Featured Moderation is what helps- not teetotalism

Both they & the SBC are insignificant up here in Northland. Only religion is Roman Catholism is flourishing & that's BS & doesn't hold sway with anyone.

 

To you, yes, it is sin. But what is sin to you does not become sin to others, nor can your attitude cause it to be a sin to others, which frankly is something you attempt to lay upon others incessantly.

Worry more about your own conscience and put an end to your attempt to make your weak conscience concerning this particular topic the conscience of others who don't share the same weakness.

 

Aaron, that is a ridiculous statement.

 

I just believe that it is a freedom of ours to drink, but if it causes us to sin if anything does causes us to sin and ruin our witness. It is not for the sake of us who are in Christ who are free, but the sake of others. To do the extreme to cut it off.

There is people who you can teach all day long about drinking moderately, but still can't stop when they start.

 

So you say.

 

You did not answer the question. If you are going to throw out a verse at least explain it.

No. It is a issue, not the issue. Do we always know whether a brother has a weakness in a specific area? If we know a brother is an alcoholic then I do believe we have an obligation not to use our liberty to place him at the risk of temptation. And the other scenarios are just as valid because consuming alcohol is only one of many things by which a brother may stumble.

There are those who do not drink alcohol, not because they are weak in that area, but because they have a scruple against it. Fine. But their scruple does not take precedent over another brother's liberty. Back in the 80's fundamentalists launched a boycott of Disney. My wife and I went to Disneyland on our honeymoon and a person who supported the boycott told me she was offended by our callous choice. She was not a weaker brother (or sister in this case). She made a moral choice that was not binding on my moral choice. Now if my choice was inherently sinful then I could not hide it under the guise of Christian liberty. But it was not sinful, therefore my wife and I were free to act according to conscience. Drinking alcohol is the same thing.

Rick can, and does, speak for himself. Respond to me as an individual. I am on record as saying that I willfully check my liberty when I know a brother is genuinely weak in a specific area. I am not trying to mock them. But if a brother is not weak, or he simply has a scruple against a lawful activity, then I am free to exercise my liberty in whatever area I choose.

 

Yes. I do.

 

Yes. But it is always best to give someone a chance.

 

All my life I heard about the evils of drinking. No drinking, period, was the rule. It was even posted on the wall in front of the church (Church Covenant). It was bad and evil. It was this terrible sin. So, what do you think was one of the first thing I tried when I went into the Army?

 

Fried octopus?

 

I don't know about fried octopus but I got fried. :saint:

 

The conclusion I must come to in this debate is that the argument made by those who oppose consuming alcohol is not based on a biblical command. It lacks a clear biblical mandate. Their argument is based on perceived social ills and extra-biblical theology. The weaker brother argument points to tempering Christian liberty in the presence of a truly weaker brother. It does not eliminate Christian liberty.

In short the burden is on the opponents of consuming alcohol to provide a clear and convincing biblical case to support their position. That is something they cannot do.

 

Rick: Paul said the sky is green.

Aaron: Actually, he said it's blue.

Rick: No, he said it's green.

Aaron: Here, I'll show you the Scripture where Paul mentions the sky and the color.

Rick: What about monkey butts?

Aaron: What about them? Let's talk about the sky. That's what Paul was talking about.

Rick: If you won't answer a single question about the color of monkey butts, then you're a moron.

 

All my life I heard about the evils of drinking. No drinking, period, was the rule. It was even posted on the wall in the church (IFB). It was bad and evil. It was this terrible sin. So, what do you think was one of the first things I tried when I turned 18?

 

As a kid, were you ever emboldened to jump ramps with your bike by watching Evel Knieval? I don't mean little ramps. I mean something really daring? Something you truly did not possess the ability to do?

Then boom. Wrecked bike and broken collar bone, not to mention the bruising and the missing skin.

That's what it means to cause a weaker brother to offend. He wants the faith to do things that he just can't do, but doesn't really have it. But wait, he knows that the one that he looks up to as an example and a teacher does so all the time (or maybe it's an entire congregation) with a perfectly clear conscience. So he tries it. Pulls a chair up to a table right outside the idol's temple. The meat is fresh and savory, but as soon as he sinks his teeth into the succulent steak, his conscience is violated. His brain is telling him one thing, but his heart another, because he still has a conscience toward meat that was offered in sacrifice to an idol as an evil thing.

Because his act was not of faith, he sinned. And because the stronger disregarded his weaker brother and put a stumbling block in his way, he sinned as well.

Now, one man may have a conscience toward wine as an evil thing, but he has a strong conscience, and is not emboldened by your liberty to do something he thinks is wrong. You're not wrong to drink whether in front of him or not. You're wrong to call him a moron, and he's wrong to judge you.

See how different that is from the usual misconstructions of the passages into what you and Rick are asserting? We can take it verse by verse if you wish, but we will not talk about monkey butts. We will talk about meat and wine.

 

I heard you could get throat cancer from it?

 

Where is our disagreement here? I have already said that, if we know someone is a weaker brother, it is best to check our liberty. But do we always know when someone is a weaker brother? If you are suggesting we check our liberty because someone may be a weaker brother, then you have the right to make that choice for yourself, but not for others.

I am not suggesting that we flaunt our liberties as though it is some sort of libertarian protest. But if I like to drink wine with a steak dinner, and I am not knowingly doing it in the presence of a weaker brother, I am justified in exercising my liberty.

Your wrecked bike analogy was well-written and makes a lot of sense. But if I were to carry that into the adult Christian world, I would not be participating in reckless behavior (and please do not equate Christian liberty with reckless behavior). If your point is, "Exercise your liberty but do so with caution" then I could agree with that. That is exactly what I do.

I sense a tension between you and Rick. It is what is. I am not Rick (the point I made in an earlier post). I have not called you names. I am not questioning your motives. I do wonder why you cannot trust me to act in a manner worthy of my profession. Do you really think I would use my liberty to harm a weaker brother in Christ?