Alcohol: Abstinence = Freedom

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?

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.

Using alcohol is unwise.

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.

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 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,

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 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

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

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.

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.

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

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

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

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.

I’m 38.

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

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

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.

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.

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?

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

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?

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.”

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.

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.

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.

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.”

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 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

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

Dr. Yarnell,

Your comments also seem to fall in line with the context of the Ephesians passage.

Blessings,
Chris

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

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?

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.

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

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.

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.

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

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

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.

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.

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.

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,

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

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.

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.

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.

I am just concerned that this approach can actually damage people’s view of Scripture.

It has damaged people’s view of scripture.

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.

James,

I try not to participate in friendly-fire incidents.

Bart,

That’s the easiest way to keep from stepping on a friend’s toes.

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!

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.

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.

Chris nailed it in comment #119.

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

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

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

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

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.

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

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.

We could probably all learn from Nathan Finn’s replacement blog on this issue that it looks like has changed from his original.

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

Matt. 15:1-11

Brother Peter,

It is because I like you guys!

Your response was clever.

Blessings,
Chris

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

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 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

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.

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.

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

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

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

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

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.

Peter,

Sorry you see it that way. I thought sin was sin.

Rick

(Remember, I DO NOT drink! )

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.

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.

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”?

James,

Where do you get this from : and it is exactly this kind of wine that Jesus produces.?

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?

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

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.

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 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

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:

“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).”

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:

“it is possible to use an agent as a tool in the act of willful sinning by the inherent sinner (man).”

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

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.

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?

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.

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

Peter,

I’ll check back in later. I have some errands to run that are time-sensitive.

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,

Not to promote myself, but I think the answer lies in my post #199.

ABClay

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

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.

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

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

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

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

p.s. Sorry for the duplicate post. I’m trying to fix the formating.

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

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

ABC,

About the Smokey thing……no. No graven image. I just like Blue Tick Hounds that wear orange… it’s a beautful thing.

David

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

JohnMark,

Many people are “flys” and Johnny Walker Red is the “Venus Fly Trap” that engulfs them.

cb

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.

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

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.

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,

I concur my friend.

Blessings,
Chris

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

Peter,

I am waiting for you to expand on your original position that all substances aren’t morally neutral by showing where heroin and hemlock fall.

Are they moral or immoral in and of themselves? If immoral, how do they sin?

That is all…

Mark

John Mark,

As for you strange insistence on “waiting” for me to “expand”, I unsure what you desire for me to “expand”. In #192, I wrote: “First, who suggested an inanimate object could sin? If Tim did I missed it and I know I certainly have not.” With that in mind, how would you like me to “expand” further, John Mark?

Now if you would be so kind as to answer my question in #233: “Since both [heroin & hemlock] have different uses, John Mark, would either of them have use that you would recommend to use in you body? In moderation, of course.”

Grace. With that, I am…

Peter

Alan,

Well said.

This is a hugely emotional issue (as evidenced by the very strong un-Christlike comments presented) that is based on cultural values and tradition.

It is funny, no sad, really, to see all of these pastors, et al, manipulating scripture to prove their point. I thought this was one of the things we were NOT supposed to do!

If a newcomer/unbeliever were to stumble upon this comment thread it would be Acts 2:13 all over again! They sure wouldn’t think there was anything “Christian” going on here.

It will be interesting to see how some little tittle in your post will distract everyone from what you said and they’ll focus on that instead of the content. That seems to be par for this course.

Brother Alan,

Good thoughts…..

As I was reading,…your words jogged something I had heard from another fella. This same tendency to direct attention to “alcohol itself” was a driver in liberalism invading what are now more liberal denominations struggling to steer their own ships back to right doctrine.

Eric Adams wrote….. “Theological liberals and theological conservatives were opposed on nearly every issue. However, when it came to the prohibition of alcoholic beverages, these two factions put aside their theological differences and joined in opposing all alcoholic beverages. In other words, they considered alcohol to be a greater evil than false doctrine.

The results of this unholy alliance are notorious. During the years of Prohibition, the theological liberals were busy taking over every mainline denomination.

In 1924, the Auburn Affirmation was signed, which allowed Presbyterian ministers to deny the fundamentals of the faith, yet still retain their ordination.

Of course, theological liberals did not just appear in 1919, but they gradually infiltrated the church during the nineteenth century. While the church was consumed with warring against alcohol, the theological liberals were allowed to come in and take over the denominations.

This is the legacy of the Temperance Movement. Not only did it fail to slow or even curb alcohol abuse, but the Temperance Movement was one of the distractions that allowed false doctrines and false teachers to creep into the church.

