Reformed and Alcohol

[Greektim]

What is the relationship between reformed believers and our acceptance to alcohol (and smoking cigars/pipes too)???

Conversely, what is the avarice from the non-Calvinist with these things?

Why the opposites. Neither have to do with soteriology but seem pretty common together.

 

[webdog]

What is the relationship between reformed believers and our acceptance to alcohol (and smoking cigars/pipes too)???

Conversely, what is the avarice from the non-Calvinist with these things?

Why the opposites. Neither have to do with soteriology but seem pretty common together.

Not sure what you are asking, particularly from the non cal vantage point. Don't see how an "excessive desire of wealth or gain" intertwines with alcohol and smoking

 

[Jerome]

I'm too am quite puzzled by the OP's assertion, that "non-Calvinists" crave booze.

 

[12strings]

Not sure what you are asking, particularly from the non cal vantage point. Don't see how an "excessive desire of wealth or gain" intertwines with alcohol and smoking

Greektim, I too looked up the definition of Avarice, and it doesn't seem to mean what you are using it as here...

Perhaps you meant "AVERSION"?

 

[12strings]

Anyway, to answer the OP's intent...Calvinists have historically been those who hold to OSAS, and so being more secure in their salvation, perhaps did not feel the need that some wesleyans, nazarines, & free-will Baptists might have felt about "keeping" their salvation by avoiding big sins...Since they come out of the anabaptist tradition, they are much more concerned about separation in general than the earliest Reformers like luther were. Luther would drink and smoke, as would later puritans. Those following the anabaptist tradtion (non-cal) were also prone to have much higher (and in my opinion, extra-biblical) definitions of what constituted acceptable behavior. Mennonites and amish are the extreme example of this hard separation.

In addition, non-cals would naturally be more concerned about not causing a potential christian to stumble by witnessing a believer drinking beer, and so would abstain for the sake of witness. A Cal might be more likely to think God will save his elect whether or not they see me drinking a beer, so why not?

That's my 2 cents.

There is a big history of tee-totalism that arose about 100 years ago that I don't really know alot about...so perhaps an expert on the years of prohibition might elaborate further.

 

[convicted1]

What is the relationship between reformed believers and our acceptance to alcohol (and smoking cigars/pipes too)???

Conversely, what is the avarice from the non-Calvinist with these things?

Why the opposites. Neither have to do with soteriology but seem pretty common together.

I am in the Arm camp, and I have no problem with someone enjoying an occasional drink. However, we all know the effects that alcohol has, and that one drink can lead to two, two drinks to three, and the downward spiral from there. Jesus turned the water into wine, Jesus drank wine, Paul told Timothy to drink a little wine for his stomach. I look at drinking alcohol in a negative light two ways:

1) It can lead to A LOT of trouble if someone lets it take hold of their life.

2) I find it hard to witness to someone with a Bud Light in one's hand.

FTR, I haven't drank alcohol since around December of 2005, about 1.5 years before I was saved. I have no desire for alcohol, but I will not pass judgement upon those who do.

 

[agedman]

I do have a problem with those who think the Scriptures teach consumption of an intoxicant outside of medical supervision is permissible. I think they actually are in error of the principle portrayed in the Scriptures about this matter.

I have made extensive posts to show that such is not the estate established by either the Scriptures nor by Christ.

What bothers me about threads on intoxicants is the readers who might just fall into actually thinking something is good and Godly, when there is: First, no Scriptural foundation for such an assumption, Second, no physical or social reason for consumption, Third, no environmental reason for consumption.

Christ would never violate Him self. He IS the Word.

The Word says, "Wine IS a mocker. Strong drink IS raging. Fools are deceived by them."

The intoxicant does not need an excuse to be consumed, and it doesn't ask permission to take over the senses and pervert justice and judgment.

It will cause even those on the BB to mock and rage.

I have wondered if some don't reflect that condition as already infesting the hearts as displayed in some of the mocking and posts of ridicule.

 

[convicted1]

I do have a problem with those who think the Scriptures teach consumption of an intoxicant outside of medical supervision is permissible. I think they actually are in error of the principle portrayed in the Scriptures about this matter.

