RC Sproul and Alcoholic Beverages

[Aaron]

So if I love some Christian who believes it is a sin to wear a tie I never put on another tie so long as I live, right?

What if I meet another Christian later on who thinks its a sin NOT to wear a tie?

I guess I'm really in a pickle then, huh?

If you think ties are genuine matters of conscience, then you are. In your naivete you have yet to postulate a hypothetical that is even close. You're positing trifles and impossibilities and thereby marginalizing what the Spirit identified as real issues with eternal consequences.

 

[Revmitchell]

If you think ties are genuine matters of conscience, then you are. In your naivete you have yet to postulate a hypothetical that is even close. You're positing trifles and impossibilities and thereby marginalizing what the Spirit identified as real issues with eternal consequences.

The drunks need to protect their "right" to their "buzz".

 

[Luke2427]

If you think ties are genuine matters of conscience, then you are. In your naivete you have yet to postulate a hypothetical that is even close. You're positing trifles and impossibilities and thereby marginalizing what the Spirit identified as real issues with eternal consequences.

You are dancing. You are pinned down and squirming.

It is no more sensible to think that wearing a tie is a sin (and many Christians HAVE thought that) than it is to think that drinking alcohol responsibly is a sin.

Show where the Spirit said that drinking alcohol responsibly is an issue with eternal consequences.

You can't. The only reason you set teetotalism off from other stupid hang-ups that backwards people preach is because you come from a background that condemned alcohol.

NOT because you have Bible for your position- because CLEARLY you do not.

But you don't CARE that your weaker brother passage cannot be applied to drinking responsibly any more than it can to wearing ties or utilizing electricity.

You don't CARE that you are not in line with the Bible.

You don't CARE that you are being shown to be CLEARLY on the wrong side of this issue.

You don't CARE. All that matters to you is that you not YIELD. That's what matters to you. No matter how trounced you are, you will not admit it. Who CARES that truth suffers in your stubbornness?

 

[preacher4truth]

It should be noted that Paul did not rebuke the Corinthians for drinking whatsoever, but only for being drunk at a solemn event. As another matter of fact, he asks them if they don't have houses to do this in, rather than doing it during the Lords supper.

Consuming alcohol is not a sin, yet our culture in the USA has made many weak and offended by this biblically permissable act due to not handling the Word of God correctly and making rules from commandments of men.

 

[Aaron]

You are dancing. You are pinned down and squirming.

Hardly.

Question: If by your actions you embolden a weaker brother to violate his conscience, have you sinned against Christ?

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

You are dancing. You are pinned down and squirming.

It is no more sensible to think that wearing a tie is a sin (and many Christians HAVE thought that) than it is to think that drinking alcohol responsibly is a sin.

Show where the Spirit said that drinking alcohol responsibly is an issue with eternal consequences.

You can't. The only reason you set teetotalism off from other stupid hang-ups that backwards people preach is because you come from a background that condemned alcohol.

NOT because you have Bible for your position- because CLEARLY you do not.

But you don't CARE that your weaker brother passage cannot be applied to drinking responsibly any more than it can to wearing ties or utilizing electricity.

You don't CARE that you are not in line with the Bible.

You don't CARE that you are being shown to be CLEARLY on the wrong side of this issue.

You don't CARE. All that matters to you is that you not YIELD. That's what matters to you. No matter how trounced you are, you will not admit it. Who CARES that truth suffers in your stubbornness?

I have seen the motivation for abstenance work differently than that Luke....if a individual comes from a family where someone like a parent is an alcoholic then the child overcompensates by using religion, guiltetc., to manipulate people to the "abstinence " position

Or if the person themselves are recovering alcoholics ...more aptly, "Dry Drunks" they will insist upon a 'no drinking around me ' stance as a means of aversion! In both instances, these people overcompensate & manuplitate others to buy into their coping mechanisms.

