RC Sproul and Alcoholic Beverages

[Earth Wind and Fire]

And I don't doubt for a second that Aaron believes his arguement . And further he believes that abstinence is the MO that is the correct way to address a weaker brother or sister and to some degree it is ..... however it is not the way to address it long term...ie its not cureitive.

One, even if you never take a drink in your life, the alcoholic will drink & probably avoid you if you don't drink.

Two, the alcoholic will somewhere in their life have to face the fact they have a tiger by the tail & that they are in fact alcoholics.

Three, seek help... you cant do it on your own. Yes you can not drink but you will just be a dry drunk...one that constantly wants to drink but is scared to. Your life requires balance & as a dry drunk, you aren't in balance. GOD, Family, Career, Health must be all in alignment--because that will give you prospective .

I am only posting this because ive lived with alcoholics all my 56 years ....I have developed coping mechanisms & helped others with theirs. If anyone wants to talk, please feel free to PM me.

God bless all

 

[Luke2427]

It's irrelevent and stupid. I've already shown your answers to a straightforward Scriptural example of a matter of conscience to be antithetical to Paul's, and you think you've stumped me over neckwear?

You've shown nothing but the fact that you have no case for what you purport.

You claim the weaker brother principle means that if there is out there anywhere a Christian who thinks it is a sin to drink alcohol that every Christian on EARTH ought not ever touch the stuff- period.

I contend that that is idiotic in the absolute highest degree. I contend that no one with half a brain could believe such nonsense.

And I ask you to clarify how the weaker brother principle works- and you won't because you CAN'T.

That is ALL you have shown.

 

[evangelist6589]

But did you not know the wine Jesus made was nothing but Welch's grape juice?

Based on what evidence? Do you have any facts to verify this claim? However there may be a case that the wine that Jesus drank was far less alcoholic than that of the common wine today. However this does not mean that a Mikes Hard lemonade LIGHT is anymore or less alcoholic than what Jesus drank. Nor does it mean that Jesus drank grape juice as you claim.


Common beverages are below.

Table Wine - 14% alcohol
Fortified wines (port, sherry) - 18-24%
Hard liquor (whisky, gin, vodka) - 40%
Typical serving - 6 oz of wine; less of other beverages (shot glasses) - all contain ~0.6 oz of alcohol (3-5x more than biblical wine).

My case would be that it is okay to drink as long as its controlled and there is plenty of support in the Bible.

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)


According to the article Alcohol and Health, there are a number of supposed health benefits to the drinking of alcoholic beverages in moderation.

Moderate drinkers tend to have better health and live longer than those who are either abstainers or heavy drinkers. In addition to having fewer heart attacks and strokes, moderate consumers of alcoholic beverages (beer, wine or distilled spirits or liquor) are generally less likely to suffer hypertension or high blood pressure, peripheral artery disease, Alzheimer's disease and the common cold. Sensible drinking also appears to be beneficial in reducing or preventing diabetes, rheumatoid arthritis, bone fractures and osteoporosis, kidney stones, digestive ailments, stress and depression, poor cognition and memory, Parkinson's disease, hepatitis A, pancreatic cancer, macular degeneration (a major cause of blindness), angina pectoris, duodenal ulcer, erectile dysfunction, hearing loss, gallstones, liver disease and poor physical condition in elderly

(http://www2.potsdam.edu/hansondj/alcoholandhealth.html)

 

[Luke2427]

Based on what evidence? Do you have any facts to verify this claim? However there may be a case that the wine that Jesus drank was far less alcoholic than that of the common wine today. However this does not mean that a Mikes Hard lemonade LIGHT is anymore or less alcoholic than what Jesus drank. Nor does it mean that Jesus drank grape juice as you claim.


Common beverages are below.

Table Wine - 14% alcohol
Fortified wines (port, sherry) - 18-24%
Hard liquor (whisky, gin, vodka) - 40%
Typical serving - 6 oz of wine; less of other beverages (shot glasses) - all contain ~0.6 oz of alcohol (3-5x more than biblical wine).

My case would be that it is okay to drink as long as its controlled and there is plenty of support in the Bible.

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)


According to the article Alcohol and Health, there are a number of supposed health benefits to the drinking of alcoholic beverages in moderation.


