Featured Wine in the first century

While I agree with you, I refer you to Romans 15:1, and ask you to reconcile your post with the preceeding passages (Romans 14) and the opening verses of Romans 15.

My answer would be, hear their complaints, and teach them--if they're teachable. If they're not, or they can't understand, is where the distinction then lies. Do we continue doing something they count as sin, and thereby potentially cause a desire that could lead to their self-incrimination/destruction?

Of course, my answer to Afghanistan was also "teach them." But no one's really listening to that, either. <grin>

 

I agree with you, Brother Don that we ought to be mindful of the weaker brother concerning this issue.

But I regret that teetotalism and prohibitionism in this nation has created so many weaker brothers which other nations do not have to bear.

Certainly, it is true that if one's conscience bothers him about a deed then he should avoid that deed even if that deed is perfectly ok. It becomes sin for him.

What is unfortunate in this culture is that so many have a disturbed conscience about that which should not bother them at all- the moderate and responsible use of alcohol.

 

This is an invalid comparison. Sugar does not cause diabetes. Obesity does.

10% is an unacceptable risk to me in any case involving life and death. I'm amazed that you think a 10% chance of your child becoming an alcoholic is an acceptable risk. If there was a 10% risk of your child being hit by a car would you let him play in traffic?

Teetotalism is not legalism unless one believes abstaining makes you holy. I do not. I believe abstaining prevents sin and disease.

Please share with me those numerous verses.

So you simply ignore the warnings in Proverbs? Are you neo-orthodox, believing that the Bible only becomes the Word of God to you in that existential moment? So you don't heed Proverbs because the existential moment has not arrived and may never arrive?

But of course there are other Scriptues argue against alcohol. You simply haven't studied the issue very well, apparently.

Isa 5:11 Woe unto them that rise up early in the morning, that they may follow strong drink; that continue until night, till wine inflame them!

Isa 5:22 Woe unto them that are mighty to drink wine, and men of strength to mingle strong drink:

Need I go on?

 

Respectfully, you don't know what you're talking about. Consuming too much SUGAR is what causes diabetes regardless of whether or not one is obese.

Just for the record, my papaw was a big man but not obese.

10% is not the risk of death.

And it is not 10% of responisble Christians- it is 10% of all people including people who INTEND to get drunk regularly.

Your stats can be accurate and not applicable at all.

The amazing thing about your stats is that they support social drinking.

NINETY PERCENT of all people who drink do NOT become drunkards- INCLUDING the MILLIONS of people who have every INTENTION of getting drunk on a regular basis.

If NINETY percent of these kinds of people do not become drunkards, then the Christian who drinks responsibly should have no fear of becoming a drunkard.

And since MILLIONS upon MILLIONS of Christians worldwide drink because their countries were never plagued by the backwards doctrine of teetotalism- this is a very good thing.

As I pointed out the ten percent is not applicable to responsible Christians.

It is too broad and includes, as far as we know, MOSTLY people who INTEND to get drunk regularly.

What it does NOT consist of is people who INTEND to drink responsibly.

Think about what you just said here, John.

Teetotalism prevents sin but it does not make you holy??????

It is legalism John if you define it this way.

If, to a particular person, it is a sin to drink or get drunk and it is holy to avoid sin- then his teetotalism is legalism.

Your stance on teetotalism is probably legalism ad you don't know it.

You don't know them?

This is insulting, John and you should behave better than this.

What most of us know is that Proverbs are not precepts and you don't develop doctrine, like teetotalism, from them.

Do you NOT know that, John??

No there are not and the proof is that the best you can do is provide the following verses that have NOTHING to DO with drinking responsibly.

Certainly. Anyone addicted to ANYTHING bears a great woe.

This is true for the legalist who is addicted to his self-righteousness as well- perhpas a greater woe is upon him because his soul is rotten.

Once again- OBVIOUSLY this is so. Even ATHEISTS agree with these facts.

The verses you provide do not even in the slightest even REMOTELY condemn drinking alcohol responsibly.

They condemn a lifestyle of drunkenness which every single person on baptistboard, including the most LIBERAL among us is quick to condemn.

You have made absolutely no point with these verses, John. None.

I think it is obvious that you can't; unless by "go on" you mean to provide other verses that are as COMPLETELY irrelevant to this discussion as the two you provided above.

You, I figure, believe these things for the same reason I believed them- not because they are actually IN the Bible, but because they are positions the people who raised and trained you taught you to believe.

And if you want to hold on to these things because you respect Billy Sunday and John R. Rice- fine. I don't begrudge you that privilege. Both were fine men in their own ways.

But don't go around, like here on baptistboard, and pretend that your traditions of men are the word of God when they CLEARLY are not, John.

