RC Sproul and Alcoholic Beverages

[Luke2427]

He said I will eat no meat while the world standeth lest I make my brother to offend.

I understand your issue with this. I really do, because great love requires sacrifice, a laying down of one's life, for his friends.

What you do is of no concern to me. You can get falling down drunk and wake up in your own vomit for all that it will affect me or anyone within the scope of my influence. What "everyone" reading this thread thinks of my position is of no concern to me.

What is a concern to me is the Scriptures and what they are saying, and nothing you've posted in this thread comes even close.

This is what he said:

If by my behavior in matters of meat and drink one who looks up to me is emboldened to do something he does not have the faith to do, then I will abstain from indulging my fleshly appetites for his sake till the end of time. I do not want to be responsible for tripping him up. (1 cor. 8:13)​

Aaron, you are not within a country mile of the Scriptures on this.

The weaker brother principle has nothing to do with what anyone does away from the weaker brother.

I should not have to tell you that.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

It's all in the presentation folks! :smilewinkgrin:

 

[Aaron]

Aaron, you are not within a country mile of the Scriptures on this.

The weaker brother principle has nothing to do with what anyone does away from the weaker brother.

I should not have to tell you that.

It's right there in black and white. It's just hard for you to see it through your belly.

 

[InTheLight]

Less content. 2.5% for light and 6.5% for regular. But both are light compared to beer.

Just want to jump in here and say that most beers are around 5% alcohol by volume. Light beers are typically 4%; ice beers are 5.5%. I just Googled Mike's Hard Lemonade alcohol content and found it contains 5% alcohol. There is a version called Mike's Harder Lemonade that contains 8%.

I would venture to say that most people that advocate absolute teetotalism do not have a clue as to how strong most alcoholic drinks are, or how many drinks it takes to become impaired.

 

[Revmitchell]

Just want to jump in here and say that most beers are around 5% alcohol by volume. Light beers are typically 4%; ice beers are 5.5%. I just Googled Mike's Hard Lemonade alcohol content and found it contains 5% alcohol. There is a version called Mike's Harder Lemonade that contains 8%.

I would venture to say that most people that advocate absolute teetotalism do not have a clue as to how strong most alcoholic drinks are, or how many drinks it takes to become impaired.

As a former drunk I know what it takes. It really depends on how much and in what time frame and what your body size is. For some there just seems to be a higher tolerance than others.

However, for the average person anything beyond one single beverage will make one buzzed. And buzzed is intoxicated or drunk. Drunk is drunk. Some get more drunk than others but all of it is less than completely sober minded which is the scriptural standard.

 

[evangelist6589]

Just want to jump in here and say that most beers are around 5% alcohol by volume. Light beers are typically 4%; ice beers are 5.5%. I just Googled Mike's Hard Lemonade alcohol content and found it contains 5% alcohol. There is a version called Mike's Harder Lemonade that contains 8%.

I would venture to say that most people that advocate absolute teetotalism do not have a clue as to how strong most alcoholic drinks are, or how many drinks it takes to become impaired.

Actually Mikes Hard Lemonade LIGHT is 2.5%. And many beers are well beyond 5% well at least ones by Coors sold at the Beer factory I once worked. I am not sure I understand your last statement. Are you saying that its okay to drink due to the low content in many modern beverages?

 

[evangelist6589]

As a former drunk I know what it takes. It really depends on how much and in what time frame and what your body size is. For some there just seems to be a higher tolerance than others.

However, for the average person anything beyond one single beverage will make one buzzed. And buzzed is intoxicated or drunk. Drunk is drunk. Some get more drunk than others but all of it is less than completely sober minded which is the scriptural standard.

I would not have more than one Mikes Hard Lemonade at a time or I would become drunk. But I cant say that one drink has made me drunk because thats not true.

 

[evangelist6589]

It's right there in black and white. It's just hard for you to see it through your belly.

Actually I would agree with Luke. What one does away from that brother is none of anyones concern if it is not sin. If I had a Mikes Lemonade in my own home its not a sin and would not be causing one to stumble. It would be CONTROLLING of you or anyone to to tell me I am causing one to stumble based on the non-sinful activities I do on my own time.

 

[InTheLight]

As a former drunk I know what it takes. It really depends on how much and in what time frame and what your body size is. For some there just seems to be a higher tolerance than others.

