DRINKING ALCOHOL?

Calvin -

I didn't have to dig any deeper for those Scriptures than the ones that support light drinking - that which falls short of drunkenness. The Scriptures I cited are just as prevelant as the opposing view.

I have not denied that the wine Jesus drank had alcoholic content. You are reading a presupposition into my post that is not there.

As for why Paul told Timothy to drink a little wine, it is obviously, in context, medical advice. The man probably suffered dispepsia or perhaps even an ulcer. There is no doubt that alcohol has medicinal value. That is not the point. Because Timothy didn't have Pepto-Bismal, should we refrain from the use of it?

Whether the situations were different for the Passages I cited seems rather irrelevant. For whatever reason, God chose to preserve those parts of the text along with all the others. The reasons for the abstinence are cited right there in the verses I gave.

Yes, I do differently. Wine was used according to the text but the signifigance is not that it is wine, but that it represents the blood of Christ, the final death knell to the believer's death to sin. Christ didn't say, "Drink this wine," He said, "This is the covenant in my blood..."

Are those who are allergic to wine to be ostracized from the Lord's Supper? That seems to be a bit of a stretch for those who worship in Spirit. Besides, you're talking to a sober alcoholic. For me wine is a stumbling block. Am I to be left with a choice of abstaining from the Table or face the potential of relapse?

Look at 1Corinthians 11:26. The intention of the Lord's Supper is for remembrance - to proclaim the Lord's death until He returns.

Be careful trying to stay too literal to the letter of the New Testament. You will soon have yourself painted into a corner. That was the mistake the Pharisees made. They were so concerned about adhering to literalness that they missed the intent of the Law.

There are various Baptist sects that do use wine, the Primitives come to mind. They also refrain from instrumental music, practice feet washing, and do not believe in seminary education for their pastors. Are variations from these practices also to be condemned by the same logic of following literalness?

 

I did no such thing. I questioned you on this post:

All I'm doing is holding you to the same standard you are placing on others. That the Lord's Supper MUST be wine is never stated in the text of the New Testament. You yourself are adding to the doctrine of the Scriptures.

[ November 19, 2003, 12:58 PM: Message edited by: Clint Kritzer ]

 

All this reading has caused me to get a bit thirsty. Can anyone recommend a good merlot?

 

John 2:9-10 (ESV)
When the master of the feast tasted the water now become wine, and did not know where it came from (though the servants who had drawn the water knew), the master of the feast called the bridegroom
[10] and said to him, "Everyone serves the good wine first, and when people have drunk freely, then the poor wine . But you have kept the good wine until now."

I've tried to show, as others have done, that wine in the Bible does not necessarily have to be alcoholic, but can just as well refer to fresh grape juice. For those who believe that the "good wine" and the "poor wine" in the above verse refered to alcoholic wine, the conclusion is made that a wise master of a feast served the "good wine" first, because it was full strength and not watered down. Then, because of his wisdom and desire to promote moderation, and after the people had drunk freely, he brought out the poor. Poor because it was watered down, and although not tasting as good, would not as likily make the people drunk. Those who believe in the alcoholic content of this wine imply that Jesus did the very opposite. After reviewing all that the Bible says about drunkeness, that no drunkard can enter the kingdom of God, can you all believe that the Son of God would serve the more intoxicating variety of wine to the people last, after they had already been drinking freely. Would He not be imminently better than the "wise master" who served the non-intoxicating wine last in an effort to prevent any drunkedness. If the wine at the wedding were grape juice, it merely shows that our Lord served a finer tasting variety that had been previously served.

 

Clint,

I did not mean to imply that drinking wine is necessary to keep communion, merely that our practices should mirror, to at least the extent that other denominations do, the practices of the early church.

I suppose you could drink vodka or even water or cranberry juice in rememberence of Jesus at communion. But it seems to me that it would be most appropriate to do what Jesus did, mirroring the original Lord's Supper to the greatest extent possible here.

I don't think Jesus literally instructed us to wash each other's feet.

If you are allergic to wine, then you should substitute something else at communion in my opinion. Of course, I have never been to semminary. If you are a recovering alcoholic and can't drink at all for fear of relapse, I would think you may be in much the same situation. You have a medical reason to be excused from using what I would find to be the most appropriate symbol...wine.

By the way, I never said that you indicated the wine Jesus drank was devoid of alcohol content. I merely asked a question. To ferret out your viewpoint. If Jesus did something (as you at least implicitly acknowledge), then doing it cannot be a sin (with the exception of things such as receiving worship and claiming to be God, which Jesus did because he was God).

I know a number of people who do not drink alcohol in certain situations because they claim it interferes with their witness. And this may well be true. For instance, I would not want to be drinking alcohol while trying to witness to a Muslim.