That's when your traditions become something darker- that's when they become legalism.

If you preach that Christians ought to abstain from the consumption of alcohol because the consumption of alcohol is a sin when the Bible NO WHERE says this- you are a legalist- plain and simple.

You may not mean to be- but it's what it amounts to. Let's call a spade a spade.

Now if you want to ADVISE people not to drink- that's just fine. If you want to WARN against drunkenness- well that's BIBLICAL.

But you step BEYOND the bounds of Scripture and into DANGEROUS territory when you speak for God when God has not spoken.

When you purport that God says that all recreational drinking is sin- you have just condemned on behalf of the Almighty that which he never gave you permission to condemn on his behalf. This is dangerous.

G. K. Chesterton:

"Idolatry is committed, not merely by setting up false gods, but also by setting up false devils; by making men afraid of war or alcohol, or economic law, when they should be afraid of spiritual corruption and cowardice."

 

I find it interesting that the individual who basically started the Reformation was the owner of a brewery.

Luther commented about his wife, Katherina:

I find it ironic that monks, who were willing for the sake of God to live austere lives in stone rooms in monestaries, were also the brewers of famous liquors. They seemed to find no issue with that practice, though they lived lives that were otherwise sepratist to an extreme that most in the world could never comprehend.


Beer is proof that God loves us and wants us to be happy.
--Benjamin Franklin

No animal ever invented anything as bad as drunkenness - or
as good as drink.
--G.K. Chesterton

At the end of the day, however, I -- like virtually ALL believers -- realize the great Tempter and what HE can do with something of God's bounty, and alcohol is one of his prime tools in the process. We should likely apply the Apostle Paul's admonition as to the weaker brother and stumbling, taking meat intended for idols, etc., into heart before simply placing a yeah or nay on the issue of drinking. But to stipulate that drink is utterly prohibited in Scripture OR in practice in biblical days is to be a liar, for it simply is not so.

 

Here, Here!!

Good thoughts and well said, Brother.

A documentary I enjoy called Ultimate Factories featured the Jack Daniels factory in Lynchburg, TN recently. I learned something. Jack Daniels was a real person who got his world famous "recipe" for his liquor from a preacher.

The church would be better off in our society if it would rewind about 150 years on this particular issue- and several others for that matter.

 

That is not true. Many things can cause diabetes. An intake of sugar will cause the pancreas to produce more insulin which is what produces fat producing. That may or may not cause diabetes depending on the person. Some people are born with diabetes. A traumatic event can cause diabetes. Everyone eats sugar in one form or another. It is what the body needs to live. If one exercises hard the body does not insulin at that time. The sugar goes directly to the muscles without the need of insulin. If one eats low carb food then the liver takes over to produce what is needed. They are many other details. Today with the knowledge and other things we have there is no excuse for someone to have problems associated with diabetes.

 

You are correct. I mis-spoke myself. What I meant to say is that teetotalism prevents temptation.

You apparently believe that the rescriptions in Proverbs warning against alcohol have nothing to do with you. That's what I am getting from your posts. You've not exegeted them. (And of course I know that Proverbs are proverbs.)

"Who art thou that judgest another man's servant?" This is how it always ends up when I debate you. You think you know the hearts of others, but you are clueless about mine. There is much more I could say about the subject (What three OT groups were teetotalers and why?), but I see no reason to go on with this discussion with you. Once again, it is fruitless.

Once again you are clueless, trying to read minds. I do not respect Sunday on this issue, not at all. His own son was a drunkard.

"Who art thou that judgest another man's servant?" I haven't preached on alcohol in literally decades. Mine is a personal view, not a doctrine. Your vicious assumptions are disgusting.

And now you are accusing me of idolatry???? Vicious judging of another man's servant. I'm out of here.

 

I've never tasted an alcoholic beverage or a tobacco product in my whole life. Just the way I was raised. But remember 1 Cor 8:13. This issue in today's society, regarding brothers or non believers alike, is the meat of Paul's day. I see no benefit and always the potential to harm another's faith or budding faith. Besides, I often wonder about the principles behind warnings and even laws, like no wine EVER for the priests, or the nazarites, those special ones like Samson and John the Baptist who were to be set apart for a special purpose. Are we not now a kingdom of priests? It's like fasting. Imagine a lifetime of fasting from a particular pleasure for the glory of God. That's how I see it, anyway.

 

As to the individual conscience... No universal "law" that applies to everyone.

 

Of course we should take those teachable moments and make the best of them. I apologize for being unclear. When I talk of not taking the easy way out here I imply that we are to intentionally do the hard work of first fully studying the issue ourselves and then teaching others the truth. At that point they will either remain legalists or they will embrace the truth and freedom we have on the issue. I would not choose to not drink for the sake of the legalist who has been taught but refuses to learn for at that point he is the stumbling block. I would probably not drink anyways, just for the sake of peace. I would choose to not drink for the sake of the brother truly struggling with this issue.