Not surprisingly, the person who has control of their drinking habit's get called out to totally abstain or else you don't 'love's the alcoholic! TOTALLY REDICULOUS. If you want to love the guy or lady, then you do what you can do to get them to recognize their very real problem...either that or their going to die. I have personally faced this with my grandfather, my Father, my brother, my wife...as well as other friends & relatives. And yes its very difficult...heart wrenching in fact...you do not drink with them or in front of them or glorify drinking behavior....but they must also be made to know and admit to their own addictions & change their own behavior -- otherwise they are going to die a pathetic death. And ive seen this pattern so many times I could cry. You go to the hospital & there he is with his liver failing, bloated,yellow etc and he tells you..."but you don't understand, I am not an alcoholic" Fine, so in 3 days he is dead & there is another guy in the bed with the same MO, But you don't understand ....

 

[Aaron]

I notice no one is going to answer my question.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

I notice no one is going to answer my question.

Your question was answered.

you do not drink with them or in front of them or glorify drinking behavior. ...so yes your sinning.

Now Ive got a question for you..... If they drink (to drunken access) have they insulted Christ by their drunken behavior? And 2nd leg of the question, arent they just as responsible for their own behavior?

 

[DHK]

So if I love some Christian who believes it is a sin to wear a tie I never put on another tie so long as I live, right?

Let me answer this if I may.
I know of a preacher (perhaps "knew"--quite some time ago) that would not allow any one to preach in his pulpit that wore wire-rimmed glasses. An odd requirement? Yes. But "as long as I live I will not offend that brother" by doing so in order to maintain a good degree of fellowship with him. He may be more spiritual than me; have a closer walk with the Lord; preach more powerfully, etc. But this one eccentricity may come out of his past that had tied him to a sinful movement that he doesn't want to be reminded of anymore. Why should I purposely offend him by "asserting my rights"?
In one sense a Christian has no rights.

What if I meet another Christian later on who thinks its a sin NOT to wear a tie?

If that is what the pastor has been teaching the people of the church as a proper dress standard in his community, then yes you ought to wear a tie and not deliberately go there without a tie and be offensive. As long as you live on this earth, when you go to the church of that brother do not offend. That is the principle. To break fellowship with such a person over wearing a tie would be a travesty. There are many old fashioned preachers that believe a suit and tie is the least we can do in our dress as ambassadors for Christ. Should ambassadors, CEO's for their businesses, represent their business better than those that represent the King of kings? It is common apparel among the business world.

I guess I'm really in a pickle then, huh?

Perhaps. The goal is not to offend.

 

[Aaron]

you do not drink with them or in front of them or glorify drinking behavior.

I knew you couldn't resist. :love2:

Is that what Paul said? If meat make my brother to offend, I will eat no flesh with him or in front of him?

 

[Aaron]

Now Ive got a question for you..... If they drink (to drunken access) have they insulted Christ by their drunken behavior? And 2nd leg of the question, arent they just as responsible for their own behavior?

I'll answer, but your question doesn't reflect the situation I've been describing.

Of course he is responsible.

Here's the situation, one has a conscience toward wine as an evil thing. He is emboldened to take a sip because he knows that one with knowledge does so with a clear conscience. But his conscience isn't clear for whatever reason. He would like to have the faith that wine is not an evil thing, but he just doesn't. He's not drunk. His lips are barely wet. But he has sinned, and the one through whom the offense came has sinned.

 

[Aaron]

Let me answer this if I may.
I know of a preacher (perhaps "knew"--quite some time ago) that would not allow any one to preach in his pulpit that wore wire-rimmed glasses. An odd requirement? Yes. But "as long as I live I will not offend that brother" by doing so in order to maintain a good degree of fellowship with him. He may be more spiritual than me; have a closer walk with the Lord; preach more powerfully, etc. But this one eccentricity may come out of his past that had tied him to a sinful movement that he doesn't want to be reminded of anymore. Why should I purposely offend him by "asserting my rights"?
In one sense a Christian has no rights.

If that is what the pastor has been teaching the people of the church as a proper dress standard in his community, then yes you ought to wear a tie and not deliberately go there without a tie and be offensive. As long as you live on this earth, when you go to the church of that brother do not offend. That is the principle. To break fellowship with such a person over wearing a tie would be a travesty. There are many old fashioned preachers that believe a suit and tie is the least we can do in our dress as ambassadors for Christ. Should ambassadors, CEO's for their businesses, represent their business better than those that represent the King of kings? It is common apparel among the business world.

Perhaps. The goal is not to offend.

Why are you answering his stupid, silly scenario? It has nothing to do with conscience.

