definition of being drunk

Christians are to be in complete control of their senses---but---beginning at the first drink---little by little---even to the smallest amount of injested alcohol----they are no longer in complete control!!

The word teaches us to remain in complete control! Complete control will entail abstaining from alcoholic beverages!!

Brother David

 

And how do you come to this conclusion?

How is it that I can have two beers and be in complete control?

So then, Jesus was encouraging people to be out of control by making wine?

 

And Paul encouraged Timothy to sin when he told him to drink wine for his stomach...

Seriously to answer Nchristian's question. If you have to ask for a definition of being drunk then you should probably not be drinking. A definitive answer for drunk gives a limit that should not be tested. Do I know my limit? No, I have never attempted to find it and never intend to test it.

 

Eph 5:15
See then that ye walk circumspectly, not as fools, but as wise,
Eph 5:16
Redeeming the time, because the days are evil.
Eph 5:17
Wherefore be ye not unwise, but understanding what the will of the Lord is.
Eph 5:18
And be not drunk with wine, wherein is excess; but be filled with the Spirit;
Eph 5:19
Speaking to yourselves in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing and making melody in your heart to the Lord;
Eph 5:20
Giving thanks always for all things unto God and the Father in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ;
Eph 5:21
¶ Submitting yourselves one to another in the fear of God.

Contradiction?
On the one hand; we have folks insisting that Jesus drank alcoholic wine and provided it at a party. We also have folks insisting that Pual's suggestion to use alcoholic wine as medicine somehow equals using it for "relaxation/fun".

On the other hand; here we see Paul telling us not to be drunk with wine but to be filled (controlled) by the Holy Spirit. This is equated with walking circumspectly. Being wise. Knowing God's will. Not being foolish.

No. These two are perfectly harmonious. If God said it is unwise to be drunk then Jesus did NOT provide alcoholic drink, since He is God in the flesh, He knows folks will drink to excess at a party and get drunk. Consequently, He provided the means to be "foolish", "unwise" "sin"? Not hardly. Also you will note that Paul never told Timothy to "drink up" and have a good time. In fact he told Timothy to use a "little" wine for his stomach. Obviously it was as "medicine". Today, we have "Nyquil" and cough syrup. So if you want to use Timothy as your example, go get some Nyquil and drink up! You have my "blessings"! LOL

Obviously, to be drunk is to be under the influence of alcohol. One 8oz glass of wine does that. One beer does that. One Hot Toddy does that. Medical Science has proven beyond a shadow of doubt that even one ounce of alcohol impairs judgment. If an amount that small impairs judgment, then how is that being "filled with the Holy Spirit"? The Holy Spirit NEVER impairs judgment.

You decide for yourself. As for me and my house...

In HIS service;
Jim

 

0% BAC would be a great number to start with! That certainly gets my votes all the way!

 

First and foremost I do not expect you to reply since you dodge every statement that contradicts your opinions.
These remarks respond to the above bolds respectively:
-Jesus did drink alcoholic wine, otherwise his comment in Luke would have had no meaning to his audience
Luke 7:33-34
(33) For John the Baptist came neither eating bread nor drinking wine; and ye say, He hath a devil.
(34) The Son of man is come eating and drinking; and ye say, Behold a gluttonous man, and a winebibber, a friend of publicans and sinners!

-Today we have medical doctors who will tell you a glass of wine a day (red specifically) is good for your heart...

-DRUNK....DRUNK!!!! Get it DRUNK...that's the key word here.

-God also said don't eat of the tree of the knowledge but He put it there any way...God told the Hebrews not to eat pork but there were still pigs...that arguement holds no water

-Never said he did...but Paul never told anybody not to drink either...that is your assumption

-Medical science has proven no such thing...I would love to see your "proof" for that claim

-I have decided...I have decided that legalism has no place in Christianity. Christ was strongly against the Pharisee's arrogance about religion. Legalist are modern day Pharisees, they suppose and opinionate and then claim it to be Biblical doctrine. I choose to live by the example of Christ!!!

 

Then quit comparing others convictions as the arrogance of the Pharisees, and as being legalism.

 

Where is self control in all this? The legalist manifesto from the headquarters of the convention or denomination of pharisees?

 

Romans 14

 

Where is self control in all this? The legalist manifesto from the headquarters of the convention or denomination of pharisees? </font>[/QUOTE]My, my, Bro gb. Because some abstain from alcoholic beverages to the glory of God, it does not make them a legalist, nor a Pharisee. My conviction was to give up the booze, and I believe that it is good for man to abstain. How does this warrant the label of Pharisee?

 

I would also love to see this proof. And please, I mean a reference to an actual study done by medical doctors and not a link to a website of another person making the same unsupported claim. (Yes, not even if that website of your favorite IFB teacher).

