Champions of moderation- not abstinence

[Inspector Javert]

Originally Posted by convicted1 View Post
If you're a pastor, and one of your flock sees you drinking and they are offended by it, then what?

Then they are most likely "offended" by it only because some Pharisee has been ignorantly bloviating that spittle in their ears for decades from behind a wooden pulpit that they physically assault on a regular basis in order to validate their point (since logic and Scripture doesn't serve them).....Luke's position is that we need to shut the mouths of those particular Pharisees.....and then the weaker offended brethren will all but cease to exist.

 

[lugnut1009]

I can see both sides of this debate. This is yet another decision one has to make for himself.

But, if you think about it, it really is "simple". Does it bring glory to God? No. And whether right, wrong, or indifferent, if it is percieved as wrong then in the minds of the onlookers it is wrong (which really is where your witness comes from right?). And I've found out that it's really not a big deal anyway. Diet Coke tastes just fine to me.

I personally don't have a problem with it, I mean the US is the most sober country in the world, of the ones that can afford it anyway....

 

[webdog]

I can see both sides of this debate. This is yet another decision one has to make for himself.

But, if you think about it, it really is "simple". Does it bring glory to God? No. And whether right, wrong, or indifferent, if it is percieved as wrong then in the minds of the onlookers it is wrong (which really is where your witness comes from right?). And I've found out that it's really not a big deal anyway. Diet Coke tastes just fine to me.

I personally don't have a problem with it, I mean the US is the most sober country in the world, of the ones that can afford it anyway....

You beg the question, who says it doesn't glorify God? Did it glorify God when a neighbor offered a beer and we were able to discuss salvation?

 

[lugnut1009]

That could probably also be debated, but I can see your point. I actually think it would be the giving of the gift and not what the gift actually was.

 

[Steadfast Fred]

I can see both sides of this debate. This is yet another decision one has to make for himself.

But, if you think about it, it really is "simple". Does it bring glory to God? No. And whether right, wrong, or indifferent, if it is percieved as wrong then in the minds of the onlookers it is wrong (which really is where your witness comes from right?). And I've found out that it's really not a big deal anyway. Diet Coke tastes just fine to me.

I personally don't have a problem with it, I mean the US is the most sober country in the world, of the ones that can afford it anyway....

In the minds of those who have a bent toward drinking and Christianity, it does glorify God. Notice that I said "in the minds of those who have a bent toward drinking and Christianity."

But how can anything that has ruined thousands of homes, clothed men with rags, caused men to be brawlers, caused man to utter perverse things, etc., glorify God?

 

[webdog]

In the minds of those who have a bent toward drinking and Christianity, it does glorify God. Notice that I said "in the minds of those who have a bent toward drinking and Christianity."

But how can anything that has ruined thousands of homes, clothed men with rags, caused men to be brawlers, caused man to utter perverse things, etc., glorify God?

Since the Bible said it does in Deut. 14:26, and we have the mind of Christ, you are correct for a change!

 

[Steadfast Fred]

Deuteronomy 14:26 has nothing to do with drinking today. That was concerning a once a year event, not monthly, weekly or daily.

Deuteronomy 14:26 doesn't say it glorifies God either.

 

[LillyoftheValley]

ruined thousands of homes, clothed men with rags, caused men to be brawlers, caused man to utter perverse things, etc.

If this thread wasn't about alcohol, one could think you were talking about any number of subjects. 3 out of 4 of those could be applied to sex and we all know, that in the right context, that absolutely brings glory to God.

 

[michael-acts17:11]

Does that second & third trip to the buffet line glorify God?
Does eating desert glorify God?
Does driving an expensive vehicle glorify God?
Does watching sporting events glorify God?
Does sitting on my porch swing glorify God?
Does listening to talk radio glorify God?
Does having expensive padded pews glorify God?
Does owning a boat glorify God?
Does owning a pet glorify God?


I could go on & on & on, but I think you get the point. The question is an oversimplification of an issue, meant to end debate without looking at the entirety of the Biblical evidence.

It glorifies God when mature Christians exercise our liberty in Christ for which He died. Also, He is not glorified in man-made traditions which seek to enslave men to unScriptural laws.

 

[webdog]

Does that second & third trip to the buffet line glorify God?
Does eating desert glorify God?
Does driving an expensive vehicle glorify God?
Does watching sporting events glorify God?
Does sitting on my porch swing glorify God?
Does listening to talk radio glorify God?
Does having expensive padded pews glorify God?
Does owning a boat glorify God?
Does owning a pet glorify God?