I have made extensive posts to show that such is not the estate established by either the Scriptures nor by Christ.

What bothers me about threads on intoxicants is the readers who might just fall into actually thinking something is good and Godly, when there is: First, no Scriptural foundation for such an assumption, Second, no physical or social reason for consumption, Third, no environmental reason for consumption.

Christ would never violate Him self. He IS the Word.

The Word says, "Wine IS a mocker. Strong drink IS raging. Fools are deceived by them."

The intoxicant does not need an excuse to be consumed, and it doesn't ask permission to take over the senses and pervert justice and judgment.

It will cause even those on the BB to mock and rage.

I have wondered if some don't reflect that condition as already infesting the hearts as displayed in some of the mocking and posts of ridicule.

And yet Jesus changed the water into what? Jesus drank what? Listen, I am closer to you and your belief than what you may think, but Jesus did change the water into wine, and He even drank wine.

 

[agedman]

And yet Jesus changed the water into what? Jesus drank what? Listen, I am closer to you and your belief than what you may think, but Jesus did change the water into wine, and He even drank wine.

The short answer your question, "NEW" wine was not an intoxicant.

The natural fermentation processes generated from the natural occurring yeasts found in the grapes had not yet begun. The difference between new and old wine is the fermentation process. The longer that processes continues the more bitter the taste.

It is important to note, that the older the wine the more bitter the taste unless additives of yeast and other products are introduced to mellow the flavor and a straining process is undertaken to remove the impurities.

Remember the master of the feast questioning why the good tasting wine was served last? It contained no bitterness and therefore no fermentation.

Second, Christ could never have consumed an intoxicant, in any form, at any level, and remained the pure "lamb of God."

The whole purpose of the intoxicant is to intoxicate. Even on the microscopic level the slightest sip would have provided some measure of impact upon the Lord Jesus in a way that was mocking and raging. He would then have been in opposition to His own Word.

Look at the cross for the example. If ever there was a time of consumption it was when He cried out, "I thirst." He was offered drink two times. The first was water, the second water mixed with an intoxicant. He consumed the first and spit out the second.

We are to be a royal priesthood and our body is the temple of the Holy Spirit. The Scriptures state that the priests who served at Temple could consume no intoxicant. There is no evidence that other than "new" wine was presented as a sacrifice to God, for He would never accept that which had the impurity associated with fermentation.

 

[convicted1]

The short answer your question, "NEW" wine was not an intoxicant.

The natural fermentation processes generated from the natural occurring yeasts found in the grapes had not yet begun. The difference between new and old wine is the fermentation process. The longer that processes continues the more bitter the taste.

It is important to note, that the older the wine the more bitter the taste unless additives of yeast and other products are introduced to mellow the flavor and a straining process is undertaken to remove the impurities.

Remember the master of the feast questioning why the good tasting wine was served last? It contained no bitterness and therefore no fermentation.

Second, Christ could never have consumed an intoxicant, in any form, at any level, and remained the pure "lamb of God."

The whole purpose of the intoxicant is to intoxicate. Even on the microscopic level the slightest sip would have provided some measure of impact upon the Lord Jesus in a way that was mocking and raging. He would then have been in opposition to His own Word.

Look at the cross for the example. If ever there was a time of consumption it was when He cried out, "I thirst." He was offered drink two times. The first was water, the second water mixed with an intoxicant. He consumed the first and spit out the second.

We are to be a royal priesthood and our body is the temple of the Holy Spirit. The Scriptures state that the priests who served at Temple could consume no intoxicant. There is no evidence that other than "new" wine was presented as a sacrifice to God, for He would never accept that which had the impurity associated with fermentation.

Okay, do you have biblical support that the wine Jesus drank and even made from water was unfermented?

 

[webdog]

Okay, do you have biblical support that the wine Jesus drank and even made from water was unfermented?

You have just opened the worm hole from page one to page 10 in 30 minutes

 

[Yeshua1]

Not sure what you are asking, particularly from the non cal vantage point. Don't see how an "excessive desire of wealth or gain" intertwines with alcohol and smoking

Don't think this is along cal non cal lines, more like culture and traditions!

