the person drinking. The old rhyme does not say “Candy is dandy, but BBQ baby back ribs are quicker.” Want to seduce a young woman into immoral sex? Get her to drink some beverage alcohol (I do not speak from personal experience). Although gluttony IS a sin, it is not the doorway to legion other, more consequential, sins as drunkenness is.
Thus, eating a chicken leg is not a sin because it is not even PARTIAL gluttony. But drinking these modern hopped-up alcoholic beverages does, even in “moderate” doses, impair moral judgment.
David,
I’m not sure whose posts you are reading, but i never called you stupid. I asked if you take Alan for an idiot, and then I answered my own question in the affirmative.
Accusing you of believing someone (i.e., Alan) to be an idiot does not entail that you also are an idiot (or, to use your word, ‘stupid’)
I fail to see anywhere in my writings where I either said explicitly, or hinted implicitly, that you were stupid. I would be grateful if you would point out where I did what you accused me of doing. If not, then I will wait for you to retract your statement, as you have born false witness against a brother.
Bart,
If comparing drunkenness to eating bbq is a bad analogy, then I’m hopeful you will also shoot down Peter’s outlandish analogy concerning alcohol and abortion.
James,
I try not to participate in friendly-fire incidents.
Seriously,
Has anyone seen any statistics about alcoholism or drinking within the SBC? Is there an epidemic in our churches of drunkenness? Is there good reason, aside from the obvious warnings in scripture on drunkenness, to be alerted or paranoid that our members are creating bands of closet alcoholics or brawlers in pubs throughout our communities?
If that is the concern and if it is real, then count me in with helping out to try and put a stop to an issue of that sort. The way to attack it would not be to invoke policies, but instead, invoke the gospel. Share the gospel in those churches so they would have the opportunity to know the power of God. I would not waste time in the pulpit on lectures of how to curve your alcoholic tendencies and brawling ways. I would spend time preaching and teaching the gospel in increasing frequency and duration.
That’s the only hope for those that are not controlled by the Spirit of God or for those that lack the assurance of God’s sanctifying power. That’s also how you curtail paranoia and the tendency to provide legalistic solutions to spiritual issues.
Blessings,
Chris
Bart,
That’s the easiest way to keep from stepping on a friend’s toes.
James,
In your comment in #109, first of all, if someone has no grapes, then the miracle needed to happen. Also, the time it would take to crush that many grapes for the crowd required the miracle at the wedding. So, your arguement holds no water that it had to be fermented grape juice due to the miracle taking place.
Also, in comment #109, are you saying that Jesus would make fermented wine in order for “drunk” people to be able to drink something that tasted good and would make them more drunk? Are you saying that Jesus was a bad bartender? handing out more drinks after the guests were drunk already? Are you really saying that? If so, I’d imagine that you think that you saw the other shooter on the grassy knoll.
Allan, I believe that drinking anything fermented and undiluted for recreational pleasure is foolish according to Proverbs in the Bible. I also believe that getting drunk is sinful according to Eph. 5 and many other passages of Scripture. As BT has pointed out…our modern day liquor is far more powerful than what they had back then. So, again, how can I even drink one mixed drink and not be high? drunk? buzzed? and then, committing sin against the Lord?
And again, Allan, how in the world do you think that the Lord would say that drinking something that could cause FAS be ok? Do you really think that the Lord would ok doing something that would hurt babies? And, again, I believe that the Bible does teach that it’s foolish and thus harmful to drink liquor….thus…FAS.
David
David
Chris,
You raise a great point, but it doesn’t fly in the SBC. We’re not reactive, we’re proactive. Despite no evidence at wide-spread claims of Pentecostal theology from IMB missionaries, the BoT pushed forward with a policy against PPL. It doesn’t matter that such an issue was very small (numerically speaking) among the missionaries. We’ve got our drum, and by golly we’re going to beat it!
James,
You said,”What kind of other stupid questions are you going to ask Alan?”
I guess that I took that as insinuating that I’m stupid.
David
David,
I find it telling that you have the time to compose a 4 paragraph comment (#121) in which you misunderstand my post (#109) but don’t take the time to answer my charge against you in (#116).
When you answer #116, then I’ll answer #121.
Okay, I have to go. I’ll check back later for further comments because I believe that this discussion is something of a lynch pin of many of the disagreements that we have had in Baptist life.
Bart, to sum up your logic:
Drunkeness = Impairment of moral judgment,
Drinking a glass of wine impairs moral judgment,
Therefore, Drunkeness = Drinking a glass of wine. So, everyone who drinks a glass of wine is drunk and they are therefore sinning? I really am understanding this line of reasoning better if that is how you are putting it. If you define drunkeness this way, then I CAN see where you have a biblical defense. Thank you. The question is, is this how the Bible defines drunkeness? That is the debate that you said that you wanted to have, but it appears that you have brought your own definitions to this debate about whether or not drinking a glass of wine is necessarily a sin.
Unfortunately, the Bible does not equate drinking a glass of wine with drunkeness. That leap is not guaranteed. What if you take 3 sips of a glass of wine? Is that necessarily drunkeness? For the abstentionist, one sip would be a sin. Does one sip constitute drunkeness? Does one sip morally impair?
I agree that if you are morally impaired then you are drunk and are therefore sinning. My point about eating unhealthy foods was a response to the health concerns of drinking alcohol. I was not trying to make an absolute correlation between gluttony and drunkeness. You have no argument with me about the evil of drunkeness. I just do not believe that taking a few sips of wine necessarily impairs someone’s moral judgment and therefore defines them as drunk.
Dr. Yarnell: I would ask what exactly freedom to follow Christ(which I agree with you) means. It means that I am free to use the talents, desires, opportunities God has given me to His glory. I am free as an individual Christian to do anything God leads me to do. I am a slave, not to the local church, or to those on this comment section, but to Christ alone.
David,
Have you ever heard of the phrase, “There are no stupid people, only stupid questions?”
I’m not sure how you could reasonably believe that by asking you if you had any more stupid questions to ask insinuated that I thought you were stupid. If I offended you, then I am sorry. But to accuse me of calling you stupid was a poor interpretation on your part.
Chris nailed it in comment #119.
Galatians 4:19
Dear Alan,
I did not say murder and drinking should be in the same category. Rather, once again you fail to hear: I am referring to structure of the argument
Abortion is murder and consequently, sin–if and only if that which is aborted is human life. The prolifer argues the unborn is actual human life while the abortionist allows for no such thing. For them, the unborn is, at best, potential human life. Thus, they escape the charge of murder.
To then, suggest as you do, Alan, that moderation drinking is definitively not sinning is only assuming–similar to the abortionist who assumes the unborn is not human and therefore, cannot be charged with murder–what the abstentionist refuses to grant–namely, that blanket use of alcoholic substances specifically for pleasurable purposes is scripturally acceptable.
From my view the structure is identical and works well both ways. Please, no more fruit salad. Grace. With that, I am…
Peter
Chris,
You wrote in #119; “That’s also how you curtail paranoia and the tendency to provide legalistic solutions to spiritual issues.”
Correction: there is no paranoia or legalistic solutions mentioned here. To insist on sound moral principle and good moral reasoning is now legalism?
Doggone it: where is Alan when you need him to correct such outrageous caricatures??
Oh, yes, here he is:
Chris nailed it in comment #119.
;^)
With that, I am…
Peter
David,
While the emotional argument is a powerful one, it does require a deeper look.
You ask “Do you really think that the Lord would ok doing something that would hurt babies?”
Would the Lord okay eating fried foods? I would contend that fried foods have killed more people than FAS.
But there are some who say, “But it is an innocent baby!!!” Yes, this is true to a degree. While the example you used is a tragic circumstance that really makes me thankful for God’s grace, the bible teaches that there are none who are innocent.
I know that what I said goes against what we want to believe, but the scripture is clear. How many babies did God kill in the flood?
Grace and Peace…
ABClay
That is not to say that the baby is born with FAS because of something that they have done, it is an effect of the sinfulness of mankind.
Just wanted to clarify.
ABClay
Brother Peter,
I have only given the solution. I am not saying that you were and I am not accusing you of trying.
My understanding of your argument so far is that drinking wine that contains alcohol is sin.
Blessings,
Chris
David,
Now on to the first two paragraphs of your #121. Of course there was a need for more wine, and there were no grapes around, and even if there were, it would take quite a while to crush them up. Jesus determined that a miracle was in order. Was the miracle to turn water into grape juice, or water into wine?
My point was that the text says that tradition was to give the best wine first, then the lesser wine later. In thinking through how to answer you (but after I had made my comments in #109), I consulted D. A. Carson’s well-acclaimed commentary on John’s Gospel. This are his words:
“A wedding celebration could last as long as a week, and the financial responsibility lay with the groom. To run out of supplies would be a dreadful embarrassment in a ‘shame’ culture; there is some evidence it could also lay the groom open to a lawsuit from the aggrieved relatives of the bride. the ‘wine’ (oinos) that was needed was not mere grape juice, generic ‘fruit of the vine’. The idea is intrinsically silly as applied to countries whose agricultural tradition is so committed to viticulture. Besides, in v. 10 the head steward expects that at this point in the celebration some of the guests would have had too much to drink: to verb methysko does not refer to consuming too much liquid, but to inebriation. On the other hand, wine in the ancient world was diluted with water to between one-third and one-tenth of its fermented strength, i.e. something less strong than American beer.”
[My words again] Carson makes clear that some would have been intoxicated, but this did not stop Jesus from making more wine, with an alcoholic content.
Brother Peter and Tim,
The solution to “paranoia or sin-sniffing”and “drunkenness” has always been the fruit of the spirit, not policy making or policy preaching.