(http://www2.potsdam.edu/hansondj/alcoholandhealth.html)

He's being sarcastic. Note the rolling eyes.

 

[Jerome]

However this does not mean that a Mikes Hard lemonade LIGHT is anymore or less alcoholic than what Jesus drank.

What exactly does 'LIGHT' mean in the name of this fruity booze?

Does it mean less alcohol so the drinker won't get as tipsy, or is it a diet version so she can keep her girlish figure?

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

What exactly does 'LIGHT' mean in the name of this fruity booze?

Does it mean less alcohol so the drinker won't get as tipsy, or is it a diet version so she can keep her girlish figure?

More appropriately so he can keep his boyish figure. It astounds me that guys are shaving their chests & backs to accommodate the fairer sex. Drinking a Mikes Hard Lemonade is just as womanish in my eyes.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

You've shown nothing but the fact that you have no case for what you purport.

You claim the weaker brother principle means that if there is out there anywhere a Christian who thinks it is a sin to drink alcohol that every Christian on EARTH ought not ever touch the stuff- period.

I contend that that is idiotic in the absolute highest degree. I contend that no one with half a brain could believe such nonsense.

And I ask you to clarify how the weaker brother principle works- and you won't because you CAN'T.

That is ALL you have shown.

If that's the brothers premise Luke, then work to discredit it w/o the insults. It is my stance that by not drinking infront of someone might suppress an impulse but does a solutely nothing to arrest the problem.

 

[DHK]

Aaron, I only have a rudimentary knowledge. Seeing as I was not present during ancient times I can only glean from others. Earlier in this thread I quoted a portion of an article from a gentlemen who refutes the idea that yayin refers to non-alcoholic wine.

We can have a war on "my scholar" against "your scholar." That would be a waste of time. There is plenty of good scholarship that would refute what you posted.

The issue is still one of Christian liberty. If you do not wish to imbibe then you have the liberty not to. I honestly do worry about those who are concerned about people exercising their Christian liberty in many areas of life. I understand where that line of thinking comes from, and the false piety it promises to those who abstain from exercising liberty. What I will not allow is for fundamentalists to tell me what I can or cannot do.

The driving force in the era of The Prohibition (1840-1920) were evangelical churches such as Baptist, Methodist, Presbyterian, and Congregational, who were all against the manufacture and sale of alcoholic beverages. They believed it was wrong. Among these many churches there was no dearth of scholarship. Look to your history. Who lived in this era? A great many of our scholars came from or lived during this era.
As they were the driving force against drink in that era, the anemic evangelical churches of today have allowed secularism to take over.

One of the main forces against alcoholism today is MADD (Mothers Against Drunk Drivers). Alcohol is one of the leading contributing factors to motor vehicle accidents in North America. "Just one for the road," eh?
I am sure you have seen all the vivid commercials by those who have only had a "couple" of drinks; they weren't really drunk, but had just been drinking in a "socially accepted" manner.

It is not an exercise of liberty. It comes down to a proper understanding of Scripture. I have two or three books on "Bible Wines in Scripture" or "Wine in Ancient Times."
As well, I know from experience that in third world Muslim nations it is not difficult to preserve grape juice and other juices, even without refrigeration. A far more common cause of sickness is when families or a number of men try to make a still to brew their own wine. Almost every time there are many that get hospitalized and some that will die because it is not done properly. They are poisoned in the process. Using the "family still" is not a safe practice in a third world nation. It is far safer to make juice than it is to make alcohol, contrary to the thinking of many.

 

[saturneptune]

You've shown nothing but the fact that you have no case for what you purport.

You claim the weaker brother principle means that if there is out there anywhere a Christian who thinks it is a sin to drink alcohol that every Christian on EARTH ought not ever touch the stuff- period.

I contend that that is idiotic in the absolute highest degree. I contend that no one with half a brain could believe such nonsense.

And I ask you to clarify how the weaker brother principle works- and you won't because you CAN'T.

That is ALL you have shown.

As stated before, I do not drink, but agree with your conclusions. The problem with those opposing you is they do not have a good grasp of the subject in Scripture. One cannot make a credible case for abstinence in the Bible. Their other misconception is that every human on earth is a weaker brother.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

We can have a war on "my scholar" against "your scholar." That would be a waste of time. There is plenty of good scholarship that would refute what you posted.

