Champions of moderation- not abstinence

[Luke2427]

One of the things that hurts our witness in this world is our gnostic tendency to demand abstinence of so many things.

For the most part, modern Christian fundamentalists are little more Gnostics- believing that matter is evil and spirit is good and therefore we should abstain from most physical pleasures like drinking alcohol and just be super-spiritual meditating upon spiritual things like monks all day.

But Christianity, in its real form uncorrupted by backwards fundamentalism, is the champion of moderation- not abstinence.

Ours is not a religion of "taste not, touch not." It is one of "Enjoy the goodness of God in all things- but enjoy it in moderation so that you don't corrupt the experience."

Drunkards do not enjoy drinking like moderate drinkers do. Addiction, hangovers, and a thousand other things that come with the ABUSE of alcohol RUINS the experience.

So, simple-minded Christians come along, always needing things to be simple, avoiding the real complexity of many issues like the plague because they are intimidated by it, and they just BAN it.

How much better to model moderation than abstinence!

I love what C. S. Lewis says about this matter in Mere Christianity:

Temperance is, unfortunately, one of those words that has changed its meaning. It now usually means teetotalism. But in the days when the second Cardinal virtue was christened 'Temperance,' it meant nothing of the sort. Temperance referred not specially to drink, but to all pleasures; and it meant not abstaining, but going the right length and no further. It is a mistake to think that Christians ought all to be teetotallers; Mohammedanism, not Christianity, is the teetotal religion. Of course it may be the duty of a particular Christian, or of any Christian, at a particular time, to abstain from strong drink, either because he is the sort of man who cannot drink at all without drinking too much, or because he is with people who are inclined to drunkenness and must not encourage them by drinking himself. But the whole point is that he is abstaining, for a good reason, from something which he does not condemn and which he likes to see other people enjoying. One of the marks of a certain type of bad man is that he cannot give up a thing himself without wanting every one else to give it up. That is not the Christian way. An individual Christian may see fit to give up all sorts of things for special reasons�Cmarriage, or meat, or beer, or the cinema; but the moment he starts saying the things are bad in themselves, or looking down his nose at other people who do use them, he has taken the wrong turning.

 

[convicted1]

Oh boy, anutter drunkard thread....go buy a keg and enjoy.........

 

[Luke2427]

Oh boy, anutter drunkard thread....go buy a keg and enjoy.........

As I have come to expect from you- an oversimplification.

This is about the need for Christianity to model moderation for the world instead of championing abstinence like gnostics.

Yes, a key issue is alcohol.

But it is simple-minded to just relegate the issue to "anutter drunkard thread."

 

[convicted1]

Well, it was YOU who quoted C.C. Lewis and teetotallers be Mohameddanism. So what does a teetotaller do, abstain from alcohol.....so you actually want to bring in anutter useless drunkard thread....but go ahead and buy a keg and drank.......

 

[agedman]

Ask any believer who drinks, and they will find all manner of excuse to continue to do so.

Ask any believer who is convinced that intoxicants are not for the believer without a doctor's prescription, and they will never have to worry about being in shame when after having that extra glass of wine they are incarcerated.

I am ademately opposed to intoxicants (as I have discussed at length on the BB) and consider the Scriptures support my view.

Do not the Scriptures state, "abstain from even the appearance of evil."?

Now the believer who drinks is going to spout, "wine is not evil."

The Scriptures state, "Wine IS a mocker..." So is mocking evil?

Now the believer who drinks is going to spout, "Christ drank..." and so the argument goes with its multitude of variations.

To which, the Scriptures state (quoted in various versions for full impact):

New International Version (©2011)
Let beer be for those who are perishing, wine for those who are in anguish!

New Living Translation (©2007)
Alcohol is for the dying, and wine for those in bitter distress.

English Standard Version (©2001)
Give strong drink to the one who is perishing, and wine to those in bitter distress;

New American Standard Bible (©1995)
Give strong drink to him who is perishing, And wine to him whose life is bitter.

King James Bible (Cambridge Ed.)
Give strong drink unto him that is ready to perish, and wine unto those that be of heavy hearts.

New American Standard Bible (©1995)
Give strong drink to him who is perishing, And wine to him whose life is bitter.​

Can it be said that Christ had no hope?

Can it not be shown that even in the midst of anguish this world has never witnessed, Christ refused to consume an intoxicant?

Can it be said that a believer has no hope?

Can it be said that a believer is perishing?

Can it be said that a believer is bitter?