Galatians 5:22-26 But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, (23) gentleness, self-control; against such things there is no law. (24) Now those who belong to Christ Jesus have crucified the flesh with its passions and desires. (25) If we live by the Spirit, let us also walk by the Spirit. (26) Let us not become boastful, challenging one another, envying one another.
If God has truly given us (born again individuals) a spiritual imputation of “self-control”, then it is not difficult to make a self-assessment whether I may be drunk or not. Many people underestimate the ability of God to make good on his delivery of sanctification. They act as though God is not able to provide his children with self-control. Self-Control is an amazing gift of the Spirit.
I firmly believe that the God who justifies is also the mover of sanctification and he is not slack, nor is his spiritual promise of self-control taken as less than true. So if someone is not able to know when they are drunk and in sin, then it appears that self-control is simply a misprint.
Blessings,
Chris
Drinking alcohol is unwise, you see that throughout the Bible.
Chris,
Can you hear me loudly applauding #136?
It gets at what I believe is the heart of one of our biggest problems today.
Jesus is Lord. Some are just not content to leave it there. They think that they need to lord it over others with human rules.
Alan,
Yes, you follow my argument so far. Now, for the last remaining piece that you did not mention: Wine in the Bible was less potent than wine served today. Look at Carson’s quote given above. As I said above, I think the biblical message regards unfortified wine heavily diluted with water. And the message of the Bible is to be VERY, VERY CAREFUL with THAT. The Bible does not equate drunkenness with having a little bit of THAT stuff. But, as every DMV or DOT in every state of the union will tell you, what comes across the counter today will indeed begin to impair you after the first serving.
So, now you have my entire understanding of the subject.
Tim,
You and others have done a masterful job presenting the evidence for abstinence from beverage alcohol. Don’t back down, don’t let up. This is not a trivial issue.
We should be thankful for the great legacy we have of Southern Baptists, for well over 100 years, taking this wise stance. That stand is biblical, borne out of love for others, and has saved countless lives from ruin.
We would do well to heed the advice of our spiritual heirs on this issue such as John Broadus, R. C. Burleson, R. G. Lee, W. A. Criswell, Jerry Vines, Adrian Rogers, Frank Page, Paige Patterson, T. B. Maston, and many, many others.
For example: In a 2003 sermon Adrian Rogers read Proverbs 20:1; 23:29-32 and said, “These Scriptures tell us, I believe plainly and clearly, that the Christian position so far as beverage alcohol is concerned is total abstinence. The Bible says we are not to look upon it, we are not to desire it when it is fermented. Beverage alcohol is America’s most dangerous drug.” -Adrian Rogers, The Battle of the Bottle – part 2, 2003; lwf.org.
To the above, and to all who oppose alcohol, I will just add my Amen!
David R. Brumbelow
Why would a Christian want to drink?
It most obviously is not the taste. It is for the buzz.
The question at hand is “Is it ok to get a buzz”
The Bible always portrays abstinence from wine and other intoxicants as a great virtue in the Bible.
Proverbs 31: 4-5
1 Peter 2:8 “You are a royal priesthood, a holy nation.”
Gentlemen,
I just spent way too much time reading this post and comment thread. That made me think that WE are spending way too much time talking about LAW issues instead of being out of our offices sharing GRACE.
Here’s a serious question that I don’t want a written response to (just answer it to yourself):
When was the last time you went out and shared the Gospel with someone and led them to the Lord? (and I don’t mean from the pulpit or on a “mission trip”)
Brothers, let’s get off our “Blessed Assurances” and tell the lost and dying world about the wonderful saving grace of Jesus.
Rick Boyne
Pastor, Immanuel Southern
Wagoner, OK
PS: I don’t drink alcohol, but I have a problem with donuts, which could quite possibly be just as bad. And, last Friday I led someone I met at a gas station to the Lord. It felt really, really good. I’ve gotta get out of my office more.
ABC,
When you said…”That is not to say that the baby is born with FAS because of something that they have done, it is an effect of the sinfulness of mankind” you nailed it right on top of the head…with the sin being drinking fermented, undiluted wine. Drinking fermented, strong wine caused that baby to get FAS. Also, from your point of view, are you saying that the baby is being punished by God, as the people in Noah’s day was being punished by God… His judgement was falling on that people. So, are you saying that babies born with FAS are being punished by God?
James, when you read Carson’s quote from his commentary, it almost makes me giggle…just a little…to see him write “On the other hand, wine in the ancient world was diluted with water to between one-third and one-tenth of its fermented strength, i.e. something less strong than American beer.” So, he is saying something very, very similar to what I and others have been saying. The fruit of the vine(oinos) of that day and time was diluted with so much water that you’d have to have the bladder of an elephant to hold enough fruit of the vine to even get high on it. It’s nothing like the mixed drinks and beer and wines of today. They are stronger…more potent. They are the strong drink that the Bible talks about people being foolish to drink strong drink.
Also, James, to say that the best wine had to be alcohol is not accurate. I have had good, sweet tea, and I’ve had better sweet tea. To say that something was better, or the best grape juice for last, does not mean that it had to be fermented and more “powerful stuff” due to everyone being drunk and needing more kick to their drinks to make it taste better. My soul, man, to read what you’re writing would make Jesus nothing more than a bartender who was handing out liquor to people who were having a high time, and I do mean high.
David
We could probably all learn from Nathan Finn’s replacement blog on this issue that it looks like has changed from his original.
Chris,
I am unsure precisely why the comment to Tim & I exists since a) we offered no joint statement here b) our comments are not the most numerous here c) I do not recognize from your response anything I’ve written which alikened for your response.
Nonetheless, you write: “The solution to “paranoia or sin-sniffing”and “drunkenness” has always been the fruit of the spirit, not policy making or policy preaching.”
If this were followed, my dear Chris, you’ve just eliminated all prophetic preaching concerning morality.
Even more horrifying, if it were true, you just hammered the One responsible for prophetically preaching on morality in the the Sermon on the Mount.
Count me out of that solution, Chris. With that, I am…
Peter
Peter,
I presented the sanctity of Human Life motion at the baptist Sunday School Board in 1987. It took two full years before we could get enough votes for it to pass. We had to fight the liberals off long enough to get a sufficient number of hardcore conservatives to pass the motion.
The “Gore” argument was never presented even from the most rabid of the liberal element on the BSSB. That is a secular argument from the likes of the Gores, Clintons, Obamas, Kennedys and other secular heathens. I never heard it from any liberal southern Baptist. Naturally, you may have heard it, because certainly I am not all knowing, but I don’t think that argument applies here.
On the other hand, Vol’s statement about Fetal Alcohol Syndrome children should speak volumes to those who still do not understand why it is unwise to use beverage alcohol, especially a woman who is still of child bearing age.
FAS is truly a sad thing and could be totally avoided if people would leave beverage alcohol alone.
cb
Ah, now I get it. If I water down my wine I can have three times as much. I guess it was a good thing it was watered down since they had to drink it all the time. If I had to replace the amount of water I drink with wine, it better be watered down.
Wow! The party lasted a week? Was it spring break? :-)
My spam word is longsuffering. We need it for this discussion.
By the way, a friend of mine wrote a paper on why he felt convicted to move his church back to using wine for communion. Read it here if you’d like:
http://heritagecenterville.org/articles/render/wine-in-communion/
Out of all of the questions that haven’t been answered, I’m still seriously wondering what the abstinence argument is for why Paul didn’t correct the Corinthian church for using intoxicating wine. He corrected them for nearly every other imaginabe offense. Why did he let this one go by?
Matt. 15:1-11
Brother Bart,
There is no doubt that the “alcoholic drink” that is produced today is done so with the motive to drunkenness….regardless of the warning labels and public awareness announcements.
So the point you make about that… is absolutely on target…..and we should come out against that motive and assault.
My daughter and I were in an airport once when she was 4-5 years old, ….we were standing near the “bar” area at a Chili’s when I noticed she had turned to a guy with a drink in his hand and said…”that’s gonna make your brain bleed” (It really does you know). I just looked at the guy, grinned and shrugged my shoulders.
She had been listening well.
Blessings,
Chris
Brother Peter,
It is because I like you guys!
Your response was clever.
Blessings,
Chris
Brother Rick #148,
Since no one seems to have responded, allow me. I just returned home from driving 3 hours one way in order to pick up my mother in order to surprise my daughter for her birthday today. I will admit that I am just as busy as anyone, but I feel that you need to know something about your statement.
There are some that have already committed to something of the sort that you purpose. Read this post. You may want to state your commitment in that post’s comment thread.
Blessings,
Tim
Brother David,
By your argument in post #143, it seems as if the baby is being “punished” for the sins of their mother. Is this correct?
You argued originally that it is inconceivable that God would OK the consumption of Alcohol because it hurt babies. It seems as if you were insinuating that a baby is innocent and removed from the just wrath of God.
I make no distinction between babies and adults as far as what is “allowable” for God to permit. To support this argument I used “fried foods” because it has arguably killed lots more adults than alcohol has killed babies. My point was that God is just and righteous to do whatever he pleases to humankind. I believe that none of us deserve grace, for we were all conceived in sin and as such deserve death.
I am not saying that babies with FAS are being “singled out” and “punished” by God. What I am saying is that FAS exists because of sin. Not necessarily the sin of the mother drinking while pregnant, but the sin of Adam.
So either the baby is being “punished” for the mother’s sin (as I understand your argument), or the baby is in it’s condition because of Adamic sin. I prefer the latter explanation. But for the grace of God that we are even allowed to breathe we are so void of worthiness.
My heart breaks for any child who suffers. It kills me when my kids get even a cold, but I know that they are in the hands of God and no one can snatch them away.
Oh, BTW, I think it is unwise to drink alcohol. I am aware that that puts me into Al Gore school of thought. Oh Well….
