God Gave Wine: What the Bible Says About Alcohol

[Winman]

That's a good reply, thank you.
After quick thought, I drink in front of Jesus everyday. Obviously he sees what I consume, and I don't find myself embarrassed by it.

My pastor has been to my home once. I drank Gatorade in his presence. In all honesty, I felt like I would have been "judged" more by him that Jesus (I know that's wrong).

An underage college student could probably "drink me under the table", in a given evening. :laugh:
Just kidding. I would not worry about my drinking in that situation.

Ann, Thank you again for the reply!
Bob

I do not drink, but drinking never agreed with me. That said, I do not see that scripture forbids drinking, but it certainly forbids drunkeness. Being drunk can ruin your reputation, look at Noah, he was the most godly man in the entire world, but he passed out drunk in his tent and his son saw his nakedness.

Gen 9:20 And Noah began to be an husbandman, and he planted a vineyard:
21 And he drank of the wine, and was drunken; and he was uncovered within his tent.
22 And Ham, the father of Canaan, saw the nakedness of his father, and told his two brethren without.
23 And Shem and Japheth took a garment, and laid it upon both their shoulders, and went backward, and covered the nakedness of their father; and their faces were backward, and they saw not their father's nakedness.
24 And Noah awoke from his wine, and knew what his younger son had done unto him.
25 And he said, Cursed be Canaan; a servant of servants shall he be unto his brethren.

Was Noah still a good man? Of course. Did Noah go to heaven? Yes. But alcohol did bring shame and embarrassment on him. That is what alcohol does.

So, the scriptures are bluntly honest, and we can learn valuable lessons from it.

 

[Bob in St. Louis]

Thank you all!

Ann,
My choice not to drink in front of the Pastor was a decision I made since he was coming to our home to talk about our upcoming Baptism. I thought about doing it just to establish my confidence on the matter, but I chose to be more subtle and "fly under the radar". In hindsight, I think I did it to avoid ruffling his feathers. Not because I'm ashamed.

Ok...maybe a few percent of the choice.......

 

[Revmitchell]

I do not drink at all because I cannot find any place in which I could drink it or purchase it that to do so is a good testimony.

 

[Bob in St. Louis]

Well, There are liquor stores near me that are nicer than the grocery stores.
Not that either is "good testimony" by definition, but that being said, none of the grocery stores would/could be considered as such either.

.....maybe that says something about our priorities, here....

 

[agedman]

It is a sin for a believer to consume an intoxicant that is not prescribed and regulated by medical authority, or given to one who has no hope (perhaps terminally ill).

Those are the ONLY two conditions given to take any intoxicant - medical, and terminal.

The Scripture never gives permission for consumption outside of those two situations.

 

[Baptist Believer]

It is a sin for a believer to consume an intoxicant that is not prescribed and regulated by medical authority, or given to one who has no hope (perhaps terminally ill).

Those are the ONLY two conditions given to take any intoxicant - medical, and terminal.

What is your scriptural authority for that position?

The Scripture never gives permission for consumption outside of those two situations.

Sure it does:

Deuteronomy 14

22*“You shall tithe all the yield of your seed, which comes forth from the field year by year. 23*And before the Lord your God, in the place which he will choose, to make his name dwell there, you shall eat the tithe of your grain, of your wine, and of your oil, and the firstlings of your herd and flock; that you may learn to fear the Lord your God always. 24*And if the way is too long for you, so that you are not able to bring the tithe, when the Lord your God blesses you, because the place is too far from you, which the Lord your God chooses, to set his name there, 25*then you shall turn it into money, and bind up the money in your hand, and go to the place which the Lord your God chooses, 26*and spend the money for whatever you desire, oxen, or sheep, or wine or strong drink, whatever your appetite craves; and you shall eat there before the Lord your God and rejoice, you and your household."

 

[agedman]

What is your scriptural authority for that position?