Tobacco BIG cash crop in South, so probably more OK to light up a "fattie" after dinner!

 

[agedman]

Okay, do you have biblical support that the wine Jesus drank and even made from water was unfermented?

Not certain what "biblical support" you need other than what has been given.

Are you looking for Greek translation work? Then the word for wine is basically interchangeable.

Same as coke is generic for all soda water.

The determining factors are: 1, how old the wine would be, and 2, the example of other supporting scriptures.

First, how old. Wine that sits around in the sunlight unrefrigerated begins fermentation from its own natural yeasts in about 24 hours. At that same time the wine begins to "sour" or "bitter."


Here are some examples of supporting Scriptures:

In Deut. there is a mention that a person, after taking an extremely (probably multi-month) journey to worship at Temple, may enjoy the use of an intoxicant. Of course it also says they may enjoy whatever else the heart desires. That could then commit a huge problem of what excesses might the heart desire.

Some would suggest Duet. makes it approved for today's use. That is wrong application. No one journeys for that long to worship, and Temple is not even in existence. The use of the verse then fails to meet the expectations that some would desire.

Some would suggest that Tim being given permission by Paul shows use is acceptable. However, the obvious observation is that Tim DID NOT consume intoxicants, and under Dr. Luke (who was traveling with Paul) probably made the long distance diagnosis and remedy. Therefore, it is not giving general use permission, but that which is a small amount (probably a teaspoon full) as a medicine under Dr.s authority.

Some would suggest that Jesus drank wine for the pharisees proclaimed that in condemnation. But, they were false accusers, trapped in their own schemes more than once. The testimony of that bunch is no indication that Christ actually did partake of an intoxicant.

Some would suggest that Jesus made intoxicating wine at the wedding feast. But, when one reads the account it was not bitter, therefore it was not fermented. Again, it was not an intoxicant.

Ultimately, the Scriptures are clear on the topic.

But, as I have stated before, intoxicants do not need permission to poison the heart and mind. That is the expressed goal and purpose of the intoxicant as the Scriptures clearly state.

There is one other important point.

The children of Israel wandered in the desert lands for decades. They were under the direct care of God. God gave them NO wine. In fact, the scriptures mention that very fact. Isn't it rather obvious that He didn't give them a lot of things, but why would the Scriptures specifically list wine? Doesn't it seem strange that God did not present to them that "benefit?"

Perhaps you are looking for some other "how to, to wine making" to answer your question. The Scriptures don't give that information.

 

[convicted1]

You have just opened the worm hole from page one to page 10 in 30 minutes

I wasn't trying to open anything, but wanted a biblically supported case on why it's not okay for a christian to drink alcohol.

 

[convicted1]

Not certain what "biblical support" you need other than what has been given.

Are you looking for Greek translation work? Then the word for wine is basically interchangeable.

Same as coke is generic for all soda water.

The determining factors are: 1, how old the wine would be, and 2, the example of other supporting scriptures.

First, how old. Wine that sits around in the sunlight unrefrigerated begins fermentation from its own natural yeasts in about 24 hours. At that same time the wine begins to "sour" or "bitter."


Here are some examples of supporting Scriptures:

In Deut. there is a mention that a person, after taking an extremely (probably multi-month) journey to worship at Temple, may enjoy the use of an intoxicant. Of course it also says they may enjoy whatever else the heart desires. That could then commit a huge problem of what excesses might the heart desire.

Some would suggest Duet. makes it approved for today's use. That is wrong application. No one journeys for that long to worship, and Temple is not even in existence. The use of the verse then fails to meet the expectations that some would desire.

Some would suggest that Tim being given permission by Paul shows use is acceptable. However, the obvious observation is that Tim DID NOT consume intoxicants, and under Dr. Luke (who was traveling with Paul) probably made the long distance diagnosis and remedy. Therefore, it is not giving general use permission, but that which is a small amount (probably a teaspoon full) as a medicine under Dr.s authority.