I could go on & on & on, but I think you get the point. The question is an oversimplification of an issue, meant to end debate without looking at the entirety of the Biblical evidence.

It glorifies God when mature Christians exercise our liberty in Christ for which He died. Also, He is not glorified in man-made traditions which seek to enslave men to unScriptural laws.

Excellent post!

 

[lugnut1009]

I agree, and ultimately if it doesn't glorify God it isn't worth doing. I never said anything that doesn't glorify God is a sin, just a different view than everything else I'd read on here.


And I also agree that gluttony is a MUCH more rampant sin than just about anything else in America, I am guilty of it myself. But I never said drinking was bad or worse or better than anything else. If you are convicted about it, then don't do it. If you feel free about it, go ahead I reckon.

 

[Luke2427]

I agree, and ultimately if it doesn't glorify God it isn't worth doing. I never said anything that doesn't glorify God is a sin, just a different view than everything else I'd read on here.

When one refuses the privilege to drink to others, he robs them of the opportunity to glorify God in drink.

I Corinthians 10:31 says, "Whether ye eat or drink or whatsoever you do, do all to the glory of God."

 

[Luke2427]

Well go ahead and get "buzzed" (drunk) whenever you like. Its indefensible but hey its only a little bit drunk so why not huh?

It's indefensible??

Really?

How so?

 

[Luke2427]

And suppose your message of moderation causes someone to take that first drink and they get addicted? Do you think God is pleased when the "moderation" message causes someone else to stumble?

Moderation is preaching AGAINST drunkenness.

That's what teetotalers don't seem to understand.

What if my preaching that one can eat a cheeseburger on occasion but he should not overindulge will cause one to overindulge?

Do you see how silly that is?

 

[Inspector Javert]

Just for you Luke...:wavey:
http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/431701.Drinking_With_Calvin_And_Luther
Then again, you probably already have the book :wavey:

 

[preacher4truth]

Funny how Paul never rebuked anyone for simply drinking, but only for drunkenness, the Corinthians a prime example. He never rebuked them for drinking at the love feast, but for being drunk.

There's nothing wrong or sinful about getting a buzz off of a glass of wine, or a couple of beers and stopping. There is sin in being a drunkard. The two are not the same.

Now, if one steals and lies about it on BB and attributes his thievery to the leadership of the HS, well, we get someone defending that behavior.

This is how the traditions of men turn believers corrupt and they will condemn the things they shouldn't and condone the things they should condemn.

 

[HisWitness]

Funny how Paul never rebuked anyone for simply drinking, but only for drunkenness, the Corinthians a prime example. He never rebuked them for drinking at the love feast, but for being drunk.

There's nothing wrong or sinful about getting a buzz off of a glass of wine, or a couple of beers and stopping. There is sin in being a drunkard. The two are not the same.

Now, if one steals and lies about it on BB and attributes his thievery to the leadership of the HS, well, we get someone defending that behavior.

This is how the traditions of men turn believers corrupt and they will condemn the things they shouldn't and condone the things they should condemn.

:thumbs::thumbs::thumbs:

also when Yeshua told them to not eat and drink with the drunkards--but to watch and pray in their time---that if they were to eat and drink with drunkards--that he would come in an hour that they were not aware of--------why would they be NOT aware of that hour ??? they were DRUNK !!!! and also would suffer the same fate as drunkards--be destroyed--when the temple and city was destroyed in ad 70--too Drunk to know what was happening and too drunk to get out of the city before it was destroyed !!

 

[Winman]

Moderation is preaching AGAINST drunkenness.

That's what teetotalers don't seem to understand.

What if my preaching that one can eat a cheeseburger on occasion but he should not overindulge will cause one to overindulge?

Do you see how silly that is?

How does your wife feel about your drinking?

 

[Luke2427]

How does your wife feel about your drinking?

My drinking?

What do you mean by "my drinking"?

 

[Inspector Javert]

Obviously.....he means to imply that "drinking" is the same as "drunkenness" and that "YOU"...since you don't preach against the consumption of alcohol in toto.....that you are personally one who "drinks"....which is synonymous with being a "drunkard".

IGNORE the obvious fact that there are two separate words in our language to delineate the difference. He is speaking as though there is no difference whatsoever.

That's what he means of course, only......he won't tell you that. He is using a semantic ambiguity to impugn you, since.............the Scriptures themselves don't do it for him.