Sure it does:

Deuteronomy 14

22*“You shall tithe all the yield of your seed, which comes forth from the field year by year. 23*And before the Lord your God, in the place which he will choose, to make his name dwell there, you shall eat the tithe of your grain, of your wine, and of your oil, and the firstlings of your herd and flock; that you may learn to fear the Lord your God always. 24*And if the way is too long for you, so that you are not able to bring the tithe, when the Lord your God blesses you, because the place is too far from you, which the Lord your God chooses, to set his name there, 25*then you shall turn it into money, and bind up the money in your hand, and go to the place which the Lord your God chooses, 26*and spend the money for whatever you desire, oxen, or sheep, or wine or strong drink, whatever your appetite craves; and you shall eat there before the Lord your God and rejoice, you and your household."

Can you tell me even ONE believer in this age that meets the qualifications of that verse?

First, the believer is NOT to tithe but to give - completely different.

Second, there are no sacrifices to be offered other than that of the believer's heart, mind, body, strength.

Third, if one takes the "permission" view, then this verse could just as easily apply to "anything thy soul desires." Meaning it contradicts the rest of the law given by God for it puts no restriction upon it.

However, again it is a medicinal treatment. Such as one might need (as my daughter has occasion) when returning from a land in which the body can receive all manner of parasitic, or traveling stresses.

Often a traveler would have difficulties with sleeping, eating, or other distresses that modern travel doesn't display.

It is in THAT term the "permission" is given.

Yet those who puff up the use of intoxicants desire "permission" even when it is not given.

The Scriptures do not contradict them self in this matter.

 

[Baptist Believer]

Before I deal with your arguments, I think it is important to point out that you have not given any scriptural authority for your position as previously stated.

Can you tell me even ONE believer in this age that meets the qualifications of that verse?

Since we do not have a tabernacle that is too far away to bring tithes (as was the context here), you have a point. However, the principle stands. Wine and liquor ("strong drink"), as well as sheep and oxen were allowed/encouraged for the people to celebrate the blessings of God. Certainly gluttony was not assumed just because God allowed the eating of sheep and oxen, and the same goes for wine and strong drink - drunkenness is not endorsed. However it is a feast/celebration, so there is allowance for consuming more than normal.

When Jesus created wine for the wedding in Cana (John 2), the Greek makes it completely clear that it was intoxicating wine since the wedding coordinator (the master of the feast) noted that people usually serve the good wine first and then lower quality wine after the guests' taste buds have dulled from the effects of the good wine. He commented that the wine Jesus made was superior. Again, this is a feast/celebration, so there is allowance for consuming more than normal. Of course, this is not getting sloppy drunk, but enough for there to be some effect.

First, the believer is NOT to tithe but to give - completely different.

Second, there are no sacrifices to be offered other than that of the believer's heart, mind, body, strength.

All of this misses the point I was making.

Third, if one takes the "permission" view, then this verse could just as easily apply to "anything thy soul desires." Meaning it contradicts the rest of the law given by God for it puts no restriction upon it.

This is a logical fallacy. The only way it would contradict the "rest of the law" is if it is completely pulled from its context and ASSUMED that the person obeying this commandment would be unrighteous in his/her desires.

However, again it is a medicinal treatment. Such as one might need (as my daughter has occasion) when returning from a land in which the body can receive all manner of parasitic, or traveling stresses.

Often a traveler would have difficulties with sleeping, eating, or other distresses that modern travel doesn't display.

It is in THAT term the "permission" is given.

Again, what is your scriptural support for your position?

How do you reconcile that Jesus not only drank wine, but that He created wine for the wedding guests?

Yet those who puff up the use of intoxicants desire "permission" even when it is not given.

Ah... You are now assigning evil and selfish motives to those who do not share your opinion. I'm pretty sure that is a sinful act, probably worse that someone drinking in moderation with a clear conscience before God and humankind - even if the use of alcohol is somehow wrong.

The Scriptures do not contradict them self in this matter.

No they don't. My understanding of the scriptures is not contradictory at all. Yours seems to have problems, although you haven't really presented a scriptural argument yet.

 

[agedman]

Before I deal with your arguments, I think it is important to point out that you have not given any scriptural authority for your position as previously stated.