The church was right to preach against drunkenness, but wrong to preach against alcohol. Ignorance of the Biblical teaching on alcohol contributed to downgrade of the American church.

Yet, this ignorance continues today. Prohibition and abstention are still trumpeted as the answer to the problem of drunkenness. Alcohol is blamed, rather than sinful hearts.”

Similar to what you have just said…….

Blessings,
Chris

Brother Alan,

I seriously am trying to disengage because I feel this has been argued ad naseum.

However, you have stated something that I cannot allow to pass. First, you write; The Biblical hermeneutic of our hosts and the Baptist Identity crowd is not something that I need to argue against to get them to see my side. It is a faulty hermeneutic and it exalts tradition and experience over what the Bible actually says in many cases. HOGWASH!! There has been no faulty hermeneutics espoused by any here at SBC Today and others withing the Baptist Identity crowd as you negatively portray positions long held by Baptist. Name for me anyone and any occurrence that you say is faulty hermeneutics. Your disagreement with me over Romans 14 is the only place I have seen you point concerning faulty hermeneutics. Romans 14 deals specifically with ‘eating meat’ something that is a ceremonial issue. I have said repeatedly that Romans 14 speaks about the freedom we have in Christ you said it was dealing with the weaker brother. I told you that Romans 15 was dealing with the weaker brother. You said I had faulty hermeneutics. You even went so far to say; 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. Do you realize that we break many of the ceremonial laws established in the Old Testament, then?

What really cuts my heart coming from you is this statement; I have still seen no Biblical evidence that tells me that I must proclaim from the pulpit that anyone who drinks one glass of wine has sinned. No one has told you, or is telling you, what you have to preach from your pulpit to be Baptist. Yet you seem to be advocating that if I do not see this issue like you, then I am betraying the very term I hold dear, “Baptist”, but not as dear as I hold “Christian”. Here is my proposal. I will agree to disagree with you. However, I will maintain my position that I believe Biblical evidence is on my side that to drink 21st century wine, beer, champagne, or liquor is as sin. (Leviticus 10:9 ; Proverbs 20:1). You, on the other hand, give me scripture reference that openly states it is okay to drink as long as it is in moderation. I have given you specific verses that says, “do not”; you give me specific verses that says do drink.

One other thing. I will issue a challenge to you. This Sunday Morning you preach a sermon and express your belief that it is okay for people to drink as long as they do so responsibly. I, on the other hand will preach a sermon expressing abstinence and how God’s Word specifically forbids the drinking of 21st century alcohol as a social beverage. You will never hear me say a word about what you preached in that sermon.

Blessings,
Tim

Brother Chris,

You may remember that a preacher once said; ‘Moderation is not the cure for the alcohol problem in America, it is the cause of the problem’. That preacher was none other than the late Dr. Adrian Rogers.

I guess what is amazing to me is the comments are coming like this is something new. The SBC has always been on record as being a convention of abstainers. We have always arrived at that position from Scripture. Please go back to my comment #189 and click on those links and review the resolutions. Also, you can go to sbc.net and click on “Resolutions” in the left hand column. Use the search feature and type in the word ‘alcohol’. That will give you all of the resolutions the SBC has passed on this matter and it goes back to 1981. I am certain there are other resolutions, but they are under a different subject.

While the liberals and conservatives do drop theological differences when it comes to this debate, should that not tell you something about who we are as Baptist?

Blessings,
Tim

I believe that if the guys on this thread who have exegetical capabilities simply give an honest effort of a proper examination of passages such as Luke 21: 34-36 they would have to agree that an application for our contemporary culture from that text and others like it would mandate us all saying to use beverage alcohol is unwise and less than our best in this present distress.

Therefore, if I willfully unwise and give Jesus less than my best in faithfulness, submission and self-sacrifice is it not sin?

cb

Dave,

Vol is simply using sarcasm to make a point. Jesus, Elijah, and Paul did the same.

Yet, I do not remember you asking anyone who has called us Catholics, Pharisees and other things if they were honoring Christ. Also, we are accused of not believing the Scripture and various other things.