That said, I do enjoy the occasional beer, glass of wine, and other adult beverages. I do so because I am free to do so according to Scripture. I do so because I enjoy the flavor. I do so on the advice of my doctors, although they told me to have a drink every night and I do not do so.


I speak on this knowing full well the impact drunkards, including my own past sinful state, have on a family. As fully as I also know the impact of legalism.

 

I agree. Gb93433 brought up the point that you could offend someone by not drinking in some cultures. Having lived in Asia for the last 10 years, I agree. But in America, I think the chances are more likely in the reverse, since those who drink casually don't care if you prefer a different beverage, and those who drink to get drunk (almost all who drink where I live in Asia) need to see a living example of one who never drinks to get drunk!

 

I'm reminded at how shocked I was once moving from Wisconsin -- the BEER DRINKING capital of the whole USA -- to Kentucky, a place more in line with Bible-belt thinking, and discovering that all the liquor stores in KY had drive-up windows. :laugh:

No one in Wisconsin would ever think twice about going into some establishment to buy beer, etc. (did I mention beer?)

In places where the church and the concept of tee-totalling is more evident, people hide in their cars. Worst thing EVER would be for one deacon to spot another deacon buying alcohol! They would have to split the church to keep their secret!

Another shocker was "dry" counties, cities, etc. In Wisconsin "dry" meant that it was time for another. :laugh:

Note that I am NOT advocating FOR alcohol use in general. I am taking up the argument against the legalism of some views on the subject -- they (in my opinion) being driven more by the rhetoric of the Temperance movement than by the Scriptures.

 

I have been stationed in (semi) dry counties in the South. You could not buy alcohol, except on post, on Sundays. So when shopping off post on Saturday we were regularly reminded to "buy Sunday's ration" while you can.

 

SBTS President Mohler preaching on alcohol, addresses the faulty assumptions, etc. of those on this recent 'booze booster' bandwagon:

SBTS Theology Forum

 

I much prefer Hershey's chocolate to the idea of drinking something that smells so nasty!

 

What's truly intoxicating is the smell of an ice cold Dr. Pepper. Those who live overseas know what I mean. Can I get an amen?

 

Of course it doesn't We all know intoxication occurs from ingesting too much Welch's...

I think based on the above stance that wine is not really wine, the immaturity is not with the younger generation, but the one that has taken man's traditions over Scripture.

Garbage. I honestly see the 'new breed' of theologian not just accepting everything they have always been told, and instead dive into Scripture to see what God says. When viewing the 244 references to alcohol in Scripture, it is clear the "immature" view is the one held by Mohler.

Recommending a favorite drink is no different than recommending a favorite burger. Nothing "immature" and "sad" about it.

 

Agreed. :thumbs:

 

Mohler and SBTS mandate a 100% compliance among faculty and students.

I tend to agree that he takes the traditional Baptist approach, as does NAMB and other SBC entities.

Not that there are no good reasons for such, there are, nor that there are biblical exceptions, there are (and they know them). But rather the emphasis is the "avoid the appearance of evil" aspect that so far has not made it into this conversation.

I have found that the issue is indeed cultural. I already mentioned that in Wisconsin beer is king. Since returning to the state after a 15 year absence (except for brief trips) I am again immersed in a culture where beer lubricates EVERYTHING. It amazes me what one can get done for beer. Cars fixed, homes repaired, gardens plowed, you name it, the price is a 12 pack -- and not because there HAS to be a price, but because in the culture THAT is the way that one says a meaningful and heartfelt "Thanks!" for something that the neighbor would have done anyway. To be seen in the state without a beer is to be seen as someone who is "snobish" (i.e., probably not from around here, and also someone who thinks that their **** doesn't stink, with references to noses turned up and perhaps an intimation that one is actually from "Ill-n-noise" -- in local parlance, of course). Some from outside might (wrongly) think that the residents are in this for the shock value. They would be wrong. More like coffee in Seattle... Just EXPECTED and NORMAL.

So, as a preacher, who does not wish to cause others to stumble, nor to violate the mandate of my alma matter, the NAMB, and other friends, missionaries, and partners in ministry, I abstain as a matter of course, not because I have to, but because it is easier. Additionally, as one who was a former drunk (not an alcoholic, but one who lived with a beer as constantly as possible as do other residents of the state) I know the difference and why. I understand now the nuances between A drink and drinks. I know why people do drink, and drunkenness has little to do with it (until Friday or Saturday night), and also how a culture can effect one's view on this issue. I believe I have the freedom and the grace to have one if I chose, but chose not.