RC Sproul and Alcoholic Beverages

[DHK]

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.

Again you are speaking in generalities. There are no holes in some IFB churches.
But in this church, admittedly there were weaknesses.
The pastor was weak in his teaching and shepherding skills.
The other problem was that a wave of a neo-reformation fad that had recently hit the area and many of the young people were not grounded in the Word were caught up in it. This was unfortunate. Would you not agree that it is unfortunate to see Baptists become Presbyterians?

 

[Rippon]

There are no holes in some IFB churches.

Of course there are. Mortals fellowship there. There are holes in every denomination and the non-denominational ones.

Would you not agree that it is unfortunate to see Baptists become Presbyterians?

Because of my baptistic stance I would be disappointed in someone departing from the biblical postion on the subject. But in many other areas I think that going to a conservative Presbyterian church would perhaps contribute to a more mature understanding of the Word.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

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.

Really ITL, with all due respect, to both me & to the cops the Buzz is a drunk.....an altered state (of mind). A certain blood alcohol level, you could very well get into an accident. but I know Im talking to the choir. Then if you do that at home enough, who's watching you....the wife, the kids,the grand kids... does that set the example you want to set?

Now if you drink responsibly like a beer & a meal, an after dinner glass of wine..... you know... moderation; you send out a positive message. I seriously believe that most that object to the consumption of alcohol have somewhere in their life had a bad experience that poisons any future contact with the substance. Its fear based & not totally irrational. But now any activity with alcohol causes anxiety & the solution is abstinence (for everyone). That is what leads to these ridiculous conversations ..... and they manufacture these "Well Gods on our side" Scenarios. Brother, we are going to hell if we have a beer..... so if we are, I gotta go to the store & get some Sam Adams:love2: :thumbsup:... which I will drink both sparingly & responsibly (with some beer nuts)

 

[DHK]

The two are intertwined.

I take it that you have never studied Baptist History.
Baptist History for me starts well before the Reformation therefore they are not intertwined at all. As per this conversation (on alcohol) Calvinism plays no part in it at all.
What is your argument--that Reformers drink and non-Cals don't?
Calvinism has no part in this discussion.

 

[DHK]

Of course there are. Mortals fellowship there. There are holes in every denomination and the non-denominational ones.

I have been in a few good solid IFB churches with mature pastors who preach and teach the Word, have a good administration, meet the needs of the people, have a good missions outreach, and could not fault for anything.
That is what I am referring to.

Because of my baptistic stance I would be disappointed in someone departing from the biblical postion on the subject. But in many other areas I think that going to a conservative Presbyterian church would perhaps contribute to a more mature understanding of the Word.

More mature--like infant baptism.
I think you need to learn what mature doctrine is.

 

[Rippon]

I take it that you have never studied Baptist History.

I know you are not familiar with Baptist History.

Baptist History for me starts well before the Reformation therefore they are not intertwined at all.

Baptists weren't around before the 17th century. In the early 17th century Calvinistic Baptists constituted the majority of Baptists.

Calvinism has no part in this discussion.

You brought it up first --not me.

 

[Rippon]

I have been in a few good solid IFB churches with mature pastors who preach and teach the Word, have a good administration, meet the needs of the people, have a good missions outreach, and could not fault for anything.
That is what I am referring to.

And the above does not negate the fact that there are holes in the IFB churches as well as every other church body.

More mature--like infant baptism.

And you completely ignored my fist sentence which nullifies your immature rersponse.

I think you need to learn what mature doctrine is.

Go to a good,conservative Presbyterian church and find out.

 

[DHK]

I know you are not familiar with Baptist History.

Baptists weren't around before the 17th century. In the early 17th century Calvinistic Baptists constituted the majority of Baptists.

Have you ever checked the Baptist History forum. There would be plenty there that disagree with you. They all can't be wrong can they?
Here is a link from there:
http://books.google.ca/books?id=BF8D09JSfzwC&pg=PA177&source=gbs_toc_r&cad=4#v=onepage&q&f=false

You brought it up first --not me.

Go back and read the thread.
When it was first introduced I was the first one that protested against it. And I still do.

 

[Luke2427]

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

No sir, it is hard for you to see it through your ignorance.

You cannot make your brother to offend if what you are doing never reaches him in any way- obviously.

Furthermore, you have yet to distinguish between your application of the weaker brother standard as it pertains to alcohol and the weaker brother standard as it pertains to other things like caffeine and carrying guns.

If you apply it selectively on pet items in a way that suits you then your standard has no consistency and makes no sense.