Since we do not have a tabernacle that is too far away to bring tithes (as was the context here), you have a point. However, the principle stands. Wine and liquor ("strong drink"), as well as sheep and oxen were allowed/encouraged for the people to celebrate the blessings of God. Certainly gluttony was not assumed just because God allowed the eating of sheep and oxen, and the same goes for wine and strong drink - drunkenness is not endorsed. However it is a feast/celebration, so there is allowance for consuming more than normal.

When Jesus created wine for the wedding in Cana (John 2), the Greek makes it completely clear that it was intoxicating wine since the wedding coordinator (the master of the feast) noted that people usually serve the good wine first and then lower quality wine after the guests' taste buds have dulled from the effects of the good wine. He commented that the wine Jesus made was superior. Again, this is a feast/celebration, so there is allowance for consuming more than normal. Of course, this is not getting sloppy drunk, but enough for there to be some effect.


All of this misses the point I was making.


This is a logical fallacy. The only way it would contradict the "rest of the law" is if it is completely pulled from its context and ASSUMED that the person obeying this commandment would be unrighteous in his/her desires.


Again, what is your scriptural support for your position?

How do you reconcile that Jesus not only drank wine, but that He created wine for the wedding guests?


Ah... You are now assigning evil and selfish motives to those who do not share your opinion. I'm pretty sure that is a sinful act, probably worse that someone drinking in moderation with a clear conscience before God and humankind - even if the use of alcohol is somehow wrong.


No they don't. My understanding of the scriptures is not contradictory at all. Yours seems to have problems, although you haven't really presented a scriptural argument yet.

I didn't present the argument in the form YOU desired, but that doesn't mean the topic hasn't been clearly stated and each point you raised Scripturally answered.

Go to the archives and read what I have consistently stated.

Again, there is NO case in the Scriptures that makes taking an intoxicant approved without the medical necessity and/or the terminal "no hope."

New wine is NOT an intoxicant.

In the ancients, they did not have the understanding of extracting the natural yeast and supplanting it with what makes the "modern" wine, not so bitter. "Old" wine was bitter, because of the natural yeast fermentation. Therefore, your "wedding feast" argument fails. New wine simply contained no fermentation. Fermentation brought the bitterness.

I really don't care if someone takes my comments about this subject as condemning them. If they are condemned, it isn't me, but the work of the Holy Spirit in the matter bring rebuke that they most certainly practice to rebuff.

King James Bible
Great peace have they which love thy law: and nothing shall offend them.
​

A better translation:

New American Standard Bible
Those who love Your law have great peace, And nothing causes them to stumble.
​

The next question must deal with the matter of how much is too much?
But frankly, that is really the wrong question to ask.

The question isn't how much is consumed before a DWI is given. Such legal questions in a degenerate society are not for the believer to even consider; for our whole heart, mind, soul, strength is to be submissive to the Lord Jesus Christ - not to an intoxicant.

What is the purpose of the intoxicant? - to toxify.

It has no other purpose.

That alone would make the matter solidly in opposition to the believer principles to live by. Is not our whole self to be a temple of the Holy Spirit? Are believers not to present them self as a "living sacrifice." Did Christ at His sacrifice take an intoxicant?

At no time did Christ toxify his earthly body. Not even on the cross when offered the intoxicant - He spit it out as soon as it was given.

One scripture.

Wine IS a mocker, strong drink IS raging.

Now some would say, "oh but you didn't finish the verse." Or, "this is some form of metaphor work and not to be taken literally.

Doesn't matter what the argument (I've pretty much heard and read them all) it comes down to taking the Scriptures at face value.

The fact is that the believer is not to have fellowship with that which mocks and rages. The very first psalm states such.

Because wine IS a mocker, the believer has no fellowship nor use in partaking.

Because strong drink IS raging, the believer has no fellowship nor use in partaking.

