Legalism

[paul wassona]

I can have one drink without feeling buzzed and I haven't had a drink in a long time. But last time I had one, it had been years since I had had another one so it's not like I had built up any sort of tolerance. But one drink is all I had, one drink did not cause a buzz and one drink is all I wanted. I knew more would cause an issue and I don't want to get there.

But from reading the Scriptures, a "buzz" is not drunkenness. I felt a buzz once and it certainly didn't cause me to sin, to act wrongly, or do anything to me other than give me the same feeling as when my blood sugar gets low. Drunkenness in Scripture is pretty clear what it does and that's not a buzz.

I confess, I drank two glasses of champagne on a cruise. The first did sort of give me the "buzz" you talk about, but the second made me feel real bad. I drank before I got saved and had NO business doing that. I thank the Lord for that "BAD" feeling from the alcohol.

Just how much alcohol ingested for social purposes constitutes a drunk? Seems not much

 

[paul wassona]

I agree with you, and I've never touched the stuff myself. This might sound like splitting hairs, but my issue is when people make statements that aren't directly from scripture and then tout them as scriptural. For instance, saying "drinking is a sin and God tells us not to do it," when God didn't say NOT to drink.

The Bible DOES tell us not to "be drunk with wine, wherein is excess...." but it doesn't tell us not to drink. It may be that the alcohol content of wine in Christ's time was different than what we have today, I don't know as I wasn't around back then.

As you pointed out, most folks have no idea the amount it would take for them to get drunk, so for me, common logic says not to touch it because I COULD get drunk and that would be sin.

I hope I'm making sense here. I just think that we need to make sure we're not adding our opinions to God's word and making them fact. That's what Eve did in the garden of Eden and the Devil used it as a springboard to convince her to sin.

Much is taught in principle throughout the word of God and it shouldn't have to be spelled out.

Boy, how quick one can get caught up in these discussions. I just now ralized how many posts I have responded to and maybe could have done it in just one. Sorry.

 

[DHK]

Absolutely, and I understand what you're saying.

But, if not drinking in excess really means not drinking at all, then what do we do with the fact that Christ turned water to wine, etc.? It would seem if he didn't want anyone to touch it at all, he wouldn't have made it his first miracle.

That's why I said we need to weigh all of the scriptures instead of just pulling out one and making our whole case rest on it.

Here is what I believe concerning that miracle.
Every word is defined first and foremost by the context in which it is written. Obviously when Noah got drunk he drank fermented wine.

The Hebrew word for wine is yayin and the Greek word is oinos. In the KJV it was translated wine, which 400 years ago had a neutral meaning as well--that is: either fermented or unfermented wine. It could mean either one. Thus only context can determine whether the word "wine" means grape juice (unfermented wine), or fermented wine.

It is very much like our word "cider" today. I do not drink. But I do travel. Here, at Second Cup, I can order Cider, a hot apple drink that tastes very good. When traveling through Germany once, I was about to order a Cider drink, and then stopped realizing that it was an alcoholic beverage. Not ever drinking at all, it could have had quite an effect on me.
The word "wine" is used the same as our word "cider" is--fermented or unfermented.

I don't believe Jesus would have made fermented wine. He made grape juice. He made that which is perfect, not that which Solomon describes "

Proverbs 23:31-32 Look not thou upon the wine when it is red, when it giveth his colour in the cup, when it moveth itself aright. At the last it biteth like a serpent, and stingeth like an adder.
--He is describing the fermentation process at that time--a process of degeneration.
Christ took water and made something wonderful, something so good that the people had never tasted before. The wine (grape juice) was perfect. Jesus does all things perfect. No one could have created any drink that was any better, including the best of any fermented drink. The guests would not have known the difference even if they were serving fermented wine.

Other reasons:
Jesus would not create something that would cause others to sin: giving drink to a drunkard, causing him to go over his limit.
He would not put a stumbling block in front of others.
He simply would not be the occasion of sin.

 

[paul wassona]

Yes, DHK, that is the way I have understood it for years and years. Thank you.

 

[annsni]

I confess, I drank two glasses of champagne on a cruise. The first did sort of give me the "buzz" you talk about, but the second made me feel real bad. I drank before I got saved and had NO business doing that. I thank the Lord for that "BAD" feeling from the alcohol.

