Zaac
Well-Known Member
But Scripture never SAYS that Christ drank wine or anything alcoholic. An assumption has to be read into Scripture to say that He did.
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Should a pastor be permitted to have a beer once in while?
- Thread starter righteousdude2
- Start date
The legalistic approach to alcohol developed in the last 150 years has to be read into Scripture to say that the wine of the Bible didn't contain alcohol.
Zaac
Well-Known Member
I agree. I've said many times before that I'm probably one of the most conservative people on the board when it comes to God's word. If His word doesn't say it, then there's no reason to try and make it say it.
So you would hold a married pastor in as much contempt as a pastor who had a glass of wine with dinner?
Does the Word tell us that He served it to His Apostles?
Zaac
Well-Known Member
You'll have to explain your line of thinking here as I haven't mentioned anything about a married pastor. Perhaps my mind is a bit slow today lol.
Zaac
Well-Known Member
It doesn't say HE drank it as it doesn't say He did at the wedding feast.
You know that is a ridiculous argument. Would Jesus serve up something that he wouldn't want them to drink?
Zaac
Well-Known Member
I didn't say that HE didn't want them to drink it. I said it didn't say that HE drank it.
Scripture is generally pretty clear about saying what it needs to say. But it never says that Jesus drank wine or alcohol of any sort. People just jump to the conclusion that He did because of the mores of that time.
Calypsis4
Member
What legalistic approach? The Bible clearly tells us that fermented beverages should be avoided....
Proverbs 23:31 Look not thou upon the wine when it is red, when it giveth his colour in the cup, when it moveth itself aright.
32 At the last it biteth like a serpent, and stingeth like an adder..
This takes the readers mind from the first drink to the last and the sorrowful results in drinking intoxicating beverages. It is clearly the fermented liquid that the Holy Spirit warns against and not the 'fruit of the vine' (unfermented).
Years ago, a good friend of mine argued with me on this. He staunchly argued the use of wine in moderation and thought I was too extreme. At dinner once he and his wife drank wine as was his family practice on occasion, but my wife and I politely abstained. Many years later he gave me a call and told me the sad story of his daughter who had just been arrested for DUI. She had been fighting with a drinking habit for years. I was nice to him and didn't remind him of his defense of 'drinking in moderation' years earlier but perhaps I should have. I could easily have said, "Who was it that introduced her to her first drink?"
Calypsis4
Member
No, Jesus would not 'condemn'...but he would lovingly warn such person of the eventual awful results of drinking that which is intoxicating (i.e. toxin -- poison).
Zaac
Well-Known Member
I believe the problem here lies in some of you thinking you're being condemned when people are merely saying "it's not a good look for a pastor" for many reasons. Nobody has condemned. There are just so many different reasons for why a pastor SHOULDN'T partake of alcohol.
I don't really understand why God's people fight so hard to defend the use of drinking poison that has caused so much harm?
Is it okay to smoke pot in moderation?
Well, how can I argue with someone who says that wine doesn't always mean wine? If it was good enough to offer to God in the temple, and not sinful for our Lord to gift to a wedding party...
Someone posted that they would leave a church if they saw their pastor have a single drink.
Calypsis4
Member
I didn't say that. YOU said that. Wine is always wine but it is not always fermented wine. You need to be honest about this. If you will take the time to look up the distinctions that the ancient Jews made about such things you will find the truth of the matter. Don't throw out Prov. 20:1 & Prov. 23 in the matter just because you may have developed a taste for intoxicating beverages.
"moveth itself aright" doesn't speak about the fully aged/fermented wine. It speaks of the wine still in the middle of the fermentation process.
What bothers me most about a thread such as this is the assumption folks make that the wine Christ made was an intoxicant. There is just as much evidence that it was not. The greek wording does not make a clear distinction (imo) between that which was an intoxicant in most cases.
However, "new wine" did not have the fermentation bitterness of "old wine." "Old wine" was often a vinegar which would be used for wound care, put into water (about a 1/4 cup or less) to rid it of impurities, and as a lotion.
I agree that the Lord Jesus Christ did NOT consumed intoxicants for the following reasons:
If one has such thinking of permission, then why not at least be honest and admit that there has been at least one occasion in which your actions and conduct were not the same had you not consumed an intoxicant. I have yet to meet a believer who does consume, that has not had such an experience; and, have sat across the desk more than once as a mother or father shares their ruined life and testimony because of that conduct.
On the matter of "permission" or places found in Scriptures in which intoxicants were permitted there were restrictions and conditions.
For example, it seems that a believer not consuming wine was not a foreign standard for believers. Because the consumption (according to historical documents easily found in the net) was part of the ritual of hedonistic heathen worship, not consuming intoxicants may have been part of the standard of the early church to signify to the world how their worship was separated from the worldly, fleshly, over indulgent, perverted religiosity throughout the Roman empire.