John Gill states the following:

Wine is a mocker, strong drink is raging,.... Wine deceives a man; it not only overcomes him before he is aware, but it promises him a pleasure which it does not give; but, on the contrary, excessive drinking gives him pain, and so mocks him; yea, it exposes him to reproach and disgrace, and to the mockery and derision of others; as well as it sets him to scoff at his companions, and even to mock at religion, and all that is good and serious; see Hosea 7:5; and strong drink not only disturbs the brain, and puts the spirits in a ferment, so that a man rages within, but it sets him a raving and quarrelling with his company, and everybody he meets with; such generally get into broils and contentions, and get woe, sorrow, and wounds, Proverbs 23:29.
​

The believer is to be as a pilgrim; following Christ as pictured by the Israelite following the cloud and fire in a barren fruitless desolate land. A time when total reliance upon the mercy and grace of God not only lead, but brought the folks to the final promised land. During that whole time, not one drop of strong drink or wine was consumed.

But, the modernists have such excuses for the excess and mocking of those who disagree with them on this matter.

This topic is common on the BB, and the mocking and ridicule of the principles of Scriptures that I have laid out here (and in the past) will without doubt continue. But such gesturing and posturing doesn't change the truth of the principle of total abstinence.

Accept for medicinal (under doctor's authority) and the terminal, there is never a time the Scriptures approve of the believer consuming either wine or strong drink.

 

[Baptist Believer]

At no time did Christ toxify his earthly body.

While I'm certain that Jesus did not drink toxic levels of alcohol, it is clear that He did drink wine:

Matthew 11:18-19
18 For John came neither eating nor drinking, and they say, ‘He has a demon.’ 19 The Son of Man came eating and drinking, and they say, ‘Here is a glutton and a drunkard, a friend of tax collectors and sinners.’

Luke 7:33-34
33 For John the Baptist has come eating no bread and drinking no wine, and you say, ‘He has a demon!’ 34 The Son of Man has come eating and drinking, and you say, ‘Behold, a gluttonous man and a drunkard, a friend of tax collectors and sinners!’

Notice what was said:

John [the Baptist] did not eat bread or drink wine and they accused him of having a demon because he did not indulge.

The Son of Man (Jesus) came eating and drinking and they claimed He did it to excess (a glutton and a drunkard). You can't get drunk on grape juice. Jesus did not deny that He ate and drank [wine], or that He was a friend of tax collectors and sinners. Obviously the eating and drinking to excess was a false charge though.

Your use of the label "intoxicants" - an extrabiblical word - and then your use of the word toxic to indicate ANY level of consumption is not a biblical argument, nor a coherent logical or scientific argument.

However, I can see that you are not really interested in discussing the scriptural teaching, so I will just have to leave you with this thought. Do not be surprised if the wine you are served at the Marriage Feast of the Lamb contains alcohol.

I hope you won't abstain then.

 

[Baptist Believer]

This topic is common on the BB, and the mocking and ridicule of the principles of Scriptures that I have laid out here (and in the past) will without doubt continue.

I am curious, where have I ridiculed "the principles of Scriptures" in this discussion? I have been quoting scripture and giving exposition of it. You are the one assigning poor motives to those who disagree with you.

 

[agedman]

While I'm certain that Jesus did not drink toxic levels of alcohol, it is clear that He did drink wine:

Matthew 11:18-19
18 For John came neither eating nor drinking, and they say, ‘He has a demon.’ 19 The Son of Man came eating and drinking, and they say, ‘Here is a glutton and a drunkard, a friend of tax collectors and sinners.’

Luke 7:33-34
33 For John the Baptist has come eating no bread and drinking no wine, and you say, ‘He has a demon!’ 34 The Son of Man has come eating and drinking, and you say, ‘Behold, a gluttonous man and a drunkard, a friend of tax collectors and sinners!’

Notice what was said:

John [the Baptist] did not eat bread or drink wine and they accused him of having a demon because he did not indulge.

The Son of Man (Jesus) came eating and drinking and they claimed He did it to excess (a glutton and a drunkard). You can't get drunk on grape juice. Jesus did not deny that He ate and drank [wine], or that He was a friend of tax collectors and sinners. Obviously the eating and drinking to excess was a false charge though.

Your use of the label "intoxicants" - an extrabiblical word - and then your use of the word toxic to indicate ANY level of consumption is not a biblical argument, nor a coherent logical or scientific argument.

However, I can see that you are not really interested in discussing the scriptural teaching, so I will just have to leave you with this thought. Do not be surprised if the wine you are served at the Marriage Feast of the Lamb contains alcohol.

