Priest and Wine

[FriendofSpurgeon]

I think it was Zenas who said he throws parties with a keg of beer on tap. That pretty much covers verse 30. More than twenty ounces of beer over an hour or so is proven to make one drunk.

If you check what he wrote, this was one of three hypothetical situations that he listed.

 

[DHK]

LOL - Spiritual maturity in Christ? Actually I find it is but it's quite the opposite of your thoughts. It tends to be those who do not understand the Scriptures or those who listen to other voices than Scripture who have the issue. When one truly studies Scripture, we find it a matter of liberty, not law.

By not the law, you mean that nasty word "legalism" correct?
Thinkingstuff came right out and used the word:

A person who is just a legalist should be dealt with gently and with respect because this probably isn't the only area of judgemental thinking for this person.

It is a nasty word, and a word that most here don't seem to have a proper understanding of. Instead of using it in its correct Biblical usage they have taken a more modern colloquial usage, which is not correct. We call that neo-orthodoxy. That is not much different than when adisciplinedlearner redefined salvation as baptismal regeneration and expected us to accept his definition. Why should I accept your definition when it is wrong.

Here is what most think that a legalist is:
On a sliding scale of 0 to 10, 0 is grace or liberty and 10 is legalism. 0 is complete freedom to do what one wants under the flag of grace. 10 is what seems like following rules and laws that we call legalism. This has nothing to do with legalism.

_____________________________________________
0--------------------------------------------------10
Carnality------------------------------------------Holiness

Your definition of legalism is really a matter of holiness. Christians today (many of them) want the liberty to live as close to the world as possible. They want to live at #1. When they see people living at #9 or if possible #10, they call them legalists, because what they observe as rules those Christians have decided that in order to live as closely as possible to Christ there are many things in their lives that they must sacrifice: Crude language, intoxicating beverages, immodest clothing, music that is not glorifying to the Lord, etc. They ask themselves: Is this what Christ would have me to do? Am I being filled with the Holy Spirit in doing so? Do I look different than the world or the same as the world in carrying out this activity. It is not a matter of being legalistic. It is a matter of holiness. I want #10; I want to live as close to the cross of Christ as possible.

Now here is what the Bible says that legalism is.
Legalism is anything that adds to salvation.
The Judaizers were legalists? Why? Because they were demanding that circumcision and keeping of the law be required in order for Gentiles to be saved. That is what a legalist is. Adisciplined learner was a legalist inasmuch as he was adding to salvation baptism. The Church of Christ does the same thing, and many of them add many other rules, which, if you break you will lose your salvation. Legalism has only to do with salvation.

When someone makes a decision and believes that that decision will draw them closer to the Lord, don't call them legalist. Look at your own life instead.

Here is the Scripture you need to look at.

Romans 5:20-21 Moreover the law entered, that the offence might abound. But where sin abounded, grace did much more abound:
21 That as sin hath reigned unto death, even so might grace reign through righteousness unto eternal life by Jesus Christ our Lord.

Romans 6:1-2 What shall we say then? Shall we continue in sin, that grace may abound?
2 God forbid. How shall we, that are dead to sin, live any longer therein?

Many thought they had this great liberty under grace. More grace; more liberty. Paul put that idea to rest immediately. Shall we sin that grace may abound? God forbid!

Why? We are dead to sin. We must not live in sin any longer. Grace does not give one the license to sin--whether it be smoking, drinking, being clothed immodestly, etc. What will it take to live holy lives as opposed to carnal lives. Listen to the harsh words the Lord has against carnality:

James 4:4 Ye adulterers and adulteresses, know ye not that the friendship of the world is enmity with God? whosoever therefore will be a friend of the world is the enemy of God.
--He is not speaking of physical adultery, but spiritual adultery. It is spiritual adultery to be friends with the world--to go to that scale and desire #1 instead of #9 or 10. Being the friend of the world is as bad as being the enemy of God.