Can it be said that a believer is dying?

Those are when a believer may drink beer, wine, or even strong drink.

Just like modern medication is appropriate for those who have no hope of cure, depressed, dying, and circumstances are for a time overwhelming.

But medication is a far cry from what the typical believer who drinks has as their desire. Perhaps it is to satisfy some lust of the flesh? Or perhaps it is a matter of self medicating which is actually a form of addiction.

 

[Luke2427]

Well, it was YOU who quoted C.C. Lewis and teetotallers be Mohameddanism. So what does a teetotaller do, abstain from alcohol.....so you actually want to bring in anutter useless drunkard thread....but go ahead and buy a keg and drank.......

So let me get this straight...

You think because there is a quote about one thing in the thread that that means that the whole thread has to be about nothing more than what is in that one quote??

Do you need it to be that simple?

 

[Luke2427]

Ask any believer who drinks, and they will find all manner of excuse to continue to do so.

This can be said by any fundy to support any pet hobby horse that theat fundy wishes to arbitrarily condemn.

The same kind of reasoning is used by Mormons to condemn caffeine.

I once used the same kind of idiotic reasoning to condemn watching television.

I am ademately opposed to intoxicants (as I have discussed at length on the BB) and consider the Scriptures support my view.

There is not a Scripture in the entire Bible in its context that supports your view. Not one.

There are Scriptures in context that support moderation.

Do not the Scriptures state, "abstain from even the appearance of evil."?

There is nothing that appears evil about drinking alcohol in moderation.

You don't get to define evil as drinking alcohol in moderation and then claim this text condemns drinking in moderation.

Now the believer who drinks is going to spout, "wine is not evil."

The Scriptures state, "Wine IS a mocker..." So is mocking evil?

Two things:

#1- Context. Context is that immoderate use of wine is a mocker.

The text goes on to describe the effects, not of moderate use of alcohol, but of DRUNKENNESS.

#2- This is a proverb. No thinking Christian builds doctrine solely on a PROVERB.

Now the believer who drinks is going to spout, "Christ drank..." and so the argument goes with its multitude of variations.

To which, the Scriptures state (quoted in various versions for full impact):

New International Version (©2011)
Let beer be for those who are perishing, wine for those who are in anguish!

New Living Translation (©2007)
Alcohol is for the dying, and wine for those in bitter distress.

English Standard Version (©2001)
Give strong drink to the one who is perishing, and wine to those in bitter distress;

New American Standard Bible (©1995)
Give strong drink to him who is perishing, And wine to him whose life is bitter.

King James Bible (Cambridge Ed.)
Give strong drink unto him that is ready to perish, and wine unto those that be of heavy hearts.

New American Standard Bible (©1995)
Give strong drink to him who is perishing, And wine to him whose life is bitter.​

Yes. This is a mercy that God gave us alcohol for people who are hurting to make the experience more tolerable.

Your point is?

Can it be said that Christ had no hope?

Yes.

Can it not be shown that even in the midst of anguish this world has never witnessed, Christ refused to consume an intoxicant?

No.

Can it be said that a believer has no hope?

Yes

Can it be said that a believer is perishing?

Yes. I bury them all the time.

Can it be said that a believer is bitter?

Absolutely.

Can it be said that a believer is dying?

Yes. Come see our cemetery.

Those are when a believer may drink beer, wine, or even strong drink.

Those are only SOME of the times it is permissible to drink.

That is not an exclusive list.

The Bible says, "Give to him that asks of you."

Does that mean that you ALWAYS have to give WHATEVER anyone EVER asks of you?

No.

Only a simpleminded person would interpret it that way.

Just so, only a simple minded person would say that because the Bible says to give wine on four occasions it means #1 to always give it on everyone of those occasions and #2 to never give it on any other occasion.

 

[preacher4truth]

Oh boy, anutter drunkard thread....go buy a keg and enjoy.........

Yours is a ridiculous conclusion and a caricature Willis.

The thing I see is that those who don't partake in a certain 'sin' jump in fully to condemn others who find liberty in moderation of said alleged sin.

There are many other vices than alcohol. Anything that controls or enslaves is sinful. Using alcohol in moderation is not sin.

But play out your conviction of abuses of moderation on many Baptists, and their sin becomes gluttony. Preach against alcohol and they love it and you'll get 'amened' all morning. Preach against gluttony and expect to be candidating for another church. They've been dreaming of the buffet all during your sermon.

