• Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

Is Drinking, Smoking, and Dipping a Sin

Status
Not open for further replies.

Snitzelhoff

New Member
Point taken. So the "others"--did they think the Apostles were drunk?

'Cause someone really thought they were drunk on the new wine, or Peter's response, "For these are not drunken, as ye suppose..." would just be silly.
 

dan e.

New Member
His Blood Spoke My Name said:
Of course you did... you don't want to receive sound doctrine.

FOR THE LOVE OF ALL THAT IS PURE AND HOLY AND TRUE.....


SHUT UP!!!

since you're my brother in Christ, we can have these sibling rivalries. But you should have followed my lead and bowed out of this thread a long time ago. Reread some of your posts telling us about your sound doctrine...as if you've got it all together. **Insult removed** Some Christians need this kind of talking....I've needed them tons myself.

aauugghh...maybe it is time to stop spending so much time in in a web forum.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

dan e.

New Member
whew....where did that come from? Sorry about that....some kinds of arguments drive me up the wall. This is one of them.
 

DHK

<b>Moderator</b>
Snitzelhoff said:
Point taken. So the "others"--did they think the Apostles were drunk?

'Cause someone really thought they were drunk on the new wine, or Peter's response, "For these are not drunken, as ye suppose..." would just be silly.
I personally don't believe so. I believe it was a hollow accusation. But remember that there were thousands that were present. Because the accusation was public, it had to be publicly refuted. Slander must be squashed. Also the Holy Spirit is the author and it was ultimately written for our benefit as well--giving us more of a total picture.
 

DHK

<b>Moderator</b>
Snitzelhoff said:
So Peter was wrong with the "as ye suppose"? That is, no one actually supposed such?
No, Peter answered as a gentleman, diplomatically, without malice.
He knew that they were mocking him, for it clearly says: "Others mocking,"
 

Snitzelhoff

New Member
DHK said:
No, Peter answered as a gentleman, diplomatically, without malice.
He knew that they were mocking him, for it clearly says: "Others mocking,"

Indeed, they were picking at the "drunk" guys--the ones they supposed were drunk. Surely, if you can tell two thousand years separated from the events that they didn't really think Peter and co were drunk, then Peter standing right there could tell, and would have rephrased it to something more truthful (being led by the Spirit of truth and all) like, "...drunk, as ye say...".
 

npetreley

New Member
DHK said:
It can be, but it doesn't have to be. One of the common characteristics of the cults is that they take a "key-hole" approach to the Scriptures.

Ah, so we're not just blasphemers, we're cults! Any other ways you want to pigeon hole us? Any other names you want to call us?
 

npetreley

New Member
Snitzelhoff said:
Indeed, they were picking at the "drunk" guys--the ones they supposed were drunk. Surely, if you can tell two thousand years separated from the events that they didn't really think Peter and co were drunk, then Peter standing right there could tell, and would have rephrased it to something more truthful (being led by the Spirit of truth and all) like, "...drunk, as ye say...".

I also find his reply interesting. He didn't say, "Of course we aren't drunk! Alcohol would never stain our holy, pure and perfect lips, blasphemer!" Instead, he said, "We're not drunk. It's only the third hour of the day!"
 
All Peter needed to do to prove their accusations were false was to tell them the men were not drunk and point them to the hour of the day... reminding them that it was not common for people to get drunk on forbidden wine at so early an hour of the day.

And it was not any kind of admittance that they would get drunk later either.
 

webdog

Active Member
Site Supporter
npetreley said:
I also find his reply interesting. He didn't say, "Of course we aren't drunk! Alcohol would never stain our holy, pure and perfect lips, blasphemer!" Instead, he said, "We're not drunk. It's only the third hour of the day!"
I've said the same thing. If drinking were sinful, they would have had the perfect opportunity to state as such.
 

npetreley

New Member
His Blood Spoke My Name said:
All Peter needed to do to prove their accusations were false was to tell them the men were not drunk and point them to the hour of the day... reminding them that it was not common for people to get drunk on forbidden wine at so early an hour of the day.

And it was not any kind of admittance that they would get drunk later either.
I'm not drunk. After all, it's only 8:30pm where I am.

Now, how do you suppose 99% of the people who read that would interpret it? Don't bother, it's a rhetorical question.
 

EdSutton

New Member
DHK said:
No, it was a wild and false accusation of some unbelievers who denied the supernatural work of God.
What was the reaction of the crowd in general?
"How speak we every man in our own tongue."
They were astonished that they could hear the disciples speak other languages, and that they could hear the wonderful praises of God in their own native languages. That is what most of the crowd thought. They glorified God. They did not attribute it to drunkeness. That was just a very few unbelievers that did that. The verse states:

Acts 2:13 Others mocking said, These men are full of new wine.

In relation to the thousands that were there "the others" were a relative few.
Pretty thin ice to decide which were the majority, and which were the minority, I would say.

And frankly, I don't greatly care on which side one is on in this. I've got enough "to worry about" beside this.

And as the moderator of my local church, I'll second webdog's motion.

Ed
 
Last edited by a moderator:

EdSutton

New Member
His Blood Spoke My Name said:
A MENACE NOT A MEDICINE​

Many Christians and unbelievers alike today are under the
illusion that some alcoholic beverages are beneficial as a tonic
for various ailments. Today there are so many “remedies” for all
kinds of sicknesses, from fevers to colds. Many people believe
them even though medically, there is no grounds for such action.
The real fact is that man is so sinful that he likes to believe that
the sinful things that bring him “pleasure” can cure him of his
physical and mental problems.