However, for the average person anything beyond one single beverage will make one buzzed. And buzzed is intoxicated or drunk. Drunk is drunk. Some get more drunk than others but all of it is less than completely sober minded which is the scriptural standard.

Yes, there are lots of variables, but body weight, amount consumed per hour, and whether you have food or an empty stomach are the main factors. Examples: If I go out to dinner and have one beer while waiting for my food and another one with my meal, and this takes me 1.5 hours, I am sober-minded when I leave that restaurant. (I weigh 205 lbs.) If I'm sitting at home watching a ball game or a movie and consume a beer every 45 minutes, it takes me well into my 3rd beer to have an inkling that I'm affected, and usually not even then.

I agree that buzzed is not completely sober minded but I disagree that buzzed is the same as drunk.

 

[InTheLight]

Actually Mikes Hard Lemonade LIGHT is 2.5%. And many beers are well beyond 5% well at least ones by Coors sold at the Beer factory I once worked.

There are specialty beers brewed by Coors that exceed 5%, but the most popular brands are right around 5%. Here is the entire Coors beer lineup with ABV% listed.

http://www.ratebeer.com/brewers/coors-millercoors/113/

The most popular Coors brands are Coors (regular), Coors Light, Keystone, Keystone light, and George Killians.

I am not sure I understand your last statement. Are you saying that its okay to drink due to the low content in many modern beverages?

No, I'm saying that people that think you can get "drunk" on one drink are wrong, and since the sin is drunkenness, not having a drink, absolute teetotalism is not supported by scripture. It may be a personal preference and a good idea but it's not Biblical.

 

[Revmitchell]

I agree that buzzed is not completely sober minded but I disagree that buzzed is the same as drunk.

Anything less than sober minded is against the scriptural standard. Buzzed is just less drunk but drunk no less. Judgment is still impaired.

 

[DHK]

Actually I would agree with Luke. What one does away from that brother is none of anyones concern if it is not sin. If I had a Mikes Lemonade in my own home its not a sin and would not be causing one to stumble. It would be CONTROLLING of you or anyone to to tell me I am causing one to stumble based on the non-sinful activities I do on my own time.

You mean "the don't ask don't tell" policy that the military had.
I think they did away with that now didn't they.
You can tell people what you do in private: drinking, sex, homosexuality..., and the list goes on.

 

[DHK]

I was a backwards fundamentalist for years. I've read this hayseed, pseudo-scholarly mess before.

And that is your problem, well stated. You had a bad experience in a "backwards" IFB church that as you infer was not probably well-educated. You have talked of your experience before. Then, unfairly (and illogically) you take this big brush and paint all IFB churches with that same brush.
I moderate the Other Christian Denom. Forum. You give the exact same reasoning why some have left IFB and have become Catholics. Sad, but true. You became an ardent Calvinist and Preterist; they became Catholics. And Why? Because of a bad experience in a certain genre of IFB churches that most here would not approve of in the first place. Get over it!!! Quit whining! And stop slandering the entire movement by your bad experience!

Before I was educated I made the exact same arguments you do. I read the same backwards sites you quote from. I used to preach against alcohol by the barrel and by the thimble-full. Billy Sunday used to be my favorite preacher.

Before you were educated?
Don't give yourself too much credit.
Did you really spend much time in the last link I gave you? I doubt it. There is a lot of scholarship in that article and it is extensive, unlike the first one.
Billy Sunday was an entertainer. He could be a powerful preacher. He knew how to get people's attention. But we know he didn't have a college education, so your argument doesn't hold water.

Then the scales fell off, I learned that IFB is a new movement- YOUNGER THAN THE PENTECOSTAL MOVEMENT FOR HEAVEN'S SAKE!!!-

The "Fundamentalist" movement are those who have fought for the fundamentals of the faith.
Machen was a fundamentalist. He didn't like the name-tag "fundamental" and was not ashamed in stating so. But for the sake of unity and standing with his fundamental brethren, he fought alongside them against the modernism and liberalism of the day.
Dr. Bob Jones Sr. Jr. III are all fundamentalists. Bob Jones University is the only Fundamental University in America. There are many colleges, but it is the only University, and the graduates are mostly Baptists. Its standard of education cannot be matched.
On this board are Thomas Cassidy and Fred Moritz--both Fundamental Baptists. You ought to read some of their books or published materials. Look them up; go to their websites.
Don't slam what you don't know about.

and that its champions like J. Frank Norris were ignorant trouble-makers, and that Christians for thousands of years did not believe this kind of nonsense.