I hope you won't abstain then.

Who do you believe?

Really?

You want to proclaim the "they say" were actually truthful????

Were "they" not looking for some excuse to accuse, and did "they" not eventually rely upon false testimony?

Yet, YOU would use "their" word as proof and an excuse???

Honestly?


Then you take issue with the word "intoxicants" as if it is "extra biblical" when actually it is exactly what the basis of all such are about.

Noah certainly didn't fall down in shameful display because he was sober.

You desire to rely upon science, then ask yourself this question: How much of an intoxicant must be consumed before it is absorbed into the body?

Christ did not drink an intoxicant before He went to the cross, or He wouldn't have reason to spit it out while on the cross.

And the marriage feast will have NO fermentation. It is a supper of reunion with the Lord Jesus Christ. The new body has no capacity to be even slightly even at the atomic level (or whatever level the new body has) controlled by any intoxicant. The new body is under total authority of Christ and wars not with the old carnal form.

It is pure conjecture on your part to even consider such as you stated to be the case.

I have given you example upon example, and all you can present is a common modernistic view that presents the intoxicant as acceptable for the believer to consume.

I suppose to be consistent, you would also have to include all forms and types of intoxicants.

Certainly, I have heard the argument made that God created all things for our pleasure and out of His abundance expects the believer to not shy away from any.

Answer me this.

Do you have objection to a believer consuming any intoxicant of any form?

For if you do, your own arguments leave your position as faulty.

 

[annsni]

Psalm 104:14-15 "You cause the grass to grow for the livestock
and plants for man to cultivate,
that he may bring forth food from the earth
and wine to gladden the heart of man,
oil to make his face shine
and bread to strengthen man's heart."

Zechariah 10:6-7 "I will strengthen the house of Judah,
and I will save the house of Joseph.
I will bring them back because I have compassion on them,
and they shall be as though I had not rejected them,
for I am the Lord their God and I will answer them.
Then Ephraim shall become like a mighty warrior,
and their hearts shall be glad as with wine.
Their children shall see it and be glad;
their hearts shall rejoice in the Lord."

Accept for medicinal (under doctor's authority) and the terminal, there is never a time the Scriptures approve of the believer consuming either wine or strong drink.

First all, it's "except" and not "accept".

But here we see that God gives wine to gladden the heart. I think this clearly refutes your assertion.

 

[agedman]

Psalm 104:14-15 "You cause the grass to grow for the livestock
and plants for man to cultivate,
that he may bring forth food from the earth
and wine to gladden the heart of man,
oil to make his face shine
and bread to strengthen man's heart."

Zechariah 10:6-7 "I will strengthen the house of Judah,
and I will save the house of Joseph.
I will bring them back because I have compassion on them,
and they shall be as though I had not rejected them,
for I am the Lord their God and I will answer them.
Then Ephraim shall become like a mighty warrior,
and their hearts shall be glad as with wine.
Their children shall see it and be glad;
their hearts shall rejoice in the Lord."



First all, it's "except" and not "accept".

But here we see that God gives wine to gladden the heart. I think this clearly refutes your assertion.

I know it is except not accept, but the edit wouldn't allow the change when I was reviewing the post, today.

Now, back to the psalms.

This psalm does not refute the principle that I have consistently expressed.

Look at the psalm in context:

104 Bless the Lord, O my soul!
O Lord my God, You are very great;
You are clothed with splendor and majesty,
2 Covering Yourself with light as with a cloak,
Stretching out heaven like a tent curtain.
3 He lays the beams of His upper chambers in the waters;
He makes the clouds His chariot;
He walks upon the wings of the wind;
4 He makes the winds His messengers,
Flaming fire His ministers.

5 He established the earth upon its foundations,
So that it will not totter forever and ever.
6 You covered it with the deep as with a garment;
The waters were standing above the mountains.
7 At Your rebuke they fled,
At the sound of Your thunder they hurried away.
8 The mountains rose; the valleys sank down
To the place which You established for them.
9 You set a boundary that they may not pass over,
So that they will not return to cover the earth.

