Is a little alcohol alright with the Bible?

BrianT said:

Where does it say no one can see you, or drink only at home?

It doesn't. In fact, 1 Cor. 8:10 assumes that at least sometimes, the meat sacrificed to idols might in fact be consumed right in the pagan temple.

Paul has an opportunity here to say "Buy your meat discreetly and take it home and eat it in private," but he doesn't. He says only to "beware" (not to "abstain") lest a weaker brother be caused to sin by your liberty. In other words, practice discretion but not necessarily in private.

 

Isn't the apostle Paul's argument about eating meat sacrificed to idols - which a weaker brother might see as idolatry in certain circumstances? Drinking an alcoholic beverage is not associated with idolatry as far as I know.

Ken

 

Ken Hamilton asked:

Isn't the apostle Paul's argument about eating meat sacrificed to idols - which a weaker brother might see as idolatry in certain circumstances?

Yes, very much so. Corinth was a mecca of pagan worship.

Drinking an alcoholic beverage is not associated with idolatry as far as I know.

Libation offerings were given to pagan gods as well as animal sacrifices, so possibly Paul's connection of eating meat and drinking wine in Rom. 14:21 has both kinds of pagan sacrifices in mind.

Still, I don't think we can dismiss Paul's arguments just by saying he was referring to a specific practice associated with idolatry in that culture; the passages on Christian liberty and bearing the burdens of the weak still have application today, just not for the same reasons.

The problem is not that we who are not teetotallers are recklessly drinking our wine with zero regard for the weaker brethren. I can find many ways of applying these principles to my current situation: not plying my houseguests with wine, not ordering an "adult beverage" in a restaurant when I don't know the habits of my dinner companions, and so forth. There is no question that Paul is saying we should protect the consciences of our weak brethren by not tempting them to sin.

The problem is that the typical Fundamentalist interpretation of these passages is such that it uses the conscience of the weak to bind the consciences of the strong. Not just under "risky" circumstances, but any circumstances. This is not the liberty Paul is talking about, it is a perversion of it.

 

Drinking alcohol only in private? Compare that idea with the following, spoken by Jesus in Matthew 11:19

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"'. But wisdom is proved right by her actions.

I doubt seriously that Jesus was drinking
a) only non-alcoholic beverages
b) only in private

in light of what was being said about Him. And this is not to even consider changing the water to wine at a wedding feast, which is indeed a public place!

 

Doesn't the Bible exhort us to be sober-minded. Even though drinking a little alcohol may not make some folks drunk, still a little alcohol does not leave you sober-minded either. I know I've been in both situations.

I don't drink anymore because I hate what even a little alcohol does to my brain & heart. I'm not special, it doesn't happen just to me. Alcohol is alcohol and it does what it does whether a little or a lot.

Perhaps, medicinally it is helpful. But, why drink for recreation? Why affirm anyone else to partake in something so destructive at worse and so fool-making at best?

I don't think "to each his own" cuts it here. Because alcohol has the ability to change a person's thinking and judgement--quickly. I think to argue that smoking or eating donuts is comparable is not reasonable--they don't change your ability to be rational and logical within a matter of minutes. Perhaps they are not healthy and are a poor choice, but you can still think straight when partaking of them. Alcohol is different.

Why try to defend something so destructive?

 

It is not "fool-making at best".

I brought up doughnuts in response to blackbirds comments about harmfulness to the body, and the hypocrisy of those who condemn cigarettes but not alcohol. I was pointing out that he is guily of the same hypocrisy, just in a different form.

You are right, doughnuts do not change your ability to be rational, but that is beside the point. I have repeatedly said that different abuses produce different results, and you cannot determine what is sin and what isn't simply by whether or not something produces certain types of results. The four times gluttony is mentioned in scripture, it is paralleled to *abuse* of alcohol. Even Christ was labelled a glutton and a winebibber because he ate and drank. Gluttony does not "change your ability to be rational", yet it also is a sin.

The comparison is entirely reasonable. Even scripture makes the comparison. If having a glass of wine is a sin because the Bible condemns drunkeness, having a doughnut is a sin because the Bible condemns gluttony.

Because in low amounts, doughnuts are not destructive, and even enjoyable.

Brian

 

Dootles said:

Doesn't the Bible exhort us to be sober-minded.

"Sober-minded" means serious (as opposed to flippant, cavalier), not the opposite of drunk. And therefore . . .

Even though drinking a little alcohol may not make some folks drunk, still a little alcohol does not leave you sober-minded either.

. . . since being "sober-minded" and being "sober" are two different things, this is a non sequitur.