Grace and Peace…
ABClay
Tim,
Happy Birthday to your daughter. What a wonderful surprise!!!
I’m glad to hear/read of the Blogover 2008.
BTW, my comment wasn’t meant to be a slam against your post; I hope you realized that.
I am just concerned that we are getting the idea that our ministries are our blogs; at least for me. I don’t want to spend all my time typing. I know that there are many pastors/educators/deacons/pew warmers/etc that think that if they are participating in Christian dialog, that it somehow excuses them from witnessing in person. May it never be!
My comment was only meant to be an encouragement to get to the task. (and here I am again, typing, when I should be getting ready for Wed. eve. services! ) I really wasn’t even looking for a response.
No where is eating fried foods mentioned as sin in the Bible. Alcohol is mentioned as foolish and sinful.
Also, eating fried foods wont cause my inhibitions to sin to go away, nor will it cause me to crash into an innocent family and kill them, nor will it cause me to beat my wife. Alcohol will cause all of these. Eating fried chicken will not.
David
Brother Peter,
I think the fruit of the Spirit is the solution, ….even as spoken by our Savior on the mount.
Matthew 7:20 “So then, you will know them by their fruits.
These things that are done are Spiritually wrought are they not?
Matthew 7:26 “Everyone who hears these words of Mine and does not act on them, will be like a foolish man who built his house on the sand.”
To make the choice not to be drunk is obedience to Christ, attributed to the Spirit’s gift to me of self-control. Jesus is speaking of the same reality that is written down by Paul later.
Blessings,
Chris
Brother Rick,
Agreed that we should make sharing the Gospel with others our priority. May we all commit to that.
May the Holy Spirit grace your preaching tonight.
Blessings,
Tim
Tim you wrote:
“Go play golf with your deacons and consume two or three bud lights. Get in the car and leave the golf course with a BAC below .05, but impaired enough to not clearly judge the accurate distance and speed of the car I am driving. Pull into the street and cause an accident with my family and your choice and hermeneutics just became my problem.”
OK, here’s another scenario: I have a bbq on Saturday night, crack a Bud, have a great meal, go to bed. Does it really matter that I’ve done that and you’ve had a glass of OJ?
You need to choose what basis you are arguiing on. If it is that alcohol impairs judgement then make that case rather than switching between hermeneutics and medical arguments. Where do you stop on the impairment debate? You may well be impaired by food, coffee, tiredness, bad eyesight, distraction etc.
I know the pain of what alcohol causes, I lost my father to a drunken driver when I was a baby. I don’t need any statistics to drive the point home. I just don’t need legalism forced on me when I’ve sold out to grace.
You still haven’t comprehended your giant leap in logic from a personal conviction to an enforced corporate law. The Pharisees got together and in majority decided on laws that everyone else had to comply with. What difference is there between that and what you propose? Where is the freedom of conscience? Where is the latitude for personal conviction? Where is the grace?
The following comment is one I originally posted over at Bart’s Blog.
I am a non-drinker. I come from a very long line of alcoholics. I chose not to drink because I think I would have a tendency towards getting drunk, not because of Biblical principles.
However, I do have a donut problem. I think that gluttony and drunkenness are in the same boat. In fact, Jesus was called a glutton and a drunkard. So, how many donuts do I need to eat before it is gluttony? Clearly a dozen would make it gluttony, but how about 4? What about 5? Surely one more, at 6, wouldn’t be would it? This argument can be used for AND against drinking in moderation.
I completely agree that drunkenness is sin. But that is not why I don’t drink. After having lived overseas for 10 years, I can say that this is an American cultural argument not a religious one. It has taken on the guise of being a religious issue because of our cultural heritage. In Hong Kong, for instance, where their HK Baptist Convention is a perfect picture of the SBC in the 1940′s, you will find many deacon meetings include a bottle of cognac!
I’m as conservative as they come. I don’t drink. I don’t chew. I don’t smoke. I don’t think we’d be having this argument when the SBC was first conceived. Alcohol wasn’t evil until the Temperance Movement made it so. I would venture to say that in many conservative Christian circles (outside the USA) drinking is a non-issue. The issue is simply getting drunk.
Let me repeat: I DON’T DRINK ALCOHOL.
Rick Boyne,
Do you go to rooster fights? :-)
cb
Rooster fights, dog racing, and mud wrestling have all been off limits to me for quite some time! ;-)
Besides, rooster fights are illegal here in God’s country. You have to go plum to Arkansas to get in on ‘em.
ABC,
Do you seriously believe fried foods have killed more adults than alcohol has babies? You made a mistake in your sentence structure, right?
Also, FAS is only caused by alcohol consumption. That is the one and only cause. There is no other cause.
cb
To Rick who thinks that believing in tee totalling is simply a cultural thing here in America…due to the temperance movement…let me just share with you a answer to Byron over at Peter Lumpkins blog…it will shed some light on this…
“Byron,
You might be right. I wonder however, what you would say to those in Romania, who have a great translation and on occasion use fermented wine (it is all they can get at the time) for communion, but forbid it’s use for pleasurable purposes. Where did they get their ideas? (FYI- The Christians trace their Christian heritage to the apostle Andrew.) I only ask, because much of the rhetorical argument against tradition lies in the hands of moderationist. Could it be that it is the moderationist who are truly addicted to tradition?
Chris”
Munching on a couple of cheeseburgers,
David
Dear Rick,
To equate gluttony with the abuse of food as one would drunkenness with the abuse of drink is an equation with which the Bible is not familiar, I do not think. Nor is gluttony connected in Scripture, at least in the main, wit hover-eating per se as a study of it beginning in the OT reveals.
Moreover mixing donuts that may or may not affect one’s heart with drugs that definitively do affect one’s mind, causing serious damage–albeit temporary–cannot be seriously accepted. It stands counterintuitive on its face. Nor can donuts be deemed dangerously addictive.
If this argument were to prevail, all hope for moral categories is lost.
Grace. With that, I am…
Peter
Vol,
How does one “munch” a cheeseburger?
I thought that was for cookies and chips and such.
I always thought ‘burgers were scarfed down.
:-)
cb
My answer to the following comment,
“OK, here’s another scenario: I have a bbq on Saturday night, crack a Bud, have a great meal, go to bed. Does it really matter that I’ve done that and you’ve had a glass of OJ?”
I believe it matters:
1. The Bible condemns beverage alcohol. It is a recreational, mind altering drug.
2. It is foolish behavior and it has affected your judgment and inhibitions.
3. You’re supporting an evil industry by purchasing their product.
4. You may eventually become a problem drinker. But I can guarantee you won’t if you never take that first drink.
5. You are teaching at least your wife and kids to drink; they may not be able to handle it. And they will influence others. People visiting your home will see your beer.
6. Something may occur even in the night with your family in which you will need to be in full control of your mental and physical faculties. The Bible tells us to be sober, not moderately sober.
7. When you purchase your Bud, you are telling everyone at the grocery store and probably eventually your church and school kids, etc. that I’m a Bud man, and it’s OK.
8. Someone is going to look at you and say, “That is the best man I know. And if it’s OK for him to drink, It’s OK for me to drink.” They may not know or be able to handle your views of moderation.
9. The devil is not so proud of the drunk lying in his own vomit. Nobody sees him and says, “I want to be like him.” But the upstanding moderate drinker is someone in which the devil can be proud. Others do want to be just like him.
In my humble opinion,
David R. Brumbelow
Bro. David,
You said: Alcohol is mentioned as foolish and sinful.
Well I can agree with half of what you said.
Bro. CB,
Yes. Of course I wasn’t talking about a flying fried chicken drumstick hitting you between the eyes pushing your nose bone into your brain (though this could be possible down in Tuscaloosa on a Sat. Afternoon in Fall). I was talking about heart disease.
Grace and Peace…(and watch out for the flying Chicken Wing)
ABClay
David B,
You have made perfect sense in comment #165.
How can anyone argue against that?
cb
Have you people ever noticed the best fights in Blogtown are either about whiskey or ecclesiology?
We would have no fun at all if we were Episcopalian.
:-)
cb
CB,
With cheeseburgers, I munch, chew, scarf, and wolf ‘em down. Hey, the Episcopalian comment was really funny. :)
I just wanted everyone to know that I overate tonight, and as I was driving to Church I ran over the big chicken statue at the local fried chicken restaurant. Then, as I got out of my car, I staggered over to the drive thru window and got into a fight with the window crew. Then, when the cops came, I threw down on all of them, and now I’m writing yall from the Weakley County jail. They have charged me with DWG…driving while gluttonous. They dropped all of the other charges about assault and such, because they said that they understood about being under the influence of grease and calories. So, they let the other charges slide.
Can anyone come and pay my bail and get me out of the lock up? The bail is #8 on the McDonalds drive thru sign.
David
And David, while you’re making light of something that God has called sinful, have you considered the humor involved when your witness is damaged because you are quick to condemn some sins, but laughingly engage in other sins? Or how your credibility as a pastor is hurt because you lack the discipline to avoid the sin of gluttony? I can understand struggling with it. I just don’t get how you can laugh about it.
JasonK,
:(
David
Peter,
Sorry you see it that way. I thought sin was sin.
Rick
(Remember, I DO NOT drink! )
Rick,
I am glad you do not drink and I have not forgotten, I assure.
As for sin is sin is sin, I do not believe the Bible teaches this. Grace. With that, I am…
Peter
I read through the first several dozen comments with interest because this actually appears to be a huge factor in the growth of Christianity in the United States of the 21st Century. Practically every American has some sense of what the Bible says, and at least a nodding acquaintance of Jesus. Every member of our national culture that I have spoken with is aware that there was lots of wine in Bible times and that Jesus Himself, of course, made it and surely consumed it. The real question boils down to whether we can go to this culture with a demand or expectation of/for abstinence from alchohol.
