Featured RC Sproul and Alcoholic Beverages

Didnt Christ turn water into wine at a wedding function? Now why would He do that I suppose? And then again at the last supper.....what was the symbol of his blood he was passing around?

 

But did you not know the wine Jesus made was nothing but Welch's grape juice?

 

Wasnt any worse than a Catholic edu!

:laugh: :thumbs:

 

Romans 14:4 Who are you to judge the servant of another? To his own master he stands or falls; and he will stand, for the Lord is able to make him stand.

Romans 14:10 But you, why do you judge your brother? Or you again, why do you regard your brother with contempt? For we will all stand before the judgment seat of God.

 

Shoulda had a V8 (Low sodium that is) .... Oh :godisgood:

 

The fundies around here teach it was grape juice -- Welchensteins. Later they shortened it to Welch's. :laugh:

We reformed know better, it was fermented and wine is for the merriment of our hearts. :wavey:

 

That is up for debate.

Fruit is fruit. Obviously then it is grape juice he is speaking of.
Let's lay down some principles right away.
First, context is king. The context determines the meaning of the word. Obviously a person does not get drunk on juice. That is a given.
Secondly, both in Hebrew (yayin), and in Greek (oinos), and also in older English (wine), all these words had a double meaning of either fermented wine or unfermented wine. Either meaning could be correct depending on the context.
Consider the English word "cider." I went to "Second Cup" (like Starbucks) and had a cider (hot apple drink). I passed through Germany once and saw that they also sold cider. But I refrained. That same "cider" was a fermented beverage, and since I don't drink it may have had an unwanted effect on me. It is the same word with two different meanings. So are the former words.

The "fruit of the vine" in Luke, is obviously referring to grape juice, that which comes straight from the vine.

Obviously an intoxicating beverage.

It is doubtful that Abraham would have given him an alcoholic beverage.
The symbolism of fermented wine also is important to consider.

No offering could be with leaven or yeast such as fermented wine.

Generally speaking new wine is grape juice; there is no reason not to take it in that sense here.

I would be wary about using any verse in Ecclesiastes as a proof text without considering the context of the entire book. Why was it written? What is the theme of the book?

Again, context? What is Isaiah speaking of here? What time period?
I believe he is speaking of the Millennial Kingdom. By that time we will have new and resurrected bodies. Eye has not seen; ear has not heard, etc.

The verse is an illustration. The command is to be filled with the Holy Spirit. We are to be so filled with the Spirit of God that we are to allow Him to control us as alcohol takes control of a drunk man. A drunk says things and does things that he regrets saying and doing.
A person filled with the Spirit will say things and do things (under an influence not of himself) that he will not regret but rather rejoice in.

No, but I can answer your objections.

 

Obviously? No. Show me from anywhere in the Bible that wine, whether new or aged, is non-alcoholic.

No. Let us not. You do not get to set the agenda for me.

Obviously. You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

You are going to be owing royalties to Ingio Montoya.

Why could not Boaz' heart be merry because of the harvest? Nowhere in the text does it even hint that Boaz was intoxicated. Throughout the book of Ruth, Boaz is presented as a redemptive figure.

Why? Because you say so?

Recant not decant, DHK:

Numbers 28:7 'Then the drink offering with it shall be a fourth of a hin for each lamb, in the holy place you shall pour out a drink offering of strong drink to the Lord.' (emphasis mine)

Someone else addressed the contention that wine is grape juice better than me:

Bottom line? You have no biblical evidence to suggest wine in any form was not fermented.

Are you lecturing me?! I suggest you follow your own advice.

What in the world does that have to do with "aged wine" in the passage? Nothing.

Paul could have easily wrote, "Do not drink wine" but he did not. The prohibition is not on drinking wine but on becoming intoxicated.

Let me add something:

1 Timothy 4:4 For everything created by God is good, and nothing is to be rejected if it is received with gratitude;

Since you come from the camp that says "all" in John 3:16 means all without distinction, then everything means the same thing.

 

When one considers "substance abuse" one of the first things they consider is "alcoholic beverages"--drunkenness.
Next is marijuana, cocaine, heroin, ecstasy, etc.

Everything created by God is good and nothing to be refused.
By your reasoning marijuana coming from hemp, is good and should not be refused.
Cocaine comes from the coco plant.
Heroin and Opium come from the poppy plant.

We shouldn't refuse them, right?
It is substance abuse, as is alcohol.
Oh, I know, these other drugs can be taken in moderation too.

 

You turn twisting scripture into an art form.

God created trees. Certainly that is good thing, no? But if someone fashions a baseball bat out of a piece of ash and beats someone to death with it are we to say trees are no longer good?

God created all things. We are to enjoy all things by using them in a manner that is intrinsically good. I can have a nice Dogfish Head I.P.A. and not become intoxicated. I can have six Dogfish Head I.P.A.'s and I know for a fact I will become intoxicated. But if I were to smoke one joint I know I will get high. What is the distinction? Marijuana is smoked in order to get high (medicinal purposes notwithstanding). Alcohol does not necessarily lead to intoxication. Abusing alcohol will.

 

What can you tell us about ancient oenology?

 

There is a thing called Google.... night night:sleep::sleeping_2:

 

Aaron, I only have a rudimentary knowledge. Seeing as I was not present during ancient times I can only glean from others. Earlier in this thread I quoted a portion of an article from a gentlemen who refutes the idea that yayin refers to non-alcoholic wine.

The issue is still one of Christian liberty. If you do not wish to imbibe then you have the liberty not to. I honestly do worry about those who are concerned about people exercising their Christian liberty in many areas of life. I understand where that line of thinking comes from, and the false piety it promises to those who abstain from exercising liberty. What I will not allow is for fundamentalists to tell me what I can or cannot do.

 

And you still refuse to deal with it.

Why does it apply to drinking alcohol in moderation and not apply to drinking caffeine in moderation?

 

Hearty amen :thumbsup:

 

Or if your a sick perverted who views sex with underaged kids as his addiction should we be having relations with our mates? The perv is our weaker brother after all right so why risk encouring him? See that's the difference, my darling wife cannot control herself when she drinks....her history with alcohol is not good. While I can consume a 6 pack then never touch it again...is it fair, no its not...but its reality. In her weakness she becomes stronger by exercising will power in abstinence & that is a level of maturity I respect & love about her.

 

Wow. I'm impressed.

 

It's irrelevent and stupid. I've already shown your answers to a straightforward Scriptural example of a matter of conscience to be antithetical to Paul's, and you think you've stumped me over neckwear?

 

Any different than suggesting we are all closit alcoholics... the actual word was 'drunks' and so we are defending moderate drinking...now there is a stupid remark.