The driving force in the era of The Prohibition (1840-1920) were evangelical churches such as Baptist, Methodist, Presbyterian, and Congregational, who were all against the manufacture and sale of alcoholic beverages. They believed it was wrong. Among these many churches there was no dearth of scholarship. Look to your history. Who lived in this era? A great many of our scholars came from or lived during this era.
As they were the driving force against drink in that era, the anemic evangelical churches of today have allowed secularism to take over.

One of the main forces against alcoholism today is MADD (Mothers Against Drunk Drivers). Alcohol is one of the leading contributing factors to motor vehicle accidents in North America. "Just one for the road," eh?
I am sure you have seen all the vivid commercials by those who have only had a "couple" of drinks; they weren't really drunk, but had just been drinking in a "socially accepted" manner.

It is not an exercise of liberty. It comes down to a proper understanding of Scripture. I have two or three books on "Bible Wines in Scripture" or "Wine in Ancient Times."
As well, I know from experience that in third world Muslim nations it is not difficult to preserve grape juice and other juices, even without refrigeration. A far more common cause of sickness is when families or a number of men try to make a still to brew their own wine. Almost every time there are many that get hospitalized and some that will die because it is not done properly. They are poisoned in the process. Using the "family still" is not a safe practice in a third world nation. It is far safer to make juice than it is to make alcohol, contrary to the thinking of many.

Fine...then it gets illegally imported from Canada, causing the mob to dip their filthy fingers in and causing murderer and mayhem in the streets. What a fine solution that was.

 

[Aaron]

You claim the weaker brother principle means that if there is out there anywhere a Christian who thinks it is a sin to drink alcohol that every Christian on EARTH ought not ever touch the stuff- period.

I never claimed that. Not once.

And I ask you to clarify how the weaker brother principle works-

No, you threw down a bunch of red herrings in an attempt to marginalize what God has said is a very real issue. I will stick to the topic upon which Paul expounds in the Scriptures to avoid arguing over trifling and otherwise vain imaginations.

and you won't because you CAN'T

Think what you want.

 

[evangelist6589]

What exactly does 'LIGHT' mean in the name of this fruity booze?

Does it mean less alcohol so the drinker won't get as tipsy, or is it a diet version so she can keep her girlish figure?

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

 

[Herald]

Based on what evidence? Do you have any facts to verify this claim? However there may be a case that the wine that Jesus drank was far less alcoholic than that of the common wine today. However this does not mean that a Mikes Hard lemonade LIGHT is anymore or less alcoholic than what Jesus drank. Nor does it mean that Jesus drank grape juice as you claim.


Common beverages are below.

Table Wine - 14% alcohol
Fortified wines (port, sherry) - 18-24%
Hard liquor (whisky, gin, vodka) - 40%
Typical serving - 6 oz of wine; less of other beverages (shot glasses) - all contain ~0.6 oz of alcohol (3-5x more than biblical wine).

My case would be that it is okay to drink as long as its controlled and there is plenty of support in the Bible.

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)


According to the article Alcohol and Health, there are a number of supposed health benefits to the drinking of alcoholic beverages in moderation.


(http://www2.potsdam.edu/hansondj/alcoholandhealth.html)

Ummm...you did not see my emoticon after my statement? My rolling of the eyes? It was sarcasm.

P.S. I just saw Rick already pointed that out.

 

[Herald]

We can have a war on "my scholar" against "your scholar." That would be a waste of time. There is plenty of good scholarship that would refute what you posted.

Yes. It would be a waste of time. We can line up scholars all day long, but they do not trump Scripture.

The driving force in the era of The Prohibition (1840-1920) were evangelical churches such as Baptist, Methodist, Presbyterian, and Congregational, who were all against the manufacture and sale of alcoholic beverages. They believed it was wrong. Among these many churches there was no dearth of scholarship. Look to your history. Who lived in this era? A great many of our scholars came from or lived during this era.
As they were the driving force against drink in that era, the anemic evangelical churches of today have allowed secularism to take over.