 

[FriendofSpurgeon]

This arrogance and legalism is starting to offend me very deeply. As I have grown in Christ, this has become less of a problem for me. I was once on your side, believe it or not, and was ready to condemn each and every person, especially Christian, who I saw drinking.

Of course, I was raised in Texas in the SBC, which is known for an illogical and unbiblical stance on alcohol (not that every member is that way). My parents are not as radical as steaver, but make their opinion known well. So I know the company line here, and it doesn't sway me one bit. But I was convicted of my legalistic and arrogant attitude toward others, and then, much to my surprise, realized that responsible consumption did nothing negative for my witness in general. Nobody cares. Non-Christians I have known are even impressed that a Christian isn't bound by silly little rules .

If I know or suspect that drinking would be a problem for someone, it's easy. I don't do it and I don't even feel like I need to bring it up. I know there are some people that struggle with alcohol addiction or have chosen not to, so I refrain out of respect for that. But someone telling me it's wrong and ungodly or unbiblical or anything else doesn't sway me one bit, because they don't have a leg to stand on.

Same here. Nobody really cares.

If I know someone has an issue with drinking or they have had an addiction, I don't drink around them. It's simple courtesy, isn't it? If my mom's IFB pastor visited my house, I wouldn't offer him a beer either. Simple courtesy, since I know his stance on the issue.

 

[steaver]

I think drinking is a major issue for two types of people 1) those who are addicted and need to feel some sort of way. 2) people with legalistic leanings who often are just as absorbed with prohibiting certain clothing styles and dancing and mixed bathing. Otherwise its really a non issue. Everything in moderation. In my mind over drinking is like over eating or over watching tv or over anything else that should be in moderation.

1) I have no addiction nor need to feel a certain way

2) I have no problem with dancing or mixed bathing and As far as dress goes - dress modestly and let each person decide for themselves before the Lord what that is. Except for children, they need to be regulated by their parents.

So where does that put me? You need to broaden the list.

 

[steaver]

This arrogance and legalism is starting to offend me very deeply. As I have grown in Christ, this has become less of a problem for me. I was once on your side, believe it or not, and was ready to condemn each and every person, especially Christian, who I saw drinking.

.

That would not be "my side" on this.

Rom 8:1¶[There is] therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.

Jhn 8:7So when they continued asking him, he lifted up himself, and said unto them, He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her.


A Christian should never cast condemnation upon another Christian for any sin they see them committing. There is no condemnation for those who are born of God. This does not mean that we should not lovingly tell our brothers and sisters in Christ if we see them flirting with sin.

Jam 5:20 Let him know, that he which converteth the sinner from the error of his way shall save a soul from death, and shall hide a multitude of sins.


Condemnation - never. Admonishment - always.

But I was convicted of my legalistic and arrogant attitude toward others,

Praise God. God is faithful to keep on working on us all. Praise Him!

But someone telling me it's wrong and ungodly or unbiblical or anything else doesn't sway me one bit, because they don't have a leg to stand on.

2Cr 5:10For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ; that every one may receive the things [done] in [his] body, according to that he hath done, whether [it be] good or bad.

I pray you fair well brother! God BLess!

 

[steaver]

It tends to be those who do not understand the Scriptures or those who listen to other voices than Scripture who have the issue. When one truly studies Scripture, we find it a matter of liberty, not law.

That could be said about a whole host of doctrinal points - thus we have a deabte board.

Have you ever tried just seeking the Holy Spirit when you feel stressed. Pray and praise Jesus for all His tender mercies. I believe He will bless you for taking a stand against this world's favorite drug of choice.

 

[steaver]

By not the law, you mean that nasty word "legalism" correct?
Thinkingstuff came right out and used the word:
It is a nasty word, and a word that most here don't seem to have a proper understanding of. Instead of using it in its correct Biblical usage they have taken a more modern colloquial usage, which is not correct. We call that neo-orthodoxy. That is not much different than when adisciplinedlearner redefined salvation as baptismal regeneration and expected us to accept his definition. Why should I accept your definition when it is wrong.