10 He sends forth springs in the valleys;
They flow between the mountains;
11 They give drink to every beast of the field;
The wild donkeys quench their thirst.
12 Beside them the birds of the heavens dwell;
They lift up their voices among the branches.
13 He waters the mountains from His upper chambers;
The earth is satisfied with the fruit of His works.

14 He causes the grass to grow for the cattle,
And vegetation for the labor of man,
So that he may bring forth food from the earth,
15 And wine which makes man’s heart glad,
So that he may make his face glisten with oil,
And food which sustains man’s heart.
16 The trees of the Lord drink their fill,
The cedars of Lebanon which He planted,
17 Where the birds build their nests,
And the stork, whose home is the fir trees.

... (this part snipped to shorten the post)

31 Let the glory of the Lord endure forever;
Let the Lord be glad in His works;
32 He looks at the earth, and it trembles;
He touches the mountains, and they smoke.
33 I will sing to the Lord as long as I live;
I will sing praise to my God while I have my being.
34 Let my meditation be pleasing to Him;
As for me, I shall be glad in the Lord.
35 Let sinners be consumed from the earth
And let the wicked be no more.
Bless the Lord, O my soul.
Praise the Lord!

​

Throughout the psalm, there are is great pictures used to display the greatness and authority of God. In each instance, it is certainly God doing all the work in which we (both heathen and believer) have the right to gaze upon with wonder.

Within this great psalm you have selected verses 14-15 as indication that God has made intoxicants to gladden the heart.

Not so. As earlier stated, the wine that was fermented was bitter, nasty tasting. Certainly, that wine would not "gladden the heart."

i would direct you to the end of the psalms where the lyricist gives what gladdens his heart.

33 I will sing to the Lord as long as I live;
I will sing praise to my God while I have my being.
34 Let my meditation be pleasing to Him;
As for me, I shall be glad in the Lord.

​

Does the psalmist take pleasure in the wine, or in the Lord?

The heathen have nothing but the intoxicant and other addictive traits in which to pleasure, but the believer's pleasure and gladness is to be "in the Lord."

OK, now let's deal with Zechariah.

There is no doubt that the promise to Judah is to be restored. And that the restoration will be complete:

“Ephraim will be like a mighty man,
And their heart will be glad as if from wine;
Indeed, their children will see it and be glad,
Their heart will rejoice in the Lord.
8 “I will whistle for them to gather them together,
For I have redeemed them;
And they will be as numerous as they were before."
​

Now in your attempt to use this section as proof, you possibly neglected to carefully read "And their heart will be glad AS IF from wine;" and that is a whole different picture than if one reads it "And their heart will be glad from wine."

Surely, you can see that really neither Scripture refutes the principle of which I have stated.

The psalmist was glad in the lord, and Judah rejoiced as if from wine.

Another example to support these is the case of Samuel's mother in prayer and Eli thought she was drunk.

And another example is given in Acts, "13 But others were mocking and saying, “They are full of sweet wine.” - but really they were filled with the Holy Spirit.

Here are two examples that show the principle given by the psalms and Zachariah does not contradict what I have stated is the Scriptural principle.

 

[annsni]

Within this great psalm you have selected verses 14-15 as indication that God has made intoxicants to gladden the heart.

Not so. As earlier stated, the wine that was fermented was bitter, nasty tasting. Certainly, that wine would not "gladden the heart."

What wine is bitter and nasty tasting? Bad wine maybe but not good wine. God made WINE to gladden the heart. That is what the Scriptures clearly state but you dispute it?

i would direct you to the end of the psalms where the lyricist gives what gladdens his heart.

33 I will sing to the Lord as long as I live;
I will sing praise to my God while I have my being.
34 Let my meditation be pleasing to Him;
As for me, I shall be glad in the Lord.

​

Does the psalmist take pleasure in the wine, or in the Lord?

Do you take pleasure in the Lord - and your wife? Are we limited to one thing? Apparently not because the scriptures clearly state that wine gladdens the heart - and that we shall be glad in the Lord. I'm sure I can also find other things in the Scriptures that will gladden us.

