Featured Wine in the first century

Without the ability to pasteurize, evenly freshly squeezed juice would immediately begin to ferment. New wine was alcoholic. Just ask Noah.

 

Which is one reason why I wouldn't attend there.

 

Wine is wine, juice is juice...

2 “Speak to the Israelites and say to them: ‘If a man or woman wants to make a special vow, a vow of dedication to the LORD as a Nazirite, 3 they must abstain from wine and other fermented drink and must not drink vinegar made from wine or other fermented drink. They must not drink grape juice or eat grapes or raisins.

 

I suggest an experiment.

Someone purchase some grapes, particularly the type that are used for juice versus the new altered seedless varieties, then squeeze them and leave them outdoors without refrigeration. Let's see how long before it is no longer "juice."

 

Wow, a topic we agree on On this note, would like to see Mohler comment on the harvest of grapes in comparison to the timing of the passover. Would like to hear his commentary on how you keep fresh grape juice from fall until spring...in the middle east...without refrigeration.

 

Is that from Numbers 6?

Speak unto the children of Israel, and say unto them, When either man or woman shall separate themselves to vow a vow of a Nazarite, to separate themselves unto the LORD: He shall separate himself from wine and strong drink, and shall drink no vinegar of wine, or vinegar of strong drink, neither shall he drink any liquor of grapes, nor eat moist grapes, or dried.

 

And tastes awful. I laugh when I think about the beverage Coca Cola started with. I wonder if it was acceptable in churches then?

 

If one reads some commentaries and books that were written before and after prohibition it is amazing the difference.

 

How? How do they know that everyone tells the truth all the time? Nyquil is 50 proof. That is a lot stronger than wine.

I can remember the time one of my professors told about the time he was in a church in the country where he was a missionary. The church had communion and immediately afterward the pastor called on him to pray. He got quite a shock when he took the cup he had and drank the wine in it. He had prided himself on never drinking any wine. His pride was dashed quickly. He could no longer say that he never drank any wine. He had just drank some wine and then the pastor called on him to pray.

 

While I agree with the "how" question, I also know that it is a matter of truth and honor, plus respect. Are you insinuating that seminary students be untruthful as a matter of course?

About the drinking thing... I've drank enough in my life to keep a goodly number of other persons afloat. I no longer worry AT ALL about whether a drop of alcohol passes my lips. They are far too seared for that worry, which is also why I can probably look at this issue with less apprehension than most. Praise God, I'm not what I once was! But that has nothing to do with my taking or not taking a drink. It has EVERYTHING to do with my imputed righteousness granted as a gift by Christ.

 

The "how" question is answered largely with the assumption that the students and staff are people of integrity. Any failure then is likely with met with swift and unmerciful judgment in many cases.

 

When I was in seminary I was told that you would find everything there that was in the world, and we did. We found pornography, wife beaters, police were called, and once in awhile one ended in jail, plus many more. We also know about the chairman of the trustees was relieved of his duties as pastor because he had been shacking up with two ladies he was counseling in the congregation. We also know about the trustees who admitted to lying when Dilday was fired. Unless that school is so different than anyone Jesus ever encountered and scripture talks about then I would think there would be at least one student or faculty. While I cannot read anyone's mind or know their thoughts and neither can they it is impossible to know 100% if their rule is being carried out. When one reads about the pedophiles being on church staff then how are those students so different?

It is not insinuating. It is being realistic just like scripture presents man as he is. People have problems and we know that. It is unrealistic to think rules are never broken. Even when some are broken not all of them will be known by someone else except the person.

How many truth tellers are among cheaters?

 

You are right but it is foolish to think that the truth will always be told if the rule is violated. For every rule there must be someone to verify and police it. I have lived long enough to see so many things even among good people. Sometime if you meet an older professor or former student just ask how many books disappeared out of the library each year. The first time I heard that I was shocked.

Scripture says, "For a righteous man falls seven times, and rises again, But the wicked stumble in time of calamity."

The majority of scripture is filled with men who failed.

If we are people of Scripture then it seems to me that what we require and teach should also agree with scripture. If it does not then what are we teaching?

