I like both lemonades although Mikes offers more flavors.
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Alcohol, Drunkenness and Banquetings
- Thread starter Jeremy Seth
- Start date
I like both lemonades although Mikes offers more flavors.
If they:
1. lose control of their coordination (become unsteady)
2. lose control of the tongue (say things one should not)
3. lose control of emotions (crying, outbursts of anger, etc.)
4. lose control of the will (not in control of themselves, unconscious, don't know where they are, make choices they would not make when cold sober)
5. lose control of the mind (don't remember what happened after they consumed alcohol)
If you want a hard and fast rule, you're not going to get one. Everyone reacts a bit differently to alcohol. It also depends upon size, rate of consumption, and if you have food on your stomach.
Contrary to some popular opinions upon Baptists, it is not that hard to avoid getting drunk. You can completely abstain, or you can drink in moderation with food. I have NEVER been drunk (biblically or legally) in my life. The simple reason is that I have no desire to get drunk and I am careful to be quite moderate in my use of alcohol.
If you want to get drunk, then it will probably happen.
The point is not to try to establish a rule (a legalism) that constitutes "drunk" and then push as hard as possible to take it all the way to the edge. Just purpose in your mind that you are not going to get drunk and limit yourself. If you don't trust yourself to do that (or you have trouble with it), then don't drink at all.
One of the things about the "stumbling block" question is that there is a difference between being a stumbling block and just having someone condemn you.
If someone wants to claim that you shouldn't do something where we have biblical liberty to do so implicitly admits that they are the weaker brother/sister and that they do not have your robust faith. In most circumstances, that's not what they believe at all - they are often just jealous or scornful of your liberty in Christ.
No question Jordan will zealously deny this.
I can't find a reference to John the baptist and the Nazarite vow (Following)
Numbers 6:1 And the LORD spake unto Moses, saying,
2 Speak unto the children of Israel, and say unto them, When either man or woman shall separate themselves to vow a vow of a Nazarite, to separate themselves unto the LORD:
3 He shall separate himself from wine and strong drink, and shall drink no vinegar of wine, or vinegar of strong drink, neither shall he drink any liquor of grapes, nor eat moist grapes, or dried.
4 All the days of his separation shall he eat nothing that is made of the vine tree, from the kernels even to the husk.
so if he had taken a Nazarite vow then technically beer made from grain appears to be OK.
But I don't think John would have drank it anyway.
However, here is a man who ate locust and honey eeekk!
HankD
A Nazarite doesn't drink "strong drink" which includes beer. Nazarites fast from alcohol. John the Baptist didn't drink alcohol (for reasons of self-denial, like fasting from food), which by definition is a Nazarite fast therefor John kept a Nazarite vow.
Baptists, and other Christians, who hold the prohibitionist beliefs of Mormons, Muslims, and Pharisees are straying from both the word and spirit of the Bible.
Hmm, I find no mention of beer in the Bible. "strong drink" ? Even if beer were known in Jesus day don't know if it would qualify as "strong drink".
Some say beer was indeed known in Jesus day.
http://www.independent.co.uk/life-s...ime-of-jesus-then-drinks-it-all-a6990551.html
While I agree that Christians are free to consume alcohol I would disagree that those who abstain have strayed from the word and in fact we should abstain if it would cause an offense of stumbling in a brother/sister or at least we should keep it to ourselves and God.
If you mean by "prohibitionist belief" as a required legal practice then rather than having "strayed" from the word I would simply say that they are wrong.
I believe in this day and age it depends upon the local church and the general attitude of the church towards alcohol. I think we all agree that drunkenness is a big no-no.
HankD
Strong Drink covers anything with alcohol.
In reaching for a defense of your begrudging attitude, you are misinterpreting scripture.
Paul said, "Therefore let us not pass judgment on one another any longer, but rather decide never to put a stumbling block or hindrance in the way of a brother. I know and am persuaded in the Lord Jesus that nothing is unclean in itself, but it is unclean for anyone who thinks it unclean."
The context of clean vs. unclean tells us that Paul is speaking specifically about drinking non-kosher wine in regards to converts from Judaism who had been raised with a legitimate religious belief against drinking non-kosher wine. I have no idea who you think it would cause to stumble for Baptists to approve of drinking, and approve without a begrudging attitude.
Jesus created nearly 160 gallons of wine for wedding guests who were already well drunk (John 2:10). Jesus created without begrudging, but created wine in abundance. Jesus didn't hold back and babble about moderation or argue "I don't want to cause anyone to stumble."
Jeremy Seth
Member
So it is your conclusion that Jesus provided drunks with more alcohol? How would this not be causing a stumbling?
The only consistent conclusions I can draw from John 2:10 are either
-the moderation view is correct, and Jesus provided wine for a party not becoming intoxicated
-the party was drunk, and the "good wine" was non alcoholic: wine as from freshly squeezed grapes that hasn't fermented and soured
I believe this is the correct understanding. The word "drunk" in 2:10 does not necessarily mean "intoxicated." It means they had drunk enough that they were filled - no longer thirsty. See Genesis 43:34 where the LXX uses the Greek word to simply mean "imbibe."
That's what the Bible says.
People drinking wine are becoming intoxicated, necessarily so when they are "well drunk" (which I don't take to mean they were drunk in modern parlance, but on average they were buzzed; although some people there might have been out back puking). Genesis 43:34 in the Septuagint says the equivalent to "well drunk" and those brothers were probably very drunk, using the same Greek word. In any case, the comment by the master of the feast implies that the guests were intoxicated enough that they wouldn't really appreciate the quality of the wine Jesus made.
Non-alcoholic wine, grape juice, at a wedding feast isn't a thing. Even if it were a thing, the master's comment rules it out.
It doesn't say that the guests at the feast of Cana were intoxicated. Only that the custom of providing good wine last occurred as the norm at most wedding feasts. Jesus would not give wine to people drinking too much. "Woe to him who puts the bottle to his neighbors lips"