Some would suggest that Jesus drank wine for the pharisees proclaimed that in condemnation. But, they were false accusers, trapped in their own schemes more than once. The testimony of that bunch is no indication that Christ actually did partake of an intoxicant.

Some would suggest that Jesus made intoxicating wine at the wedding feast. But, when one reads the account it was not bitter, therefore it was not fermented. Again, it was not an intoxicant.

Ultimately, the Scriptures are clear on the topic.

But, as I have stated before, intoxicants do not need permission to poison the heart and mind. That is the expressed goal and purpose of the intoxicant as the Scriptures clearly state.

There is one other important point.

The children of Israel wandered in the desert lands for decades. They were under the direct care of God. God gave them NO wine. In fact, the scriptures mention that very fact. Isn't it rather obvious that He didn't give them a lot of things, but why would the Scriptures specifically list wine? Doesn't it seem strange that God did not present to them that "benefit?"

Perhaps you are looking for some other "how to, to wine making" to answer your question. The Scriptures don't give that information.

1 Timothy 3


3 This is a true saying, if a man desire the office of a bishop, he desireth a good work.

2 A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach;

3 Not given to wine, no striker, not greedy of filthy lucre; but patient, not a brawler, not covetous;



8 Likewise must the deacons be grave, not doubletongued, not given to much wine, not greedy of filthy lucre;

Titus 1:7 For a bishop must be blameless, as the steward of God; not selfwilled, not soon angry, not given to wine, no striker, not given to filthy lucre;


Now, you can see here in two different passages, Paul is telling two different audiences what a Bishop can, and can't do, and likewise for the Deacons(one place only for deacons, in 1 Timothy 3). Why is it okay for Deacons to partake of wine, and not Bishops?

Greek word for "wine": οἶνος found in 1 Timothy 3 oinos


1) wine

2) metaph. fiery wine of God's wrath



Greek word used for wine in Titus: πάροινος paroinos


1) given to wine, drunken




In 1 Timothy 3:3, the word used for "wine" is the same as in Titus, given to wine, drunken. So, why is it NOT okay for the Bishops to partake of wine, and okay for Deacons? This right here shows that the wine Paul is speaking about was alcoholic/fermented in nature. If it's not okay to drink alcoholic/fermented wine, then why are the Deacons NOT given to much wine?


Oinos is the Greek word used in 1 Timothy 5:23. It's states a little wine, but none of know how much a little wine is. However, it was acceptable for Timothy to take it for his stomach.

I was in the teetotaller bunch, but I am not now. I have NO DESIRE to drink any kind of alcohol, so I am not using my stance to support my drinking alcohol. But if others partake, that's their own business. I honestly wished they wouldn't, but I have no biblical support to support "teetotallism", IMHO.

 

[Yeshua1]

1 Timothy 3


3 This is a true saying, if a man desire the office of a bishop, he desireth a good work.

2 A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach;

3 Not given to wine, no striker, not greedy of filthy lucre; but patient, not a brawler, not covetous;



8 Likewise must the deacons be grave, not doubletongued, not given to much wine, not greedy of filthy lucre;

Titus 1:7 For a bishop must be blameless, as the steward of God; not selfwilled, not soon angry, not given to wine, no striker, not given to filthy lucre;


Now, you can see here in two different passages, Paul is telling two different audiences what a Bishop can, and can't do, and likewise for the Deacons(one place only for deacons, in 1 Timothy 3). Why is it okay for Deacons to partake of wine, and not Bishops?

Greek word for "wine": οἶνος found in 1 Timothy 3 oinos


1) wine

2) metaph. fiery wine of God's wrath



Greek word used for wine in Titus: πάροινος paroinos


1) given to wine, drunken




In 1 Timothy 3:3, the word used for "wine" is the same as in Titus, given to wine, drunken. So, why is it NOT okay for the Bishops to partake of wine, and okay for Deacons? This right here shows that the wine Paul is speaking about was alcoholic/fermented in nature. If it's not okay to drink alcoholic/fermented wine, then why are the Deacons NOT given to much wine?


