PastorSBC1303
Active Member
In the Bible is Alcohol allowed in moderation?
-
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 in Moderation?
- Thread starter PastorSBC1303
- Start date
Looks like from the results that some do not believe Jesus ever drank wine or ever turned the water into wine. Did they refuse to believe the Bible or did they choose to change the word for wine?
The following verses use the word wine.
Matt 9:17
Matt 27:34
Mark 2:22
Mark 15:23
Luke 1:15
Luke 5:37, 38
Luke 7:33
Luke 10:34
John 2:3
John 2:9, 10
John 4:46
Roma 14:21
Ephe 5:18
1Tim 3:8
1Tim 5:23
Titu 2:3
Reve 6:6
Reve 14:8
Reve 14:10
Reve 16:19
Reve 17:2
Reve 18:3
Reve 18:13
Reve 19:15
The following verses use the word wine.
Matt 9:17
Matt 27:34
Mark 2:22
Mark 15:23
Luke 1:15
Luke 5:37, 38
Luke 7:33
Luke 10:34
John 2:3
John 2:9, 10
John 4:46
Roma 14:21
Ephe 5:18
1Tim 3:8
1Tim 5:23
Titu 2:3
Reve 6:6
Reve 14:8
Reve 14:10
Reve 16:19
Reve 17:2
Reve 18:3
Reve 18:13
Reve 19:15
I will mention this again--whether you want to believe it or not---the word "wine" in the Bible is generic--it can mean "unfermented" or "fermented" depending on the context.
Jesus did not create, drink, or give His disciples "fermented/leavened" wine. He used the word "cup" in Matthew 26:27. Hebrews 7:26 says:
For such an high priest became us, who is HOLY, HARMLESS, UNDEFILED, SEPARATE from sinners, and made higher than the heavens; (Hebrews 7:26)
(Emphasis mine)
If Jesus drank "fermented/leavened" wine at Cana or at the Last Supper, He would have put leaven in His body--then that would have disqualified Him as our perfect SINLESS sacrifice.
You can use all the verses you want to try and prove that wine always means "fermented", it doesn't make it so--unless you keep in mind the context.
Jesus did not create, drink, or give His disciples "fermented/leavened" wine. He used the word "cup" in Matthew 26:27. Hebrews 7:26 says:
For such an high priest became us, who is HOLY, HARMLESS, UNDEFILED, SEPARATE from sinners, and made higher than the heavens; (Hebrews 7:26)
(Emphasis mine)
If Jesus drank "fermented/leavened" wine at Cana or at the Last Supper, He would have put leaven in His body--then that would have disqualified Him as our perfect SINLESS sacrifice.
You can use all the verses you want to try and prove that wine always means "fermented", it doesn't make it so--unless you keep in mind the context.
Perhaps sometimes this is the case, but it would be impossible to make a definitive case based on this. Bottom line is that there are ample passages where it is impossible, from context and not presumption, to tell whether the wine is fermented or not - and many of these passages portray wine in a positive light, a blessing from God.
That is a circular argument. If your assumption is wrong (that drinking is sin), then your conclusion is wrong - Jesus drinking fermented wine would not have disqualified him. Second, putting leaven in one's body is not sin in the first place. Third, it's not that which goeth into the mouth defileth a man; but that which cometh out of the mouth, this defileth a man.
What is "moderation?" Someone who has never drank would have "0" moderation, wouldn't they??? One glass of wine or one shot, and they would probably be out like a light.
On the other hand, for an alcoholic, is "moderation" the point where they become inebriated - some alcoholics can put away several six packs and not get a buzz.
Then again, an alcoholic who knows they are one, would probably want to have "0" moderation, knowing that one drink could cause them to fall off the wagon.
Is the standard for "moderation" the same as that set by the State Laws?
Does the standard for "moderation" include prescription drugs and the possible side effects mixing alcohol with drugs?
Or, is the level of "moderation" determined by whether or not one ends up beating his wife and kicking the dog?
At what point in "moderation" is one opening one's mind to temptation from outside sources, possible adultery, fornication, pornography, etc., or even (gasp) demonic influence?
At what point in "moderation" does one throw up?
And, last but not least, at what point does "moderation" no longer avoid the very appearance of evil?
Quite a conundrum, at best.
On the other hand, for an alcoholic, is "moderation" the point where they become inebriated - some alcoholics can put away several six packs and not get a buzz.
Then again, an alcoholic who knows they are one, would probably want to have "0" moderation, knowing that one drink could cause them to fall off the wagon.
Is the standard for "moderation" the same as that set by the State Laws?
Does the standard for "moderation" include prescription drugs and the possible side effects mixing alcohol with drugs?
Or, is the level of "moderation" determined by whether or not one ends up beating his wife and kicking the dog?
At what point in "moderation" is one opening one's mind to temptation from outside sources, possible adultery, fornication, pornography, etc., or even (gasp) demonic influence?
At what point in "moderation" does one throw up?