BTW, just to be sure, let’s not fool ourselves: an individual choosing to be abstinent is not legalism, but for any group, even a great majority, to insist upon it for their employees is certainly legalism. Go right ahead and make such rules, but don’t sit there in public and fool yourselves about semantics.
As an observer istening to all your legal and religious thoughts, I notice that again and again, the longest “stretches,” the most logically challenged and doctrinally tenuous arguments keep lining up on our author’s side. The cogency of Alan’s and Gordon’s arguments have not been honestly dealt with but, instead, seem to be attracting “SBC Outpost”-style flippancy.
Yes, alchohol impairs judgement. Yes, it kills (an unclke of mine, e.g.) and wrecks lives (multiple relatives of mine, again, are exemplars.) Fetal alchohol syndrome is one of the most frustrating disabilities I have seen children and their trainers/parents/therapists have to deal with.
Is a complete corporate insistence against drinking Biblical? From what I’ve read above, no, and such rules as are mentioned from Florida appear hypocritical and poorly thought-out, two reactions sure to frustrate those going to the world for Jesus, even in the American homeland.
David, I’m sorry you’ve had such a hard night. I’ll pray for you. I’ve had fried chicken, burgers and wine, though I haven’t dared to mix them, and I’ve never done any of the things you mentioned. Although I have lost my temper a time or two when wine was nowhere in the picture. That stuff must stay in your system for a very long time.
Honestly, I think this debate is becoming a huge waste of time. I don’t see anyone budging. I’ve spent a lot of time on several blogs over the past few weeks and, as near as I can tell, it’s the same 50 or 60 people spread out over a half dozen blogs. Imagine that. 16 million SBC members and only 60 on the blogs. We need a resolution. :-)
I have seriously repented of spending so much time on these blogs as God has reminded me that my real responsibility is with the people who I can see and touch everyday. Spending a lot of time on these blogs is like going to the Super Bowl and spending the whole game in the overflow porta potties. Not only are we not in the game in here, we can’t even see it.
Howard Hendricks told us a story in seminary. He was counseling an alcoholic about his problem. He was telling him that God could give him the will and ability to control his urge to drink.
Suddenly, he said, the Holy Spirit began to convict him. “How can you tell that guy that the Spirit will give him self control over drink, when you have no self-control over food.”
Dr. Hendricks realized his hypocrisy and began to seek God’s power to gain self-control over food. By the time I was his student, he was a relatively thin man.
It is amazing how we love to condemn other people’s sins while excusing and making light of our own.
Bill said, “Spending a lot of time on these blogs is like going to the Super Bowl and spending the whole game in the overflow porta potties. Not only are we not in the game in here, we can’t even see it.”
That may be the funniest thing I ever read on a blog.
David R. Brumbelow you share your points humbly, and I accept that, but I reckon you are a bit more fast and loose with hermeneutics.
How you can derive all your 9 points from post #165 from Scripture is beyond me. Scripture predates conservative SBC values, and the former should inform the latter, rather than what is happening here. No matter how brilliant an argument can be put, you occupy a position [along with Tim] on a particular point of the evangelical cultural scale [very conservative], and the cultural assumptions you make will somehow find their justification in Scripture or even beyond.
I even have to take into consideration that on Saturday nights I may after a Bud kill some of my fellow bloggers family. Wow, that’s a whole new tactic when it comes to a theological debate – “your point of view and your hermeneutics could kill my family!!!” Hysterical.
The issue of imposition on others is another foundation of conservatism: when you have a ‘moral’ majority, you can impose your system of morals as having supremacy over theirs. After that you put the spin on it that it is ‘not legalistic’.
This ultimately is about one group of people who share in common a variety of assumptions, having supremacy over another. The arguments barely matter, particularly to those who occupy the high ground in terms of power and control.
After all the submissions I’m still waiting for someone to answer the rather elementary question I’ve posed throughout: How can you take a personal conviction [not legalism], and impose it on everyone [now it is legalism], and then look anyone in the face and say “it’s not legalistic”?
David (in #143),
I’m glad my comments make you giggle. I wish I could say the same when i read what you write. Do you think I was shocked to see Carson’s comment on the watering-down of the alcohol? Of course not, I’m the one the provided the quote. Does that prove your point? Of course not.
I’ve never rejected the idea that ANE wine wasn’t as strong as modern alcohol. But, and don’t miss this, people were still getting drunk off of watered down wine. That’s the point Carson is making. It was customary to put the best wine out first, and while those at the party were inebriated, to slip in the lesser wine, so the party goers wouldn’t noticed that the quality had dropped off.
The writer is intentional about reporting the response of the headwaiter. He’s shocked that the bridegroom would save the best wine for last.
In your desire to embrace part of Carson’s quote, you miss out on the greater message, which was that wine, even dilluted, is still both alcoholic and capable of causing drunkenness. and it is exactly this kind of wine that Jesus produces. For you to fall back on your trustworthy “it’s watered down” misses out on what else he says: “Besides, in v. 10 the head steward expects that at this point in the celebration some of the guests would have had too much to drink: to verb methysko does not refer to consuming too much liquid, but to inebriation.
Apparently Carson doesn’t seem your embrace your idea that someone would have to have the bladder of an elephant in order to get drunk. Apparently Jesus was just the kind of guy you think he wasn’t, someone who produced alcoholic beverages for guests who had already been drinking, and some of them had crossed over into inebriation.
Maybe it’s not just 1st century disciples who sometimes struggle with figuring out who Jesus really is.
James,
Where do you get this from : and it is exactly this kind of wine that Jesus produces.?
Alan,
In your Romans 14 example of drinking behind closed doors, I think you missed the thrust of Paul’s admonition to do all things in love, in view of the weaker brother. For, it is not what he sees you do that may cause him to fall, but what you do. Verses 15 and 21 clearly have in mind the act, not the visibility. Consider what you would say when a weaker brother asks you whether you drink. You are bound to tell the truth. Furthermore, on the visible witness, how do you propose to get the beverage into your home unnoticed by anyone?
I have enjoyed many of the comments. Yet there is a few glaringly obvious points to consider. First, no one in the moderationist camp has refuted the fact that drinking modern alcohol is unwise, nor has offered textual evidence to prove that moderate drinking is wise. If it is wise, why not offer it to your children? Children in Jesus’ time drank wine, why not yours?
Second, [to Gordon] how is legalism being defined here? Is it a demand of works to be considered righteous in God’s sight? Since the SBC is an assembly of partnering churches who make all sorts of rules based on wisdom concerning cooperation (like BMI), how could it be considered legalism to make such a rule against alcohol? Seeing the impossibility of evaluating everyone’s “reponsible” levels of moderate drinking, it seems altogether prudent and wise to avoid the problem by a blanket prohibition on cooperation for those who drink (understand the prohibition is for cooperative efforts, not on getting into heaven). How many of you who would gladly vote down the prohibition to drink allow someone cooperating in your next youth excursion to make their own judgment regarding whether they drink, especially the van driver?
I began typing my own thoughts, but why bother when someone has already so eloquently written them down:
“On the one hand, legalism means treating biblical standards of conduct as regulations to be kept by our own power in order to earn God’s favor. On the other hand, it means erecting specific requirements of conduct beyond the teaching of Scripture and making adherence to them the means by which a person is qualified for full participation in the local family of God, the church. In the first case, we use our own power to make ourselves moral. In the second case, we use our own power to make the church moral. In the first case, we fail to rely on the power of God for our own sanctification. In the second case, we fail to rely on the power of God for the sanctification of others. Therefore, what unites these two forms of legalism at the root is unbelief—unbelief in regard to ourselves that it is God who works in us to will and to do his good pleasure (Philippians 2:12, 13); and unbelief in relation to others that God will make his will known and incline them to do it. As Paul says in Philippians 3:15, “Let those of us who are mature be thus minded, and if in anything you are otherwise minded, God will reveal that also to you.” He confidently entrusts the purification of the church to God. Wherever happy confidence in the sovereign power of God for our own lives and the lives of others grows, weak legalism creeps in. For we inevitably try to compensate for loss of dynamic faith by increased moral resolve and the addition of man-made regulations. But wherever joyful confidence in the power of God is waning, the flesh is waxing. Which means that the very morality that we had hoped would save ourselves and the very regulations we hoped would purify our church fall victim to the massive power of the flesh, and become its instruments of self-reliance and self-sufficiency.”
Brother Gordon,
“After all the submissions I’m still waiting for someone to answer the rather elementary question I’ve posed throughout: How can you take a personal conviction [not legalism], and impose it on everyone [now it is legalism], and then look anyone in the face and say “it’s not legalistic”?”
In the article this post was based on, Dr. Finn conceded that it was not legalism for one to arrive at the abstinence position in a personal practice. He then went on to say that it would be legalistic to impose that personal understanding on a group as a whole. I am merely pointing to the flaw in the argument. If it is not legalism, (my righteousness produces my salvation, or keeps my salvation) for me to arrive at the abstinence position from an understanding of the Scripture, then the argument does not breaks down when you go to the corporate level. The imposing of standards is not legalism when these standards are coming from those who honestly and logically arrive at their positions according to Scripture. No one that believes in abstinence, that I know of, believe this position is part of working out one’s salvation. However, we do believe the moderationists view will hinder others from coming to salvation. An abstinence view is based on scripture, for me, as I believe the strong drink of the Scripture is the lowest alcohol content of any alcoholic beverage we drink today. We still believe in the sufficiency of Scripture, correct?
The only argument that you or any other moderationists has against this entire argument is that Scripture advocates the moderate use of 21st century alcohol. This is the debate. As one that is a teetotaler, I am saying that your argument is one that looks back at the 1st century through 21st century glasses.