 

[Luke2427]

And buzzed is intoxicated or drunk.

There you have it folks. God has spoken. Record this in the Scripture. We have a new revelation. In case you were wondering, "Buzzed IS drunk."

I know all intelligent people on earth have never conflated the two before but god has just told us that it is the case.

And like with most things that god tells us- YOU HAVE TO TAKE IT BY FAITH.

You say, "Why is 'buzzed drunk'? Where is the case for that?"

BLASPHEMER!!! Who are you to question god? God does not have to make a case for what he purports! He's god!!!

He just says it and it is so.

 

[Luke2427]

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 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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

It is a gross oversimplification to state that "fundamentalists" are just people who stand for the fundamentals of the faith.

99% of the SBC stands for the fundamentals. Do you consider them to be "fundamentalists".

The Bible does NOT clearly teach abstinence and no person with half a brain for hermeneutics thinks it does.

On the other hand the Bible DOES record God telling his people to by strong drink and rejoice before the Lord if they wish.

The Bible DOES teach that God MAKES THE WINE which makes merry the heart of man.

The Bible DOES show the Second Person of the Godhead drinking wine- the kind that would make the Pharisees call him a drunkard.

Pharisees are still missing it today- but the Pharisees of today are fundamentalists.

 

[Luke2427]

Please refrain from saying such disrespectful things about John MacArthur.

No. And it is not disrespectful. john MacArthur is a great man. I support him.

But it is not an overstatement to say that it is weird to be a premil, pretrib, dispy abstainer and a Calvinist.

That's like being a house cat that loves to swim in the ocean.

Just as a chided DHK I will tell you to stop with that kind of slur.

No.

Would you tell Elijah not to mock the prophets of Baal, or Jesus not to call Peter Satan, or Paul not to withstand Peter to his face, or Stephen not to call the Jews stiffnecked and their fathers murderers of the prophets?

You may ask me not to be so harsh. You may pm if you like and try to make a case for me softening up. I will listen.

But you just commanding me...?

Of course IFB churches are Bible-beliving ones.

In the same vein that Pharisees were Bible-believing.

They believed the Bible but they made the word of God of none effect by their traditions teaching for doctrine the traditions of men.

 

[Luke2427]

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

Anyone who thinks there is a dichotomy there is not educated enough on Baptist history to speak on the matter.

Even the most backwater fundy on earth who has spent 6 hours in a baptist history class recognizes the Particular Baptist strain- the STRONGER of the two strains for most of Baptist history.

Only a complete nit-wit does not count John Bunyan, Andrew Fuller, WILLIAM CAREY and Charles Spurgeon as Baptists simply because they were REFORMED!

 

[DHK]

Anyone who thinks there is a dichotomy there is not educated enough on Baptist history to speak on the matter.

Even the most backwater fundy on earth who has spent 6 hours in a baptist history class recognizes the Particular Baptist strain- the STRONGER of the two strains for most of Baptist history.

Only a complete nit-wit does not count John Bunyan, Andrew Fuller, WILLIAM CAREY and Charles Spurgeon as Baptists simply because they were REFORMED!

I am fully informed about the particular Baptists and the General Baptists and their differences. As I disagree with Rippon no doubt I will disagree with you, that Baptist history started long before the Reformation, long before that distinction was made.

Furthermore, is it germane to this discussion.
I will put forth the same question again:
What are you trying to prove by stating that difference:
that Reformers drank and non-cals did not?
It is a red herring to this discussion.

 

[Luke2427]

I am fully informed about the particular Baptists and the General Baptists and their differences. As I disagree with Rippon no doubt I will disagree with you, that Baptist history started long before the Reformation, long before that distinction was made.

Yes, well, you might as well believe Gomer Pyle was a world renowned historian as believe that "Trail of Blood" is a remotely reputable account of Baptist history.

Furthermore, is it germane to this discussion.
I will put forth the same question again:
What are you trying to prove by stating that difference:
that Reformers drank and non-cals did not?

No. Everybody was OKAY with drinking before the middle of the 19th century with very few exceptions.

I am saying that teetotalism is an ignorance hiccup in Church History that thankfully is vanishing from the earth in like manner as it appeared not long ago.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

There you have it folks. God has spoken. Record this in the Scripture. We have a new revelation. In case you were wondering, "Buzzed IS drunk."

I know all intelligent people on earth have never conflated the two before but god has just told us that it is the case.

And like with most things that god tells us- YOU HAVE TO TAKE IT BY FAITH.