 

Yabba says: "-I have decided...I have decided that legalism has no place in Christianity. Christ was strongly against the Pharisee's arrogance about religion. Legalist are modern day Pharisees, they suppose and opinionate and then claim it to be Biblical doctrine. I choose to live by the example of Christ!!! "

Sounds like Yabba is under conviction to me!

Isn't it amazing that the requirements for a Pastor are greater than any other position? Have you ever noticed that the more responsibility the Lord lays on you, the more he expects from you? Eg. pastors are not to drink. Deacon's just a little. The more responsibility you are given the more clear minded you must be. I think I'd rather be clear minded for the Lord and His job for me be it great or small.

I also find it very interesting that there is name calling (the dreaded legalist) on this thread...and it isn't coming out of the mouths of the "Pharisees"!
I have a friend that took the stance that drinking is okay for the Christian--just don't get drunk. (whatever that is). Her brilliant son is in college flunking out because Mom said it was okay to drink. Can't stay away from the booze and Mom is feeling extremely guilty right now and has totally reversed her ideas, albeit too late.

As for me, we didn't allow drinking. Period. When enticed to drink while in high school, our son had the out to his acquaintances..."Would you take a drink if you had to go home and kiss MY MOM good night?" Granted it wasn't scriptural, but it sure took the pressure off of him.

 

I post reasons for what me and my house do or do not do and Yabba and GB come along and accuse me of Parisseeism?
Where did I say you must abide by my rules? No...in fact what I said was you decide for yourself, didn't I? Where did I say you are not as holy as I if you choose to drink booze? Isn't that your accusation in equating my convictions and stand with Phariseeism? HUH?

My goodness. This knee jerk reaction...Pharisee, Pharisee, Pharisee...reveals something amiss with your attitude if you cannot allow someone the liberty to see booze as evil all the while hollering that you follow Christ.

Personally, I see the brother who allows for booze to be the weaker brother as per Romans 14. But then again, he might not think so. Perhaps he sees ME as the weaker brother. Big deal. What I see instead is the "boozing" brother hollering that we "tee-totalers" are not as holy as he since we abstain from something which removes sound judgment and he can "handle it".

Yabba;
That's YOUR opinionbut it isn't Biblical.!

"Legalists are modern day Pharisees." Care to explain that one? Do you even understand what a legalist is? Or even a Pharisee?
You said Jesus comments don't make sense unless He drank wine, but you are wrong since they make perfect sense to me and I don't believe He drank alcoholic wine. LOL
About the Medical facts on the effects and affects of alcohol consumption, do your own homework before you say I am wrong. You didn't provide any prooof either. NYA NYA NYA! LOL

Like I said in my post, you decide but as for me and my house...

Before I close, GB; Would you please provide the address for the "Legalist manifesto from the headquarters of the convention or denomination of the Pharisees"? I wanna sign up! LOL

You guys really provided a little comic relief for me today. Thanks

In HIS service;
Jim

 

I did not say it did.

It is only when someone tries to play junior Holy Spirit for someone else that he is a legalist. I don't drink but do not condemn others that do. After all my parents grew grapes. None of my friends drank.

We had wine given to us from the winery but it would sit there most all year until someone came over to visit. None of us kids liked that stuff especially when we saw what went into it. None of us even like the stuff today. We never had a problem with liking it. It tasted terrible.

The time I saw a number of drunks was when I saw those who were drinking did not come from grape farms.

 

FYI;
Medical proof to follow.

 

You are absolutely correct. But, when a choice or opinion is taught as doctrine it does.

 

This will be my last post on this topic.

I first must apologize for my tone earlier. Pharisee and Legalist are strong terms and perhaps I should not have went there.

However, The Bible never once says that alcohol is evil...if you believe that then that is your opinion not biblical doctrine, to espouse it as such is wrong.
Drunkeness is Biblically wrong, that's all it says and I'll guess I'll leave it at that.

 

As promised, here is your required proof on the effects of alcohol. I am only posting a snippet in order to show that it is solid, sound, medical research and its source is solid. You will have to peruse it for yoursefl to get the full impact of it. I submit, that God already knew these facts, hence the prohibition.

Take it for what it is worth to you and your house.

http://www.niaaa.nih.gov/publications/10report/chap02c.pdf

Under the title "Acute Actions of Alcohol on the Brain."

"A growing body of evidence shows that alcohol exerts significant effects on specific receptor rpotiens that are embedded in the neuronal plasma membrane. The function of these protiens underlies all brain function, including thought, speech vision, and complex behaviors. This view, which is becoming widely accepted, represents a dramtic change in the way we think about alcohol and its effects on brain activity. The factors that precipitated this new way of thinking about alcohol are closely tied to the advances made in the field of molecular neuroscience and to technical advances made in the way the activity of neurons is studied."

(You need Acrobat Reader to access this. But it is nonetheless the proof you asked for. And it isn't some IFB feller either. It is a Govenrment publication.)

Alcohol does damage the brain in any amount.

In HIS service;
Jim