The heathen have nothing but the intoxicant and other addictive traits in which to pleasure, but the believer's pleasure and gladness is to be "in the Lord."

Yet the Psalmist clearly says that God made wine to gladden the heart. You can't refute the clear teaching of Scripture.

OK, now let's deal with Zechariah.

There is no doubt that the promise to Judah is to be restored. And that the restoration will be complete:

“Ephraim will be like a mighty man,
And their heart will be glad as if from wine;
Indeed, their children will see it and be glad,
Their heart will rejoice in the Lord.
8 “I will whistle for them to gather them together,
For I have redeemed them;
And they will be as numerous as they were before."
​

Now in your attempt to use this section as proof, you possibly neglected to carefully read "And their heart will be glad AS IF from wine;" and that is a whole different picture than if one reads it "And their heart will be glad from wine."

Surely, you can see that really neither Scripture refutes the principle of which I have stated.

The psalmist was glad in the lord, and Judah rejoiced as if from wine.

Another example to support these is the case of Samuel's mother in prayer and Eli thought she was drunk.

And another example is given in Acts, "13 But others were mocking and saying, “They are full of sweet wine.” - but really they were filled with the Holy Spirit.

Here are two examples that show the principle given by the psalms and Zachariah does not contradict what I have stated is the Scriptural principle.

If wine doesn't gladden the heart (which is your stance), then how can we rejoice "as if from wine"? ??????

Yes, Samuel's mother was in prayer and Eli thought she was drunk - yet she clearly was not. Additionally, the disciples were said to be full of new wine but they were not (although this goes against the argument that new wine was non-alcoholic - if you can't get drunk on it then there was a very strange argument here).

These two examples don't show the principles at all. It's just examples of times that people thought someone was drunk but they were not. It doesn't speak at all about wine gladdening the heart - which God created it to do.

 

[Bob in St. Louis]

Ok then. I am at peace with "gladdening my heart with wine". It will be assumed that I will not become drunken and a glutton, so we're good. Right?

I choose not to over analyze, but to take the Biblical words literally.

 

[agedman]

I am curious, where have I ridiculed "the principles of Scriptures" in this discussion? I have been quoting scripture and giving exposition of it. You are the one assigning poor motives to those who disagree with you.

If I stated that you have ridiculed, it would be wrong, for you have not.

It is the case that on the BB when I have engaged in this topic, ridicule is part of the game to discredit.

As far as "quoting Scripture and giving exposition of it" you have certainly quoted Scripture, but as I have consistently shown, your exposition is unsupported.


Historically baptists have been noted for their stand against intoxicants (look at the statement in the Baptist Hymnal used before the "new" came out in the early 70's) and until the last 5 or so decades it was not that big of an issue.

Baptists were known for their teetotalism.

Unfortunately, as the modernist moved into the schools and seminaries, the Scriptural teaching on this subject was biased not only attempting to show the use of intoxicants were Scriptural but actually encouraging by example the local assemblies to include intoxicants in the Lord's table, which didn't take long to extend into the casual use in social situations and in the home.

This is highly problematic, not only because of Scriptures, but because if one does not draw the line at the principle as I have expressed it, then there is no excuse not to include all manner of intoxicants in all forms as "God glorifying."

Here is a question that would pertain to the subject:
Timothy was instructed to "take a little wine for his stomach's sake." Now if he were already doing that as a practice or custom, why was it important for the medical opinion to be expressed?

 

[annsni]

Here is a question that would pertain to the subject:
Timothy was instructed to "take a little wine for his stomach's sake." Now if he were already doing that as a practice or custom, why was it important for the medical opinion to be expressed?

Maybe he was following a new custom of not having ANY wine because people were saying it would cause someone to stumble and so Paul had to tell him, "C'mon Timmy!!! Drink a little wine! It's good for you!!!"

 

[Baptist Believer]

Who do you believe?

I believe Jesus.

Really?

You want to proclaim the "they say" were actually truthful????

Were "they" not looking for some excuse to accuse, and did "they" not eventually rely upon false testimony?

Yet, YOU would use "their" word as proof and an excuse???

Honestly?