Blessings,
Tim
James,
For you to make this statement: “Apparently Jesus was just the kind of guy you think he wasn’t, someone who produced alcoholic beverages for guests who had already been drinking, and some of them had crossed over into inebriation” is not only telling but borders on the absurd, and maybe even worse. You are very close to saying that Jesus sinned. To say that He made fermented wine for nearly drunk and already drunk people is dangerous. You are standing on ground that I would not want to be standing on right now.
David
Tim, firstly you assume I am a ‘moderationist’. Funny how we frame words with which to describe those who disagree with us.
As others have done on this post, you can be a teetotal whilst still finding the legalism expressed here distasteful.
I still maintian with respect that you have a serious flaw in your logic:
“If it is not legalism, (my righteousness produces my salvation, or keeps my salvation) for me to arrive at the abstinence position from an understanding of the Scripture, then the argument does not breaks down when you go to the corporate level.”
Yes it absolutely does because a change has occurred.
It is no longer a personal conviction arrived at under the liberty of being able to make your own decision, and now a particular viewpoint is being imposed, thereby removing the liberty that others have to arrive at their own decision. How this is not plain to you is beyond me.
It seems as if Baptists are genetically predisposed to assemble righteousness in the place of grace. No matter how lofty our proclamations of grace are, we continually find ways of denying it and propagating a spirituality defined by law.
The more conservative you are seems to be in direct proportion to how much you continually seek to undermine grace. A spirituality defined by law is easy, as their is no place for conscience [which we can often get wrong]. Providing people with a narrowly defined set of behavioural guidelines removes any individual liberty and leaves no-one with the challenge of working out their own salvation.
Just do what the majority have voted that you must do and you will continue to have franchise. Sorry guys, I’m still to sold out on grace to bow to any new millennium Pharisees.
Gordon,
I realize Tim followed up on your elementary question, but allow me, if I could.
You ask
The question is elementary and, if you would have read between the lines a bit, you would have found your answer. For example, the identical structural argument from abortionists I offered to Alan to show the interesting parallel in the way moderationists argue their case many times.
It’s the premise that is key. Prolifers question the premise of abortionists that the unborn is not human life. They rightly do so through science, reason and, of course, biblical truth.
Similarly, it’s the premise of the moderationist that is questioned, namely: that alcoholic substances are perfectly, morally acceptable substances to moderately enjoy at leisure. For the abstentionist, Scripture teaches otherwise.
If it is true that Scripture teaches otherwise, then the abstentionist cannot he seriously called a legalist for teaching and expecting scriptural morality to be honored.
Now, you obviously do not agree with the abstentionist’s understanding of Scripture. Fine. Then to the Scripture we shall go. But to continue blowing the horn that the abstentionist is a legalist when the abstentionist is only concerned about biblical ethics is wrongheaded. Nor is it helpful. In fact, it only shows a basic lack in understanding abstentionism.
Now I have an elementary question for you: please give me one passage of Scripture–and only one–that explicitly, without the least doubt, teaches the idea about the moral acceptability of drinking alcoholic substances moderately.
It would be helpful if a passage had “wine” and/or some other substance normally considered ‘taboo’ by abstentionists. Remember though: the passage needs to explicitly demonstrate the central idea. That is, alcoholic substances are a good thing from God and may be consumed in moderate quantities.
Thanks. With that, I am…
Peter
Brother Tim,
It appears to me that you are making several distinct arguments….
1. Wine produced in Jesus Day is not the same as Tennessee Whiskey. I don’t think anyone would disagree.
2. That it is best to warn people about the effects of alcohol (the agent in wine / strong drink / whiskey) that has been required for sacrifice, seen to make one glad or definitely will make one drunk. Again, I don’t think anyone that has posted here would disagree, because scripture warns against the abuse of wine which results in being drunk, as well as instructs wine to be used in sacrifice to God.
3. That the agent of alcohol is inherently sinful. I don’t think anyone would agree that an object is capable of sin, yet it is possible to use an agent as a tool in the act of willful sinning by the inherent sinner (man). That principle is clearly seen throughout scripture. But, the sinner (the one that has been adopted and birthed) possesses self-control, against which there is no law.
When you said, “However, we do believe the moderationists view will hinder others from coming to salvation.” That kind of thinking would not be what scripture states….
John 6:37-40 “All that the Father gives Me will come to Me, and the one who comes to Me I will certainly not cast out. (38) “For I have come down from heaven, not to do My own will, but the will of Him who sent Me. (39) “This is the will of Him who sent Me, that of all that He has given Me I lose nothing, but raise it up on the last day. (40) “For this is the will of My Father, that everyone who beholds the Son and believes in Him will have eternal life, and I Myself will raise him up on the last day.”
Nothing can hinder the plan of God, not even the gates of hell. Please don’t hear me wrong here, because knowing this truth is all the more reason to warn someone not to be drunk as scripture warns. Just as knowing this truth is all the more reason to preach the gospel.
Blessings,
Chris
Brother Gordon,
In the providence of God my anti-spam word was “longsuffering”. Your arguments with me certainly are drawing on my longsuffering over the issue. :)
As to my presumption that you are a moderationist, allow me to let you in on a secret. If you are a teetotaler, but argue that the Bible allows for moderation in drinking beverage alcohol, then you are arguing from a moderationist point of view. As to you being an moderationist, you are correct, I did assume that your biblical stand would preclude you as a moderationist. If I have offended you by placing you as one that imbibes please forgive me.
BTW, I am sorry you view me as a Pharisee. It seems that whenever I have debated anyone within this stream, I have never relegated my argument to calling names. I have only debated the point, and that is the point that you have not engaged. There is no breakdown when a personal biblical conviction is not considered ‘legalism’ and then implemented on a group as a whole. If it is not legalism for a personal Biblical conviction, then it is not legalism for a corporate body to hold employees to this conviction.
Allow me to further elaborate my point. What employee was hired at any one of our entities and did not know that the SBC was an abstentionist convention? Especially after these resolutions here, here, here, and here
Blessings,
Tim
Brother Chris,
Thank you for calling me back to my point. If it is not legalism for me to have a belief that moderation in the use of beverage alcohol it is not legalism for me to present this to a convention of churches and they agree with my understanding of Scripture. It then is not legalism for me to encourage the convention to set this as a biblical standard for the convention.
Blessings,
Tim
To all,
Today is my daughter’s last day in elementary school. I will be at her reception and awards banquet for the rest of the day.
Blessings,
Tim
Chris,
Two things if I may, brother. First, please do not interject a particular view of irresistible grace into the question at large. It seems all that is going to do is not only lead to other questions not germane to whether alcoholic substances are a good God gives His creatures to moderately enjoy, but it is also going to become highly confusing about precisely how we are to proceed with honing out a consistent ethic based upon what God says is moral and immoral.
Secondly, Chris, your third point you offered to Chris is interesting. You write:
First, who suggested an inanimate object could sin? If Tim did I missed it and I know I certainly have not.
That does not mean, however, that all substances are morally neutral. Yet that is precisely what you appear to assume:
Chris, for me, this is morally troubling. If every substance is morally neutral as you appear to be arguing, and it is only inherently sinful men who “abuse” the morally neutral substance, then it seems, my brother, you’ve just made a rock-solid case for any and all drug use–not abuse–imaginable.
There is, then, no moral distinction between pot, crystal cocaine, heroin, even the old standby, LSD, if it is used responsibly and/or moderately. If these substances are morally neutral, then it is only sinful men who can misuse them.
Nor does it assist to argue that these are either illegal or manufactured. As for illegality, we do not take our primary moral marching orders from the whims of society but the Word of God. Laws are important but always take a backseat to Scripture.
As for manufacture of these drugs, that is precisely Tim’s point about today’s wines & spirits: Since the Middle Ages distillation process was discovered, all wines and spirits now are manufactured–at least the ones we’re concerned with here.
And, within that distillation process is the absolute control of the distillers themselves to put in or take out as much alcohol as they please. That is, there is nothing keeping distilleries from making wines universally alcohol free–nothing, that is, except the market.
Sorry, Chris. From my standpoint, you seem to come close to an antinomian position. I do not know if that is what you hold. But it surely appears like you are expressing similarities to it.
Grace, Brother. With that, I am…
Peter
David,
I don’t really mind that you don’t stand next to me. I’m just reading the text as it states. There were those at the wedding who were, to some degree, inebriated. In v. 3, the word used is methysko, which Carson defines as not referring “to consuming too much liquid, but to inebriation.” Let me say it again, there were those at the wedding who were inebriated. We’re not sure how many were ‘buzzed’, or even to what degree they were inebriated, but make no mistake: NT wine had the potential to get people drunk.
Did that keep Jesus from turning water into wine? No. Jesus’ first miracle was to provide massive quantities (Carson says 100-150 gallons) of low-level alcohol to guests who had already been drinking for (what can be reasonably assumed) at least a day or two.
I’m sorry if the picture the Beloved Disciple paints in John 2 doesn’t comport with your vision of Jesus. It seems the disciples didn’t understand Jesus either in Mark 6 when the storm hit the waters and shook the boat, but Jesus remained asleep. Our misconceptions of who we think Jesus is, or should be, doesn’t keep Him from being who He is.
I guess you’ll be drinking water at the eschatological banquet. That leaves more wine for the rest of us.
And let it be known that I can distinguish between you thinking that what I say is borderline absurd and believing you are calling me borderline absurd.
James,
Perhaps I am doing with regard to the eschatological banquet precisely what Jesus said that he would do: abstaining completely from alcohol until then.
David,
One important correction to my last post: methysko is found in v. 10, not in v. 3. Sorry for the typo.
It’s clear from the reading of the text that the people at the wedding “have drunk freely”, or as the marginal note in the NASB Updated 1995 declares, “or have become drunk.”You can’t get around the fact that some at the party were to some degree inebriated and Jesus still produced alcoholic beverage for consumption.