You may have called someone’s hand for this and if so I apologize, but Vol has seen the end result of the use of beverage alcohol and he is like me in wondering how anyone can advocate its use among Christ-Followers. It is rather frustrating. Would you not agree?

cb

Alan et alThanks for your wrap-up.  I also thank you for the Scriptures you brought up that, while may not have been brought up on this thread, I assure they are by no means out of scope of those of us who have argued for abstentionism.  And, I appreciate your "trying to get people like Bart Barber,
Tim Rogers, Robin Foster, Peter Lumpkins, and others to see [your]
viewpoint when we differ with one another…" Honestly–and I’ll keep myself as a ‘firebrand’ out of it–I am unsure Barber, Rogers or Foster should not also be included in "trying to get people…like you, Wade, Ben and others to see [their]
viewpoint when we differ with one another. I also am grateful, Alan, that you "are not an advocate for the consumption of
alcohol…" and I can wholheartedly agree with you that there are "are many common sense reasons to try and
dissuade people from using alcohol. The abstinence position is a good
position to take."  I think we can stand in unity here.Nonetheless, my brother, whatever unity we may have felt in the former quickly dissolves in the heat of some of the other glaring statements which just may illustrate the absolute polarities that exist over this issue.  From your perspective, the abstentionist position:

is not Biblically defensible, despite the gymnastics that many have engaged in

The Biblical hermeneutic of
our hosts and the Baptist Identity crowd…is a faulty hermeneutic
and it exalts tradition and experience over what the Bible actually
says in many cases

[makes Scripture] say what it does not say because [your]
tradition tells us so

cannot present a Biblical argument that is
comprehensive or that adequately deals with the places where wine is
used in a positive or neutral way

makes no sense compared to the divine, inerrant
revelation of Scripture

add[s] to Scripture because
it seems best or safer to [you]

I think that polarizes us quite nicely.  You got the elegant gold and abstentionists got the empty box.  I can see clearly how it’s us that really are stubborn in this matter.

As for the ‘flawed hermeneutic’ Alan, I’d love sometime just to tease that out on other terrain.  I noticed Colin did a ‘check-mate’ on a few posters here one of which was you.  I would be hesitate to claim victory so quickly there, my friend.

In addition, I got a grin out of the assertion that abstentionism does not "present a Biblical argument that is
comprehensive" which deals this issue.  I am hesitant to pitch change in a clanging bucket, but I don’t know of any other Baptist blogger who’s posted on this as much as I.  Granted they may not be good posts.  They may hermeneutically flawed.  I concede that.  But, all in all, I think they stood some pretty rugged questioning.

Nor is abstentionsim fearful of your strange suggestion that it somehow cannot or does not deal with the passages where wine is positively viewed.  What it does not offer, Alan, is the  suggestion that God encouraged His people to be grateful for,

"something in the wine that made
people happy. Could it be alcohol?… Yes, I do believe that alcohol was
present here to gladden the heart of men. The wine had an effect on the
person to gladden his heart and that was not seen as a bad thing in and
of itself."

You appear to accept that there’s no other explanation than God gave them alcoholic beverages to drink because it "made people happy." Is that what alcohol does, Alan, "make people happy"?  Is that the reason for the gratitude to God was because alcohol "made [them] happy"?  I am sorry, Brother.  Talking about a flawed hermeneutic.  I think I’ll keep mine, thank you very much.

The abstentionist has no problem with this phenomenon of the "good wine" for which the Hebrews were to be grateful.  But it was not "something in the wine that made
people happy" and that something was "alcohol." The text does not suggest such or even hint at it. 

Rather, it was the <i>wine itself</i> that made glad the people’s hearts.  And why would it not?  They were a people that could not survive without the grape.  It was a mainstay for them, a staple in their livelihood. But to thank God for the alcohol that was a byproduct of decay?  Why would anyone think this?  It would make just as much sense for them to thank God for moldy bread as it would to thank God for decayed wine.  Both are a form of deterioration.  Both are forms of fermentation.  So that’s a flawed hermeneutic? 

I tell you what, Brother:  you can teach your version all you desire about "something in the wine that made
people happy" and that something was "alcohol."

Again, Alan you cite Isaiah 55.1 and conclude "If wine is evil in and of itself,
then why is it being used in a comparison to the gospel?" 

From this statement, you do not understand the abstentionist’s position, at least as far as I am aware.  You’re holding a premise the abstentionist rejects.  That is, there exists more than one kind of wine in the Bible.  From the OT we learn that "wine" which occurs, I think 944+ times in the English  Bible is actually the translation of over 20 Hebrew words. 

And, whether the passages is referring to the raw grape, the vine, the crushed grapes, the freshly stored wine or the fermented wine, inevitably it’s all translated "wine."  This wreaks confusion for us.   

Finally, Alan, you write "lest anyone say that this wine had no alcoholic content to make
anyone drunk…"  To my knowledge, no abstentionist believes this. 

The first mention of wine in the Bible concerns drunkenness.  Who is saying wine could not make anyone drunk?  My guess is you’ve once again assumed the wrong premise for abstentionists.  Abstentionists only argue that not all wines in the Bible were fermented.  That’s it. 