You say, "Why is 'buzzed drunk'? Where is the case for that?"

BLASPHEMER!!! Who are you to question god? God does not have to make a case for what he purports! He's god!!!

He just says it and it is so.

Actually here is how Mitchell began his sentence......"As a former drunk I know what it takes" & indeed, he probably does. What he is telling you is the drink reacts on him differently (as an alcoholic). He just cant stop the process once he begins to drink & the "Buzz" indicator only signals a starting point. He then has to maintain that buzz (euphoric feeling) & he does it probably by overcompensating. A normal drinker can get to a point & then slack off (But the juicer doesn't).....he will continue to drink till he is really blitzed & most likely continue on till he passes out. He is in overdrive with no governor to slow him down...... at least thats what Ive seen both my wife & brother do. And I apologize Rev if I'm oversimplifying or if I appeared to insult you....didn't mean to. But some here don't have a grasp on all that goes on & you did kinda volunteer....but if I'm off base let me know.

Just trying to show that there can be some serious consequences to encouraging a weaker brother to drink without totally understand whats going on in their head.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

Yes, well, you might as well believe Gomer Pyle was a world renowned historian as believe that "Trail of Blood" is a remotely reputable account of Baptist history.



No. Everybody was OKAY with drinking before the middle of the 19th century with very few exceptions.

I am saying that teetotalism is an ignorance hiccup in Church History that thankfully is vanishing from the earth in like manner as it appeared not long ago.

Do you deny that there were baptists before the reformation (brake with Rome)?

 

[DHK]

No. Everybody was OKAY with drinking before the middle of the 19th century with very few exceptions.

I am saying that teetotalism is an ignorance hiccup in Church History that thankfully is vanishing from the earth in like manner as it appeared not long ago.

Middle of the 19th century, eh?
Is Albert Banes early enough for you?
He was an American theologian that lived between 1798 and 1870
I find his commentary on John 2:10 very interesting. Did Christ make fermented wine or grape juice?

Verse 10. Every man. It is customary, or it is generally done. When men have well drunk. This word does not of necessity mean that they were intoxicated, though it is usually employed in that sense. It may mean when they have drunk sufficient, or to satiety; or have drunk so much as to produce hilarity, and to destroy the keenness of their taste, so that they could not readily distinguish the good from that which was worse. But this cannot be adduced in favour of drunkenness, even if it means to be intoxicated; for,
1st. It is not said of those who were present at that feast, but of what generally occurred. For anything that appears, at that feast all were perfectly temperate and sober.
2nd. It is not the saying of Jesus that is here recorded, but of the governor of the feast, who is declaring what usually occurred as a fact.
3rd. There is not any expression of opinion in regard to its propriety, or in approval of it, even by that governor.
4th. It does not appear that our Saviour even heard the observation.
5th. Still less is there any evidence that he approved such a state of things, or that he designed that it should take place here. Farther, the word translated "well drunk" cannot be shown to mean intoxication; but it may mean when they had drunk as much as they judged proper or as they desired, then the other was presented. It is clear that neither our Saviour, nor the sacred writer, nor the speaker here expresses any approbation of intemperance, nor is there the least evidence that anything of the kind occurred here. It is not proof that we approve of intemperance when we mention, as this man did, what occurs usually among men at feasts.
Is worse. Is of an inferior quality.
The good wine. This shows that this had all the qualities of real wine. We should not be deceived by the phrase "good wine." We often use the phrase to denote that it is good in proportion to its strength and its power to intoxicate; but no such sense is to be attached to the word here. Pliny, Plutarch, and Horace describe wine as good, or mention that as the best wine, which was harmless or innocent--poculo vini innocentis. The most useful wine -- utilissimum vinum-- was that which had little strength; and the most wholesome wine-- saluberrimum vinum-- was that which had not been adulterated by "the addition of anything to the must or juice." Pliny expressly says that a "good wine" was one that was destitute of spirit (lib. iv. c. 13). It should not be assumed, therefore, that the "good wine" was stronger than the other: it is rather to be presumed that it was milder. The wine referred to here was doubtless such as was commonly drunk in Palestine. That was the pure juice of the grape. It was not brandied wine, nor drugged wine, nor wine compounded of various substances, such as we drink in this land. The common wine drunk in Palestine was that which was the simple juice of the grape. We use the word wine now to denote the kind of liquid which passes under that name in this country--always containing a considerable portion of alcohol --not only the alcohol produced by fermentation, but alcohol added to keep it or make it stronger. But we have no right to take that sense of the word, and go with it to the interpretation of the Scriptures. We should endeavour to place ourselves in the exact circumstances of those times, ascertain precisely what idea the word would convey to those who used it then, and apply that sense to the word in the interpretation of the Bible; and there is not the slightest evidence that the word so used would have conveyed any idea but that of the pure juice of the grape, nor the slightest circumstance mentioned in this account that would not be fully met by such a supposition. No man should adduce this instance in favour of drinking wine unless he can prove that the wine made in the" water-pots" of Cana was just like the wine which he proposes to drink. The Saviour's example may be always pleaded JUST AS IT WAS; but it is a matter of obvious and simple justice that we should find out exactly what the example was before we plead it. There is, moreover, no evidence that any other part of the water was converted into wine than that which was drawn out of the water-casks for the use of the guests. On this supposition, certainly, all the circumstances of the case are met, and the miracle would be more striking. All that was needed was to furnish a supply when the wine that had been prepared was nearly exhausted. The object was not to furnish a large quantity for future use. The miracle, too, would in this way be more apparent and impressive. On this supposition, the casks would appear to be filled with water only; as it was drawn out, it was pure wine. Who could doubt, then, that there was the exertion of miraculous power? All, therefore, that has been said about the Redeemer's furnishing a large quantity of wine for the newly-married pair, and about his benevolence in doing it, is wholly gratuitous. There is no evidence of it whatever; and it is not necessary to suppose it in order to an explanation of the circumstances of the case.