Norris, in the end, got himself into some trouble. Who doesn't.
But for all the good that he did, in comparison what have you done?

I am telling you that NO REAL BIBLE SCHOLAR argues for teetotalism.

Then you don't know much about scholarship, nor have you even considered them You also write off MacArthur himself. I noticed you want to play a game of semantics to justify his stand. His stand: that all should "abstain from alcoholic beverages." That is what is written in his book. I don't use the word "teetotaller." A person either abstains or he doesn't. MacArthur abstains. That is clear enough to me. Don't muddy the waters by your semantics.

Some are abstentionists, but only redneck, hayseed, backwater fundies and Pentecostals and the like preach teetotalism.

Teetotalism is as unbiblical and backwards as KJVO- or worse.

I am not playing your game of semantics.
The Bible clearly teaches to abstain. But you won't listen to the Bible. I will wait until you read that last link that I posted. He goes through every possible objection that a person could possibly have.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

As a former drunk I know what it takes. It really depends on how much and in what time frame and what your body size is. For some there just seems to be a higher tolerance than others.

However, for the average person anything beyond one single beverage will make one buzzed. And buzzed is intoxicated or drunk. Drunk is drunk. Some get more drunk than others but all of it is less than completely sober minded which is the scriptural standard.

And a (one Guinness) with my meal is going to do what for me...send me to hell?

 

[Rippon]

I really don't care what reformed churches believe. They originated with the "Reformers" believe in "reformed" or revised doctrine,

That's your terminology;not ours. It's not a mere revision of Roman Catholic doctrine.

I don't venture there. I stick to Bible-believing churches. So don't give me that nonsense about "Reformed Churches."

Your arrogance is seeping out again DHK. Reformed Churches are Bible-believing ones. Stop spouting sinful nonsense.

 

[Rippon]

I love MacArthur, but he is a weird Calvinist-

Please refrain from saying such disrespectful things about John MacArthur.

IFB churches are largely not Bible-believing churches.

Just as a chided DHK I will tell you to stop with that kind of slur. Of course IFB churches are Bible-beliving ones. I disagree with a number of their doctrines and practices --nonetheless they are Bible believers.

They worship traditions-

That's going too far as well on your part. They do have their traditions;though they wouldn't recognize them as traditions.

 

[Rippon]

It was sad to see a young man leave a good Baptist church here that was not Calvinistic. He was a young Christian, but someone had convinced him (probably over the internet) of Reformed doctrine. He found a Reformed Baptist Church to go to, but that wasn't good enough. He saw the logical inconsistency. Today he is a Presbyterian.

You make it sound as if he is a lost sinner. I will have you know that if an IFB chruch member joins the EFC he is not lost either. Stop the drama. There are a good number of holes in the IFB churches as there are in Presbyterianism.

 

[DHK]

That's your terminology;not ours. It's not a mere revision of Roman Catholic doctrine.

Your arrogance is seeping out again DHK. Reformed Churches are Bible-believing ones. Stop spouting sinful nonsense.

The conversation started out with drinking in "Baptist churches," and a consideration of "Baptist history."
Not to be offensive I used the term "Conservative Baptist churches," but only to eliminate those who have gone liberal. It had nothing to do with "Reformed."
The smart-alec post "I would never enter a "Reformed Church" ...., really had nothing of value to add to the conversation. We are not talking of Reformed churches. The poster can go back to his Presbyterian roots as far as I am concerned if he wants to use inflammatory language. We were discussing "Baptist history," not reformed history. Thus my reaction was more of a strong rebuke though it may not have looked like it.

Let's get back to where Luke and I left off: "drinking in Baptist churches" historically, and leave the "reformed out of it. There is no need for that.

 

[saturneptune]

You make it sound as if he is a lost sinner. I will have you know that if an IFB chruch member joins the EFC he is not lost either. Stop the drama. There are a good number of holes in the IFB churches as there are in Presbyterianism.

You know nothing about Presbyterianism. [rude comments snipped]

 

[Rippon]

We were discussing "Baptist history," not reformed history.

The two are intertwined.