:thumbs:

 

[agedman]

Yours is a ridiculous conclusion and a caricature Willis.

The thing I see is that those who don't partake in a certain 'sin' jump in fully to condemn others who find liberty in moderation of said alleged sin.

There are many other vices than alcohol. Anything that controls or enslaves is sinful. Using alcohol in moderation is not sin.

But play out your conviction of abuses of moderation on many Baptists, and their sin becomes gluttony. Preach against alcohol and they love it and you'll get 'amened' all morning. Preach against gluttony and expect to be candidating for another church. They've been dreaming of the buffet all during your sermon.

:thumbs:

And that is ALL that bothers you?

You admit that alcohol is a "vice" yet you condone it?

Any other "vices" that you condone in moderation?

My problem with those who condone intoxicants is they choose to look for permission rather than a reason to abstain.

Paul states"

New American Standard Bible (©1995)
All things are lawful, but not all things are profitable. All things are lawful, but not all things edify.​

This is clearly ignored by the use of intoxicants without doctor's oversight.

But, I truly weary over those who want to flaunt their "liberty" and "freedom" and proclaim it as godly.

 

[quantumfaith]

One of the things that hurts our witness in this world is our gnostic tendency to demand abstinence of so many things.

For the most part, modern Christian fundamentalists are little more Gnostics- believing that matter is evil and spirit is good and therefore we should abstain from most physical pleasures like drinking alcohol and just be super-spiritual meditating upon spiritual things like monks all day.

But Christianity, in its real form uncorrupted by backwards fundamentalism, is the champion of moderation- not abstinence.

Ours is not a religion of "taste not, touch not." It is one of "Enjoy the goodness of God in all things- but enjoy it in moderation so that you don't corrupt the experience."

Drunkards do not enjoy drinking like moderate drinkers do. Addiction, hangovers, and a thousand other things that come with the ABUSE of alcohol RUINS the experience.

So, simple-minded Christians come along, always needing things to be simple, avoiding the real complexity of many issues like the plague because they are intimidated by it, and they just BAN it.

How much better to model moderation than abstinence!

I love what C. S. Lewis says about this matter in Mere Christianity:

Temperance is, unfortunately, one of those words that has changed its meaning. It now usually means teetotalism. But in the days when the second Cardinal virtue was christened 'Temperance,' it meant nothing of the sort. Temperance referred not specially to drink, but to all pleasures; and it meant not abstaining, but going the right length and no further. It is a mistake to think that Christians ought all to be teetotallers; Mohammedanism, not Christianity, is the teetotal religion. Of course it may be the duty of a particular Christian, or of any Christian, at a particular time, to abstain from strong drink, either because he is the sort of man who cannot drink at all without drinking too much, or because he is with people who are inclined to drunkenness and must not encourage them by drinking himself. But the whole point is that he is abstaining, for a good reason, from something which he does not condemn and which he likes to see other people enjoying. One of the marks of a certain type of bad man is that he cannot give up a thing himself without wanting every one else to give it up. That is not the Christian way. An individual Christian may see fit to give up all sorts of things for special reasons�Cmarriage, or meat, or beer, or the cinema; but the moment he starts saying the things are bad in themselves, or looking down his nose at other people who do use them, he has taken the wrong turning.

:thumbs::thumbs::thumbs:

 

[webdog]

:thumbs::thumbs::thumbs:

I'll second that :thumbs: Let the record reflect this is a rare 100% agreement moment with Luke2427

 

[Salty]

Baptists don't need alcohol to have bad health - our fried chicken does it.

Maybe we need to start preaching against gluttony.

 

[convicted1]

As I have come to expect from you- an oversimplification.

This is about the need for Christianity to model moderation for the world instead of championing abstinence like gnostics.

Yes, a key issue is alcohol.

But it is simple-minded to just relegate the issue to "anutter drunkard thread."

IOW, it's your way or the highway, gotcha.

Okay, FTR, I am in agreement with you about the drinking in moderation stuff, but not in public. Here's why. It's hard to be a witness for Christ with a bottle of booze in one's hand, imo. Another thing is if you have one too many, and hit someone on the way home, and they die, you're going to prison for vehicular homicide. How's THAT for a witness? One can drink moderately at home, and they have no risk of causing a weaker Brother to stumble, piling into another vehicle and killing someone, having a bad witness, etc. We are to abstain from the very appearance of evil, and eventhough this may not be evil, in the eyes of others, it may, and it may cause some dissention at your church.

