« Interview with Pastor Les Puryear | Main | Interview with Pastor Wiley Drake »
Alcohol: Abstinence = Freedom
Posted by Tim Rogers | May 27, 2008
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?
Topics: SBC Issues, SEBTS |
May 27th, 2008 at 5:52 pm
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?
May 27th, 2008 at 5:54 pm
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?
May 27th, 2008 at 5:54 pm
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.
May 27th, 2008 at 7:00 pm
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.
May 27th, 2008 at 7:04 pm
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.
May 27th, 2008 at 7:20 pm
Using alcohol is unwise.
May 27th, 2008 at 7:55 pm
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
May 27th, 2008 at 8:02 pm
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.
May 27th, 2008 at 8:04 pm
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
May 27th, 2008 at 8:21 pm
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.
May 27th, 2008 at 8:26 pm
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.
May 27th, 2008 at 8:37 pm
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
May 27th, 2008 at 8:38 pm
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.
May 27th, 2008 at 8:43 pm
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.
May 27th, 2008 at 8:56 pm
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
May 27th, 2008 at 9:08 pm
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
May 27th, 2008 at 9:10 pm
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
May 27th, 2008 at 9:14 pm
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
May 27th, 2008 at 9:35 pm
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
May 27th, 2008 at 9:40 pm
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.
May 27th, 2008 at 9:48 pm
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.
May 27th, 2008 at 9:53 pm
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.
May 27th, 2008 at 9:54 pm
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
May 27th, 2008 at 10:01 pm
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
May 27th, 2008 at 10:03 pm
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’?
May 27th, 2008 at 10:06 pm
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
May 27th, 2008 at 10:09 pm
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’?
May 27th, 2008 at 10:10 pm
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
May 27th, 2008 at 10:11 pm
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
May 27th, 2008 at 10:12 pm
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.
May 27th, 2008 at 10:16 pm
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
May 27th, 2008 at 10:18 pm
I’m 38.
May 27th, 2008 at 10:19 pm
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.
May 27th, 2008 at 10:20 pm
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
May 27th, 2008 at 10:22 pm
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.
May 27th, 2008 at 10:25 pm
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
May 27th, 2008 at 10:25 pm
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
May 27th, 2008 at 10:26 pm
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.
May 27th, 2008 at 10:29 pm
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.
May 27th, 2008 at 10:30 pm
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.
May 27th, 2008 at 10:31 pm
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
May 27th, 2008 at 10:33 pm
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?
May 27th, 2008 at 10:33 pm
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.
May 27th, 2008 at 10:34 pm
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
May 27th, 2008 at 10:35 pm
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.
May 27th, 2008 at 10:36 pm
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?
May 27th, 2008 at 10:37 pm
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.”
May 27th, 2008 at 10:39 pm
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.
May 27th, 2008 at 10:39 pm
Brother Bart,
Fair enough,….
May 27th, 2008 at 10:39 pm
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.
May 27th, 2008 at 10:41 pm
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.
May 27th, 2008 at 10:42 pm
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
May 27th, 2008 at 10:44 pm
James,
“Slightly affected” = “A little bit drunk”
For those people, then, at least, the first drink is a sin, right?
May 27th, 2008 at 10:45 pm
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.
May 27th, 2008 at 10:45 pm
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
May 27th, 2008 at 10:52 pm
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.
May 27th, 2008 at 10:53 pm
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
May 27th, 2008 at 10:54 pm
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.
May 27th, 2008 at 10:56 pm
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
May 27th, 2008 at 10:56 pm
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
May 27th, 2008 at 10:58 pm
Bart,
Every resource I could find for “sober” gave the word a metaphorical meaning. I don’t think they were all moderationist resources.
May 27th, 2008 at 11:00 pm
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.
May 27th, 2008 at 11:03 pm
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.
May 27th, 2008 at 11:14 pm
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.”
May 27th, 2008 at 11:16 pm
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
May 27th, 2008 at 11:26 pm
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.
May 27th, 2008 at 11:26 pm
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.
May 27th, 2008 at 11:30 pm
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.
May 27th, 2008 at 11:32 pm
OK, I’m now officially too tired to spell “belief” instead of “believe.” Must be time to close the office and drive home.
May 27th, 2008 at 11:37 pm
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.
May 27th, 2008 at 11:41 pm
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.
May 27th, 2008 at 11:54 pm
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.”
May 28th, 2008 at 1:50 am
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.
May 28th, 2008 at 5:14 am
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
May 28th, 2008 at 5:21 am
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
May 28th, 2008 at 7:01 am
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
May 28th, 2008 at 7:34 am
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
May 28th, 2008 at 7:40 am
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
May 28th, 2008 at 8:36 am
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
May 28th, 2008 at 8:37 am
Dr. Yarnell,
Your comments also seem to fall in line with the context of the Ephesians passage.
Blessings,
Chris
May 28th, 2008 at 8:38 am
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 departin