To quote Ben Stiller in “Meet the Parents”: “Can you deal with that!”
James,
Perhaps you missed my question to you. Where do you get that Jesus made wine containing alcohol? I am not trying to argue otherwise, but it seems your argument breaks down there. Does Carson provide proof for this assertion?
Bart,
No problem with you abstaining, but that doesn’t mean all of us should, or will. I believe Jesus is abstaining because, for him, it’s a drink symbolizing fellowship and that it would be appropriate for Him to ‘drink anew’ when the Kingdom is fully realized.
So, the question for those who not only abstain personally, but find it ‘sinful’ or ‘unwise’ for others who imbibe, will you drink with Jesus in the eschaton?
Colin,
I did not miss your question. I answered David’s first, and then I was in the process of answering yours when I saw Bart’s reply. I quickly answered him and now I am working on my thoughts to you. Thanks for your patience.
There are Godly people who believe it is okay to imbibe Alcohol as long as you refrain from drunkenness, then there are those Godly people who believe that any alcohol consumption is sinful.
This issue has the potential, much more so than “calvinism”, to actually cause a fracture. I guess my question is, “How convicted are you that imbibing Alcohol is sin?”
All of you are well versed enough to know the ramifications of calling it “sin”. There are actions that should be taken if somebody is caught in Red Lobster having a beer if they are in your fellowship. Do you have the convictions to go there?
If not, then I believe we should move on.
Grace and Peace to y’all…
ABClay
James,
You write “…make no mistake: NT wine had the potential to get people drunk.”
Who has argued that NT wine possessed no potential to get people drunk? I’m unsure David or anyone else who argues abstentionism believes such. Though as a footnote, Professor Robert Stein suggested the normal wine we read about in the NT made one wee wee far too often to make people buzzed.
It was only the hardcore stuff that most people who wanted the buzz drank. What would be required then is, Jesus intentionally turned the water into the hardcore stuff. Perhaps that’s what David may be getting at that is absurd.
From my standpoint, it is not that there existed no wine in the NT period that could very well buzz people really good. Rather, it is that there existed wines that most certainly did not. That is, the “one-wine-theory” which seems to be your premise is fatally flawed.
Grace. With that, I am…
Peter
Colin,
I refer you back to what I typed in #135, an extended quote from Carson. Let me pick out just a few sentences from that quote to answer your question:
“The ‘wine’ (oinos) that was needed was not mere grape juice, generic ‘fruit of the vine’. The idea is intrinsically silly as applied to countries whose agricultural tradition is so committed to viticulture.”
The wine given (and used up) at the wedding was alcoholic in nature. The wine Jesus produced would have naturally been (somewhat) alcoholic, since, as Carson notes, grape juice would have been silly.
I hope that answers your question.
Peter,
I’ll check back in later. I have some errands to run that are time-sensitive.
James,
It does not. I am curious as to what makes Carson think it is silly, and what authority your argument has rested upon. Is it fair to say your argument rests upon Carson’s assertion that the creation of new wine or diluted wine would be silly? I am looking for scriptural support on both sides in these comments.
With over 200 comments now, I hate to add something that might further stir up the hornet’s nest, but what the heck. Here goes.
I believe that it is okay to drink in moderation. From conversations I have had with my pastor and staff, they feel the same way, although from what I can tell, they choose to abstain. Yet, the SBC continues to take the money we offer. I am among the 2.7% of American church goers who tithes, yet I drink beer. And I like it. The SBC gladly accepts the offerings I give. My lovely wife, who also tithes, drinks a glass of wine three or four evenings a week. The SBC gladly accepts the money she gives too.
So now, it seems that not only is the SBC legalistic, but they are hypocritical as well.
JasonK,
That is gonna drive the pharisees absolutely zonkers!
JasonK,
Not to promote myself, but I think the answer lies in my post #199.
ABClay
JasonK,
I will make a deal with you. Stop giving. We will not mind one bit. I don’t think the SBC will mind one bit. I think the only one’s that will mind will be your pastor and staff.
Since they all agree with your position on alcohol, you guys can work your giving or not giving out among yourselves.
cb
Brother Peter,
I am certainly not opposed to moral law…that’s just silly. A true moral law is the outworking of being led by the Spirit of God. Self-Control is the solution to revealing a true moral law because self-control is informed and ordained by God.
What determines “substances” to be immoral? Not using a substance is a good way to argue against your alleged “rock solid case for any and all drug use – not abuse-imaginable” schema.
I am far from antinomian in my pursuit to obey the word of God. If God says that strong wine is like a viper, I believe him and obey him by not going there….
Proverbs 23:29-32 Who has woe? Who has sorrow? Who has contentions? Who has complaining? Who has wounds without cause? Who has redness of eyes? (30) Those who linger long over wine, Those who go to taste mixed wine. (31) Do not look on the wine when it is red, When it sparkles in the cup, When it goes down smoothly; (32) At the last it bites like a serpent And stings like a viper.
If God says to prepare wine for sacrifice or if God uses wine in the analogy of His love for us, I believe him and obey….
Numbers 15:1-5 Now the LORD spoke to Moses, saying, (2) “Speak to the sons of Israel and say to them, ‘When you enter the land where you are to live, which I am giving you, (3) then make an offering by fire to the LORD, a burnt offering or a sacrifice to fulfill a special vow, or as a freewill offering or in your appointed times, to make a soothing aroma to the LORD, from the herd or from the flock. (4) ‘The one who presents his offering shall present to the LORD a grain offering of one-tenth of an ephah of fine flour mixed with one-fourth of a hin of oil, (5) and you shall prepare wine for the drink offering, one-fourth of a hin, with the burnt offering or for the sacrifice, for each lamb.
Songs of Solomon 8:1-4 “Oh that you were like a brother to me Who nursed at my mother’s breasts. If I found you outdoors, I would kiss you; No one would despise me, either. (2) “I would lead you and bring you Into the house of my mother, who used to instruct me; I would give you spiced wine to drink from the juice of my pomegranates. (3) “Let his left hand be under my head And his right hand embrace me.” (4) “I want you to swear, O daughters of Jerusalem, Do not arouse or awaken my love Until she pleases.”
The bible never requires someone to haggle about the strength or even composition of wine….because the bible documents it very well. The Spirit of God has always informed His children with self-control. God allowing us self-control is vividly seen from Genesis to Revelation. We should teach self-control.
You seem to be arguing that there is no way to “not be drunk” if you choose to drink wine that contains alcohol. I enjoy all of the information you compose,…so I will continue to listen.
And Peter, there are some people that do actually believe they can hinder the work of God which you term “irresistible grace”….Is there any way to keep God away from His purpose? That is a great subject for another time.
Blessings,
Chris
CB, I will make YOU a deal.
Let’s take all of the people who give to SBC churches right now, who also drink in moderation, and ask them to stop giving. Not stop giving altogether, just stop giving to the SBC. Perhaps we designate our giving to stay within our church, rather than sending any of it to the Cooperative Program.
It would cripple the SBC instantly. Because like it or not, the majority of members of SBC churches hold to a moderationist view, even if the majority of pastors do not. And most pastors don’t tithe anyway.
ABClay,
You are right, your comment makes a lot of sense. It is one thing to pass resolutions and put certain wording into documents like the BFM and church covenants. It is another thing altogether to start enforcing these things on individuals. I’ve said it all along, especially in light of the regenerate church membership resolution being touted right now. Where do you draw the line when it comes to church discipline? Who gets put out of the church?
I recently wrote a post on my blog about a Wall Street Journal story about church discipline going on in America right now, where an elderly woman was arrested during church services for trespassing, because she had been put out of her Baptist church, for gossip. The Wall Street Journal did an article about it–think about that.
Peter,
In #192 you make reference to the manufacture of alcohol. You are throwing up straw here. It is evident from your silly statements that you have no clue as to the process of either fermentation or distillation. If you are going to argue from that point at least don’t sound stupid….do your homework so you can speak from a position of knowledge.
JasonK,
I may disagree with you on this, though I am not sure. If the church in question in the article followed the scriptural guidelines as set forth in Matthew 18 and did so in a loving manner as to correct sinful behavior and bring her back into the fold rather than to cast her off outright, I believe they did the right thing.
My point is simply that if the consumption of alcohol is a sin, then it should be treated as such and if the local church loves their brother who is in this supposed sin, they are to correct them and if the offending party refuses to repent, then they should be cast off.
You make a good point about the money, but if you stopped giving as Brother CB suggested then I believe it will be you who suffers the consequences in a loss of spiritual growth and not simply the local church who suffers.
I don’t want this to digress into a discussion on church discipline, I just wanted to clarify my position on the matter.
Grace and Peace …
ABClay
Chris,
Thanks. You write:
First, my brother, what exactly do you mean by a “true moral law”? And why is the “true moral law” the “outworking of being led by the Spirit”?
Chris, again, this seems simply odd to attempt to build a moral ethic from Scripture by placing such focus on the “outworking of the Spirit” through “self-control.” Sorry, I’m just not understanding what you’re getting at.
Secondly, you seem to say that what determines “‘substances’ to be immoral” is by “not using” the substance since it is “a good way to argue against your alleged “rock solid case for any and all drug use – not abuse-imaginable” schema.” (italics mine).
I’m confused, my brother. “Not using” is my line as an abstentionist. It’s the moderationist who insists Scripture teaches it’s the abuse of alcoholic substances and not the useof alcoholic substances that is condemned.
You cannot have it both ways, Chris. Before you wrote
My response was and is, Chris, if all substances are morally neutral and are only “tools” in the hands of sinful men as they abuse the “tool,” then you have just made a case for relaxing all resistance to any and all mind-altering drugs.