I still have yet to hear a good, sound reason for generally using grape juice instead of wine at communion. (And, if necessary, offering grape juice as an alternative.)

I don't think we should necessarily think we should assume that Timothy had a medical condition which wine would help. After all, wasn't Paul an Apostle capable of Apostolic healing? It is for that reason that I believe this to be more of an issue of social folkways than purely for medicinal purposes.

I have never recommended that anyone completely refrain from using Pepto-Bismol, or alcohol, for that matter.

I am not trying to be extremely literal. It's just that I find the Baptist denomination to be extremely literal about a number of things but to adopt a completely different attitude toward wine in communion. If we as a denomination were, for instance, to approach the issue of baptism in the same way we approach wine at communion...maybe sprinkling wouldn't be seen as so bad. Consistency is something that is important to me.

I like instrumental music at worship. And I think it's useful to have pastors who are educated in seminary. So that they understand biblical Greek and have studied various interpretations of difficult doctrines.

Blessings,
CalvinG

 

This is where you begin to paint yourself into a corner (as I warned). At the original event of the Lord's Supper, it occurred during the first day of the feast of Unleavened Bread. It was in the evening. Christ and the Disciples were reclined at a table. We would be hard pressed to duplicate the event. Again, the Lord's Supper is a remembrance. To get too involved in trying to mimic the original atmosphere adds nothing to the meaning. Just so long as you always remember, that the Supper is done in an orderly and honoring way, and you have examined yourself beforehand, you are fulfilling the requirement.

John 13:14 implies that he did. The Free Will Baptists also practice this as an ordinance.

I never claimed that drinking was a sin. Drinking to excess is. My point was to make sure that it was not misunderstood that NOT drinking is a sin, even for an event such as the Lord's Supper. It appears that my point was made.

I can not find any evidence that the views of most Baptists towards temperance are historic beyond just before the turn of the past century. The view towards abstinence that most Baptists hold stems from the verses I cited. Certain sects of the Jewish population in the Old Testament were commended for their abstinence from alcohol. It is clearly stated that it was done as an honor to God. Also, in the modern day we have clean water as well as a variety of alternatives that do not require a purification process, such as alcohol, which allow us to dispense with the use of such. It is difficult to deny that alcohol is a problem for many people and takes its toll on society. I am not saying that you can not drink, I am saying, as you conceded, that alcohol is a problem for many people. However, it is wrong for us to preach temperance for religious reasons to other groups as well, IMO. This would be a form of legalism. Preaching temperance as an effort to improve society is not.

Just a couple points on this paragraph. First, Paul's advice that Timothy drink wine is certainly for medicinal reasons!

1 Timothy 5:23
(No longer drink only water, but use a little wine for the sake of your stomach and your frequent ailments.)

This parenthetical phrase is inserted as Paul is giving Timothy instructions on choosing elders. Timothy, a youth, was being asked to perform a very stressful task and we can assume from the text that he had some weakness of constitution. It is possible that Timothy who was educated in the Jewish system by his mother and grandmother may have been concerned about abstaining from alcohol as the priest were commanded in the verses I cited yesterday. There was no need for him to suffer in performance of his duty. Medicine was certainly allowable and so Paul tells him.

Secondly, Apostolic healing was done for specific purposes at specific times, just as were Christ's. John calls Christ's acts of healing "signs". Paul was ill often as we see in 1Corinthians 2:3; 2Corinthians 12:7; and Galatians 4:13. We also see that Paul did not heal Epaphroditus while he was ministering to Paul in prison (Philippians 2:27). The Apostles were not sorcerers. They were instruments for the Will of God.

I can see your point here. Immersion is the accepted tradition but most churches will make allowances for invalids that could become endangered by an immersion ceremony. In such cases affusion is accepted.

But my point was that these practices are not New Testament practices. We are in fact varying from the New Testament norm and example. I could name many more that we accept that vary from the primitive church. What is important, to me, is that we concentrate on the messages and lessons as to their intent. Literalness is practically unatainable and leads to us getting wrapped up in a "salvation based on works" system, the very thing we preach against.

As my point was conceded that abstinence is not a sin, I will now bow out of the thread.

 

I will add to this discussion that some of my friends have considered becoming missionaries within the Baptist denomination in areas overseas (not Europe or North America).

They were told that to be accepted they would have to not drink for a period of a year. One of them, who was not raised as a Baptist, was a little outraged at this. I agreed with him. He never drinks alcohol to excess. But he does drink.

Granted, the Baptist denomination is entitled to have whatever requirements it wants for missionaries it funds...but it may end up losing some good people who do not sin but disagree with regard to Baptist folkways regarding alcohol consumption.

CalvinG

 

Again, nothing but a cut and paste from a hyperfundamentalist site.

 

On the soles of my feet, maybe.