Featured RC Sproul and Alcoholic Beverages

Again you are speaking in generalities. There are no holes in some IFB churches.
But in this church, admittedly there were weaknesses.
The pastor was weak in his teaching and shepherding skills.
The other problem was that a wave of a neo-reformation fad that had recently hit the area and many of the young people were not grounded in the Word were caught up in it. This was unfortunate. Would you not agree that it is unfortunate to see Baptists become Presbyterians?

 

Of course there are. Mortals fellowship there. There are holes in every denomination and the non-denominational ones.

Because of my baptistic stance I would be disappointed in someone departing from the biblical postion on the subject. But in many other areas I think that going to a conservative Presbyterian church would perhaps contribute to a more mature understanding of the Word.

 

Really ITL, with all due respect, to both me & to the cops the Buzz is a drunk.....an altered state (of mind). A certain blood alcohol level, you could very well get into an accident. but I know Im talking to the choir. Then if you do that at home enough, who's watching you....the wife, the kids,the grand kids... does that set the example you want to set?

Now if you drink responsibly like a beer & a meal, an after dinner glass of wine..... you know... moderation; you send out a positive message. I seriously believe that most that object to the consumption of alcohol have somewhere in their life had a bad experience that poisons any future contact with the substance. Its fear based & not totally irrational. But now any activity with alcohol causes anxiety & the solution is abstinence (for everyone). That is what leads to these ridiculous conversations ..... and they manufacture these "Well Gods on our side" Scenarios. Brother, we are going to hell if we have a beer..... so if we are, I gotta go to the store & get some Sam Adams:love2: :thumbsup:... which I will drink both sparingly & responsibly (with some beer nuts)

 

I take it that you have never studied Baptist History.
Baptist History for me starts well before the Reformation therefore they are not intertwined at all. As per this conversation (on alcohol) Calvinism plays no part in it at all.
What is your argument--that Reformers drink and non-Cals don't?
Calvinism has no part in this discussion.

 

I have been in a few good solid IFB churches with mature pastors who preach and teach the Word, have a good administration, meet the needs of the people, have a good missions outreach, and could not fault for anything.
That is what I am referring to.

More mature--like infant baptism.
I think you need to learn what mature doctrine is.

 

I know you are not familiar with Baptist History.

Baptists weren't around before the 17th century. In the early 17th century Calvinistic Baptists constituted the majority of Baptists.

You brought it up first --not me.

 

And the above does not negate the fact that there are holes in the IFB churches as well as every other church body.

And you completely ignored my fist sentence which nullifies your immature rersponse.

Go to a good,conservative Presbyterian church and find out.

 

Have you ever checked the Baptist History forum. There would be plenty there that disagree with you. They all can't be wrong can they?
Here is a link from there:
http://books.google.ca/books?id=BF8D09JSfzwC&pg=PA177&source=gbs_toc_r&cad=4#v=onepage&q&f=false

Go back and read the thread.
When it was first introduced I was the first one that protested against it. And I still do.

 

No sir, it is hard for you to see it through your ignorance.

You cannot make your brother to offend if what you are doing never reaches him in any way- obviously.

Furthermore, you have yet to distinguish between your application of the weaker brother standard as it pertains to alcohol and the weaker brother standard as it pertains to other things like caffeine and carrying guns.

If you apply it selectively on pet items in a way that suits you then your standard has no consistency and makes no sense.

 

There you have it folks. God has spoken. Record this in the Scripture. We have a new revelation. In case you were wondering, "Buzzed IS drunk."

I know all intelligent people on earth have never conflated the two before but god has just told us that it is the case.

And like with most things that god tells us- YOU HAVE TO TAKE IT BY FAITH.

You say, "Why is 'buzzed drunk'? Where is the case for that?"

BLASPHEMER!!! Who are you to question god? God does not have to make a case for what he purports! He's god!!!

He just says it and it is so.

 

It is a gross oversimplification to state that "fundamentalists" are just people who stand for the fundamentals of the faith.

99% of the SBC stands for the fundamentals. Do you consider them to be "fundamentalists".