You’re way out of this dilemma seems to be to argue “not using” the substance since it is “a good way to argue against [my] alleged “rock solid case for any and all drug use – not abuse-imaginable” schema.”
My question is why would you slip over and try to steal my chickens when your hen house is empty?
Sorry. Brother. Your position is not adding up. Grace. With that, I am…
Peter
Gordon,
I do not understand the #178 comment, “your point of view and your hermeneutics could kill my family!!!”
I think I seriously answered the question in #165. I should have added a number 10. Beverage alcohol kills brain cells. You have a limited number of brain cells and you will never get them back. I’m afraid I have none to spare. Would the Bible promote a person killing their own brain cells for pleasurable purposes? But I admit the Bible does not directly say, “Thou shalt not kill thine own brain cells.”
On the other hand, orange juice does the body good. So does unfermented wine, also known as grape juice.
If some want to argue that abstinence is not the correct biblical interpretation, fine. But we present our biblical case over and over, and the opposition simply says that is not in the Bible. It is. See Paige Patterson’s BP article on alcohol and the others mentioned by Dr. Yarnell. See Peter Lumpkins articles at his blog. Read “Bible Wines and the Laws of Fermentation” by William Patton
The Bible both directly and indirectly condemns alcohol. For example: Proverbs 20:1; 23:29-35; Isaiah 28:7; Jeremiah 35; Daniel 1:8; Habakkuk. 2:15; Romans 14:19, 21; 1 Corinthians 3:16; 6:19-20; 8:9; Ephesians 5:15; 1 Timothy 3:3; Titus 1:7; 1 Peter 5:8; etc. These are in no way exhaustive.
How much of a recreational mind altering drug that has destroyed multitudes of lives can a Christian take? I believe its use is abuse. Just like marijuana, cocaine, heroin. Because of the moderationist view the only argument you have left against them is that they are illegal. But as soon as they become legal, enjoy them too.
To those who charge legalism – do you also believe those who are against others owning slaves, opposing gambling, cocaine, etc. of being legalists? After all I doubt you can show a verse that says, “Thou shalt not own a slave, gamble, or use cocaine.” But biblical principles certainly teach against those practices and we should oppose them. It is not legalism to oppose what the Bible opposes. I reject the charges that I am a legalist and have no Scripture to back up my view.
I find it strange that self-proclaimed non Pharisees are so quick to call others legalists and Pharisees. Someone could almost view that as, well, pharisaical.
My brother, I believe this issue is so important that lives and souls hang in the balance. Many lives have been saved from ruin because of our stand on abstinence. Our view is borne out of love for the Bible and love for others. May God bless and guide you today.
David R. Brumbelow
Dear Jake,
I do appreciate the compliment. And, know you have made my day. Grace to you.
With that, I am…
Peter
Brother Peter,
I am not really stealing any of your chickens,….you have hatched a few of your own though.
:)
Seriously,
I choose to abstain from drinking alcohol. So technically, I am an absentionist by practice…. My practice of abstaining does not require that I change the bible to line up with my practice…nor does that bible require that I must drink wine.. because the bible is clear that it is not sinning to partake of wine,…yet the capful of wine that I drank when I was eleven in communion was not very good in my opinion, yet it was not sinful nor was I drunk at impact. When I last checked, it was not a sin to abstain as well.
So no chicken stealing here….I agree with your desire to have everyone warned of the dangers of alcohol, especially the stuff that is manipulated by man these days. I also agree with you that it is silly and can be unwise to be associated with the stuff altogether in the American culture above the rest. But your warnings are already echoed throughout scripture and need to be heeded. I don’t even disagree with Bart when he makes the case that suppliers of alcohol to be consumed could produce alcohol content at any level they wish. But, it is overtly obvious that the manufacturers of such substances want to get their constituents drunk at a controlled pace (at the most profitable pace to coincide with all levels of socioeconomic categories for best market impact and bottom line results) So, I don’t think the manufacturers give two hoots about the SBC, nor will they be pressured into change.
I remain unmoved and will always contend that it is much more effective and profitable to preach and teach the gospel, and preach and teach the results of the gospel (fruits of the Spirit / self – control) than it is to spend an exorbitant amount of effort against people that do not give two hoots. We do not wrestle against flesh and blood, even the blood that has a high BAC.
I do continue to learn from your posts though,…because you are trying to rightly divide the word and I am all about those chickens.
Blessings,
Chris
I and most others promoting the tee totallers view have consistently said that the wine back in the day of Jesus was diluted with so much water that it would take a gallon or more to get a person high. It was so watered down that it was nothing like the alcohol of today. That’s an historical fact. Thus, Jesus didnt not turn the water into fermented, undiluted, strong drink. To make such a statement would make Jesus an advocate of drunkeness. I, for one, would be very scared to go there.
Also, the strong drink of the Bible was that which was fermented and undiluted. Proverbs teaches that it’s foolish to drink something that you know can bite you like strong drink can, and it will cause you to do things that you shouldnt do. And, please notice that I used the word “foolish” instead of “sinful.” It is clearly “sinful” to get drunk on fermented wine. Thus, it is foolish to drink anything that we know is fermented and could cause us to get drunk. It’s foolish. And, foolish things lead to sin. And, foolish things lead to destructive things like FAS and car wrecks and wife beating and rude, obnoxious behavior at ball games, etc.
Now then, there are a lot of things that Church members do that are foolish. And, I would encourage them to not do it. In fact, I preach about not doing foolish nor sinful things from the pulpit. And, our Deacons are not to drink fermented wine…no alcohol….nor is the Pastor nor the staff. We want our Deacons as well as the Ministers to be examples to the congregation of what it means to live a holy life. Do some of my members drink alcohol. I’d bet my Smokey statue that they do. But, they know that our Church encourages them to not do it….to not do something so foolish and hurtful.
David
David
Just wondering why all the attention on alcohol? My guess is that a lot of time has been taken preparing, typing, proofing, posting, reading, understanding and responding to this post.
Why?
I don’t see the big deal with this. Maybe I am young and dumb to assume that there are larger cats to skin then alcohol. People are going hungry across the globe, women are being abused, men are on the streets… the list could go on. But, we are talking about alcohol.
Really? Is this was Jesus has called us to?
I thought some folks may like to read G. I. Williamson\’s Wine in the Bible & the Church.
Also, a good read is Stephen Reynolds vs. Ken Gentry debating the Biblical understanding of beverage alcohol use.
I\’m am not sure how matter or material in and of itself can be either moral or immoral. That sounds like a certain view of a specific non-Christian group.
Mark
I thought some folks may like to read G. I. Williamson’s Wine in the Bible & the Church.
Also, a good read is Stephen Reynolds vs. Ken Gentry debating the Biblical understanding of beverage alcohol use.
I’m am not sure how matter or material in and of itself can be either moral or immoral. That sounds like a certain view of a specific non-Christian group.
Mark
p.s. Sorry for the duplicate post. I’m trying to fix the formating. :)
JohnMark,
Comment #81 is one you may have scanned by. Grace. With that, I am…
Peter
David,
Your last paragraph…well said. It is much like what Piper was preaching on in his sermon that I linked. Encourage your congregation to refrain from consumption because it is foolish, hold the leaders to a higher standard.
You have a statue of Smokey? That’s not a graven image is it?
ABClay
Jake,
Many women and children are hungry due to daddy being drunk and spending all of his money on alcohol. Many women and children are being abused by a drunken husband and father. Many men are out on the streets due to alcohol and what it’s done to their lives. It has enslaved them and taken them down a road that they didnt really want to go.
It really is a big deal.
My Uncle started off just drinking socially…at parties….moderate drinking. Soon thereafter, his wife died, leaving him with a small child. He began to drink more often and more heavily. He married again, and had another child. Alcohol got a hold of him. It became his master, and he it’s slave. He wrecked no telling how many trucks. He beat his wife. He lost his farm. His wife left him. My family sent him to dry out places often. He would come back to his first love…alcohol….every time.
Then, the last time we sent him to a place to dry out, a retired missionary led him to Christ. He came out a changed man. He got active in Church. He remarried his ex wife. He is a loving husband and father and grandfather today. And, he does not drink…any. Thank God!
Alcohol….fermented, undiluted wine will get a hold of people and make them it’s slave.
Free man…free in Christ and high on the Holy Spirit,
David
Which makes me ask another question…why would a born again, Believer in Jesus need alcohol? If we’re fired up for Jesus and full of His love and joy, and filled with the Holy Spirit; then, why in the Sam Hill would you need alcohol?
David
John Mark,
By the way, you write you are not sure”how matter or material in and of itself can be either moral or immoral.” Into what classification would you place either heroin or hemlock?
Thanks. With that, I am…
Peter
ABC,
About the Smokey thing……no. No graven image. I just like Blue Tick Hounds that wear orange… it’s a beautful thing.
:)
David
JasonK,
First, I thought you had left the SBC and was now in a Methodist church. I guess I was wrong.
Second, The SBC does not have an “Alcohol Cop Squad” so frankly, your comment about the giving to the SBC was ridiculous in the first place.
Third, It would be legalistic if the SBC did have an Alcohol Cop Squad and I would vote to have it abolished.
Fourth, You are pulling your statements about pastors not giving and about the majority of Southern Baptists drinking out of the air and you know it as well as I do and as does everybody else in this thread.
Fifth, This is not out of the air:
Alcohol has killed far more people than food. Not all alcohol related deaths are reported as such.
Alcohol use is the only thing that leads to alcoholism. No one knows who will become an alcoholic. It takes a drink to start. Therefore it is as unwise to drink alcohol as it is to smoke crack.
Teenage alcohol abuse is at an all time high in this nation. Teenage death related to alcohol usage is on the rise, even though we think we are now more knowledgeable about the problem. We are not. We are just more indulgent.
