Alcohol in Moderation?

[natters]

Originally posted by standingfirminChrist:
so natters, we are to completely ignore the verse that tells us not to have experience with fermented alcohol?

We are not to ignore any verses (including those that say wine is a blessing!), but I do not believe that verse means what you say it means. Given its context, I believe this verse is talking about those who drink a lot ("They that tarry long at the wine" in the verse prior), who are looking at wine with craving and strong desire. Two verses later it says "Thine eyes shall behold strange women, and thine heart shall utter perverse things. Yea, thou shalt be as he that lieth down in the midst of the sea, or as he that lieth upon the top of a mast." - these things do not happen until the partaker is drunk.

Remember, these are proverbs. They are not really iron-clad binding doctrines in and of themselves. Earlier in the chapter we are told to put a knife to our throat if we have a big appetite in the presence of a ruler (verse 2), not to talk to fools (verse 9), not to enter the field of someone who does not have a father (verse 10), not to be among drunks or gluttons (verse 20). The surrounding chapters are full of similar proverbs.

I don't think it's a "sin" if we don't follow each of these to the letter, these are just good advice to help us avoid trouble. I no more think it's a sin to "have an experience" with a glass of wine than it is too be in your neighbor's house (Prov 25:17). The sin comes in the excess, and the proverbs intend to warn us of this.

 

[standingfirminChrist]

If the Proverbs 'are not really iron-clad binding doctrines' why are they included in the Bible?

 

[Linda64]

Originally posted by gb93433:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Linda64:
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.

Could you give a few examples? </font>[/QUOTE]You all refute all the verses that I have posted on all other threads on this topic--it is becoming redundant to keep on doing so. All I am saying is this: CONTEXT --wine is a mocker is "fermented" wine, etc.

 

[Linda64]

Originally posted by Hope of Glory:

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.

That's a rather odd statement, Hope of Glory. How does one get intoxicated without consuming wine????

 

[Helen]

It's not that one gets intoxicated without drinking something (wine being one possibility), but that one can drink without becoming intoxicated!

And again, all Noah had to do was smell his 'grape juice' and he would have refused to touch it if wine was not what he had purposely made! NNE, but NNE is going to go for grape juice, smell wine, and think he is about to drink normal grape juice!

He knew exactly what he was doing. He knew how to make wine because he had made it before the Flood and he was still a righteous man.

And Jesus IS the firstfruits and that celebration is the one in which yeast is commanded.

 

[standingfirminChrist]

that is an assumption, unless you were there and asked Noah personally. Wine was different back in his day than that of our day

 

[standingfirminChrist]

Also, show me scripture that says Noah made wine before the flood. Were you there to watch him?

People want to say I add to the Word and then turn around and add to the Word themselves.

 

[gb93433]

Originally posted by Linda64:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by gb93433:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Linda64:
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.

Could you give a few examples? </font>[/QUOTE]You all refute all the verses that I have posted on all other threads on this topic--it is becoming redundant to keep on doing so. All I am saying is this: CONTEXT --wine is a mocker is "fermented" wine, etc. </font>[/QUOTE]I was wondering about the "unfermented wine". I was not aware of any such thing. My parents at onme time were grape farmers and I know what the weather is like when grapes are harvested. If grape juice is left out a few hours it will begin to rot and mold. Even grape jam will mold. So I see no evidence for unfermented wine. If there is a different word I would like ot know about it. The only case I have seen for grape juice is a sermon a Baptist preacher preached years ago that is shot full of holes.

 

[Hope of Glory]

Originally posted by Linda64:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Hope of Glory:

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.

That's a rather odd statement, Hope of Glory. How does one get intoxicated without consuming wine???? </font>[/QUOTE]I think I will let Helen answer for me:

It's not that one gets intoxicated without drinking something (wine being one possibility), but that one can drink without becoming intoxicated!

You cannot become intoxicated without drinking, but you can drink without becoming intoxicated.

 

[Gib]

If the wine of today is not equivalent with the wine in the times of Jesus, what beverage of today would be?

 

[standingfirminChrist]

how about water? how about milk? how about fresh squeezed grape juice?

 

[Helen]

Originally posted by standingfirminChrist:
that is an assumption, unless you were there and asked Noah personally. Wine was different back in his day than that of our day

And that is YOUR assumption! What do you have to back THAT up?

