Wine As A Beverage

[Dr. Walter]

perhaps you should stop eating as to start down that road may lead to gluttony and gluttony is sin and you are accountable for it.

HP: The point that I received from your comment was that you might have been implying that if ones intentions were not to get drunk it would not be sin……..but how many times have I heard preachers chide Noah for his drunken stupor?? Who will be the first to say that getting drunk was his intention????

Do not Scriptures teach that strong drink and wine are deceivers? Noah never heard that advice that I know of, but we have. If one knows that to be true and starts down that path by partaking and ends up over indulging, who in their right mind would not find them responsible for their actions, not because they did something in a drunken stupor but because they should have known better than to start down that path.
If one kills another in a drunken stupor, is he innocent because he says he never intended to get drunk? If one kills another after being buzzed on alcohol, is he or she to be found not guilty because they never intended get drunk? Your logic evades me. Besides, was it not you that stated drinking alcoholic beverages was not a sin issue period?????

 

[Dr. Walter]

HP: Here was your original comment. Would you desire to re-phrase it now?

No! I said nothing different here than I just previously said above and I quote:

We should be careful not to hold this passage up as a liscense to sin because the obvious application denies that drinking fermented wine is sin EXCEPT when it causes others to stumble.

You just like to wrangle just to wrangle don't you?

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Continue on. I will leave the conclusions as to your remarks to the listener. :thumbs:

 

[Revmitchell]

We should be careful not to hold this passage up as a liscense to sin because the obvious application denies that drinking fermented wine is sin EXCEPT when it causes others to stumble.

uh no it doesn't. The context no where idnicates fermented wine.

However, in I Corinthians 9 I believe Paul gives another basis for abstaining from drinking wine or anything that might be a stumbling block for others to hear the gospel from our mouth. Paul says we should be mature enough to give up anything and everything less than moral principel (law under Christ) so that the gospel will not be hindered.

Provide the indication of fermented wine.

 

[Dr. Walter]

We should be careful not to hold this passage up as a liscense to sin because the obvious application denies that drinking fermented wine is sin EXCEPT when it causes others to stumble.

uh no it doesn't. The context no where idnicates fermented wine.



Provide the indication of fermented wine.

First, I back up my statement that you denied but your response is without any substance to back up your denial of my statement. There is no specified special application in Romans 14 but a general application. Grape juice offends no one and therefore the term "wine" cannot possibly mean "grape juice" and the only offense is not "wine" as it has already been classified with things neither good or evil in themselves. The evil is in asserting YOUR RIGHT to drink wine at the expense of another's expense.

Second, if you will read my statement (you are quoting) I said Paul is teaching mature Christians will give up "anything" and "everything" less than principle. He begins the chapter by listing HIS RIGHTS and one of them is to "drink" (v. 4) but he is willing to give up ANY and ALL of his "RIGHTS" for the sake of furtherance of the gospel through his life.

Third, I don't think "drink" in I Cor. 9:4 as a RIGHT excludes drinking "wine" in Romans 15 as a RIGHT except in the context of hindering the gospel or offending a brother.

 

[Revmitchell]

First, I back up my statement that you denied but your response is without any substance to back up your denial of my statement.

Maybe you should go back and reread some of our posts. You admitted there was no indication of fermentation. Then of course in this thread you suggest that it could only be fermented. This you suggested not by context found in scripture but by vague assumption.

Earlier I asked if you thought that fermented wine was the only possible option here which you dodged and then just plain avoided. Of course now you are finally answering the question I asked earlier but with an assumption of logic rather than facts.

 

[Dr. Walter]

Maybe you should go back and reread some of our posts. You admitted there was no indication of fermentation. Then of course in this thread you suggest that it could only be fermented. This you suggested not by context found in scripture but by vague assumption.

Earlier I asked if you thought that fermented wine was the only possible option here which you dodged and then just plain avoided. Of course now you are finally answering the question I asked earlier but with an assumption of logic rather than facts.

I have never given any other response than to say that "wine" in Romans 14 is alcoholic wine. I have consistently said that it could not be grape juice because juice offends no one under any circumstances. My argument has been and is based upon the general context supplied by Paul in Romans 14 which deals with things less than principle and denies that such are sin in themselves.

My argument has been consistent with I Corinthians 9, 10. So I guess I just don't get your point.