And, last but not least, at what point does "moderation" no longer avoid the very appearance of evil?
Quite a conundrum, at best.
Hey Pastor,
I voted, and Thanks for the honest try at a honest conversation/debate about this subject.
However, there are some people, to use the phrase of someone else, there are some people that "..sound like a broken record."
Their minds are made up and they are not capable of having a honest, clean debate without skewing the Bible.
Thanks again though Pastor for giving it a try...
Jamie
I voted, and Thanks for the honest try at a honest conversation/debate about this subject.
However, there are some people, to use the phrase of someone else, there are some people that "..sound like a broken record."
Their minds are made up and they are not capable of having a honest, clean debate without skewing the Bible.
Thanks again though Pastor for giving it a try...
Jamie
At what point does eating impair my senses so that I am at risk of killing someone with my automobile? Well, maybe if I drop my fries....
At what point does eating impair my judgment so that I am tempted to sexual sins?
At what point does eating stupefy my brain so that I leave myself open to spiritual influences. They don't call it "spirits" for nothing!!!
At any rate, nice apples & oranges try, natters.
In 1 Corinthians 15:20-23, we read
But Christ has indeed been raised from the dead, the firstfruits of those who have fallen asleep. For since death came though a man, the resurrection of the dead comes also through a man. For as in Adam all die, so in Chirst all will be made alive. But each in his own turn: Christ, the firstfruits; then, when he comes, those who belong to him.
Twice in this passage, Christ is referred to as the firstfruits.
Now, go to directions for the Feast of Weeks, which follows the Passover (known later as Pentecost). This is when the Holy Spirit was given. In Leviticus 23:17, we find the following directions regarding the bread:
From wherever you live, bring two loaves made of two-tenths of an ephah of fine flour, bakes with yeast, as a wave offering of firstfruits to the Lord.
Evidently yeast as associated with the firstfruits is not sinful, but commanded.
I would also want to mentioned that Noah, a righteous man, knew exactly what he was doing when he fermented the grapes and made wine. If he had not expected the taste of wine, he would have spit it out after the first sip! Even the smell would have stopped him from drinking it.
It is my personal opinion that Noah drank the amount he was used to drinking before the Flood. That amount, with greater air pressure would not have made him drunk or even high. However, with the evident drop in air pressure after the Flood, the effect of the alcohol was intensified and he became drunk. This is the same thing that can happen if one is used to drinking a glass of wine at sea level with no effect at all and then has a like amount in Denver, the mile high city, to say nothing of up in the Himalayas! The suddenness of the effect would catch the person unawares and it would be quite easy to become intoxicated with the same amount that meant nothing at all at sea level.
Thus, I think that the mention of this episode carries a further meaning than regarding the reaction of his sons. I think it is a clear indication that the air pressure before and after the Flood were quite different. I do not see it as an indication that Noah sinned. We read no condemnation about him in the Bible at any time and it seems rather evident he didn't make the same mistake twice!
But Christ has indeed been raised from the dead, the firstfruits of those who have fallen asleep. For since death came though a man, the resurrection of the dead comes also through a man. For as in Adam all die, so in Chirst all will be made alive. But each in his own turn: Christ, the firstfruits; then, when he comes, those who belong to him.
Twice in this passage, Christ is referred to as the firstfruits.
Now, go to directions for the Feast of Weeks, which follows the Passover (known later as Pentecost). This is when the Holy Spirit was given. In Leviticus 23:17, we find the following directions regarding the bread:
From wherever you live, bring two loaves made of two-tenths of an ephah of fine flour, bakes with yeast, as a wave offering of firstfruits to the Lord.
Evidently yeast as associated with the firstfruits is not sinful, but commanded.
I would also want to mentioned that Noah, a righteous man, knew exactly what he was doing when he fermented the grapes and made wine. If he had not expected the taste of wine, he would have spit it out after the first sip! Even the smell would have stopped him from drinking it.
It is my personal opinion that Noah drank the amount he was used to drinking before the Flood. That amount, with greater air pressure would not have made him drunk or even high. However, with the evident drop in air pressure after the Flood, the effect of the alcohol was intensified and he became drunk. This is the same thing that can happen if one is used to drinking a glass of wine at sea level with no effect at all and then has a like amount in Denver, the mile high city, to say nothing of up in the Himalayas! The suddenness of the effect would catch the person unawares and it would be quite easy to become intoxicated with the same amount that meant nothing at all at sea level.
Thus, I think that the mention of this episode carries a further meaning than regarding the reaction of his sons. I think it is a clear indication that the air pressure before and after the Flood were quite different. I do not see it as an indication that Noah sinned. We read no condemnation about him in the Bible at any time and it seems rather evident he didn't make the same mistake twice!
Maybe if the size of your torso affects your ability to effectively move the steering wheel.
Heck, most of us are tempted to sexual sins with or without food around.
Depends what you eat.