Abstentionists believe that unless contextual indicators demand the wine be viewed as alcoholic in nature, there is no reason to assume it is alcoholic in nature for the simple reason that many types of wine existed. So, if that is a flawed hermeneutic, so be it. 

I want to say in closing that even though many of us who are dubbed "Baptist Identity" agree on lots of matters, it is both wrong-headed and entirely unfair to lump them together as if their is no individual identity among us. 

Nor are we all fire-breathing abstentionists.  I feel sure some of the hosts at SBCToday would take issue with some of the positions I’ve considered on abstentionism after reading a lot in the Temperance scholars era.  I say that to say this:  when I write, it’s my words I have to defend and I do not expect them to bail me out.  I feel sure they feel the same way.

I am sorry for the polarity.  It’s there, however.  And, it cannot be dismissed.  What we do about it only our Lord knows.

Grace, all.  With that, I am…

Peter

CB,
I presume, based on your comments about guns, martial arts etc that you are like me….a gun nut. Now, I subscribe to the statement that guns don’t kill people, people kill people. Can we agree on that? Common sense tells us not to play with guns as somebody can quickly get hurt or killed. Common sense as well will tell us that we don’t use alcohol, asprin or fried chicken to excess. Yet we still use the latter 2 items to excess and believe me when I say that good fried chicken carries far more addictive qualities for me than does alcohol…..I would even venture that Ol’ Hill William is addicted to fried chicken much to his health detriment. So the way it appears at this point is you and other abstentionists “choose” which parts of Scripture to emphaize and when the shoe is on your foot, you “choose” to rationalize that very same shoe away. Does it not appear that way?

Jake,

I think You might think differently if you read everything I have said in even this post relating to my position.

My position is that to use beverage alcohol is unwise. Eating too much is unwise. Taking too many pain pills of any type is unwise.

To be unwise is sin and foolishness for a Believer. My testimony is that I have been unwise in many things. In my being unwise I have sinned, because I have done less than my best for He who has given me His very best.

Jake, I think I have been consistent in my position. If you show me where I have not been consistent I will correct the error of my statement and apologize to you for misleading you by being ignorant of what I was saying.

Simple interpretation= If I have been stupid, I will make it right with you because it is my desire to be as plain in my position here so you will not misunderstand me.

Now, if you have not read what I have said and yet you draw down on me….well, maybe it is you who should……

BTW, Jake, I am not a gun “nut.” Nuts should not have guns. Nuts with guns kill the wrong people and give political “nuts” ammo in their efforts to take away my “ammo” if you know what I mean.

cb

Peter,

I am intrigued by the discussion about immoral matter and material. It originated with Brother Chris Johnson in post 188 which was directed toward our moderator Brother Tim.

In an effort to provide some insight and possible correction, you entered the conversation and you said in post 192 “That does not mean, however, that all substances are morally neutral.” This would imply to me that you believe that all substances are not morally neutral. Then you go on to argue that point in the same post.

JohnMark came and said (#219) “I’m am not sure how matter or material in and of itself can be either moral or immoral.” You did not answer this, perhaps because it was not addressed to you specifically in his post.

Now just for clarification, do you believe that some matter or materials by themselves are either moral or immoral?

Grace and Peace…

ABClay

Tim,

Thank you for the liberty that you gave me to follow my conscience on the way that I see Scripture handling this. That was not something that I received from the first over 100 comments that I engaged in.

I was not just criticizing your hermeneutic on this Romans 14. I was criticizing it on this entire issue. It is my opinion that you are wrong. But, that is the nature of disagreement, isn’t it? No harm intended.

David,

I don’t even know how to respond to you. You clearly did not understand my post. You can believe what you want. I really don’t care. Yes, I think that you are wrong. Yes, I think that your hermeneutic is flawed. Yes, I think that you are adding to Scripture and are relying upon tradition to guide you rather than what the Word clearly teaches. That is my opinion after two days of this. But, as Tim told me, you have every right to your opinions as well. You also have every right to get every entity of the SBC to pass policies that prohibit alcohol consumption by every employee. You won’t hear me complain because there are many common sense reasons to do so. Just don’t try and say that drinking a glass of wine is a SIN without me asking you to back it up with a Scriptural argument that does not include drunkeness.

David, I am not trying to be funny here, but there are times with your comments that I really don’t understand where you are coming from. No one is trying to bully you, David, or call you any names. We are trying to have a debate and in debate people disagree.

Based on the peerless logic abounding in this thread, particularly the view that there is no such thing as ‘moderately drunk’, I hereby urge all to discontinue accessing the Internet.