One of the main forces against alcoholism today is MADD (Mothers Against Drunk Drivers). Alcohol is one of the leading contributing factors to motor vehicle accidents in North America. "Just one for the road," eh?
I am sure you have seen all the vivid commercials by those who have only had a "couple" of drinks; they weren't really drunk, but had just been drinking in a "socially accepted" manner.

This is all anecdotal and lacks a scriptural mandate.

It comes down to a proper understanding of Scripture.

You could have saved yourself from wasting good vowels and consonants by just making this statement and nothing else. You and I agree on very little, so it comes as no surprise we disagree on this topic. I am convinced the Bible places it in the sphere of Christian liberty. You do not. We disagree and neither is going to be convinced otherwise. We have reached an impasse which is a common occurrence on this board.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

Yes. It would be a waste of time. We can line up scholars all day long, but they do not trump Scripture.



This is all anecdotal and lacks a scriptural mandate.



You could have saved yourself from wasting good vowels and consonants by just making this statement and nothing else. You and I agree on very little, so it comes as no surprise we disagree on this topic. I am convinced the Bible places it in the sphere of Christian liberty. You do not. We disagree and neither is going to be convinced otherwise. We have reached an impasse which is a common occurrence on this board.

And if I may be so bold...neither of you have addressed the root cause / causes of alcoholism nor the solution/ solutions to the problem. I can well tell which feels its a human tragedy while the other probably considers it maintainable / treatable.

 

[Luke2427]

I never claimed that. Not once.

No, you threw down a bunch of red herrings in an attempt to marginalize what God has said is a very real issue. I will stick to the topic upon which Paul expounds in the Scriptures to avoid arguing over trifling and otherwise vain imaginations.

Then be clear about what you're claiming. Stop squirming.

You say the reason we should not drink responsibly is the weaker brother principle.

An EXTREMELY simple question has been put to you for several pages now.

HOW DOES THE WEAKER BROTHER PRINCIPLE PROHIBIT RESPONSIBLE DRINKING???

If it is not that if one Christian on earth thinks its sin then no Christian on earth should ever touch it- then HOW does it prohibit it?


If you don't answer that EXTREMELY SIMPLE challenge, then you have no point.

Think what you want

I have to think what is plainly fact. Everybody who reads your posts in this thread thinks the same thing.

 

[Luke2427]

We can have a war on "my scholar" against "your scholar." That would be a waste of time. There is plenty of good scholarship that would refute what you posted.

The driving force in the era of The Prohibition (1840-1920) were evangelical churches such as Baptist, Methodist, Presbyterian, and Congregational, who were all against the manufacture and sale of alcoholic beverages. They believed it was wrong. Among these many churches there was no dearth of scholarship. Look to your history. Who lived in this era? A great many of our scholars came from or lived during this era.
As they were the driving force against drink in that era, the anemic evangelical churches of today have allowed secularism to take over.

One of the main forces against alcoholism today is MADD (Mothers Against Drunk Drivers). Alcohol is one of the leading contributing factors to motor vehicle accidents in North America. "Just one for the road," eh?
I am sure you have seen all the vivid commercials by those who have only had a "couple" of drinks; they weren't really drunk, but had just been drinking in a "socially accepted" manner.

It is not an exercise of liberty. It comes down to a proper understanding of Scripture. I have two or three books on "Bible Wines in Scripture" or "Wine in Ancient Times."
As well, I know from experience that in third world Muslim nations it is not difficult to preserve grape juice and other juices, even without refrigeration. A far more common cause of sickness is when families or a number of men try to make a still to brew their own wine. Almost every time there are many that get hospitalized and some that will die because it is not done properly. They are poisoned in the process. Using the "family still" is not a safe practice in a third world nation. It is far safer to make juice than it is to make alcohol, contrary to the thinking of many.

Prohibition was the one of the biggest, bloodiest legislative and enforcement failures in the history of the United States.

For 1800 years the church had no problem with responsible drinking. To this day, around the world it still does not.

But for a very brief period in the church in England and for about a hundred years in the church in America, Christians had no problem with it.

Baptists were drinkers for most of their history.

I would not cite one of the biggest American failures in history as proof that we ought to believed what those people believed.

 

[DHK]

Prohibition was the one of the biggest, bloodiest legislative and enforcement failures in the history of the United States.

