Strong Drink -The Baptist Truth

:laugh::laugh::laugh: I was hoping someone would say that.

 

Second that

 

Sure. But, it's equally as important to note that it was not referred to as "wine" either. Wine is not mentioned at all in that entire chapter. Or the twelve before it. Or the eight after it. Based on that, one could deduct that the process described had nothing to do with wine at all.

 

Yet Josephus called it wine.
Perhaps the ancients had a more expansive definition of wine.

 

Here's some drink for thought...

This was the man who found grace in the eyes of God. The problem is that he got drunk. I've heard a lot of very convincing (in my opinion) reasons why he accidentally got drunk. The calamity that caused the flood had other affects on the environment. We started to have rain (there was no rain before), there were rainbows, life spans decreased dramatically over the next generations, and so on.

Anyway, they connect the theories as to why the above are true (changes in climate, air pressure, etc.) to the prediction that wine would now produce a lot more alcohol during fermentation than it would have before the flood. So when Noah drank the wine he got more alchohol in his system than he had expected.

Either way, he drank fermented wine and there was nothing wrong with doing so. It was the fact that he got drunk that led to the problems of being naked, etc.

 

There were three chapters about Noah before he drank and only three verses after. Drink away fella, IF you are saved you will give an account of your disobedience.

 

That's probably because he was very old and he had completed the main mission of his life (the ark). By that measure, how do you account for the amount of verses devoted to the life of King David after his acts of adultery and murder. We can't make doctrinal assertions based on the amount of text devoted to a biblical fligure.

Furthermore, Noah is remembered fondly by the writer of Hebrews as an example of faith:

Hebrews 11:7 "By faith Noah, being warned of God of things not seen as yet, moved with fear, prepared an ark to the saving of his house; by the which he condemned the world, and became heir of the righteousness which is by faith."

Of course you have made the unbiblical assumption that drinking wine = disobedience. Remember, if you are saved (to use your insinuation), you will give an account of your false teaching.

 

We must remember that Noah found grace in the eyes of the Lord before the flood, not after his drunkenness.

 

No unbiblical assumption was made by shiloh that I can see. The Word of God warns not to have anything to do with fermented beverage in Proverbs 23. It also exhorts to abstain from wine in at least 4 verses in the New Testament.

Here's a thought. False teaching can only be given by false prophets. False prophets will have their part in the lake of fire. All liars will have their part in the lake of fire.

Either we are the liars and will go to that lake for declaring God demands abstinence... or you are the ones who are lying in saying alcohol is allowed.

Either way, it appears one of us will be cast into that lake of fire and brimstone if one does not stop lying about what God's Word says.

 

Good grief you guys, this "false teacher" stuff over drinking is out of control.

 

"[T]hat I can see" is the key phrase in the above sentence.

Nope. The context shows us that it is talking about keeping company with drunkards and participating in their deeds. That's a very different thing than consuming wine in moderation.

Nope. It consistently tells us to abstain from "much wine" and/or drunkeness. That's not abstainence, that's temperance/moderation.

Nope. False teaching can also come from people who have been misled by others or who have let their personal beliefs/culture overtake a balanced understanding of scripture.

You've started from a faulty premise, therefore your misapplication of this reference ensures that everyone who is wrong about any part of their doctrine will hit the lake of fire. And we know that's not correct.

Those who make deceit their lifestyle will face destruction. That's often a very different thing than passing on false teaching.

And this is a false dilemma precipitated by an enormous amount of misreading and misapplication of scripture. I don't think that one's position on alcoholic beverages has any significant bearing on one's eternal destiny. Those who are disciples of Jesus will never face destruction. Those who reject Jesus will face destruction. Period.

Your lack of skill in biblical interpretation that you have just demonstrated does not help your position at all.

I don't think you are going to be cast into the lake of fire. And I know I won't. For the record, I don't think anyone is lying.

This is simply a sincere difference of opinion. But opinion have to be tested by the teachings of scripture. And you haven't given any solid evidence of your position.

 

Christians don't consume the Holy Spirit as fuel. Therefore your analogy makes no sense.

 

Verse 31 clearly says we are not to have anything to do with alcoholic wine itself. Solomon was clearly telling the reader that they are not to touch alcoholic beverage for it leads to drunkenness.

 

It only takes on lie to make one a liar. Not a lifetime of lies.

 

It is helpful to read in chapters and paragraphs instead of simply cherry-picking a few verses that fit your opinions. If you do that, you might see what I am referring to.

 

Since the Word of God is clearly different than what you are advocating, I can see that your lack of skill in biblical interpretation that you present does not help your position at all.

 

Scripture has been given by me and *edited* my wife to prove our stance. You just do not want to see it.

We cannot both be right on this issue. Either we are telling the truth, or you are.

And it does matter. The Word of God tells us to study to show ourselves approved unto God.

Apparently, some are not studying, or there would not be a disagreement in the issue.

 

Solomon often jumped the track in many of his proverbs. Even if he did not, as I said, it is clear he was teaching total abstinence in order not to be led to the woes that befall those who drink.

No cherry-picking necessary. The teaching of abstinence is still there.

 

If that is true, then everyone who has told a lie will be cast into the lake of fire.

Mr. "His Blood Spoke My Name", have you ever told a lie and do you expect to be cast into the lake of fire? Why or why not?

 

Some scripture (even some quoted properly) has been given, but it hasn't been used in context with itself or the rest of scripture.

Now you are judging the motivations of my heart. Not only is your judgment false, it is also unbiblical since you have no way of knowing my motivations.

That is true.

Or possibly, we are somehow both wrong.

I never said it didn't matter (except as to whether we are cast in the lake of fire).

Yes. That's why we both need to study these issues and discuss them without misrepresenting scripture, wild accusations, the judging of motives and personal attacks.

Well that might well be true, but there's also the issue that we are all human and do not yet have all knowledge. And I think God has purposed that so we will be forced to love each other in spite of our differences.