Just how much alcohol ingested for social purposes constitutes a drunk? Seems not much

Well, I don't know of too many people who can drink champagne without feeling "bad". LOL I'll take a sip at a wedding for the toast but that's it. I'd rather have ginger ale.

How much alcohol ingested for social purposes constitutes drunk? It will depend on the alcohol and it will depend on the person. But when you feel that small slight "buzz" it's time to stop. I think that is from God to help us to know. Personally back when I DID drink, I wouldn't even go there. So it was usually a glass of wine with dinner or a scotch or margharita at another time (yes, scotch - I come from a good Irish family and I had sips from when I was a baby so I like the taste). I still would LOVE to have a glass here and there but for the ministry, I've chosen to not partake. SNIFF I'm not good at giving up things so this is big for me.

 

[annsni]

In the context of the wedding miracle, I will strongly disagree that we're talking about grape juice as will most commentators. But this thread is kind of going off track I think.

 

[Mexdeaf]

pride in the word of God being true and every man a liar is not foolish pride.

Maybe you'd be better off not sitting in the seat of piousness and judgment?

I'll ignore the slam.

Pride in your personal interpretation of God's Word IS sin. That was the Pharisee's stumbling block with Jesus. His interpretation was on a higher plane than their man made one.

 

[donnA]

In the context of the wedding miracle, I will strongly disagree that we're talking about grape juice as will most commentators. But this thread is kind of going off track I think.

Haven't gone back and read the last 5 or 6 pages, so picking up on this page,
I do beleive your right, in context with the entire story, the water into wine was, in context, wine.

 

[paul wassona]

I'll ignore the slam.

Pride in your personal interpretation of God's Word IS sin. That was the Pharisee's stumbling block with Jesus. His interpretation was on a higher plane than their man made one.

If you're going to accuse people of sin produce your evidence. I have no interpretaion of scripture that isn't contextual and doctrinally sound. You seem to hold to a form of legalism that pharisees posessed and Jesus openly condemned. Legalists don't only add works to grace for salvation, but they too add burdens to people they could not ever bare. Go dwell around the Cross awhile after you come down from your man-made pedestal.

 

[Johnv]

Ok, so common sense just isn't one of your stronger practices.

If it's your claim that consumption of alcohol is, in and of itslelf, a sin, then the lack of common sense is yours and yours alone. Common sense dictates that simply consuming alcohol is not a sin, but that drunkenness is a sin. This is not only common sense, it is 100% scripturally consistent.

...any amount of alcohol ingested for any other purposes makes one a drunkard....

Yet another example where your common sense is lacking. Consuming alcohol does not make you a drunkard. Getting drunk makes you a drunkard. For your point to be consistent, you would also have to say that any amount of food ingested for any other purpose than nutrition makes you a glutton.

... I'm not a legalist...

The fact that you would make a statement like "any amount of alcohol ingested for any other purposes makes one a drunkard" dictates that you are a legalist.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

If it's your claim that consumption of alcohol is, in and of itslelf, a sin, then the lack of common sense is yours and yours alone. Common sense dictates that simply consuming alcohol is not a sin, but that drunkenness is a sin. This is not only common sense, it is 100% scripturally consistent.

John you're coming at this from the wrong direction. Leave out common sense. What does scripture say about alcohol? Paul tells Timothy to take some to settle his stomach. Jesus Turned water (cleaning water at that) into wine. Scriptures at no points says alcohol of itself is bad. It does speak against over indulgence, or getting to the point of watching it sparkle in the cup in a mezmorizing fashion because you love to get drunk. Scriptures indicate that lack of moderation when drinking is a sin. Look at a real issue. Food offered to idols. Paul does not prohibit eating food offered to Idols save only to those who "believe" it to be a sin. So the scriptures are pretty clear about the comsumption of alchohol. If you have an addictive tendency then alchohol for you is a sin. If not be moderate.

 

[tinytim]

OK.. as much as I have tried to stay away these last few days because of the legalist attitudes of the many BB members... and my tendancy to want to contend for the faith that was handed down from the apostles until now...

I Can't stand by and allow the legalists to take over this board!

YES... Legalists.

I have read the definition that legalists have given to justify themselves, so that they can continue to wallow in their legalism, so that they can feel superior to the rest of us.. and let me say..