 

[Revmitchell]

I have never given any other response than to say that "wine" in Romans 14 is alcoholic wine. I have consistently said that it could not be grape juice because juice offends no one under any circumstances. My argument has been and is based upon the general context supplied by Paul in Romans 14 which deals with things less than principle and denies that such are sin in themselves.

My argument has been consistent with I Corinthians 9, 10. So I guess I just don't get your point.

You need to go back and read post 252.

 

[rockytopsgt]

Hey everybody,
This is my first post but I have been a lurker for a while. This thread strikes at the heart of a Struggle I have been having for a while. I am a baptist and I believe in biblical inerrancy. The more I get into it however the less the bible seems our guide on social issues. On some issues it seems that we value cultural tradition as much as any catholic. Take drinking for example...everyone knows somebody who has destroyed their life with alcohol and the bible clearly warns against drunkenness. I fully support any who chooses abstinence. however we as baptists tend to treat any drinking as among the worst of sins. The fact is that any intellectual honesty whatsoever demands that we admit that wine(the real kind) was a part of New Testament life including Jesus and the apostles. Many say that any drinking hurts your witness but how much more does twisting the obvious of our own scripture?
- the "wine was really grape juice " argument is common but ignores the fact that there was no method for keeping grape juice fresh and unfirmented. therefore the "fruit of the vine" at the Last Supper, which occurred months after the harvest, has tp have been wine. Any biblical arguments trying to turn any consumption into sin remind me of those who try to defend infant baptism. The out of context twisting of verses (in this case usually Hebrew prose) and the subsequent submission of the entirety of scripture to those few verses is just not the way a "people of the Book" should determine faith and practice.
I don't really want to get into a debate ( I am of the opinion that no honest debate can be had on this using scripture and human reason won't cut it for me). I just think that we hurt cur witness by condemning the actions of Christ.

Btw please forgive typos...I am using a blackberry to post.
Revelation 21:7

 

[Revmitchell]

Jesus could not have had fermented wine because He would have broken the law.


Lev 10:9 Do not drink wine nor strong drink, thou, nor thy sons with thee, when ye go into the tabernacle of the congregation, lest ye die: it shall be a statute for ever throughout your generations:


It is also false that Christ made fermented wine at the wedding feast. If that was in view there He would have given strong drink to those who were already drunk. It is not reasonable to believe God would contribute to men getting drunker.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

Jesus could not have had fermented wine because He would have broken the law.


Lev 10:9 Do not drink wine nor strong drink, thou, nor thy sons with thee, when ye go into the tabernacle of the congregation, lest ye die: it shall be a statute for ever throughout your generations:


It is also false that Christ made fermented wine at the wedding feast. If that was in view there He would have given strong drink to those who were already drunk. It is not reasonable to believe God would contribute to men getting drunker.

This makes no sense. Jesus changed the water to wine at cana. Yet the leviticus prohibition was specifically this

8 Then the LORD said to Aaron, 9 "You and your sons are not to drink wine or other fermented drink whenever you go into the Tent of Meeting, or you will die. This is a lasting ordinance for the generations to come. 10 You must distinguish between the holy and the common, between the unclean and the clean, 11 and you must teach the Israelites all the decrees the LORD has given them through Moses."

. Not to come to the tabernacle drunk or having drunk any wine or strong drink. Its not a prohibitor outside of this event. And also note Jesus was not a Levite. So two requirements are missing in this prohibitor. 1) BEING AT THE TENT OF MEETING 2) BEING A LEVITE.

 

[Revmitchell]

This makes no sense. Jesus changed the water to wine at cana. Yet the leviticus prohibition was specifically this . Not to come to the tabernacle drunk or having drunk any wine or strong drink. Its not a prohibitor outside of this event. And also note Jesus was not a Levite. So two requirements are missing in this prohibitor. 1) BEING AT THE TENT OF MEETING 2) BEING A LEVITE.

While my point falls apart at the mention of the place not to be drunk. Jesus was a priest of God. Being a Levite is inconsequential. The prohibition was not given to Levites it was given to priests. Either way I was wrong

 

[rockytopsgt]

Jesus could not have had fermented wine because He would have broken the law.