 

What we (well, they) are teaching is legalism. A set of rules made by well-intentioned but misguided people to protect the image of the school as well as the student will not make people "good" any more than the Law was able to actually save(redeem, justify, etc) anyone. That doesn't stop them from making the rules. However, going in the students and staff are made aware of the rules and the consequences for breaking them. In the spirit of letting our yes be yes and our no be no we must be careful who we submit to and why. If you can't in good conscience go to that school with that rule then you should keep looking for another school.

The real question to your post though would be, "Is there grace and mercy built into the rule to allow the inevitable stumbler to have the chance to repent, and be restored?"

 

I appreciate that.

However, this correction just removes it one extra step from the original position.

It is a sin to ever drink recreationally (is this your position?) and so if you never drink at all then you will not be tempted to drink recreationally.

It is holier to NOT sin than it is to SIN therefore keeping this rule will remove you from sin, keeping you holier than if you had sinned, by removing you from the temptation to sin- thus this rule will make you (or at least keep you) holy.

By your definition this is still legalism. Keeping rules that make one holy- particularly if those rules have absolutely no foundation in the Bible.

I have exegeted them John and I can even argue that they are not at all condemning, even in a proverbial manner, the responsible use of alchohol.

But I choose to avoid the rigor of all that by just pointing out a plain truth- no doctrine should find its foundation mostly, and therefore ESPECIALLY exclusively, in the book of Proverbs because of what Proverbs ARE.

If you can find a doctrine taught in non-proverbial Scripture, then you can use Proverbs to BUTTRESS that doctrine. What, I think, MOST exegetes know is that you cannot form a doctrine from the Proverbs alone- or even MOSTLY from Proverbs.

I contend that you cannot support this doctrine outside the proverbs- and I think it is clear that you cannot or you would have by now.

Maybe... but the following is certainly how it ends up when you debate me....

This is how you sound your retreat when you can no longer support your position with arguments. It is MY fault that you can no longer discuss this issue.

A better way, in my opinion, for you to retreat would be for you to say- "You know, I hadn't thought of it that way. Let me think on it and I'll get back to you."

I was just giving Sunday as an example of who one might respect on this issue- not saying that YOU do.

The point I figure is applicable to you, since I used to believe the same things, is that you probably believe these things, not because Scripture has dictated them to you, but because they were taught to you from your youth up.

I am very glad to hear you say that you do not believe the Bible teaches that Christians should not drink. Very glad.

This quote was not a personal accusation. It was a warning to all who consider this matter that legalism is worse than alcoholism.

 

Can't one simply be mistaken without being a liar?

 

I agree completely with your last statement.

I have never one time offended anyone in Japan (where 95% of adults drink; I've even heard of whiskey at a PTA meeting) by telling them I do not drink. But many, many times telling them this has given me an opportunity to witness for Christ. It works this way. They say, "Huh? You don't drink? Why in the world not?" My answer is, "I don't need to. I have the joy of the Lord in my soul because I'm saved. I have no need for bottled joy." And we go on from there.

 

I will never forget the time a man I was doing some work for asked me a few questions about the sermon on Sunday. He asked me if Jesus ever drank wine. He knew my parents had been grape farmers. Then he followed up with a few more questions and then I got the shocker. He started talking about living with ladies. He told me that for a long time he had been living with some ladies in the church one at a time. Was I shocked! For 42 years he had gone to that same church. We discussed the issues and I gave him not only what I believed scripture taught but other reasons from medical science and from general knowledge why I believed what I did. I never brought our discussion up again. I knew he had some problems. When the job was over he threw out all of his beer and told me that he was not going to live with any ladies any more.

Every sermon he heard did not do any good. He saw it as legalistic and against what he had heard in the world. It caused him to distrust what was said in the church. Even when he asked me what I thought he saw that as going against what the preacher taught. When I gave him reasons why I do not drink or do anything to violate the conscience of another he listened. When I talked to him about ladies I went into detail about how that affects both the man and woman way beyond what he was thinking it grabbed his attention. He finally got the message and acted on it.

I just do not see anything good coming from legalism. I have seen promiscuity come from from those kind of homes. I have seen people who want nothing to do with church coming from those kind of homes. I have been in business long enough to legalistic people who lie, cheat, and steal. I know one who cheated his own church and he was teaching Sunday School at the time. That same person cheated a man who called me and asked if I would finish the work that had been started. It turns out that he had cheated several others.