The Bible does NOT clearly teach abstinence and no person with half a brain for hermeneutics thinks it does.

On the other hand the Bible DOES record God telling his people to by strong drink and rejoice before the Lord if they wish.

The Bible DOES teach that God MAKES THE WINE which makes merry the heart of man.

The Bible DOES show the Second Person of the Godhead drinking wine- the kind that would make the Pharisees call him a drunkard.

Pharisees are still missing it today- but the Pharisees of today are fundamentalists.

 

No. And it is not disrespectful. john MacArthur is a great man. I support him.

But it is not an overstatement to say that it is weird to be a premil, pretrib, dispy abstainer and a Calvinist.

That's like being a house cat that loves to swim in the ocean.

No.

Would you tell Elijah not to mock the prophets of Baal, or Jesus not to call Peter Satan, or Paul not to withstand Peter to his face, or Stephen not to call the Jews stiffnecked and their fathers murderers of the prophets?

You may ask me not to be so harsh. You may pm if you like and try to make a case for me softening up. I will listen.

But you just commanding me...?

In the same vein that Pharisees were Bible-believing.

They believed the Bible but they made the word of God of none effect by their traditions teaching for doctrine the traditions of men.

 

Anyone who thinks there is a dichotomy there is not educated enough on Baptist history to speak on the matter.

Even the most backwater fundy on earth who has spent 6 hours in a baptist history class recognizes the Particular Baptist strain- the STRONGER of the two strains for most of Baptist history.

Only a complete nit-wit does not count John Bunyan, Andrew Fuller, WILLIAM CAREY and Charles Spurgeon as Baptists simply because they were REFORMED!

 

I am fully informed about the particular Baptists and the General Baptists and their differences. As I disagree with Rippon no doubt I will disagree with you, that Baptist history started long before the Reformation, long before that distinction was made.

Furthermore, is it germane to this discussion.
I will put forth the same question again:
What are you trying to prove by stating that difference:
that Reformers drank and non-cals did not?
It is a red herring to this discussion.

 

Yes, well, you might as well believe Gomer Pyle was a world renowned historian as believe that "Trail of Blood" is a remotely reputable account of Baptist history.

No. Everybody was OKAY with drinking before the middle of the 19th century with very few exceptions.

I am saying that teetotalism is an ignorance hiccup in Church History that thankfully is vanishing from the earth in like manner as it appeared not long ago.

 

Actually here is how Mitchell began his sentence......"As a former drunk I know what it takes" & indeed, he probably does. What he is telling you is the drink reacts on him differently (as an alcoholic). He just cant stop the process once he begins to drink & the "Buzz" indicator only signals a starting point. He then has to maintain that buzz (euphoric feeling) & he does it probably by overcompensating. A normal drinker can get to a point & then slack off (But the juicer doesn't).....he will continue to drink till he is really blitzed & most likely continue on till he passes out. He is in overdrive with no governor to slow him down...... at least thats what Ive seen both my wife & brother do. And I apologize Rev if I'm oversimplifying or if I appeared to insult you....didn't mean to. But some here don't have a grasp on all that goes on & you did kinda volunteer....but if I'm off base let me know.

Just trying to show that there can be some serious consequences to encouraging a weaker brother to drink without totally understand whats going on in their head.

 

Do you deny that there were baptists before the reformation (brake with Rome)?

 

Middle of the 19th century, eh?
Is Albert Banes early enough for you?
He was an American theologian that lived between 1798 and 1870
I find his commentary on John 2:10 very interesting. Did Christ make fermented wine or grape juice?

 

Luke 7:31-35:

And the Lord said, ‘To what then shall I liken the men of this generation, and what are they like? They are like children sitting in the marketplace and calling to one another, saying: “We played the flute for you, and you did not dance; we mourned to you, and you did not weep.” For John the Baptist came neither eating bread nor drinking wine, and you say, “He has a demon.” The Son of Man has come eating and drinking, and you say, “Look, a glutton and a winebibber, a friend of tax collectors and sinners.” But wisdom is justified by all her children.’


So ya cant win where humans are concerned.....damned if you do & damned if ya dont!