My reasons are similar to those advanced against the use of alcohol:

Don’t you realise that the medium of the Internet is a dark world inhabited by perverts, child abusers, pornographers and thieves?!!!

Don’t you realise that you can become sucked into pornography?!!

Don’t you realise that you can start online relationships via this medium?

Don’t you realise that you can develop an addiction to blogging, and waste precious time at work [how many of you are reading and writing on this thread from work?], or precious family time?!!

Don’t you realise that many people’s lives are destroyed through the internet and all the temptations there are here?

Before you start reaching for excuses about how little you actually blog, let me remind you that this is how it all starts.

It starts with an innocent look at SBC Today, then it extends to reading the comments. Next you are commenting, and staying up late checking replies to your wisdom. Then you start getting up early, and then you check during the day.

Before you know it you are hooked. You are clicking on people’s profiles, reading their blogs, and you NEVER know what you might find there!

Before long you are snared! You could lose your marriage, your children, your ministry, your very innocence!

I hereby call upon the SBC to add to their prohibition on alcohol a ban on Internet use in solidarity with those in our community, even our very families who have become ensnared in pornography, online affairs, gambling and all other manner of addictions!

Please, please don’t fool yourself that just a little bit of moderate use of the Internet is ok. It’s not, there’s no such thing as a moderate amount of dancing with the devil’s highway!

Now log off before you become trapped. Call your ISP, cancel your account and send the money to a compassion child in a Third World country instead.

[...] Let’s see. Where do I start? [...]

May I say THANK YOU to the guys at this site for a great discussion and debate! You guys have hit a homerun with this one!

Now for my take – how in the world have we come to a place where christians (and Pastors at that) would argue for it being Biblically acceptable to drink alcohol?

Just think about it without your desires and likes. it makes no sense at all!

Steve Austin, You Ole “Wolf Rocker”

You must be an able man with the Kentucky Long Rifle, no doubt.

cb

IT HAD TO HAPPEN>>my SPAM WORD IS….
TEMPERANCE!!! Its definitely a sign
Steve

Of course I believe they are inanimate … and yes.. sometimes the purpose behind a human creation may be immoral (Hitler was working on an atomic bomb before the USA was)… and sometimes we can find good uses for these immoral things. And sometimes in God’s providence He permits these things for our overall good.
However to say that something created by man does not in some way bear the sinfulness of the human creator is obviously wrong.. we owned a Dodge Neon!
Steve

Yes Colin, you’ve missed out the one quoted to me:

One night I may have a Bud light, get in my car, and kill the family of other bloggers here. Not sure where you would categorise that one.

Perhaps you can create a ‘Hysteria’ category and place many of the arguments in that?

The other argument of course forms the pivot on which Tim reasons: the Majority Argument. That being, where a majority of people all share the same personal conviction, that triggers a clause where it transcends the personal, and becomes a corporate law.

Not sure about that category either. Just make it up.

Colin (comment #283), you might want to include my contextual/stewardship argument (comment #98). I’ll try to summarize it:

1. In a context and time where potable water is/was unavailable to most people, it is/was good stewardship for most people to drink slightly alcoholic beverages to avoid waterborne diseases (1 Timothy 5:23).

2. In a context and time where potable water is available to all people, it is good stewardship for all people not to drink alcoholic beverages, especially in a context where split-second decisions or other important decisions must be made correctly in order to avoid tragedy (Proverbs 31:4-5).

Brother cb,

I am glad you engaged Steve on the “gun” conversation. One of our members is a gun enthusiast (he used to be a specialist in the Armed Forces). I think he has about 31 weapons and he took my family out for a “shoot” (ha) on Memorial Day. My wife really enjoyed shooting the .22’s and .357’s. The Magnum shot out a two foot flame…. (small load) One of the men at the range made a comment that the group was probably the best safety minded group he had seen on the range.

I had a great time shooting an AR15 (wow). It makes my .30-06 not so much fun anymore. Unfortunately, I tore up one of Daryl’s targets (shot the fingers off of the welded connections at 100 yards / ..bought him a Chili’s burger later). Believe me if those guns were morally intelligent or didn’t like being stored on the wrong side of the bed,…I am sure glad they chose to view me with mercy that day.

My wife liked it too much though…..

Blessings,
Chris

[...] Alcohol: Abstinence = Freedom (SBCToday) – 285 2.  Wine, the Bible, and the Believer (SBCTomorrow) – 83 3.  If Moderationists [...]

