Featured RC Sproul and Alcoholic Beverages

Your weaker brother.

 

Yea like del Rio Texas is Lincoln center west :laugh:

 

That is why I am not a Calvinist. I can choose whether to abstain or not; whether to sin or not. Life is not "pre-determined" for me. God in his great sovereignty and omniscience has given free will and allows me to make choices in life though some of those choices (innocent I may think they are), may have grave consequences in the future.

 

So then its a humans own choice to drink or not to drink....its up to the person themselves......nobody compels you to drink alcohol (especially to excess). they hold their own destiny in their own hands & any other excuse for their own bad choices is that they are weaklings who wish to blame others for their own bad choices. Thats what your saying right.

 

My friend Aaron, when I was a boy my momma told me something I will share with you....She said, Son, remember this surely: "The recording angel will not accept your excuse that others made you what you are, and you are blameless." I never forgot that lesson Aaron.

 

Sure it is. It was your choice in the days of Prohibition too, wasn't it?

 

In one respect yes. You hold your own destiny in your hands whether or not you want to get drunk, overdose on drugs, commit suicide, murder, etc. All of these are acts of the flesh, and just as David committed murder and adultery, any Christian is capable of committing the same heinous crimes. Let not any man deceive himself.

As to whether or not one has a choice in drinking alcohol the choice is yours in this respect. Would you agree to the church constitution that has a covenant like this:

If you have a problem agreeing with the covenant of such a church then I suggest you do not join it. Every local church is independent and autonomous. They are not being "legalistic" when they agree together to "covenant together" to live a holy life.

Don't blame other churches for their standard of holiness just because you don't want to live one! (said to all--not personally to you EWF)

 

Your right, I wouldnt join that church nor support it. If I believe in any deity, I would thank Him & bless him for the liberty of choice, for otherwise we would be slaves indeed.

 

Are you asking me to have allegiance to a corrupt government? I assure you, I have no allegiance to legalistic governments nor churches.

 

It is not a matter of allegiance; it is a matter of submission to the law according to Romans 13.
Paul wrote for believers to be in submission to the government in a time when Christians were undergoing intense persecution. Shortly after Nero burned the city and blamed it on the Christians. He used Christians as human torches. They fed them to the beasts in the Coliseum for sport. They were entertained by Roman persecution of believers. And yet Paul said "submit your self to the higher authorities."

 

Not sure how this applies to supporting the weak, but I doubt the Gospel is the reason anyone is imbibing.

 

And so why do you think drinking is a problem?

 

I answered your question. You don't drink at his house.

It's pretty simple.

Paul did eat meat offered to idols. He just did not eat it in the presence of weaker brethren. Weaker brethren are people who do not have enough bible knowledge and maturity to enjoy liberty. You hope they will grow but until they do you treat them like children.

 

If thats the case then the USA is in error for breaking with the British. & then define higher authorities?

 

That is your history. I am a Canadian. You fought for your independence from Britain, a nation that would have a hard time governing you from across the Atlantic. What you asked for was only reasonable. I don't see the relevance here. We are not talking of by-gone wars, we are speaking of keeping the laws of our own government.

The "higher authorities" were defined as the government, those in power. He
Look at the passage:

Romans 13:1 Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God.
2 Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation.
3 For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise of the same:
4 For he is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil.
5 Wherefore ye must needs be subject, not only for wrath, but also for conscience sake.
6 For for this cause pay ye tribute also: for they are God's ministers, attending continually upon this very thing.
7 Render therefore to all their dues: tribute to whom tribute is due; custom to whom custom; fear to whom fear; honour to whom honour.

--The rulers are today's presidents, and all law enforcing agents appointed by the government.
They are there for your good, and not for evil.
He is a minister of God to thee. That means that the appointment of Obama of President is God-ordained. America got what she deserved when Obama became president. God knew all about it.
--Therefore to him you must be subject (vs. 5)
--You must pay tribute (your taxes). (vs. 6,7)

Therefore, during the Days of Prohibition would you obey the Law?

 

No, it was unjust.

 

I don't believe it was unjust.
I am a missionary. I go to different nations, some of them Muslim.
In an Islamic nation all alcohol is banned. Even if a "Christian" (nominal or otherwise) is found with any kind of alcoholic beverage, he can be thrown in jail for an indeterminate amount of time with no recourse.

The consequences:
First, you have ruined your reputation of being a missionary and reaching any of those people for Christ by simply breaking their laws. (the same would have been true for you under "The Prohibition.").
Second, in a Muslim 3rd world nation, you have unwisely put your own life in danger.
Thirdly, by breaking that law, you may never have the chance again to minister to those people (deportation being a real possibility; that is if you make it out of their jails alive).

 

Yes, I would, and since most Baptists do not drink, it would have been a rather simple one to obey. Kind of a silly question, don't you think? Yes, America probably got just what it deserved when the electoral college elected Obama. And yes, the principle in Romans exists no matter who is elected. Our leaders are not perfect, but maybe next time we will elect a decent President. I will take any leader we elect under our Constitution. One of our founding principles is that we do not need a "royal family" that accomplishes nothing. The concept of paying out millions of dollars every year to keep up a family dressed in silly outfits on welfare supplied by the hard working tax payers of Great Britain is enough to make any American throw up.

 

Simple resolution....I wouldnt have made the choice to go to a Muslem country then. And then why would I even do that when I got a mission field right here in New Jersey. An area with pubs & legal liquor stores.

If it is your desire or calling to go, then go to a Muslem country.....thats your choice. Not mine.

But let me ask you ....are you supposed to teach Christianity in those countries?

 

Actually OBAMA makes me throw up.

Do you support tyrants also?