 

[evangelist6589]

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.

Chapter and verse please? You make lots of arguments from history and logic but very little arguments from the scripture. Below are a few verses that teach against your view.

And Melchizedek king of Salem brought forth bread and wine: and he was the priest of the most high God. (Genesis 14:18)

And the vine said unto them, Should I leave my wine, which cheereth God and man, and go to be promoted over the trees? (Judges 9:13)

And wine that maketh glad the heart of man, and oil to make his face to shine, and bread which strengtheneth man's heart. (Psalm 104:15)

He makes grass grow for the cattle, and plants for man to cultivate--bringing forth food from the earth: wine that gladdens the heart of man, oil to make his face shine, and bread that sustains his heart. (Psalm 104:14-15, NIV)

Go, eat your food with gladness, and drink your wine with a joyful heart, for it is now that God favors what you do. (Ecclesiastes 9:7, NIV)

Jesus saith unto them, "Fill the waterpots with water." And they filled them up to the brim. And he saith unto them, "Draw out now, and bear unto the governor of the feast." And they bare it. When the ruler of the feast had tasted the water that was made wine, and knew not whence it was: (but the servants which drew the water knew the governor of the feast called the bridegroom, And saith unto him, "Every man at the beginning doth set forth good wine; and when men have well drunk, then that which is worse: but thou hast kept the good wine until now." (John 2:7-10)

Not given to wine. (1 Timothy 3:3)

Likewise must the deacons be not given to much wine. (1 Timothy 3:8)

No longer drink water exclusively, but use a little wine for the sake of your stomach and your frequent ailments. (1 Timothy 5:23)

These are arguments from the Bible directly, so how do you explain them away? Jesus himself turned water into Wine. Sure you will say that it was not really wine, but fermented grape juice but where you there? If Jesus drank grape juice then why does Ephesians 5 say not to be drunk with wine, and why not say not to be drunk with grape juice? Jesus clearly drank wine. As God he was not drunk, but he clearly did not forbid one to drink wine.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

Chapter and verse please? You make lots of arguments from history and logic but very little arguments from the scripture. Below are a few verses that teach against your view.



These are arguments from the Bible directly, so how do you explain them away? Jesus himself turned water into Wine. Sure you will say that it was not really wine, but fermented grape juice but where you there? If Jesus drank grape juice then why does Ephesians 5 say not to be drunk with wine, and why not say not to be drunk with grape juice? Jesus clearly drank wine. As God he was not drunk, but he clearly did not forbid one to drink wine.

Luke 7:31-35:

And the Lord said, ‘To what then shall I liken the men of this generation, and what are they like? They are like children sitting in the marketplace and calling to one another, saying: “We played the flute for you, and you did not dance; we mourned to you, and you did not weep.” For John the Baptist came neither eating bread nor drinking wine, and you say, “He has a demon.” The Son of Man has come eating and drinking, and you say, “Look, a glutton and a winebibber, a friend of tax collectors and sinners.” But wisdom is justified by all her children.’


So ya cant win where humans are concerned.....damned if you do & damned if ya dont!