That is only ONE definition of "legalism."

I did a novel thing, and actually looked up the word in a dictionary... a NON bias dictionary... One that has been respected....

Merriam-Webster.. Want to see what this respected authority has to say about it? And notice the date of the definition... 1928... So it is not something the legalist IFBs have made up within the last 40 yrs to support their Christian snob attitude.....

Ready? Are you sure you are ready to find out that your definition is not only the ONLY definition, but that how the legalists are defining legalism doesn't even show up as a possible definition!...

OK, here it is...

legalism

One entry found.

Main Entry: le·gal·ism
Pronunciation: \ˈlē-gə-ˌli-zəm\
Function: noun
Date: 1928
1 : strict, literal, or excessive conformity to the law or to a religious or moral code <the institutionalized legalism that restricts free choice>
2 : a legal term or rule

To make sure what I am saying is true.. look it up yourself... Click on any of the words in the quote, and it will take you to the dictionary.

Or what about this one... from dictionary.com?
And now, these definitions go back to 1830? WOW... long before anyone on here was born, or even got the privilege to set under a legalist as a pastor to become indoctrinated.

Now this one does have the definition the legalists here are too happy to promote as the ONLY one.. but notice the other possibilities as well.
And especially look at the one toward the bottom of the post from American Heritage... (Another well respected authority on American language)

le⋅gal⋅ism

 

–noun 1. strict adherence, or the principle of strict adherence, to law or prescription, esp. to the letter rather than the spirit.

2. Theology. a. the doctrine that salvation is gained through good works. b. the judging of conduct in terms of adherence to precise laws.

3. (initial capital letter ) (in Chinese philosophy) the principles and practices of a school of political theorists advocating strict legal control over all activities, a system of rewards and punishments uniform for all classes, and an absolute monarchy.

Origin:
1830–40; legal + -ism

Related forms:
le⋅gal⋅ist, noun
le⋅gal⋅is⋅tic, adjective
le⋅gal⋅is⋅ti⋅cal⋅ly, adverb





Dictionary.com Unabridged
Based on the Random House Dictionary, © Random House, Inc. 2010.
Cite This Source |
Link To Legalism

le·gal·ism
n.

1. Strict, literal adherence to the law or to a particular code, as of religion or morality.
2. A legal word, expression, or rule.

le'gal·ist n., le'gal·is'tic adj., le'gal·is'ti·cal·ly adv.


The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition
Copyright © 2009 by Houghton Mifflin Company.
Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.
Cite This Source

As before, click on the quote to see for yourself...



To be fair, I even looked up the word in Webster's 1828 dictionary since it has been used by the IFBs as a final authority for word meanings... and guess what I found.... NOTHING!...

But then I had a problem.. I couldn't prove it here.. since I used the one in e-sword.. but I found a site that looks up definitions from websters 1828..

http://1828.sorabji.com/1828/

Look it up yourself.. now why was this word not in Websters 1828?
IT didn't exist then.. Notice the 1830 date in the previous definition!

Anyway, the point I am trying to make is that it is dishonest to ONLY allow one definition of this word to be used when there are other definitions that are OFFICIAL.. (I think Websters, Merriam, and American Heritage would stand up in a court of law as official sources of definitions)

And these are the definitions that we are using when we say that some Christians are practicing legalism.

 

[SeekingTruth]

So strict adherence to the moral code set by God is now legalism. The only proper definition of legalism, in matters religious, are those things some say are required for salvation in addition to faith and grace. I believe a few members of this board are using legalism to turn aside criticism of some of the things they enjoy that others think not appropriate

 

[tinytim]

Notice the word.. "Excessive"..
Means over and above...

Which is what many want to do.

This is the same things the Pharisees did.. they took God's laws and were excessive with them.

Another way of saying this is "Extra - Biblical".. enforcing rules that are not in God's word.

For instance.. by saying that a person is not a good Christian unless they.....
And then they add a rule that God did not add...

Like....
only use a KJV
Attend Sunday evening services
Only use Sunday evenings for preaching (not some other fellowship event)
Only sing hymns or southern gospel
Pray 3 times a day
Cut their hair to match the 1950s haircuts
Wear dresses to church... (If you are a woman)

Seekingtruth said..

