Strong Drink -The Baptist Truth

[Allan]

well for deacons it says, "not indulging in much wine".
I think the limitations on drinking are the same for both offices as well as every other Christian: don't drink in excess.

And yet the Greek does not contend that.

 

[ituttut]

Jerome, Please forgive me if I've offended you. It was my understanding that "The Baptist Faith and Message" was the official spokesman for the Southern Baptist.
Perhaps I'm wrong. I don't suspect that sowing discord among the Brethren is a Godly thing to do. I defer to you and will remain quiet. Honestly though, I feel the positition of the Baptist Faith and Message is well founded. If a total abstinence doctrine/positition was put in writting, and the attempt was made to justify it Bibilicaly. The Baptist church would be a laughing stock of most other legitimate scholars. You can preach and teach total abstinance on a local level (and it is being done) and use only portions of scripture. However I'd say 99.999% (just a guess) of Scholars/Teachers of any persuasion would find it blatently wrong. And would cast doubt on the sincerity, honesty, and accuracy of Baptist theology. You simply cannot reach a total abstinance positition based on the totality of scripture. It has to be a discipline not a doctrine. I don't think I'll post on this topic any more. Wishing you the best, and have a Blessed day.

You bring much to the table. You have biblical knowledge. IMO you are well qualified to post on this board. I don't know how many different "divisions" there are under the Baptist umbrella, and your mention of schisms I believe are the bane of the Baptist denomination/s. We Baptists saying we are autonomous is a misnomer, unless there is one lonely Baptist church out there with no connection with any other Baptist church. And I'm sure if there is one out there, as that church grows, it will "split".

 

[ituttut]

Acceptable lust? I cannot find that term in the Word of God.

that word 'covet' in 1 Corinthians 12:31 does not mean lust, as you imply.

As usual Christian friend, you misread posts.

 

[His Blood Spoke My Name]

No misreading at all. Here is what you wrote:


Are we not to seek and desire what is good and acceptable to God? Don't know about you but I "lust" after my wife. Am I'm sinning? Are all men and women married to each other sinning in their lust that God approves of,

I bolded and underlined your words for emphasis. You clearly say God accepts lust.

Which has been pointed out, He does not.

 

[ituttut]

Originally Posted by ituttut
I do appreciate your offer to help Allen, but I know the scriptures you speak of. May I show you a couple that you may not be aware of? I see in Galatians 2:4 that we are due our privacy.

If that is the rendering you obtain from that passage, then (no offence) you need to go back and look it over in the proper context.
Quote:
Gal 2:4 And that because of false brethren unawares brought in, who came in privily to spy out our liberty which we have in Christ Jesus, that they might bring us into bondage:
Gal 2:5 To whom we gave place by subjection, no, not for an hour; that the truth of the gospel might continue with you

First - those false brethren or false christians came to Paul and the gentile church in an underhanded manner.
Second - It was not that Paul and the gentiles did ANYTHING privately but this reference is specific to the stealth (due to their true intentions) of those false christians.
Third - To spy out (as foes in the guise of friends) our 'liberty' directly concerns the non-circumcision of Titus (and in general including other geniles by implication) in verse 3. Their liberty in Christ was that they was not compelled to obey the cerimonial Law of Moses and so the false brethren came to try to bring them under the Law FOR righteousness. We saw/see a portion of this group in Acts contending the same point.

And no offense intended to you Allen, and again I know, and understand the message of the verses, and I might say we differ as to just who those under false colors were, and will address under your Acts 15 reference below.

As to the "affront", we oft times don't see truths available although they are in plain sight. My answer was intentionally short or to the point, with intention to point out the simple fact of "spying in secret" is unethical and an invasion of privacy whether in the home or the church.

These were as pirates under another flag. My reference to being able to do what you wish in your own private setting should not be invaded by those that wish to change, or instill another belief. What was their one purpose? To see what was going on with those Christians that have liberty and freedom in Christ. They were into what was none of their business. They didn't know what they were talking about.