Any woman who is sexually active and in her child bearing years should not drink alcohol in any amount. That is just not a wise thing to do.
I could go on but it is obviously of no value to argue with you because you are seemingly proud of you lack of caution with your life and that of your family.
Lastly, pastors who do not warn their people of the dangers of alcohol use and abuse are not wise.
cb
Peter,
Heroin is a drug and hemlock a plant. I don’t know their proper classifications though both with different uses. Do they sin?
Now, if I were a fly and you asked if the Venus Fly Trap were evil, I might say it is.
Mark
Jake R of comment #218,
Vol has well stated the truth of much of what concerns you in his comment #223. You should take it to heart. Does it matter? Testimony after testimony of drunks receiving grace and seeing the truth of beverage alcohol seems to speak to the affirmative. Yes, it matters. It matters so much to many of us that we are willing to cross swords with people we greatly respect over this issue.
cb
JohnMark,
Many people are “flys” and Johnny Walker Red is the “Venus Fly Trap” that engulfs them.
cb
Brother Peter,
As a follow-up to another question you posed…. “First, my brother, what exactly do you mean by a “true moral law”? And why is the “true moral law” the “outworking of being led by the Spirit”? Chris, again, this seems simply odd to attempt to build a moral ethic from Scripture by placing such focus on the “outworking of the Spirit” through “self-control.” Sorry, I’m just not understanding what you’re getting at.”
Our other brother Peter (Apostle) helps us find the answer to that question in his second letter…..
2 Peter 1:1-11 Simon Peter, a bond-servant and apostle of Jesus Christ, To those who have received a faith of the same kind as ours, by the righteousness of our God and Savior, Jesus Christ: (2) Grace and peace be multiplied to you in the knowledge of God and of Jesus our Lord; (3) seeing that His divine power has granted to us everything pertaining to life and godliness, through the true knowledge of Him who called us by His own glory and excellence. (4) For by these He has granted to us His precious and magnificent promises, so that by them you may become partakers of the divine nature, having escaped the corruption that is in the world by lust. (5) Now for this very reason also, applying all diligence, in your faith supply moral excellence, and in your moral excellence, knowledge, (6) and in your knowledge, self-control, and in your self-control, perseverance, and in your perseverance, godliness, (7) and in your godliness, brotherly kindness, and in your brotherly kindness, love. (8) For if these qualities are yours and are increasing, they render you neither useless nor unfruitful in the true knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ. (9) For he who lacks these qualities is blind or short-sighted, having forgotten his purification from his former sins. (10) Therefore, brethren, be all the more diligent to make certain about His calling and choosing you; for as long as you practice these things, you will never stumble; (11) for in this way the entrance into the eternal kingdom of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ will be abundantly supplied to you.
Acts 17:24-29 “The God who made the world and all things in it, since He is Lord of heaven and earth, does not dwell in temples made with hands; (25) nor is He served by human hands, as though He needed anything, since He Himself gives to all people life and breath and all things; (26) and He made from one man every nation of mankind to live on all the face of the earth, having determined their appointed times and the boundaries of their habitation, (27) that they would seek God, if perhaps they might grope for Him and find Him, though He is not far from each one of us; (28) for in Him we live and move and exist, as even some of your own poets have said, ‘For we also are His children.’ (29) “Being then the children of God, we ought not to think that the Divine Nature is like gold or silver or stone, an image formed by the art and thought of man.
The outworking of the Spirit is the result of a faith received of the same kind as ours. It is in this faith that we supply moral excellence. That is what I am referring to as the “true” moral law.
Blessings,
Chris
CB,
You are wrong, sir. Alcohol has not killed more people than food. Check the stats at the CDC, and you will find that alcohol related deaths are not even in the same category as deaths related to obesity. Some at the CDC consider the obesity problem to have taken more lives than the bubonic plague did in Europe.
I agree that alcohol is not wise for everyone to consume. Some people have a weakness in that area, and they should not drink. The vast, vast majority of people in the world drink and do so responsibly and within the limits of a moderate lifestyle. It is the ones who over-indulge that receive all the attention, both from the SBC and the blog world that goes along with it.
Now, let’s take your philosophy and apply it to another issue. Sex is the only thing that leads to sexual addiction. No one knows who will become a sexual predator, a rapist, etc. Children are more likely to become victims of sexual predators than any other group. Therefore, since we cannot tell who is going to become a sex addict or a sexual predator, it is best if all sex is banned, especially if it is only done for pleasure, and not for pro-creation.
One more thing, CB. Do not suggest that I am reckless with my own life, or with the life of my family.
John mark,
Thanks. Since both have different uses, John Mark, would either of them have use that you would recommend to use in you body? In moderation, of course.
With that, I am…
Peter
Brother cb,
You are absolutely right that we should preach and preach hard about the abuse of alcohol. A good thorough exposition of Proverbs 23 would be extremely profitable in all the churches that affiliate with the SBC! It can be covered in under two months.
Blessings,
Chris
Jason,
I believe the facts do not sustain the statement “The vast, vast majority of people in the world drink and do so responsibly and within the limits of a moderate lifestyle. ” I know for a fact that is not true in America. 45% of American adults never drink and when you add in those under the legal limit you get nowhere near a majority much less a vast majority. Muslims do not drink at all under threat of death. We could go culture by coulture but the fact is, that just isn’t an accurate statement.
Tim B
Tim B,
What is the source for your statistic, the 45% number?
Please allow me to rephrase my statement: “The vast, vast majority of people who drink do so responsibly.”
Hope that helps. I do believe that other than the Muslim world (where many of them drink anyway), the United States is alone in its attitude toward the consumption of beer and wine. A friend of mine went on a mission trip with a group of Southern Baptists from Oklahoma, to Spain several years ago. In the church fellowship hall, they served beer. When people were taking photos, the church members would set the beer bottles on the floor, saying that American Christians would never understand the culture enough to accept it. I believe it.
So, what I should have said that of the people who choose to drink, most do so in moderation.
JasonK,
Way ahead of you. As I said; Not all alcohol related deaths are reported as such. You do the research yourself if you are willing.
As far as your predator argument is concerned you are wrong. Actually the argument is just plain stupid. (I had hoped to stop using that word so much but sometimes it is unavoidable when it is so blatantly a reality someone is being stupid)
There are great indicators as to who might be and who might become a sexual predator. Those things are proven and well documented. You are out of your league here. You simply don’t know what you are talking about and you betray great ignorance of the subject of sexual predators.
As to your last admonition to me many would now crawfish and tell you they were not suggesting you are reckless with your life and your family. They would plead that they were being misunderstood and did not mean to offend you.
Well, that is not me. I did not actually “suggest” you were reckless with your family. I am saying you “are” reckless with your life and the lives of your family if you use beverage alcohol. Not only are you reckless with your family; you are reckless with the families of other people when you are a user of beverage alcohol. And as I said; To argue with you is of no value because you are seemingly proud of your recklessness in the use of beverage alcohol.
JasonK, we have crossed swords before on various issues. We have also agreed on some things. It has been evident to me that you actually are a reckless person in some areas of your life and you well know that to be true. I would be a hypocrite if I were to say I did not suffer from the same problem. I have been very reckless also and I have certainly had to pay for it and will continue to pay for some of it ’till the day I die.
I have never met you face to face, but I actually care enough about you to tell you the truth. So deal with it. You can think what you please of me, but you need to get some things straight about life and I pray you do it soon.
Here I stand and I ain’t movin’ one inch. I have just seen far too much of the carnage of the use of beverage alcohol to keep trying to be politically correct or be a nice little blogger and tip-toe around foolishness about this issue and I am certainly not going to let ignorance of the reality of sexual predators be used to shore-up a faulty, prideful and stiff-necked position relating to beverage alcohol.
cb
Chris,
I do appreciate your use of the Scripture. You are a man of God and I do hope to meet you someday and talk of better things that whiskey and foolishness.
I realize the Bible does not say; “Thou shalt not use alcohol as a beverage.”
I also know the Bible does not say for me not to run through an alligator pit naked with a freshly killed hog over my shoulder either.
But, I do know it would certainly be unwise. The Bible teaches the use of wisdom in all things. It is simply not wise to use beverage alcohol. It has brought just too much hell on earth to see it any other way.
cb
Brother CB,
Don’t hold back now, tell us what you think….
Grace and Peace…
ABClay
Brother cb,
I concur my friend.
Blessings,
Chris
CB,
Forgive me, for I did not realize I was in the presence of such greatness. I did not realize I was so out of my league. Gosh, what was I thinking?
I will say this, in all humility, bowing down to your greatness and expertise. It sounds very typical of people who stand up and talk for a living, to say things like, “this is very well documented and proven,” but they don’t follow up with actual statistics.
Are you saying that it is possible to determine who will be a sexual predator and who will not? At what age can one make this determination? If this is true, perhaps it is also true that one can determine who will have a propensity to abuse alcohol. That would be great! Then you could use your bully pulpit to keep those people out of the bars and liquor stores. And you could spend some time finding out who has a propensity to sexually abuse others, and keep them out of the ministry. That alone would be a full-time job, since there seem to be so many instances of sexual deviation among people serving in churches, the latest of which was revealed just two weeks ago at a high profile SBC church in the Dallas area.
So, CB, expert in these matters, why then can we not screen those people and bar them from ministry?
I think I’m beginning to see why the SBC is in decline.
CB,
A fair waring: JasonK lives and thrives on this stuff– the hypocrisy gig he perpetually employs. You’d be wise to kick it out of gear, old friend and let her coast. You cannot win. Not because of his arguments. Frankly, I don’t think I’ve ever heard a real one from him. Just, “you’re all hyprocrites” type of stuff.
Grace. With that, I am…
Peter