You're not a very careful reader. Jesus said HIMSELF that He came eating and drinking. The false part was that He was a glutton and a drunkard.

Then you take issue with the word "intoxicants" as if it is "extra biblical" when actually it is exactly what the basis of all such are about.

Noah certainly didn't fall down in shameful display because he was sober.

Yes, but you're assuming anyone who has a moderate amount of alcohol is drunk.

You desire to rely upon science, then ask yourself this question: How much of an intoxicant must be consumed before it is absorbed into the body?

Only a small amount... but small amounts of "intoxicants" are not toxic. You need to realize that an intoxicant has the potential to cause intoxication after it reaches a toxic level in the body.

Christ did not drink an intoxicant before He went to the cross, or He wouldn't have reason to spit it out while on the cross.

That's speculation.

And the marriage feast will have NO fermentation.

And you know this how?

The new body has no capacity to be even slightly even at the atomic level (or whatever level the new body has) controlled by any intoxicant.

And you know this how? The resurrection body is material and one can eat and drink with it, but there are differences of course. The body can move through walls and appear/disappear.

It is pure conjecture on your part to even consider such as you stated to be the case.

Actually i've backed up everything with scripture. You're the one who is making pronouncements about things that are not in scripture.

I have given you example upon example, and all you can present is a common modernistic view that presents the intoxicant as acceptable for the believer to consume.

I've presented scripture. I'm not parroting a modernistic view. In fact, I'm presenting an old Baptist viewpoint that was commonly held before the so-called temperance movement took over Baptist life in the 19th century. Are you aware that Baptist ministers were often paid by congregations in whiskey and bourbon was invented by a Baptist preacher?

I suppose to be consistent, you would also have to include all forms and types of intoxicants.

Nope. That's a logical fallacy.

Do you have objection to a believer consuming any intoxicant of any form?

Sure. If it is illegal, one should not consume it. If it is detrimental to one's health, one should not consume it.

For if you do, your own arguments leave your position as faulty.

Nope. You are not thinking clearly.

 

[Allan]

Maybe he was following a new custom of not having ANY wine because people were saying it would cause someone to stumble and so Paul had to tell him, "C'mon Timmy!!! Drink a little wine! It's good for you!!!"

I'm hoping you are speaking tongue in the check with the last sentence.
Anyhoo.. here are some thoughts to ponder...

It is usually at this point where many who state 'moderation' was what all the early Christians held to and that is wasn't till the Temperance movement in the early 1900's that anyone ever held a contrary view, that they didn't drink regardless of moderation. Timothy, a disciple of Paul, proves there was a contention even back then as scripture reveals him as one who abstained (to the point of self hurt medicinally) from alcohal. Thus this shows and proves this contention was even in the early church, and even in the time of the apostles.

Now, we do not know 'why' Timothy abstained we only know he did. Paul's statement of take a 'little' wine is not a notation for moderation, but a very small amount to help with his stomach ailments as it specifically states.

Another interesting point is that if Timothy would not even drink alcohal in a small amount for his health, it should be of note he would not have drank alcohal for the Lord's Supper. This is conjecture of course but it is based on the fact that even for his own health he would not touch it, so it is not far a field to infer his not using fermented wine at the Lords supper, in fact it is nearly implied he would not touch it in anything.

I think another point to note is that Paul is not trying to convince Timothy he is right but is encouraging Timothy. This I believe is important to undrestanding 'potentially' why Timothy isn't drinking. It isn't that Timothy thought drinking itself was sinful or else Paul would not be encouraging him to go against his conscience but would instead FIRST have to fleshout out why drinking is not a sin, in and of itself. It 'appears' it is a conscience choice to not drink due to some other reason (I would assume much as Pauls statement - for the sake of a the weeker brother, especially with the Greeks and Pagans with who drank in great quantities - but that again is assumption so I digress)

Pauls statement shows there is nothing wrong with abstaining, but do so in a practical way that allows you to honor God according to your conscience but to use it as limitedly necessary (if circumstances call for it) that does not stand in opposition of scripture/conscience or the reasons for your not participating in it.

Anyway.. just some thoughts that neither are exactly for or against, but interesting notations and considerations