Consequently, tradition has produced all sorts of “tonics” and
old wives “remedies” which have included rum, whiskey, brandy,
and others. These are nothing more than folklore which have
been passed around for generations doing more harm than good.
God’s Word is clear concerning this:


But refuse profane and old wives' fables, and exercise thyself rather unto godliness. (1 Timothy 4:7)

Our Lord was well aware of man’s lack of appreciation of the
things God has provided both for his physical and spiritual well
being. In Luke 5:39, He says:

No man also having drunk old wine straightway desireth new: for he saith, The old is better. (Luke 5:39)

In this parable Christ likens new wine (non-alcoholic grape
juice) to salvation, or His powerful Kingdom, and old wine (alco-
holic) to legalism or pharisaic tradition. Christ’s analogy is
perfect as usual. We know that Jesus’ offer of salvation meant








eternal life and blessings to man. Something which legalism
could never bring, because without Christ, man could never live
up to the standards of the law.

Those who were unwilling to accept Christ would die in their
sins (John 8:21). Thus we can see how Christ knowing of the ill
effects of alcoholic wine, was able to effectively show the great
contrast between legalism and grace.

Salvation or the blessings of the Kingdom, is like new wine
being healthy and beneficial to man. And legalism or pharisaic
tradition, like old wine is harmful and would bring spiritual
death.

It is clear from the context of the parable that not only is new
wine superior to old wine, but that also old wine just like legal-
ism is useless. And as the Master said, those who are used to
drinking old wine prefer it to the new.

Today there are many other misconceptions concerning the so-
called benefits of alcohol. Including the common notion that it
keeps the cold out. Those who give credence to such an idea
should consider these facts from Black’s Medical Dictionary:

The popular habit of taking spirits ‘to keep the cold out’
is a delusion. Alcohol gives a sense of warmth to the skin
by bringing the blood there; but, as the blood is rapidly
cooled in cold air, the risk of frostbite and even death by
freezing is increased, so that experienced hunters and
mountaineers will on no account touch spirits on biting
cold days or at high altitudes.


In health, there is no necessity for alcohol, and, as so
many persons contract the alcohol habit, it would be well
for everyone to consider the question carefully before
embarking on its habitual use.

Here we can see one of the many examples of the lack of
understanding concerning the effects of this deadly substance.

This now is being realized, because during the past fifty or so
years the use of alcohol as a medicine has rapidly declined.

Dr. William Patton writing long ago on this subject quoted
Dr. J.W. Beaumont, Lecturer on Materia Medica in Sheffield
Medical School, England, as saying:

Alcoholic liquors are not nutritious, they are not a tonic,
they are not beneficial in any sense of the word.

The recent claims today that red wine is beneficial because it
reduces the chances of our contracting heart disease is mislead-
ing and contradictory to the message of the Scriptures. The
French are often cited as an example of this because they eat a lot
of fatty foods, consume a high amount of red wine, yet have a
considerable reduced rate of heart disease when compared with
other countries. However, these claims are really inconclusive.
Let us consider the following from BBC’s web site
(www.bbc.co.uk/health/nutrition/drinks_alcohol.shtml) under the
heading of , Alcohol – the benefits and the risks:

Alcohol consumed in moderation is thought to be ben-
eficial in reducing the risk of coronary heart disease.
Indeed, alcohol consumption, in conjunction with high
intakes of fruits and vegetables, or red wine, may well
explain the so-called ‘French paradox.’ The French
diet is considered to be very high in fat, especially sat-
urated fat, and yet the death rate from coronary heart
disease is apparently lower than that of any other
developed country.

So what are we saying? Reach for your wine glass? The
key word here is moderation. The World Health
Organization in 1997 concluded that the reduced risk
from coronary heart disease was found at the level of one
drink, consumed every second day.

Alcohol, even when consumed in moderation, has
Been linked to a very wide range of other ailments and
Diseases, such as increased risk of mouth, pharyngeal
And oesophageal cancers (this risk being greatly


increased if combined with smoking). Furthermore,
alcohol probably increases the risk of colorectal and
breast cancer.

The list doesn’t stop there: high blood pressure; gas-
trointestinal complications, such as gastritis, ulcers, and
liver disease; and a depletion of certain vitamins and
minerals are all caused by alcohol consumption. Of
course, excessive alcohol can also have detrimental
social and psychological consequences.

This clearly shows that any so-called benefits derived from
drinking alcoholic wine are massively outweighed by the risks.
You might not die of alcohol induced heart disease, but you will
probably die of cirrhosis of the liver or some other alcohol
related disease!

In proclaiming the fact that the French suffer a low rate of
heart disease, it is not mentioned in the same degree that they
have a high rate of deaths from cirrhosis of the liver as com-
pared to other countries! The question that must be asked is
what is it in the red wine that is beneficial? It is certainly not the
alcohol! Any benefit derived is clearly from the fruit used to
make the wine!
Now ths is what I call "sound exegesis". NOT! This has no bearing on whether or not the facts you have cited are correct, for basically they are, but don't we get our exegesis from Scripture, and apply it to 'worldly facts', and not the other way around? :confused:

And I am a teetotaler, BTW, not even knowing what beer or most wine tastes like, although I tasted some wine some twenty years ago.

Ed
 
Last edited by a moderator:

saturneptune

New Member
His Blood Spoke My Name said:
And I join in with DHK on this. It is nothing short of blasphemous to compare the blood of my Lord and Savior to that which is corrupt.
Since you like to throw around the word blasphemy around quite freely, I would say the closest thing I have seen to that state above anything I have read in this thread is he who claims to be without sin for 24 hours.

Your theology, reasoning, and posts do not line up with the Gospel. I hope you are enjoying your flowing robes, places at the dinner table, and recognition when you pray.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top