Featured RC Sproul and Alcoholic Beverages

Aaron, you are not within a country mile of the Scriptures on this.

The weaker brother principle has nothing to do with what anyone does away from the weaker brother.

I should not have to tell you that.

 

It's all in the presentation folks! :smilewinkgrin:

 

It's right there in black and white. It's just hard for you to see it through your belly.

 

Just want to jump in here and say that most beers are around 5% alcohol by volume. Light beers are typically 4%; ice beers are 5.5%. I just Googled Mike's Hard Lemonade alcohol content and found it contains 5% alcohol. There is a version called Mike's Harder Lemonade that contains 8%.

I would venture to say that most people that advocate absolute teetotalism do not have a clue as to how strong most alcoholic drinks are, or how many drinks it takes to become impaired.

 

As a former drunk I know what it takes. It really depends on how much and in what time frame and what your body size is. For some there just seems to be a higher tolerance than others.

However, for the average person anything beyond one single beverage will make one buzzed. And buzzed is intoxicated or drunk. Drunk is drunk. Some get more drunk than others but all of it is less than completely sober minded which is the scriptural standard.

 

Yes, there are lots of variables, but body weight, amount consumed per hour, and whether you have food or an empty stomach are the main factors. Examples: If I go out to dinner and have one beer while waiting for my food and another one with my meal, and this takes me 1.5 hours, I am sober-minded when I leave that restaurant. (I weigh 205 lbs.) If I'm sitting at home watching a ball game or a movie and consume a beer every 45 minutes, it takes me well into my 3rd beer to have an inkling that I'm affected, and usually not even then.

I agree that buzzed is not completely sober minded but I disagree that buzzed is the same as drunk.

 

There are specialty beers brewed by Coors that exceed 5%, but the most popular brands are right around 5%. Here is the entire Coors beer lineup with ABV% listed.

http://www.ratebeer.com/brewers/coors-millercoors/113/

The most popular Coors brands are Coors (regular), Coors Light, Keystone, Keystone light, and George Killians.

No, I'm saying that people that think you can get "drunk" on one drink are wrong, and since the sin is drunkenness, not having a drink, absolute teetotalism is not supported by scripture. It may be a personal preference and a good idea but it's not Biblical.

 

Anything less than sober minded is against the scriptural standard. Buzzed is just less drunk but drunk no less. Judgment is still impaired.

 

You mean "the don't ask don't tell" policy that the military had.
I think they did away with that now didn't they.
You can tell people what you do in private: drinking, sex, homosexuality..., and the list goes on.

 

And that is your problem, well stated. You had a bad experience in a "backwards" IFB church that as you infer was not probably well-educated. You have talked of your experience before. Then, unfairly (and illogically) you take this big brush and paint all IFB churches with that same brush.
I moderate the Other Christian Denom. Forum. You give the exact same reasoning why some have left IFB and have become Catholics. Sad, but true. You became an ardent Calvinist and Preterist; they became Catholics. And Why? Because of a bad experience in a certain genre of IFB churches that most here would not approve of in the first place. Get over it!!! Quit whining! And stop slandering the entire movement by your bad experience!

Before you were educated?
Don't give yourself too much credit.
Did you really spend much time in the last link I gave you? I doubt it. There is a lot of scholarship in that article and it is extensive, unlike the first one.
Billy Sunday was an entertainer. He could be a powerful preacher. He knew how to get people's attention. But we know he didn't have a college education, so your argument doesn't hold water.

The "Fundamentalist" movement are those who have fought for the fundamentals of the faith.
Machen was a fundamentalist. He didn't like the name-tag "fundamental" and was not ashamed in stating so. But for the sake of unity and standing with his fundamental brethren, he fought alongside them against the modernism and liberalism of the day.
Dr. Bob Jones Sr. Jr. III are all fundamentalists. Bob Jones University is the only Fundamental University in America. There are many colleges, but it is the only University, and the graduates are mostly Baptists. Its standard of education cannot be matched.
On this board are Thomas Cassidy and Fred Moritz--both Fundamental Baptists. You ought to read some of their books or published materials. Look them up; go to their websites.
Don't slam what you don't know about.

Norris, in the end, got himself into some trouble. Who doesn't.
But for all the good that he did, in comparison what have you done?

Then you don't know much about scholarship, nor have you even considered them You also write off MacArthur himself. I noticed you want to play a game of semantics to justify his stand. His stand: that all should "abstain from alcoholic beverages." That is what is written in his book. I don't use the word "teetotaller." A person either abstains or he doesn't. MacArthur abstains. That is clear enough to me. Don't muddy the waters by your semantics.

I am not playing your game of semantics.
The Bible clearly teaches to abstain. But you won't listen to the Bible. I will wait until you read that last link that I posted. He goes through every possible objection that a person could possibly have.

 

And a (one Guinness) with my meal is going to do what for me...send me to hell?

 

That's your terminology;not ours. It's not a mere revision of Roman Catholic doctrine.

Your arrogance is seeping out again DHK. Reformed Churches are Bible-believing ones. Stop spouting sinful nonsense.

 

Please refrain from saying such disrespectful things about John MacArthur.

Just as a chided DHK I will tell you to stop with that kind of slur. Of course IFB churches are Bible-beliving ones. I disagree with a number of their doctrines and practices --nonetheless they are Bible believers.

That's going too far as well on your part. They do have their traditions;though they wouldn't recognize them as traditions.

 

You make it sound as if he is a lost sinner. I will have you know that if an IFB chruch member joins the EFC he is not lost either. Stop the drama. There are a good number of holes in the IFB churches as there are in Presbyterianism.

 

The conversation started out with drinking in "Baptist churches," and a consideration of "Baptist history."
Not to be offensive I used the term "Conservative Baptist churches," but only to eliminate those who have gone liberal. It had nothing to do with "Reformed."
The smart-alec post "I would never enter a "Reformed Church" ...., really had nothing of value to add to the conversation. We are not talking of Reformed churches. The poster can go back to his Presbyterian roots as far as I am concerned if he wants to use inflammatory language. We were discussing "Baptist history," not reformed history. Thus my reaction was more of a strong rebuke though it may not have looked like it.

Let's get back to where Luke and I left off: "drinking in Baptist churches" historically, and leave the "reformed out of it. There is no need for that.

 

You know nothing about Presbyterianism. [rude comments snipped]

 

The two are intertwined.