Paul (imo- under the guidance of the physician Luke) instructed Tim to take a small bit of wine for the stomach ailment. Why would he have to give such an instruction unless Tim was not in the practice consuming an intoxicant.
When does the Scriptures indicate it is permissible to consume an intoxicant:
For example:
"Wine is a mocker" is not hyperbole, or metaphor. The personification of wine being a mocker is not a matter of over indulgence, or being out of control or even moderation. It is a statement of fact given as personification. The same is applicable to "Strong drink is raging." That is clearly the intent and purpose of even the smallest amount. Who is deceived by the intoxicant? The Scriptures state - fools.
Now, I am not calling any member of the BB a fool, but to those who consider the Scriptures do not bring rebuke on this matter and make excuse under the guise of "the scriptures teach moderation" are (imo) being deceived for such permission is just not found.
Some will use "drink wine to excess" as a proof text, but that is not showing that consumption is permitted, but that one who does "drink wine to excess" is in fact an alcoholic, not fit for service.
Because endless threads have discussed this issue on the BB from the beginning, I was going to ignore it and not participate.
Probably should have done.
However, "new wine" did not have the fermentation bitterness of "old wine." "Old wine" was often a vinegar which would be used for wound care, put into water (about a 1/4 cup or less) to rid it of impurities, and as a lotion.
I agree that the Lord Jesus Christ did NOT consumed intoxicants for the following reasons:
- He refused it when in the greatest agony on the cross, therefore He would not enjoy it when in more pleasurable circumstances.
- He was the pure lamb, without spot, nor even the slightest thought of evil; therefore, He would not ingest something that had any ability even at the molecular level to intoxicate.
- The claim of the enemy (the religious righteous) that He fellowshipped with those that engaged in drink is not an indication that He consumed, rather that He was doing the work of the Father - acquiring believers.
- The wine made at the wedding was "good" and had no bitterness from the slightest fermentation that accompanies the older products - therefore it was not an intoxicant.
If one has such thinking of permission, then why not at least be honest and admit that there has been at least one occasion in which your actions and conduct were not the same had you not consumed an intoxicant. I have yet to meet a believer who does consume, that has not had such an experience; and, have sat across the desk more than once as a mother or father shares their ruined life and testimony because of that conduct.
On the matter of "permission" or places found in Scriptures in which intoxicants were permitted there were restrictions and conditions.
For example, it seems that a believer not consuming wine was not a foreign standard for believers. Because the consumption (according to historical documents easily found in the net) was part of the ritual of hedonistic heathen worship, not consuming intoxicants may have been part of the standard of the early church to signify to the world how their worship was separated from the worldly, fleshly, over indulgent, perverted religiosity throughout the Roman empire.
Paul (imo- under the guidance of the physician Luke) instructed Tim to take a small bit of wine for the stomach ailment. Why would he have to give such an instruction unless Tim was not in the practice consuming an intoxicant.
When does the Scriptures indicate it is permissible to consume an intoxicant:
- IF you are on an extremely long journey, eating all manner of food prepared in dubious manner, and needing physical rest before worshiping at the tabernacle (latter the Jerusalem temple). Because no believer in this modern times meets the qualification of medicinal use under these circumstances, then the Deut. passage must be laid aside as not applicable. You don't qualify.
- If you are under doctor's care (because of the evidence shown of Paul instructing Tim) then consumption for that specific medical condition is permitted.
For example:
"Wine is a mocker" is not hyperbole, or metaphor. The personification of wine being a mocker is not a matter of over indulgence, or being out of control or even moderation. It is a statement of fact given as personification. The same is applicable to "Strong drink is raging." That is clearly the intent and purpose of even the smallest amount. Who is deceived by the intoxicant? The Scriptures state - fools.
Now, I am not calling any member of the BB a fool, but to those who consider the Scriptures do not bring rebuke on this matter and make excuse under the guise of "the scriptures teach moderation" are (imo) being deceived for such permission is just not found.
Some will use "drink wine to excess" as a proof text, but that is not showing that consumption is permitted, but that one who does "drink wine to excess" is in fact an alcoholic, not fit for service.
Because endless threads have discussed this issue on the BB from the beginning, I was going to ignore it and not participate.
Probably should have done.
Calypsis4
Member
Uh......yes?!?!? Right. Fermentation is what happens with aging and in ancient times it took one week to ten days for the 'fruit of the vine' to become poisonous.
Are you actually trying to defend the drinking of intoxicating liquids (from 'toxin' = poison)? Whatever for?
Why do you think that the Holy Spirit gave us the warnings about such drinking in the first place?