Lev 10:9 Do not drink wine nor strong drink, thou, nor thy sons with thee, when ye go into the tabernacle of the congregation, lest ye die: it shall be a statute for ever throughout your generations:


It is also false that Christ made fermented wine at the wedding feast. If that was in view there He would have given strong drink to those who were already drunk. It is not reasonable to believe God would contribute to men getting drunker.

This is a perfect example of the kind of argument I was talking about. first a verse is incorrectly applied i.e. Leviticus 10:9 ( kind of like using 1 Timothy 2:11-12 to argue against women talking...ever, or better yet men talking). Second, the clear teaching of scripture is changed based on " it stands to reason". why can't we just believe the Bible instead trying to submit it to our own ideologies.

Rev 21:7

 

[rockytopsgt]

Sorry, I didn't see your last post before I replied. But that verse js been used by more than you so...

 

[Revmitchell]

This is a perfect example of the kind of argument I was talking about. first a verse is incorrectly applied i.e. Leviticus 10:9 ( kind of like using 1 Timothy 2:11-12 to argue against women talking...ever, or better yet men talking). Second, the clear teaching of scripture is changed based on " it stands to reason". why can't we just believe the Bible instead trying to submit it to our own ideologies.

Rev 21:7

You will not find anywhere that I said "it stand to reason" in that post. Although similar statements are used to support alcohol use.

 

[rockytopsgt]

I put it in quotes because I was referring to line of argument generally used. You did not say those words but nevertheless you used that process. Your basic argument was- He could not have made actual wine because I don't like what I think that says about God.
Therefore you argued against the plain meaning based on your reason. Sorry for the confusion.

 

[Revmitchell]

Your basic argument was- He could not have made actual wine because I don't like what I think that says about God.

First that was not my argument. Second the plain meaning is not fermented wine. It is no where indicated in that passage. And it is a false assumption that every time wine is used it must mean fermented in scripture. But if your trying to support your desired habit through scripture you can read all kinds of things into it.

Now instead of misdirecting maybe you can deal with my argument that God would not have supplied alcohol to drunks.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

First that was not my argument. Second the plain meaning is not fermented wine. It is no where indicated in that passage. And it is a false assumption that every time wine is used it must mean fermented in scripture. But if your trying to support your desired habit through scripture you can read all kinds of things into it.

Now instead of misdirecting maybe you can deal with my argument that God would not have supplied alcohol to drunks.

Lets clear the example. How about God serving alchohol to a group of people where some may be drunks but the rest use it in moderation? My question would be why not?

 

[Dr. Walter]

As far as we know, this is the first and only letter written by Paul to the churches in Rome. Paul does not provide particular situations or cultural applications. If it were important to his argument he would. Since he did not but only provided a general application, then, I stick with the application he gives. The application he gives does not demand anything other than a brother being offended at someone drinking wine for WHATEVER reason.

On the other hand when writing the Corinthians Paul spells out the specific situation in regard to "eating meat" at the temples - which he condemns and buying that meat and bringing it home to eat which he does not condemn unless someone's else knows where it came from and is offended. If "meat" here means "food" in general then I guess you can INFER it includes whatever is drunk. However, again, Paul does not condemn eating "meat" and whatever that includes except at the temple of false gods. This again would demonstrate drinking wine is neither good or evil in itself, but it is the situation that will determine good or evil.

I don't see anything in Post#252 above that I have had any change of mind about? So what is your point?

 

[rockytopsgt]

First that was not my argument. Second the plain meaning is not fermented wine. It is no where indicated in that passage. And it is a false assumption that every time wine is used it must mean fermented in scripture. But if your trying to support your desired habit through scripture you can read all kinds of things into it.

Now instead of misdirecting maybe you can deal with my argument that God would not have supplied alcohol to drunks.

first, I said nothing of my own habits. Don't assume.
Second it is ridiculous to think that wine was actually grape juice when you yourself are claiming they were already drunk. So they ran out of wine...Jesus gave them grapejuice, and they were happy about it? The ruler of the feast thought that it was the good stuff that they normally have at the beginning of the feast which can make people well drunk, and you are saying he was talking about grapejuice? The context is obvious. I'm not reading anything into it. Also, God provided alcohol for everyone, not just the drunks. Sure some abused it but that isn't His fault. Kinda sounds like the broader world doesn't it? God gives us good things (sex, etc) even though some abuse them.