I believe a few members of this board are using legalism to turn aside criticism of some of the things they enjoy that others think not appropriate

I do too..
But it is appropriate to do so...
Many say it is wrong for a group of Christians to meet on Sunday evening to watch the Superbowl...
That is extra-biblical, and legalistic because it exceeds (excessive) what God's word
says.. There is no principle to limit this, and to say it is sin is in fact ADDING to the Word of God.
WHICH is sin.. read the last chapter of Revelation.

The problem a few have is they can't separate their cultural beliefs from their Biblical beliefs.. They are equating their cultural traditions with holiness.. because their church has done things like this forever.

Don't get me wrong, there is nothing wrong with tradition.. but to equate it with holiness is the same thing that made Christ call the pharisees "Hypocrites."

I believe a few members of this board are using legalism to make themselves seem more holier...

They pride themselves in their righteousness...
Thinking they are better than their brothers and sisters...

Thus sinning through pride.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

So strict adherence to the moral code set by God is now legalism. The only proper definition of legalism, in matters religious, are those things some say are required for salvation in addition to faith and grace. I believe a few members of this board are using legalism to turn aside criticism of some of the things they enjoy that others think not appropriate

Yep thats the definition of the term. And I think the issue of alcohol is clear.

 

[webdog]

The Lord never said "Thou shalt not smoke" either. Yet for many of the same reasons you would list for not smoking you can also list for not drinking. In fact drinking is more of a drain on the health system than smoking is. If smoking was an issue in Bible times do you think that it could have been written: "Do not smoke wherein is excess..."?
For most "excess" is addiction. And for many who smoke, the answer always seems to be: "But I can stop any time I want; just watch and see."
Do you see a parallel here?

Of course you have facts to back your presuppositions? The benefits of alcohol have been scientifically proven. To state it "drains" your health more than smoking is quite humerous.

 

[webdog]

Yep thats the definition of the term. And I think the issue of alcohol is clear.

That is but ONE definition of the term...and the Bible is quite clear on alcohol...it is permissible.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

That is but ONE definition of the term...and the Bible is quite clear on alcohol...it is permissible.

I don't disagree with alcohol being permissible. Others do. I do not think alcohol is permisible to people with addictive personalities though.

 

[Mexdeaf]

Notice the word.. "Excessive"..
Means over and above...

Which is what many want to do.

This is the same things the Pharisees did.. they took God's laws and were excessive with them.

Another way of saying this is "Extra - Biblical".. enforcing rules that are not in God's word.

For instance.. by saying that a person is not a good Christian unless they.....
And then they add a rule that God did not add...

Like....
only use a KJV
Attend Sunday evening services
Only use Sunday evenings for preaching (not some other fellowship event)
Only sing hymns or southern gospel
Pray 3 times a day
Cut their hair to match the 1950s haircuts
Wear dresses to church... (If you are a woman)

Seekingtruth said..

I do too..
But it is appropriate to do so...
Many say it is wrong for a group of Christians to meet on Sunday evening to watch the Superbowl...
That is extra-biblical, and legalistic because it exceeds (excessive) what God's word
says.. There is no principle to limit this, and to say it is sin is in fact ADDING to the Word of God.
WHICH is sin.. read the last chapter of Revelation.

The problem a few have is they can't separate their cultural beliefs from their Biblical beliefs.. They are equating their cultural traditions with holiness.. because their church has done things like this forever.

Don't get me wrong, there is nothing wrong with tradition.. but to equate it with holiness is the same thing that made Christ call the pharisees "Hypocrites."

I believe a few members of this board are using legalism to make themselves seem more holier...

They pride themselves in their righteousness...
Thinking they are better than their brothers and sisters...

Thus sinning through pride.

I been trying to say this, but you made the point better than I could. :thumbs:

 

[tinytim]

I don't disagree with alcohol being permissible. Others do. I do not think alcohol is permisible to people with addictive personalities though.

I agree totally on this...

I for one am not allowed alcohol.. It is a sin to me... because I previously abused it, and know my weakness. Therefore.. .I stay away!...

This is also why I don't advocate wine in communion.. but juice...

A person that has struggled with alcohol in the past may be tempted with just one sip of it at communion... And that would be a stumbling block.