Brother Tim,

When I mentioned one of the tragedy’s of the “Temperance Movement”,..the reason was not to impune the SBC for raising concern that society abuses certain things whether is be alchohol, the family, etc. I was really just trying to interject that as Liberals and Conservatives come together on issues such as this…it makes for a prime opportunity to take ones attention off of the primary commission of our Lord.

I will always warn my children and others, as scripture amply supplies, to the devastation of drunkenness and opposed to drunkenness is a heart that is concerned with the greatest commission and one that is committed to “not” be drunk on wine, sex, sports, music, television, food, etc….. A great commission heart is one that is drunk on the Spirit of God, who provides all good things to His adopted children.

Ephesians 5:17-18 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,

Our understanding comes from the Spirit of God. He is able to teach us when we are drunk and when we are not or He would not have informed us that He could.

I have always appealed to the lack of ambiguity in that statement. You either are, or you are not….. May we always be drunk (controlled) by the Spirit of God for the work of the commission.

Blessings,
Chris

From a thread akin to the Four Views publications on church polity, we have distinguished these arguments thus far:

1. Drinking alcohol is sinful (wisdom argument).

a. Drinking wine or strong drink is unwise (Prov 20:1)
b. Being unwise is sinful (Mk 7:21-23; Mt 10:16; Rom 16:19)
c. Therefore, drinking wine or strong drink is sinful

2. Drinking alcohol is sinful (strong drink argument).

a. Drinking wine today is equivalent to strong drink in the Bible
b. Strong drink is “deceptive and sinful in the Bible” (Lev 10:8-9; Prov 20:1; 31:4-5)* (*from Geisler)
c. Drinking modern wine (and modern alcoholic beverages) is sinful

3. Drinking alcohol is not good stewardship in the modern times.

a. In a context and time where potable water is/was unavailable to most people, it is/was good stewardship for most people to drink slightly alcoholic beverages to avoid waterborne diseases (1 Timothy 5:23)

b. In a context and time where potable water is available to all people, it is good stewardship for all people not to drink alcoholic beverages, especially in a context where split-second decisions or other important decisions must be made correctly in order to avoid tragedy (Proverbs 31:4-5)

4. Drinking alcohol in moderation is permitted but unwise.

a. Since the Bible does not explicitly prohibit drinking while drunkeness is forbidden, drinking in moderation cannot be sinful
b. However, drinking wine or strong drink is unwise (Prov 20:1)

5. Drinking alcohol in moderation is permitted and wise (or perhaps morally neutral?).

a. As long as you do not make a brother stumble (Rom 14)
b. Only drunkenness is forbidden (Prov 23:20; Rom 13:13; 1 Cor 5:11; Eph 5:18)
c. Drinking alcohol in moderation is not unwise and should be celebrated.

Alan,

I understand completely that you dont agree with me and some others. That’s ok.

Also, we do believe that the Bible is clearly against getting high on alcohol, or buzzed, or drunk. We do believe that it’s wrong…from the Bible’s teachings… to drink strong drink, which is what is offered today in our modern world. Thus, we see it as important that the SBC stand on this issue in a very real, clear way.

Also, did any of you watch NBC Today Show this morning. They showed that just one drink makes many, many women more drunk than they realize. In fact, anything over a 5 oz glass of wine was said to make a lot of women buzzed, or drunk on fermented wine. And, the lady Dr. on the show made some strong statements about women not using alcohol if they there was any chance of getting pregnant whatsoever.

When we do things that the Lord calls foolish, like drinking alcohol according to Proverbs 20 and 23, then we invite much, much trouble and heartache into our life.

David

let me first say I have no problem with the Abstentionism argument

The prohibitionist argument seems extra Biblical to meI do not mean that ugly we all are inconsistent sometimes.

emotional arguments are not helpful to me because all sins cause death and hurt children lead to hell and separation from Christ.

So lust, glutton, coveting have all killed stolen and destroyed husbands wives children men and women.

The text in Deut 14 and the fact that strong drink was acceptable to God as an offering Num 28:7 I do not feel has been addressed very carefully. Alan brought it up in a helpful way

Regardless of how one feels the important question is what does God think.