I don't think so. Your questions about limits show something very interesting - you are basing the "wrongness" of something not by the act itself, but by the possible negative outcomes that may result. I am at risk of killing someone with my car every time I drive to work - does that mean travel is sinful? I am at risk of impaired senses and judgment by not getting enough sleep - does that mean staying awake is sinful? I am at risk of being tempted by sexual sin by those stupid pop-ups that can happen when browsing the internet - does that mean using a computer is sinful? I am at risk of stupifying my brain so that I leave myself open to spiritual influences by taking perscribed drugs - does this mean that employing modern medicine is sinful?
We are at risk of negative outcomes by almost everything we do.
The Jews used to "build fences around Torah" - putting more and more and more restrictions on everyday life, to prevent the possibility of producing a negative outcome. From the commandment "Remember the Sabbath and keep it holy" came the first fence: the idea that no work was to be performed (never mind that work itself can be holy). Then the second fence: how to define work - they decided (for one) that one couldn't exhert too much continuous physical activity. Then the third fence: how to define "too much" - they decided that one couldn't walk more than 100 steps in a row on the Sabbath, so one then had tolie down for a few seconds after every 99th step. All this to "prevent possible negative outcomes".
That's exactly what modern "fundamentalists" are doing with things such as drinking wine.
If preventing possible negative outcomes are to determine how we are to behave, we should never eat fatty food, never eat meat (eating meat and drinking wine are the two examples in Rom 14), never use the internet (we might stumble across and be draw to porn), never go outside on a sunny day (an attractive person with only a bathing suit on might walk by), never go to the mall or look at a catalog (we may covet or be tempted to steal), never go to a convenience store (we may be tempted to play the lotto) etc.
If one feels they shouldn't drink wine because they want to avoid the possibility of getting drunk (a sin) or committing another sin because of drinking, then that person should certainly abstain. If one feels they shouldn't go to a beach because they want to avoid the possibility of lust (a sin), then that person should certainly abstain. If one feels they shouldn't have a pizza because they want to avoid the possibility of gluttony (a sin), then they should abstain from eating that pizza. If one feels they shouldn't go into a jewelry store because they want to avoid the possibility of covetting (a sin), then they should abstain from jewelry stores. But these people (Rom 14 calls them those of weaker faith) should not tell everyone else that these activities are wrong and sinful for everyone.
That's exactly what modern "fundamentalists" are doing with things such as drinking wine.
If preventing possible negative outcomes are to determine how we are to behave, we should never eat fatty food, never eat meat (eating meat and drinking wine are the two examples in Rom 14), never use the internet (we might stumble across and be draw to porn), never go outside on a sunny day (an attractive person with only a bathing suit on might walk by), never go to the mall or look at a catalog (we may covet or be tempted to steal), never go to a convenience store (we may be tempted to play the lotto) etc.
If one feels they shouldn't drink wine because they want to avoid the possibility of getting drunk (a sin) or committing another sin because of drinking, then that person should certainly abstain. If one feels they shouldn't go to a beach because they want to avoid the possibility of lust (a sin), then that person should certainly abstain. If one feels they shouldn't have a pizza because they want to avoid the possibility of gluttony (a sin), then they should abstain from eating that pizza. If one feels they shouldn't go into a jewelry store because they want to avoid the possibility of covetting (a sin), then they should abstain from jewelry stores. But these people (Rom 14 calls them those of weaker faith) should not tell everyone else that these activities are wrong and sinful for everyone.
standingfirminChrist
New Member
so natters, we are to completely ignore the verse that tells us not to have experience with fermented alcohol?
PastorSBC1303
Active Member
Deuteronomy 14:26 "you may spend the money for whatever your heart desires: for oxen, or sheep, or wine or strong drink, or whatever your heart desires; and there you shall eat in the presence of the Lord your God and rejoice, you and your household."
standingfirminChrist
New Member
Helen,
Noah's drinking brought a curse upon Ham, for if Noah had not drank, and was sober, Ham would not have committed the sin he did.
And your air pressure theory is just that, a theory with no biblical passage to back it.
As to the mention of Noah getting it right, that again is unbiblical presupposition. Just because he is not mentioned as getting drunk again does not necessarily mean he learned to drink moderately. It could mean he realized his sin and refused to drink wine again.
Noah's drinking brought a curse upon Ham, for if Noah had not drank, and was sober, Ham would not have committed the sin he did.
And your air pressure theory is just that, a theory with no biblical passage to back it.
As to the mention of Noah getting it right, that again is unbiblical presupposition. Just because he is not mentioned as getting drunk again does not necessarily mean he learned to drink moderately. It could mean he realized his sin and refused to drink wine again.
T
TaterTot
Guest
What about the proverb about wine being good fer ya?
Hope of Glory
New Member
If Noah had not drank enough to become intoxicated, then he would be sober.
While I don't agree with Helen as to the reasons, it's still the intoxication that's the problem and not the consumption of the wine.
While I don't agree with Helen as to the reasons, it's still the intoxication that's the problem and not the consumption of the wine.