Here's a scenario: You have a young convert who saw you out drinking and they come to you and they believe you're in the wrong. After counciling them, and they're still not satisified, then what? Will you continue to drink and cause this young Brother....or Sister to leave? As a pastor, your #1 priority is your sheep, plain and simple. If you choose your desires over your sheep, then you're the one in the wrong, imo. If 15-20 confront you the same way the young Brother in that scenario confronts you, and they want you to abstain from drinking, are you going to choose them or the drink?

I am not saying this will ever happen, but one never knows what they will be faced with in the future.

 

[convicted1]

Yours is a ridiculous conclusion and a caricature Willis.

The thing I see is that those who don't partake in a certain 'sin' jump in fully to condemn others who find liberty in moderation of said alleged sin.

There are many other vices than alcohol. Anything that controls or enslaves is sinful. Using alcohol in moderation is not sin.

But play out your conviction of abuses of moderation on many Baptists, and their sin becomes gluttony. Preach against alcohol and they love it and you'll get 'amened' all morning. Preach against gluttony and expect to be candidating for another church. They've been dreaming of the buffet all during your sermon.

:thumbs:

I have no problem with those who drink, because Jesus made the H2O into wine, and I believe it was fermented. I believe the wine that Paul told Timothy to take for his stomach was to be fermented, as well. But as christians, we're the light of the world, and both lost and found see what we do. If a christian is out to dinner and drinks, and has an alcohol content of 0.09 when they slammed into a vehicle and someone dies, they're serving jail time in the state pen. How's that for a testimony? "Well, I was out the other night, and I only had a couple drinks, and I hit someone, and my alcohol content was over the legal limit, and they somehow are holding me accountable for someone else's death."

Have not one problem with moderation, but doing it at home should be where it's done, imo.

I have no desire for the stuff, but if I saw one of my Brothers or Sisters drinking, I am not running to my pastor and telling.

 

[Revmitchell]

This is about the need for Christianity to model moderation for the world instead of championing abstinence like gnostics.

Reminds me of White's tactic to try and tie Hunts view with Catholicism. Nothing but a poor attempt at a debate tactic.

And "buzzed" is not moderation its drunk.

 

[convicted1]

Yours is a ridiculous conclusion and a caricature Willis.

The thing I see is that those who don't partake in a certain 'sin' jump in fully to condemn others who find liberty in moderation of said alleged sin.

There are many other vices than alcohol. Anything that controls or enslaves is sinful. Using alcohol in moderation is not sin.

But play out your conviction of abuses of moderation on many Baptists, and their sin becomes gluttony. Preach against alcohol and they love it and you'll get 'amened' all morning. Preach against gluttony and expect to be candidating for another church. They've been dreaming of the buffet all during your sermon.

:thumbs:

Brother Rob, I can honestly say that I have grown immensely since May 24, 2077 at approx 01:30 am. When I was saved, I was KJVO(now KJVP, for me that is), a "tee-totaller, and that God was God the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, but in a "Jesus only fashion".....iow, I had a faulty view of the Triune God. Over time, I began to change my view from the "God only" view, to a view that God was God, Jesus wasn't God, but the Son of God(again, not God, but the Son) and the Holy Ghost was the Holy Ghost and not God. Again, another faulty view of the Triune God. I then finally came to realize I was wrong(there was a time I told people that Jesus wasn't God, but the Son, and was proud of my "new found knowledge"), but thanks to you guys on here, I began to see I was wrong about not drinking in moderation, my faulty views on the Trinity, and my stance on KJVO. I came to here to learn, and I have grown much whilst on here. The sad part is some come on here to show their "theological clout" on here, but only end up showing something else, and I am NOT talking about their "theological clout", either.

 

[convicted1]

With moderation potentially comes incarceration....

http://host.madison.com/news/local/...cle_e949068a-a08f-11e2-baa0-0019bb2963f4.html

Police arrested the Rev. Bruce Burnside, 59, the bishop for the South-Central Synod of Wisconsin of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America. He was in sheriff's custody Monday, tentatively charged with homicide by intoxicated driving and hit-and-run causing death, said Sun Prairie Lt. Brian Teasdale.

After allegedly hitting Mengelt, Burnside drove to a nearby Kelley's Market convenience store, where police first had contact with him in his vehicle, said Teasdale, who declined further comment due to the ongoing investigation.

Police did not release Burnside's blood-alcohol level, and no criminal complaint was filed Monday.