Though I also do wonder how this subject would have been discussed two hundred years ago. What has the Church done through out history? I even have heard that some of our seminaries when first built had wine cellers

As the Pilgrims set out for America, they brought a considerable amount of alcohol with them for the voyage (more than 28,617 liters = 7,560 gallons),[129] and once settled, they served alcohol at “virtually all functions, including ordinations, funerals, and regular Sabbath meals.”[130] M. E. Lender summarizes that “[t]he colonists had assimilated alcohol use, based on Old World patterns, into their community lifestyles” and that “[l]ocal brewing began almost as soon as the colonists were safely ashore.”[131] Increase Mather (died 1723), prominent colonial clergyman and erstwhile president of Harvard, expressed the common view thusly in a sermon against drunkenness: “Drink is in itself a good creature of God, and to be received with thankfulness, but the abuse of drink is from Satan; the wine is from God, but the drunkard is from the Devil.”[132] This Old World attitude is likewise found among the early Methodists (John and Charles Wesley, George Whitefield, Adam Clarke,[133] Thomas Coke, and Francis Asbury) and Baptists (for instance, John Gill and John Bunyan). Wikipedia

Temperance movement

Women’s Christian Temperance Union, was so successful in achieving its goals that Catherine Booth could observe in 1879 that in America “almost every [Protestant] Christian minister has become an abstainer.”[143 ibid

Blame it on the women lol I am just kidding

However when the host of Christian and even Baptist history have not been prohibitionist only the last say 100 years. The Bible does speak negatively about drunkenness and the miss use of the object. It does not speak ill of the proper even Holy use of strong drink.

This argument is like so many others

Soteriology ( how we get saved)
Gifts
Cessationism
Womens roles in the chruch ( Not ordination that is settled)
Worship styles
Elders
Ecclesiology

I took Dr. Bill J. Leonard class on Baptist history as an undergrad at Samford I read some of his book on the fragmentation of the SBC While I disagree with him on many of his convictions and I am a conservative I hope we do not make him out to be a prophet

Baptist ID is so very important
Can we disagree on these types of issues and still be together for the Gospel and the Glory of God doing missions and fellowshipping together in the unchanging truth of the Gospel of Jesus Christ

I hope so

I hope we become passionate about the Gospel and not these issues. I am in no way saying they are unimportant I think there is a real answer.

But it is not the Gospel nor is it even on the horizon of importance compared to the job that is ahead of us as the Gospel is slipping away form our Churches.

It is good to have a place to debate and press one another but this is not of Gospel or fellowship importance.

Soli Deo Gloria
Rev. Alan Hughes

Alan Hughes,

Why is it that “you” and others of your persuasion always say “we” need to be passionate about the gospel?

Why do you insist that we are not? How do you determine that “we” are in such great need of this particular counsel?

Do you think it has anything to do with your being judgmental toward us because we take the stand we do?

It always seems that you and others like you always bring forth this little “gospel is slipping away” card when you run out of things to make a point in your favor?

That always amazes me. It has been used for years in the past and will continue to be used in the future.

BTW, what year did you make the: “I am a conservative” decision? Was it while you were in Bill Leonard’s class or afterward when all the smoke cleared and it was easy for people to call themselves conservative?

Now, don’t get all heated up, Alan. I was just wondering. Because if you were a conservative in Bill’s class you would certainly have a few stories to tell about being in constant conflict with his positions in class, would you not?

cb

The use of beverage alcohol is unwise.

cb

David Volfan,

You have named me in several comments on this blog and on Barebones. (are there others as well?) Did you consciously choose to ignore my comment #251 on this blog? I think you were way over the top with the name calling. I forgive you.

To all:

So that there is no misunderstanding of my position:
1> I do not drink.
2> I do not think the Bible forbids taking a drink.
3> I think the Bible condemns drunkenness.
4> I think the use of alcohol as a beverage is unwise. (CB verbiage)
5> I think that taking a drink of wine does not equate to a sin.
6> I think that we are consumed with this debate because it is a very emotional issue for all of us.
7> I think that we cannot let our emotions and cultural traditions dictate how we interpret Scripture.

I’m honestly sorry if I have offended anyone. I will try to be less emotionally engaged on issues that don’t deal with salvation.

When I was with the IMB in West Africa, I was the victim of several violent crimes involving both drunken soldiers and AK-47’s. As the crime victim, I consider neither the alcohol the soldiers drank nor the AK-47’s they used to rob me with to be immoral; it was the choice the soldiers made to drink the alcohol and use the machine guns that I consider to be immoral. If neither one were touched on those days, I wouldn’t have PTSD to deal with. However, it was the soldiers’ decision to touch those items that made the situations intolerable.

It would be VERY easy for me to say “that to drink alcohol is a sin” especially from my family history and my personal experiences. I just don’t see the Bible saying that though.

However, I do see it as unwise.

Getting drunk is a sin.
So is porn.
So is gossip.
So is lying.
So is adultery.
So is being full of pride.
So is _____________________.

I know it is seemingly impossible to disengage ourselves from our emotions and to look at the Bible objectively, but I think that is what needs to be done.