Act 15:5 But there rose up certain of the sect of the Pharisees which believed, saying, That it was needful to circumcise them, and to command [them] to keep the law of Moses.

This was not about being able to do or not do as one wishes, but the truth of the Gospel at the very heart of the matter and at stake.

Fully agree, but we must know who the fellows were. We can plainly identify these as being members from the Pentecostal church controlled from Jerusalem. This is the reason by revelation that Paul was sent to make sure that "Kingdom Church" understood they should make strong voice to the Jewish church at Jerusalem (included those of Judah) to leave the "Gentiles" alone, and quit having them try to make them be circumcised that would require the Gentile to come under the gospel of the circumcised.

James, who has now become the head of that church which would give way to Christianity (including both Gentile and Jew), along with Peter, John, and the other's shook hands with Paul and Barnabas that they would not preach their circumcised Kingdom Gospel to the uncircumcised.This may set some teeth on edge, but this is what the Word of God says.

Jamison-Faust
Greek, "To whom not even for an hour did we yield by subjection." ALFORD renders the Greek article, "with THE subjection required of us." The sense rather is, We would willingly have yielded for love [BENGEL] (if no principle was at issue), but not in the way of subjection, where "the truth of the Gospel" ( Gal 2:14 Col 1:5 ) was at stake (namely, the fundamental truth of justification by faith only, without the works of the law, contrasted with another Gospel, Gal 1:6 ). Truth precise, unaccommodating, abandons nothing that belongs to itself, admits nothing that is inconsistent with it [BENGEL].

There is nothing here to support your contention of doing something privately that you KNOW is a stumbling block to other brethren.

Again I know you are trying to help, but you will notice I only chose to quote one verse of Galatians, and not two. I wished to center on our liberty and freedom in Christ, and not get into discussion of the full dispensational gospel that Christ Jesus gave to Paul; at least not in this setting.

See you have more, but sleep time - will address hopefully tomorrow.

 

[Isaiah40:28]

And yet the Greek does not contend that.

Does not contend what, specifically?

BTW, do you also believe that grape juice is what "makes the heart glad"?

None of the abstinence posters seem to want to deal with this issue other than saying that studies have shown grape juice can be healthy for your heart.

 

[Baptist Believer]

The unfermented "fruit of the vine" (which Jesus gave to His disciples to drink at the Last Supper) is what makes the heart glad.

Hmm... I have been invited to a Passover seder at a Jewish friend's home tonight. I've read up on the ceremony this weekend and noticed that they will serve four cups of wine during the ceremony (we are going to do it over two nights).

The context of the Last Supper taking place at Passover clearly indicates that the cup they drank was wine.

 

[Allan]

Hmm... I have been invited to a Passover seder at a Jewish friend's home tonight. I've read up on the ceremony this weekend and noticed that they will serve four cups of wine during the ceremony (we are going to do it over two nights).

The context of the Last Supper taking place at Passover clearly indicates that the cup they drank was wine.

I have partook with Jewish (non-christian) friends of the family a couple of times in the past (3 I think) but they never used fermented wine for anyone. It was grape juice that they partook of in the Passover meal.

 

[Allan]

Does not contend what, specifically?

BTW, do you also believe that grape juice is what "makes the heart glad"?

None of the abstinence posters seem to want to deal with this issue other than saying that studies have shown grape juice can be healthy for your heart.

I have already (earlier) dealt with the what scripture equates with "making the heart glad". But I also am not a TOTAL abstinence person either. I believe the weaker brother and stumbling block principle far outways any positions for drinking in American Culture (pro or con) regarding does scripture say we can in moderation or not.

I contend we can drink but not as a perferd or common beverage of choice (or social drinking as it is politely called) and in accordance with the stumbling block and weaker brother principles, among a couple of other small issues that are more correllary than specific.

Though it is true, studies have proven that grape juice is actually healthier for you than wine. And you can drink till your little heart is content :laugh: But God didn't say drink it because this is healthier than that.