Oinos is the Greek word used in 1 Timothy 5:23. It's states a little wine, but none of know how much a little wine is. However, it was acceptable for Timothy to take it for his stomach.

I was in the teetotaller bunch, but I am not now. I have NO DESIRE to drink any kind of alcohol, so I am not using my stance to support my drinking alcohol. But if others partake, that's their own business. I honestly wished they wouldn't, but I have no biblical support to support "teetotallism", IMHO.

the wine that Jesus changed the water into at cana would have been gold medal winning real wine though!

And paul said that saints are to be filled/controlled by the Spirit, not the spirit of the vine, but the principle is laid out that God honors either wine for lunch, a beer in summer, or none at all!

 

[thomas15]

Anyway, to answer the OP's intent...Calvinists have historically been those who hold to OSAS, and so being more secure in their salvation, perhaps did not feel the need that some wesleyans, nazarines, & free-will Baptists might have felt about "keeping" their salvation by avoiding big sins...Since they come out of the anabaptist tradition, they are much more concerned about separation in general than the earliest Reformers like luther were.

I have always thought, without any reason other than my limited personal experiences, that at least some fundamental Baptist churches that insist on a no-drinking for members policy do so from within a calvanist theology, I know my local IFBC church is that way. Do you have any comments?

Of course the Bible condems being drunk but I personally take Paul's advice to Timothy and have a little wine for the sake of the tummy. However I don't understand the attitude on the PB forum where some of the posters have avatars featuring their favorite brew.

 

[mont974x4]

In my morning devotional today I re-read Romans 14. The Cal and Reformed views tend to take God at His Word. It isn't that we think God will save the elect regardless of our actions but that we lean heavily on God's grace in all things. This means recognizing that legalism, the Old Covenant, and the like are bondage to the NT believer. While we are free to drink and smoke and eat whatever we prefer a case by case basis, as the Spirit leads, as opposed to blanket abstinence which demeans the cross and makes the work of Christ a mockery.

If we preach the whole council of the Word we would see the proper mix of freedom and responsibility which demands a higher standard than legalism. This is because it requires us to:
1. Know God and what He says in total on an issue
2. Know the people around us

The reality is that my having a beer with my unbelieving neighbor causes fewer people to stumble than legalism ever will.

 

[Yeshua1]

In my morning devotional today I re-read Romans 14. The Cal and Reformed views tend to take God at His Word. It isn't that we think God will save the elect regardless of our actions but that we lean heavily on God's grace in all things. This means recognizing that legalism, the Old Covenant, and the like are bondage to the NT believer. While we are free to drink and smoke and eat whatever we prefer a case by case basis, as the Spirit leads, as opposed to blanket abstinence which demeans the cross and makes the work of Christ a mockery.

If we preach the whole council of the Word we would see the proper mix of freedom and responsibility which demands a higher standard than legalism. This is because it requires us to:
1. Know God and what He says in total on an issue
2. Know the people around us

The reality is that my having a beer with my unbelieving neighbor causes fewer people to stumble than legalism ever will.

All some seee if the Christian that has a life of "dont", no movies, tv, drinking, card playing, no music except church music etc!

Instead of the freedom to be able to chose wisely what is acceptable and what is not!

 

[convicted1]

In my morning devotional today I re-read Romans 14. The Cal and Reformed views tend to take God at His Word. It isn't that we think God will save the elect regardless of our actions but that we lean heavily on God's grace in all things. This means recognizing that legalism, the Old Covenant, and the like are bondage to the NT believer. While we are free to drink and smoke and eat whatever we prefer a case by case basis, as the Spirit leads, as opposed to blanket abstinence which demeans the cross and makes the work of Christ a mockery.

If we preach the whole council of the Word we would see the proper mix of freedom and responsibility which demands a higher standard than legalism. This is because it requires us to:
1. Know God and what He says in total on an issue
2. Know the people around us

The reality is that my having a beer with my unbelieving neighbor causes fewer people to stumble than legalism ever will.

And we in the Arm/non-cal group don't take Him at His word? Please explain what you mean by that which I bolded, please.