I certainly don’t condone drinking. But, I’m not going to add to the law by saying that not taking a drink is a rule that you must obey in order to be holy, especially since the covenant we now live under is called grace.

Drunkenness is a serious, serious problem. You’ll get no argument from me about that! And yes, you can’t get drunk unless you take the first sip. I’m not a dope; I do realize that. For me personally, that is why I choose not to drink, because I think I wouldn’t be able to exercise self-control. I don’t approve of people drinking and “driving while intoxicated” should have stiffer penalties. You can lump me into what ever category you want; I honestly don’t care. But we had darn sure better be able to agree to disagree on this.

We are servants of the Most High God, for crying out loud. We’re beginning to act like we’ve never heard of Him.

(Now, if you take a look at I Tim 5:23, it says “‘USE’ a little wine….” Does that mean if we refuse to “USE a little wine”, that we are sinning, directly refusing to obey Scripture? Now there’s a point to ponder! )

Rick, take a look at the entire verse (1 Timothy 5:23):

“No longer drink water exclusively, but use a little wine for the sake of your stomach and your frequent ailments.”

I don’t think that verse applies in our American context. See my comment #98. I’m glad to know you were with the IMB. I was an IMB missionary to South Korea for 10 years.

Peter,

Thank you for you presentation on gluttony. You did well. You are always will to go to the extent of explanation of which some of us will not. I guess that is because we just want to fight it out without proper explanation.

But, I do want you to know that now, because I know that you actually know what gluttony is; If you ever call me one, I intend to shoot you in the leg.

Of course, that will be with one of these other guy’s rifles they have mentioned in this thread. I don’t want to waste my bullets.

cb

I concur with CB…

The use of beverage alcohol is unwise!

*There I said it. I agreed with a Sabanite.*

SOLA GRATIA!

The TODAY SHOW has done a piece on the moderate use of alcohol. I have posted the video on my blog.

Come over and listen to “secular TV personalities” make more sense about the use of beverage alcohol than many Southern Baptist pastors.

Dylan was right; THE TIMES, THEY ARE A CHANGIN”

I especially invite JasonK, Gordon, Bill, Rick B, Jake B and Alan Hughes to come over. All I ask you to do is listen and watch. That won’t cost you a dime or a drink, now willit?

cb

CB I still have your Card from the Building Bridges conference when we listened to Tim interviewed Dr Stetzer. You where very kind. I do think blogs are always helpful because you can not see each other. I know you are a good guy and I would love to have lunch with you as we talked about. I know you love the Lord and I am sure you preach the Gospel. However, it is no card that I am pulling there are a host of Churches here not so much in your town that do not preach the gospel clearly. I just interviewed 3 family ministerial candidates two of which had gone to a Baptist College. I asked them to tell me how one is saved only 1 (the one who did not go to a Baptist University) told me repentance to and faith in Christ.

I went to Samford after Bill had “left” Southern I took Southerns catalog and enrollment package to class and told him about how I want to go there. I told him about having dinner with Dr. Mohler. Dr. Leonard was kind and good humored about it all. He is a good historian and a great communicator. I disagree with him on theology and many other issues but I should not have done what I did.

However, I never did get to Southern I fell in love and married my wife.

Thank you all
Have fun
Alan

Alan, You are right about some churches here not preaching the gospel.

Also, I am sure Bill Leonard gave as good as he got. He was and probably still is a rough opponent in a debate.

I do remember you now, but you are not the Alan Hughes I envisioned from your comment. Were you named for an older uncle?

cb

Gordon,

you are way off base in your comment. You are wrong. We abstentionists are not Pharisees, and we are not trying to return salvation back under the law. Good gracious, man…can you be more inflammatory than that? Can someone punch a Brother more in the face than with a statement like that? It’s not about salvation…it’s about being wrong to drink alcohol.

And, Gordon, you are quite correct in saying that if we put all the bloggers lives under a microscope that we’d find plenty of ways that we’re all damaging our bodies….and, you’d also find weak, sinful, human beings who fail the Lord…who fail to live completely for God. Aint grace wonderful? But, grace does not excuse sinful conduct. Grace does not mean that we can just live any ole way we want to. Jesus is Lord, and someone who truly knows the grace of God will want to please His Lord. Amen? And, the Lord will teach His children to also not live foolishly….to be wise. Amen?

And, Gordon, I’m not a Pharisee, and I dont really like being called one. Neither does CB.

And, Gordon, the world is heading for destruction. But, can we not preach the Gospel and discuss issues that concern us? Can we not preach the Gospel and exhort people to live holy before a holy God?

David