In the meantime, as was posted a bit ago, grapes, when left out, mold. Grape juice will mold very quickly. It takes care and skill to make wine, which doesn't mold. The fact that Noah knew how to do it after the Flood indicates that he knew how to do it before the Flood. Wine is not an accident that happens to grape juice. It is a controlled process which requires a skilled winemaker. Noah knew precisely what he was doing and he drank what he recognized was fermented wine. Because he was a righteous man, I am convinced he did not get drunk on purpose.

That means he must have gotten drunk by accident.

But he knew how to make wine and therefore knew about wine and had drunk it before.

That means there was something else going on.

Air pressure is one possibility. I'm not aware of another.

 

[Linda64]

Great efforts have been made to distinguish the harmless from the intoxicating wines of Scripture, and to show that inspiration has in all cases approved the former alone, and condemned the latter, directly or indirectly. It is not necessary, however, to do this in order to demonstrate that so far as the use of wine leads to inebriation it is pointedly condemned by the word of God. Sin and shame are connected with the first mention of wine in the Bible, and with many subsequent cases, Ge 9:20; 19:31-36; 1Sa 25:36-37; 2Sa 13:28; 1Ki 20:12-21; Es 1:10-11; Da 5:23; Re 17:2. It is characterized as a deceitful mocker, Pr 21:1; as fruitful in miseries, Pr 23:29-35; in woes, Isa 5:22; in errors, Isa 28:1-7; and in impious folly, Isa 5:11-12; 56:12; Ho 4.11. The use of it is in some cases expressly forbidden, Le 10:9; Nu 6:3; and in other cases is alluded to as characteristic of the wicked, Joe 3:3; Am 6:6. Numerous cautions to beware of it are given, 1Sa 1:14; Pr 23:31; 31:4-5; 1Ti 3:3; and to tempt other to use it is in one passage made the occasion of a bitter curse, Hab 2:15. On the other hand, whatever approval was given in Palestine to the moderate use of wine, can hardly apply to a country where wine is an imported or manufactured article, often containing not a drop of the juice of the grape; or if genuine and not compounded with drugs, still enforced with distilled spirits. The whole state of the case, moreover, is greatly modified by the discovery of the process of distilling alcohol, and by the prevalence of appalling evils now inseparable from the general use of any intoxicating drinks. Daniel and the Rechabites saw good reason for total abstinence from wine, Jer 35:14; Da 1:8; and the sentiment of Paul, on a matter involving the same principles, is divinely commended to universal adoption, Ro 14:21; 1Co 8:13.

American Tract Society Dictionary, Wine

 

[Helen]

Originally posted by standingfirminChrist:
how about water? how about milk? how about fresh squeezed grape juice?

Milk was called milk, water was called water. And fresh squeezed grape juice is great, but unless it is refrigerated or downed within a day, you have some pretty nasty stuff on your hands.

And, oh yeah, wine was called wine.

 

[JamieinNH]

Originally posted by Linda64:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Hope of Glory:

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.

That's a rather odd statement, Hope of Glory. How does one get intoxicated without consuming wine???? </font>[/QUOTE]I believe Hope was talking about not agreeing with the air pressure theory.


Jamie

 

[KenH]

Alcohol in moderation? Yes.

 

[JamieinNH]

From the poll numbers, it seems that most Christians believe it ok to partake of Alcohol, in moderation.

Jamie

 

[Hope of Glory]

Originally posted by standingfirminChrist:
how about water? how about milk? how about fresh squeezed grape juice?

Water was called "water", milk was called "milk", and juice was called "juice".

While I think Noah's problem was just one of human weakness in overindulging, and had nothing to do with air pressure changes, it's still the overindulging that is the problem and not the wine itself.

 

[Helen]

Hope, Noah was old enough to know better!

 

[gb93433]

Originally posted by Helen:
Milk was called milk, water was called water. And fresh squeezed grape juice is great, but unless it is refrigerated or downed within a day, you have some pretty nasty stuff on your hands.

And, oh yeah, wine was called wine.

You are right. However there are those who will try and support their pet doctrine with beautiful, believing eisegesis.

I used to show the people I led in Bible study something by taking some verses and string them together to teach a point. But there was a problem. Seldom did anyone catch the problem. But then when I pointed out the problem to them they were surprised and saw my point of knowing scripture well.