Here is what most think that a legalist is:
On a sliding scale of 0 to 10, 0 is grace or liberty and 10 is legalism. 0 is complete freedom to do what one wants under the flag of grace. 10 is what seems like following rules and laws that we call legalism. This has nothing to do with legalism.

_____________________________________________
0--------------------------------------------------10
Carnality------------------------------------------Holiness

Your definition of legalism is really a matter of holiness. Christians today (many of them) want the liberty to live as close to the world as possible. They want to live at #1. When they see people living at #9 or if possible #10, they call them legalists, because what they observe as rules those Christians have decided that in order to live as closely as possible to Christ there are many things in their lives that they must sacrifice: Crude language, intoxicating beverages, immodest clothing, music that is not glorifying to the Lord, etc. They ask themselves: Is this what Christ would have me to do? Am I being filled with the Holy Spirit in doing so? Do I look different than the world or the same as the world in carrying out this activity. It is not a matter of being legalistic. It is a matter of holiness. I want #10; I want to live as close to the cross of Christ as possible.

Now here is what the Bible says that legalism is.
Legalism is anything that adds to salvation.
The Judaizers were legalists? Why? Because they were demanding that circumcision and keeping of the law be required in order for Gentiles to be saved. That is what a legalist is. Adisciplined learner was a legalist inasmuch as he was adding to salvation baptism. The Church of Christ does the same thing, and many of them add many other rules, which, if you break you will lose your salvation. Legalism has only to do with salvation.

When someone makes a decision and believes that that decision will draw them closer to the Lord, don't call them legalist. Look at your own life instead.

Here is the Scripture you need to look at.

Romans 5:20-21 Moreover the law entered, that the offence might abound. But where sin abounded, grace did much more abound:
21 That as sin hath reigned unto death, even so might grace reign through righteousness unto eternal life by Jesus Christ our Lord.

Romans 6:1-2 What shall we say then? Shall we continue in sin, that grace may abound?
2 God forbid. How shall we, that are dead to sin, live any longer therein?

Many thought they had this great liberty under grace. More grace; more liberty. Paul put that idea to rest immediately. Shall we sin that grace may abound? God forbid!

Why? We are dead to sin. We must not live in sin any longer. Grace does not give one the license to sin--whether it be smoking, drinking, being clothed immodestly, etc. What will it take to live holy lives as opposed to carnal lives. Listen to the harsh words the Lord has against carnality:

James 4:4 Ye adulterers and adulteresses, know ye not that the friendship of the world is enmity with God? whosoever therefore will be a friend of the world is the enemy of God.
--He is not speaking of physical adultery, but spiritual adultery. It is spiritual adultery to be friends with the world--to go to that scale and desire #1 instead of #9 or 10. Being the friend of the world is as bad as being the enemy of God.

EXCELLENT post! :thumbsup:

Absolutely spot on!

 

[steaver]

Same here. Nobody really cares.

If I know someone has an issue with drinking or they have had an addiction, I don't drink around them. It's simple courtesy, isn't it? If my mom's IFB pastor visited my house, I wouldn't offer him a beer either. Simple courtesy, since I know his stance on the issue.

You say nobody really cares and then you say how you do care and do this or that. If you didn't really care then you wouldn't care who came to your house, you would just simply live your life for yourself.

 

[annsni]

By not the law, you mean that nasty word "legalism" correct?
Thinkingstuff came right out and used the word:
It is a nasty word, and a word that most here don't seem to have a proper understanding of. Instead of using it in its correct Biblical usage they have taken a more modern colloquial usage, which is not correct. We call that neo-orthodoxy. That is not much different than when adisciplinedlearner redefined salvation as baptismal regeneration and expected us to accept his definition. Why should I accept your definition when it is wrong.

