Employees at Southern Seminary agree to drink wine

I would have no problem with this as long as they only drink it for communion and the preacher doesn't feel he has to finish the bottle.

They need to also consider those who can't drink real wine for various reasons.

 

I have no real problem with them consuming whatever beverage they wish as long as it is done in moderation and does not cause one of their brothers or sisters to stumble.

Joseph Botwinick

 

It is amazing how far some Christians will go just to get a slop of alcohol in their system.

By the way, grape juice is loaded with sugar and can be fatal for a diabetic. Wine is actually the better choice for communion.,,,Just a thought.

Cheers,

Jim

 

What is the purpose of this thread?

 

Someone's been reading Wade's, Marty's, and Tom's blogs where they point out the above vs. the BF&M 2000. The two seemingly are in contradiction on this point and yet the seminary professor has to sign both. :type:
In other words, does the Abstract of Principles of Southern seem to require a method that the BF&M 2000 seems to forbid?

 

I would like to know that as well . . .

 

:BangHead:
My personal opinion on this thread...

 

Information such as this should be of interest to Baptists that went to "Welch's" grape juice after the Methodist Dentist used Pasteur's "pasteurization" method sometime after 1864. This shows how easily we can be fooled. We are to prove and hold on to what is good, and we know God gave "wine" to man for his good.

Those Baptist of that day only used what the bible had to say, i.e. "wine", and it (wine) was used by them, or they are as most Protestants today only use that vulgar four letter word "wine", just because it is in the bible.

But in that day, they probably were not as smart as we today, not knowing "wine" can only mean "grape juice" when we wish to apply it to Christian's.

But I'm sure those Baptist's in their charter of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary "The Abstract Of Principles", knew the world would be looking at their "Principles", to see if they would misrepresent the Word of God in any way. So they put in the AOP, what they thought and what they did. Why, they would be laughed at all over the world, because they didn't believe what the Bible said.

Do any think, the drink they drank, probably stank, for grape juice would not keep, unless of molasses. I believe they drank wine, and not molasses in those days, and going all the way back to Noah, where it all began. God gave it to him to make his heart "glad", but he overdid it, and became "merry".

Some learn by their mistakes. Others follow a Methodist Dentist that was mistaken. All Christians before this, and prohibition, surely took communion, so they must have had wine, or molasses which I don't really think will fit the bill.

 

Sorry, too, but here in the foreign country of Texas not all of us are familiar with BF&M 2000 either. Clarification?

 

http://www.sbc.net/redirect.asp?url=%2Fbfm%2Fbfm2000%2Easp

 

BFM 2000= The Baptist Faith and Message 2000

It's the statement of faith for the Southern Baptist Convention.

 

Thanks, Stefan!

 

Baptist Faith and Message

 

For the umpteen billionth time: the word "wine" is properly applied to the juice before it rots, even as it is properly applied to it afterward. Therefore there is no contradiction between the Abstract of Principles and the BF&M.

This fact says nothing about whether or not we should drink hooch. It only says that the allegation of contradiction is incorrect.

 

Your zeal has caused you to misread. I did not deny that the word refers to fermented wine sometimes. I said that the word is used in Scripture to refer to

1. unfermented juice and
2. fermented juice

Therefore there is no contradiction between the Abstract of Principles and the BF&M. You may argue for booze all you wish; I have no interest in the topic. I am only appealing for true arguments as against specious ones.