 

[webdog]

I have partook with Jewish (non-christian) friends of the family a couple of times in the past (3 I think) but they never used fermented wine for anyone. It was grape juice that they partook of in the Passover meal.

That's almost blasphemous for a jewish family. I've never heard of a jewish family who would use grape juice instead of wine. My brother in law is jewish.

 

[His Blood Spoke My Name]

My wife, a born-again Jew, tells me that in the unsaved Jews, wine was used. In those who were saved, grape juice is used.

In the home of unsaved Jews, when real wine was used, children were not permitted to partake of the wine during the Feasts.

 

[gb93433]

Baptist resisted grape juice for communion and were the grealy opposed to it's use. Now the position is exactly reversed.

You are right. Some Baptists change their doctrine as the wind changes and call it from God when God has never changed. That is all the more reason why we must major on the majors and minor on the minors.

 

[Baptist Believer]

My wife, a born-again Jew, tells me that in the unsaved Jews, wine was used. In those who were saved, grape juice is used.

Ahh! So the choice of beverage is the sign of salvation...

In the home of unsaved Jews, when real wine was used, children were not permitted to partake of the wine during the Feasts.

The very young children were given grape juice.

 

[Jeremiah Hart]

This is DOCTRINE:

Prov. 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.

So, I guess you can drink it as long as you don't look.

Have a good day.

 

[gb93433]

This is DOCTRINE:

Prov. 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.

So, I guess you can drink it as long as you don't look.

Does that not apply to white wine?

 

[Jeremiah Hart]

Does that not apply to white wine?

I am guessing that is why God put the "giveth it's colour in the cup" phrase too.

Was there white wine in that time period? I don't know. But if you compare that with

I Thess 5:22
Abstain from all appearance of evil.

Why chance it?

 

[webdog]

I am guessing that is why God put the "giveth it's colour in the cup" phrase too.

Was there white wine in that time period? I don't know. But if you compare that with

I Thess 5:22
Abstain from all appearance of evil.

Why chance it?

What is the "appearance" of evil? Does evil have an appearance?

 

[webdog]

My wife, a born-again Jew, tells me that in the unsaved Jews, wine was used. In those who were saved, grape juice is used.

In the home of unsaved Jews, when real wine was used, children were not permitted to partake of the wine during the Feasts.

Again, not your normal jewish families. Children do consume wine during the Seder, and have for thousands of years.

 

[webdog]

Was there white wine in that time period? I don't know.

Yes there was. As long as there were green grapes, there would have been white wine.

 

[Baptist Believer]

This is DOCTRINE:
Prov. 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.

Actually, it is scripture. Correct doctrine comes from rightly interpreting scripture.

Proverbs is a collection of wisdom literature, not intended to be Law, but rather, practical advice on how to live a righteous life.

As far as interpreting Proverbs goes, sometimes there is a context to determine meaning and other times there is very little context for meaning.

Proverbs 23 has a train of thought going through it that will help us accurately determine what the writer wants us to learn:

Shortly before the verse you quote, the author gives some context - v. 20-21 Be not among winebibbers; among riotous eaters of flesh: For the drunkard and the glutton shall come to poverty: and drowsiness shall clothe a man with rags.

Then immediately preceeding the verses you quote - v. 29-30 Who hath woe? who hath sorrow? who hath contentions? who hath babbling? who hath wounds without cause? who hath redness of eyes?
They that tarry long at the wine; they that go to seek mixed wine.

Clearly we are talking about people who overindulge in everything (the primary theme of Proverbs 23).

v. 31-32 Look not thou upon the wine when it is red, when it giveth his colour in the cup, [when] it moveth itself aright. At the last it biteth like a serpent, and stingeth like an adder.

It is a poetic comparison of the danger of indulging in a lifestyle of excess. Obviously wine does not move by itself, so the writer is making the comparison between the consumption of excesssive quantities of wine being as dangerous as a serpent and as painful as the bite of an adder.