Here is what most think that a legalist is:
On a sliding scale of 0 to 10, 0 is grace or liberty and 10 is legalism. 0 is complete freedom to do what one wants under the flag of grace. 10 is what seems like following rules and laws that we call legalism. This has nothing to do with legalism.

_____________________________________________
0--------------------------------------------------10
Carnality------------------------------------------Holiness

Your definition of legalism is really a matter of holiness. Christians today (many of them) want the liberty to live as close to the world as possible. They want to live at #1. When they see people living at #9 or if possible #10, they call them legalists, because what they observe as rules those Christians have decided that in order to live as closely as possible to Christ there are many things in their lives that they must sacrifice: Crude language, intoxicating beverages, immodest clothing, music that is not glorifying to the Lord, etc. They ask themselves: Is this what Christ would have me to do? Am I being filled with the Holy Spirit in doing so? Do I look different than the world or the same as the world in carrying out this activity. It is not a matter of being legalistic. It is a matter of holiness. I want #10; I want to live as close to the cross of Christ as possible.

Now here is what the Bible says that legalism is.
Legalism is anything that adds to salvation.
The Judaizers were legalists? Why? Because they were demanding that circumcision and keeping of the law be required in order for Gentiles to be saved. That is what a legalist is. Adisciplined learner was a legalist inasmuch as he was adding to salvation baptism. The Church of Christ does the same thing, and many of them add many other rules, which, if you break you will lose your salvation. Legalism has only to do with salvation.

When someone makes a decision and believes that that decision will draw them closer to the Lord, don't call them legalist. Look at your own life instead.

Here is the Scripture you need to look at.

Romans 5:20-21 Moreover the law entered, that the offence might abound. But where sin abounded, grace did much more abound:
21 That as sin hath reigned unto death, even so might grace reign through righteousness unto eternal life by Jesus Christ our Lord.

Romans 6:1-2 What shall we say then? Shall we continue in sin, that grace may abound?
2 God forbid. How shall we, that are dead to sin, live any longer therein?

Many thought they had this great liberty under grace. More grace; more liberty. Paul put that idea to rest immediately. Shall we sin that grace may abound? God forbid!

Why? We are dead to sin. We must not live in sin any longer. Grace does not give one the license to sin--whether it be smoking, drinking, being clothed immodestly, etc. What will it take to live holy lives as opposed to carnal lives. Listen to the harsh words the Lord has against carnality:

James 4:4 Ye adulterers and adulteresses, know ye not that the friendship of the world is enmity with God? whosoever therefore will be a friend of the world is the enemy of God.
--He is not speaking of physical adultery, but spiritual adultery. It is spiritual adultery to be friends with the world--to go to that scale and desire #1 instead of #9 or 10. Being the friend of the world is as bad as being the enemy of God.

No - I meant "law". When one makes what God says we have liberty in a "law", there is something wrong. If one makes it a law for themselves, that's one thing but to make it a law for all believers is completely different.

You cannot compare being clothed immodestly (which Scripture never has anything positive to say about) with moderate drinking of alcohol (which Scripture DOES have something positive to say about). They are apples and oranges.

 

[FriendofSpurgeon]

You say nobody really cares and then you say how you do care and do this or that. If you didn't really care then you wouldn't care who came to your house, you would just simply live your life for yourself.

Let me rephrase this then since you want to take this so literally. ALMOST all people I know simply don't care -- let's say around 99% plus. It is a non issue with everyone (ok again, almost everyone) that I know, that are my friends, that I work with, that I go to church with. In fact, I can't think of anyone right now that I know personally, that I interact with on a daily or weekly or even monthly basis where this is an issue. If someone wants to have a drink, fine. If they don't want to have a drink, fine. No one cares.

Out of courtesy, if I knew someone who did have an addiction (which I don't), of course I would not drink in front of them. Again, it's simple courtesy.