Why affirm anyone else to partake in something so destructive at worse and so fool-making at best?

This is false.

Why try to defend something so destructive?

As long as you continue to equate drinking = drunkenness, your arguments remain circular and, therefore, invalid.

[ September 27, 2002, 11:27 AM: Message edited by: Ransom ]

 

C.S. Murphy makes a good point. I don't believe that drinking itself is sinful. But we do have to make choices. Even private drinking can affect others around us. It is so hard to keep a secret. Somebody is sure to find out and rumors start to fly.

Regarding the beneficial effects of alcohol:
One nearby hospital offers their patients a sleeping pill or a glass of wine before bed to help them sleep.

Wine is good for the heart; it has been shown to raise the good (HDL) cholesterol. Many cardiologists encourage their heart patients to drink a glass a day.

I have high LDL cholesterol and a low HDL cholesterol. (not a good combination!).
I often have problems sleeping.

I also have three daughters.
My choice is to abstain. In my opinion, liquor has a bad connotation in America. I think my witness is improved if I abstain, secret sipping or not.

(My solution: I take Zocor and I jog regularly- helping both my cholesterol and my sleeping).

 

Why are you reminding us this is a "fundamental forum"?

The passages makes a few interesting points:

- eating meat sacrificed to idols and drinking wine are not in themselves sinful, it is only sinful if the one participating does not have faith that these things are indeed pure.
- thinking that these things are sinful in and of themselves is something the *weaker* brother thinks. The stronger brother, through more faith, knows otherwise. I find it interesting that this is completely backwards to the attitudes on this forum.

I don't go out of my way to let weaker brothers see me having a glass of wine. I do keep it to myself. But it doesn't say "make sure *nobody* sees you", as you asserted earlier. The passage is only talking about making a weaker brother stumble, getting him to think it is OK before he has the faith and knowledge for himself that it is. When I've had a drink in a public place like a restaurant, nobody I knew was there. If a brother who knew I was a Christian was there and saw me, I would simply talk about it with him, so that his "offense" would be eliminated and so that he would not use my partaking as an opportunity to doubtfully partake (and thus sin).

One last thought about "offending". Practically everything I do and say would "offend" some brother, somewhere. Many brothers are "offended" that I am not KJV-only, others would be "offended" if I were. I do not believe "offense" in the context of these verses about eating and drinking mean that kind of "offense" (ie. not doing something just because someone, somewhere would think it is a sin and thus wouldn't like to see me doing that), but rather in the sense that it would cause them to sin.

BTW, what do you think "perish" means in 1 Cor 8:11?

 

Whether or not a little wine is okay in the Bible, I'm sure most would agree that seven pages of whining about wine is a little extreme, don't ya think?

 

I think we can all drink to that!

 

Murph, just because you don't like the answers doesn't mean we haven't answered.

I don't understand your reply about 1 Cor 8:11. How can me having a drink make a weaker brother "perish"?

 

Murphy, I have tried to answer everything you've asked.

I *do* agree that drinking can harm a brother. I've said as much several times. But just because it *can*, under certain circumstances, doesn't mean it *always will* or that partaking is a sin just because of potential harm, somewhere. Is drinking root beer from a silver can (Barq's comes to mind) a sin, because someone somewhere might see me and see silver can and see the word "beer" and then stumble and think he can therefore justified in abusing alcohol? I've met people who think the internet is purely about downloading pornography - are you going to give up your computer because someone somewhere might find out you are on the internet, and they might therefore think it is alright to become addicted to pornography? Is eating doughnuts a sin because someone might see you and then stumble into the sin of gluttony?

Rom 14:21 does not say "it is not good to drink wine..., period". It says "it is not good to drink wine... *whereby* thy brother stumbleth". It is not good to drink it if you are making your brother stumble. With this I totally agree! But if you are drinking of faith (the next verse) and are NOT making your brother stumble, no problem. That's what the passage says, and we've already talked about this.

I *do* guard. I have never offended a brother in this issue, let alone caused them to stumble. As for "explaining my liberty", all I am explaining is what Paul has already explained! The weaker brother may think it is a sin (and it is while he thinks this), but Paul clearly explains that those who know the truth and have faith that it isn't, are not committing sin by having a drink. The only time sin becomes a question is if you are causing a brother to stumble (and thus discussing scripture with him would be a good way to strengthen the weaker brother), or if you are outright abusing alcohol. If someone thinks drinking alcohol is intrinsically sinful, and has also read Rom 14, not only must they not believe what Paul is saying, they must also admit they are the weaker brother.