I have already studied the history. What shall I say.
You are wrong. Those that caused bloodshed would have been those that longed for their drunkenness, no?

For 1800 years the church had no problem with responsible drinking. To this day, around the world it still does not.

Again you are wrong, as I have demonstrated in previous posts.
The church has always had problems with alcohol. The church at Corinth did. Check 1Cor.11. Along with their drink, associated with the Lord's Table some were sick, weak, and some were killed by the hand of God. I would say that is a problem, wouldn't you?
In the history of the Baptists the common thread is a "peace-loving" people. You will find many that were pacifists and would not go to war, and many that condemned drink outright. Check your history; don't check it at the door.

The fastest growing religion in this world today is Islam. Islamic nations do not allow alcohol as a general rule. That refutes your statement "To this day around the world it still does not" (have a problem with responsible drinking). Clearly they do. It is banned in most of those nations. I have been there. There are no bars, pubs, or access to alcoholic beverages anywhere. You drink; you are thrown in jail.
There is evangelism done in those nations. There are Baptist churches. But they don't drink, and would never think of it for very obvious reasons.
No Christian, and I mean no Christian, has "rights."
When one becomes a Christian they forsake their rights and become a slave to Christ. You don't have the "right" to drink. You are a bond-slave to Christ.

Kings and priests were not permitted to drink in the OT. If you are looking for allegorical interpretation (which many here feast on), then the kings and priests of the NT shouldn't be drinking either.

But for a very brief period in the church in England and for about a hundred years in the church in America, Christians had no problem with it.

What kind of Christians--Catholics and Anglicans?

Baptists were drinkers for most of their history.

I would not cite one of the biggest American failures in history as proof that we ought to believed what those people believed.

I doubt your sources.

Most of the more conservative Baptist churches of today do not advocate drinking of any kind. For an example I will quote to you the pastor of one of the most oft quoted people on this board.

When you consider the purification and refrigeration techniques prevalent today, most people have no need to drink any alcoholic beverage. That is why at Grace Church, the pastors and elders avoid alcohol altogether. Beyond recognizing that it is not necessary to drink, we realize it could be harmful to more than just ourselves if we did.
In Romans 14 and 1Corinthians 8, Paul warned against doing anything that would cause another believer to stumble. I am certain that if people thought I drank wine, they would say, “Since John MacArthur drinks wine, then certainly I can.” Some of those people might lose control, do something irresponsible that hurts other people, or even become alcoholics. I do not want that to happen, and I do not want the fear of that weighing on my conscience.

(John MacArthur, Pastoral Ministry, page 76)


But I can list dozens of churches that have the same standard as MacArthur. I already did earlier on--a covenant in the constitution where those that joined covenanted together not to drink. I know of others that do the same thing. It is common in conservative Baptist churches not to drink.

 

[Luke2427]

I have already studied the history. What shall I say.
You are wrong. Those that caused bloodshed would have been those that longed for their drunkenness, no?

The problem was government overreach of power.

Some people rightly said that the government cannot tel us what to eat and drink because this is America.

After the government slaughtered hundreds of such people, the nation agreed with those people and rightly overturned this tremendous overreach of power.

Again you are wrong, as I have demonstrated in previous posts.
The church has always had problems with alcohol. The church at Corinth did.

Wrong. The Corinthian church had a problem wit alcohol abuse. You are coflating issues.

The fastest growing religion in this world today is Islam. Islamic nations do not allow alcohol as a general rule. That refutes your statement "To this day around the world it still does not" (have a problem with responsible drinking).

Wrong. I did not say every nation on earth and I did not say Muslims. Address what I ACTUALLY say, please.

Whole nations, like France, drink wine and beer like we drink sweet tea here in the South.

Christians in such nations do not have a problem with it.

If it were not for this ignorance hiccup in Christian history called "fundamentalism" almost no Christians would have a problem with it.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

But I can list dozens of churches that have the same standard as MacArthur. I already did earlier on--a covenant in the constitution where those that joined covenanted together not to drink. I know of others that do the same thing. It is common in conservative Baptist churches not to drink.

Ive never personally seen a Reformed Baptist Church that lists this as a condition. If they did, that would be a deal beaker for me