By the way, I doubt that my mom's IFB pastor would come to my house -- he lives 12 hours away. I was just using that an example.

 

[steaver]

Out of courtesy, if I knew someone who did have an addiction (which I don't), of course I would not drink in front of them. Again, it's simple courtesy.

.

Thus, you do care, else someone's addiction to alcohol would not make you drink or not drink.

You see, even those who say "who cares" most often demonstrate by their actions that they do care. Which is a good thing btw.

For everyone here who has contributed to this discussion and has defended the consumption of alcoholic beverages as quite ok with God, even commanded by God, it is good to see that each one of you by your own admitted actions towards others understand the problems alcohol has caused this world.

I drank for ten years. Probably drunk at least twice a week on average. Yet I have never craved it or become addicted to it in any way. I drank for the high and the fellowship with other like minded people. I know many other people who were not so blessed, they became addicted and could not stop.

No one starts drinking alcohol with the attitude "I want to be addicted to this". No, we all think ourselves "more controled" than that. So why do people start?

Is there anyone here who drinks alcohol now or has in the past and did not do so before legal age?

 

[steaver]

How about we all give our testimony as to what age and why we began to drink alcohol?

 

[brucebaptist]

if you want to hear a great teaching on the subject...

http://www.sermonaudio.com/sermoninfo.asp?SID=12203124227

i have listened to it more than once b/c i was a drunkard in college and after...

i wanted to know the truth. it does not matter what the baptists teach on wine... it only matters what the Bible teaches... this is a good teaching.

wine is a gift from God IF not abused. should we do it if we may stumble? no.. or help a brother stumble? no... of course not...

(some) baptists get a little carried away with this issue.

 

[Steadfast Fred]

Has anyone ever stopped to consider that what Paul was trying to say in Romans 14 was not that Christians could drink alcohol, but rather that those who were not Christian would be judging Christians because they drank something that was not alcoholic?

Everyone wants to say it means we can drink whatever we want and not worry about being judged by others. But I have read on police blotters that just one can, while it does not make one drunk enough to constitute one being officially drunk by state definition, inhibitions are reduced and reactions are slower.

Can that truly be good?

 

[Matt Black]

There is no command either way and to suggest there is to pervert the scriptures.

Well, blow me down with a feather, we agree on something!

 

[Fred's Wife]

How about we all give our testimony as to what age and why we began to drink alcohol?

I wasn't saved until I was in my 30s so my first experience with alcohol was when I was a teenager at Passover seder. The first time I tasted the Manachevitz wine, it tasted aweful and burned my throat. I didn't touch any alcohol after that until I got married. Still couldn't stand it and could not figure why so many people drank the stuff.

I believe that Scriptures teach total abstinence from alcohol. I do not believe that the Lord Jesus Christ turned the water into alcoholic wine or drank it...but this is what I hear from alot of professing Christians.

That's my two cents!

Good thread, Steaver!

 

[Matt Black]

My grandmother always served wine with a meal and I partook from an early age (about 7 onwards, albeit in a very small glass initially); even today I consider it vulgar to not serve wine with a meal!

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

Matt...I agree & it could be a cultural thing. My relatives from Italy & France always have wine with their meals. My wifes German relatives were brewmasters in Germany and subsequently beer is always served with meals & afterwards.

Cheers

 

[annsni]

I tasted my first alcohol by dipping my finger in my parent's beverage. I loved the taste of scotch!! I didn't have my own drink until I was over 18 and I think it wasn't even until I was 19 when I actually did get a drink. I know I had a glass of champagne at my wedding and hubby and I shared a VERY nice bottle of wine in Bermuda on our honeymoon thanks to my cousin who worked for a large insurance firm there who decided to treat us to a lovely dinner at the most exclusive restaurant there.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

.....and always remember to drink upstream from the herd. Little farm humor ...:laugh: