I really do not care to "debate" the issue with the BB; merely to let others who visit know that there is really no Biblical excuse to consume any intoxicant other than the medical issue stated below. Folks on the BB have spent many hours, days, on this kind of thread. I only post now, to let the young reader or others who generally do not post know that there is Biblical reason and principle for not consuming intoxicants. There will be those who object, but that is the nature of the BB.
Here are some of the basic issues that believer consumers must put aside to excuse consumption of intoxicants.
1) The believer is to be an example of Christ. Having served the public in the business field for decades, I never met an unregenerate that doesn't scoff at believers who consume an intoxicant. They belittle them as pure fakes. The lack of testimony is astounding on this issue.
2) Christ would never violate His own self (The Word).
3) The whole purpose of the intoxicant is to poison. It matters not in the slightest "how much" or that one doesn't become "drunk," for those are man made standard attempts at righteousness and not Godliness. The human body is not aided by toxins, they are poisons. Anyone who has been present during the detoxification process of the drunk, can attest to the horrible rebuke the body goes through.
4) Christ never willingly took in any amount of toxin and remained the pure Lamb of God without blemish. Because the purpose of the toxin is to poison, on some micro cellular level, even a sip of a toxin would have perverted Christ. This is actually born out in number 5 on this list.
5) On the Cross Christ was given drink twice. The first was water, which He consumed. The second mixed water with an intoxicant, which He spit out. Even in death, He allowed no intoxicants to enter Him.
6) There are three places intoxicants are permitted in Scriptures.
The first is if one journeys from a far off land to come to Temple. There is no Temple and no one journeys under the same conditions as found in the Deut. permission. So that "permission" is void as not applicable.
The second is the injunction to give strong drink to those who have no hope. The believer is NEVER without hope in Christ. So that "permission" is void and not applicable.
The third is medicinal use. Paul's instruction to Tim to "take a little" with the assumption that Dr. Luke (traveling with Paul) made the remote diagnosis and recommended treatment. It would stand that ONLY under medical authority and oversight would consumption of any intoxicant be permitted to the believer. Tim was an obvious abstainer or Paul would never have needed to include the formula for the stomach treatment. Tim wasn't to have a glass, or a bottle, or a can consumption. A little would be like a tablespoon sized amount, a sip, is a little to even a child's thinking. But some believers would desire the little to be a grand amount - a beverage size.
7) "New Wine" is non-intoxicant like grape juice. It has had no time to ferment and acquire the bitterness of the natural yeast. Note: all sweet tasting wines must have yeast added, sweeteners and multiple straining to remove particles and bitterness in the processing making the new wine old for this is not something done overnight.
8) The believer is to be as Christlike as possible.
9) All intoxicants have one goal when consumed by a person. To pervert judgment and rational sensibilities. For the believer to purposely consume something that has as the core perversion and irrationality is NOT being filled with the Holy Spirit.
10) Government statutes establishing when a person is drunk is certainly never God's standard. God's standard is Holiness.
Someone of the BB will certainly post about the scheming agenda seeking pharisees who accused Christ of spending time eating and drinking with sinners. However, there is no proof that the accusations were fact, and, in fact, it is evident that the religious rulers were trying all manner of deceitfulness to liable the Savior. So those who would use that as an excuse have no real foundation in those passages.
There are many diversions attempted to excuse consuming an intoxicant by those who desire an excuse. Shifting the focus upon coffee, sodas, sugary snacks, weight, and a host of other non-issues, are just some of the vain attempts to mock and ridicule those who would hold that the Bible does lay out principles that are directly against consuming an intoxicant. Especially in this day, when water purification is pretty much a non-issue in the "civilized world, some on the BB will use that as an excuse, too, as if they dwell in the desert and have to drink goats milk and eat camel eyes.
Some will point to the historical use by believers or cultures of the past or other countries. However, that is a non-starter for the believer does not live in the past. I do not know of another country in which the paying public cannot find alternative beverage choices other than an intoxicant. The consumption is NOT a doctrine in which great theological historical thinking and views have established president, so looking for examples in the past for excuse to use in today's application is frightfully frail and perilously poor attempts seeking to assuage the mind and heart.
Wine is a mocker
Strong drink is raging
Fools are deceived by them.