 

[evangelist6589]

Almost ANYTHING can be very dangerous if not controlled.

A vehicle can be very dangerous if not controlled.

A fire can be very dangerous if not controlled.

A gun can be very dangerous if not controlled.

A child can be very dangerous if not controlled.

The teetotalers, utilizing that argument would rob us of all these things that God allows us to have for the betterment of the quality of life down here.

I could not agree more but I will add there is nothing wrong with someone not drinking if he/she choses not to do so. What I HATE is when they try and militate their convictions on me. Plenty of pastors, ministry directors, and others in authority do this.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

I'll answer, but your question doesn't reflect the situation I've been describing.

Of course he is responsible.

Here's the situation, one has a conscience toward wine as an evil thing. He is emboldened to take a sip because he knows that one with knowledge does so with a clear conscience. But his conscience isn't clear for whatever reason. He would like to have the faith that wine is not an evil thing, but he just doesn't. He's not drunk. His lips are barely wet. But he has sinned, and the one through whom the offense came has sinned.

Listen Aaron, I am well aware of the situation....been living with my wife for 28 years now & she is a recovering alcoholic. We have been through those scenarios more than you could imagine. For a long time I did not drink so as not to start anything that could cause her to drink ...like anger that drinking had no lasting effects on me, yada yada yada...ad nausem.

I did not pick up a drink again until one day she chastised me for not enjoying a beer now and again. After all she said, it is her that is the alcoholic & needs to own it...not me. Then I knew she was beyond all the blame game & had matured to were she had no desire for it. My wife now realizes her limitations & deals with them head on.

 

[saturneptune]

Actually OBAMA makes me throw up.

Do you support tyrants also?

Did you not read the post? I did not vote for Obama. Evidentially you were not reading the posts during the election. As far as supporting Obama and tyrants, your state has a perfect record of giving them your electoral votes.

 

[saturneptune]

If you think ties are genuine matters of conscience, then you are. In your naivete you have yet to postulate a hypothetical that is even close. You're positing trifles and impossibilities and thereby marginalizing what the Spirit identified as real issues with eternal consequences.

You are about as accurate on this issue as most of your theological ideas. I do not drink, but it is for an entirely different reason than you. You make the assumption that conclusions you reach about Scripture and life in general are the standards everyone else should follow.

The path of divine knowledge comes from the Lord and to the Holy Spirit living in each Christian. That may come as a surprise to you. It does not come from the Lord, to the Holy Spirit living in you, then you beam it to everyone else. Believe it or not, the Lord does not need you as a middleman.

 

[saturneptune]

He's not drunk. His lips are barely wet. But he has sinned, and the one through whom the offense came has sinned.

That is pure baloney, and is contrary to every ideal the Bible is trying to teach.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

Did you not read the post? I did not vote for Obama. Evidentially you were not reading the posts during the election. As far as supporting Obama and tyrants, your state has a perfect record of giving them your electoral votes.

"Your State" as if I own it and sway over it. Why would you actually have the gall to say such a thing. FYI, I am a strict Conservative Tea Partyist. Now do you think I would actually attempt to throw rocks at "Your State" ....please.

 

[saturneptune]

[/COLOR][/B]

"Your State" as if I own it and sway over it. Why would you actually have the gall to say such a thing. FYI, I am a strict Conservative Tea Partyist. Now do you think I would actually attempt to throw rocks at "Your State" ....please.

No, but I did not think you would throw rocks at me as an individual either, after reading my posts about liberalism and Obama. I do not know how many posts I have made comparing our two Senators, Paul and McConnell, to point out the differences between the Tea Party and the mainstream Republicans, which are nothing more than Democrats with a different label.

 

[preacher4truth]

Not amazed but those who are against alcohol CONSUMPTION are not using Biblical evidence to support their notion, and those who KNOW that Biblical evidence does not condemn CONSUMPTION use Scriptural evidence to support their case . Each person against CONSUMPTION introduce DRUNKENESS in support of their argument which is a straw man argument. IOW they MUST go to the extreme in an attempt to win.

Not one has answered the evidence given in post #84. Why? Because the commandments of men override Scripture in this case. Such persons have succombed to culture, not Biblical revelation.