At the time of the crash, Burnside was heading to Our Savior's Lutheran Church in Sun Prairie, where he was scheduled to preside over a 3 p.m. ceremony in which a theologically trained lay person was to become a ministry associate. Police said they responded to the crash at 2:48 p.m.

http://www.duifoundation.org/news/minister-kills-prosecutor-in-dui-crash.html

According to authorities, the offender, an independent truck driver and pastor of Uptown Church in Over-the-Rhine, was operating his large vehicle and heading south on U.S. 27 near Butler when he weaved over the center line into the opposite lane and crashed head-on into the victim’s Buick Riviera.

The offender was being held at Hamilton County Justice Center and had decided to not oppose being exiled from Kentucky. He also is charged with driving under the influence. Reports have not yet revealed the offender’s blood alcohol level.

http://gradycounty.kfor.com/news/crime/88284-pastor-arrested-dui-assault-charges

CHICKASHA, Okla.—Authorities are usually prepared for pulling over intoxicated drivers around the holidays, but officers were surprised by exactly who was behind the wheel last week.

Police were called to the area of Oklahoma and Fourth St. in Chickasha after witnesses reported seeing a truck recklessly speeding through a neighborhood.

Spotting the vehicle was easy for officers but making the arrest was a tough job.

Authorities say the events leading up the arrest were homophobic slurs, foul language paired with verbal and physical assaults.

Officers say the man behind the wheel was 46-year-old Joe David Bray, a Pentecostal preacher.

I know this only a small sample, but it shows you that drinking in public has its consequences.

 

[SolaSaint]

I'm wondering why anyone would start a post like this? If you feel like drinking then go ahead and drink, why try and get us who believe in abstinence to change our view on it. Is it your guilty conscience brother? I don't see a big split in our denominations over this debate.

 

[Luke2427]

IOW, it's your way or the highway, gotcha.

Okay, FTR, I am in agreement with you about the drinking in moderation stuff, but not in public. Here's why. It's hard to be a witness for Christ with a bottle of booze in one's hand, imo.

Once again, that is an oversimplification. It is not at ALL hard to be a witness, say in Germany, with a can of beer in your hand. In fact, it will undoubtedly HURT your witness in many cultures to refuse to drink a beer with anyone.

It is an oversimplification to purport that ACROSS THE BOARD being a witness is harmed by holding an alcoholic beverage in your hand.

Furthermore, in OUR OWN CULTURE, backwater fundamentalism has become such a bad taste in most people's mouths that it would absolutely HELP your witness with many, many people to talk about Jesus over a beer.

Another thing is if you have one too many, and hit someone on the way home, and they die, you're going to prison for vehicular homicide.

Can you not stay on topic. MODERATION, Willis. MODERATION is the topic. Not "one too many".

EVERYBODY ON BAPTIST BOARD IS AGAINST DRUNKENNESS.

Stay on topic.

We are to abstain from the very appearance of evil, and eventhough this may not be evil, in the eyes of others, it may, and it may cause some dissention at your church.

So we need to teach churches to think better so that the issue of moderate drinking is NOT any longer contentious.

Promoters of moderation are not the cause of the dissension. Teetotalers are. The church embraced moderate drinking by and large for centuries upon centuries.

It was when ignorant people came along misusing the Scripture and preaching against it that moderation became an issue of contention in the church.

The way to solve the problem is not for people with right thinking to let wrong thinking go unchallenged. It is for people with right thinking to correct wrong thinking. When most Christians abandon the ignorant idea of teetotalism- then the dissension will be no more.

 

[Luke2427]

I'm wondering why anyone would start a post like this? If you feel like drinking then go ahead and drink, why try and get us who believe in abstinence to change our view on it. Is it your guilty conscience brother? I don't see a big split in our denominations over this debate.

A couple of reasons:

1. Stupidity is never contained within a vacuum. Teetotalism is stupidity. It affects others. The reason there ARE so many weaker brethren who people with good biblical sense CANNOT enjoy liberty around is because of the plague of ignorant teetotalism thought dominant within churches of our culture. People with good sense can't enjoy liberty anywhere in this culture because there are so many weaker brethren around here made weaker by ignorant, backwater, fundamentalist thinking. We ought to beat back ignorance for that reason.

If I can show you how stupid it is, then maybe you will not spread that ignorance to others who would rob many other Christians with good sense from enjoying their liberty.

2. This is a debate site. That's what we are supposed to do here. Hello?