Strong Drink -The Baptist Truth

[Diggin in da Word]

Nor is there anything wrong with mine

 

[His Blood Spoke My Name]

Nothing erroneous in my signature.

The peacemaking meeting scheduled for today has been canceled due to a conflict.

The Holy Spirit cannot be effectual in a person's life if that person is given to alcohol.

And again, Scripture clearly shows abstinence, as I have proved. You just choose not to believe the Word of God.

 

[Baptist Believer]

Nothing erroneous in my signature.

I pointed that out to 'Diggin'... not you.

The Holy Spirit cannot be effectual in a person's life if that person is given to alcohol.

"Given to alcohol"... It's interesting that you use that term. By that statement you are advocating a position that those who believe in temperance/moderation can endorse.

When someone is "given to alcohol", then clearly have a problem.

And again, Scripture clearly shows abstinence, as I have proved.

Nope. If your interpretation of scripture is to be believed, a person who seeks after God must also abstain from bread... Unfortunately, our church is celebrating the Lord's Supper tonight and we will do what Jesus commanded and take bread during communion.

Would you like to recant from your 'no bread, wine or strong drink' position you very recently proposed with that out-of-context scripture?

You just choose not to believe the Word of God.

That's a very foolish and false statement. And you're the one who has recently advocated (mostly in another thread) that anyone who passes on false information is a liar, and (in this thread) have stated that a person who tells just one lie is a liar.

You need to stop falsely accusing your brother in Christ.

 

[Baptist Believer]

Nor is there anything wrong with mine

Okay, one of your heresies is that the Holy Spirit is consumed by a Christian as fuel. (I suppose you know that has astounding implications for the doctrine of the Trinity?)

I'll mark that down and remind you of it from time to time.

 

[His Blood Spoke My Name]

Paul rebuked those who were in the body when they were adhering to false doctrine. I shall as well.

 

[Baptist Believer]

Paul rebuked those who were in the body when they were adhering to false doctrine. I shall as well.

Let's see, you've ripped scripture out of context, presented arguments from scripture that are obviously false (yet you refuse to acknowledge your errors), have made false and unfounded claims about my doctrine and my character, and now you are going to self-righteously "rebuke" me for so-called "false doctrine?"

Your rebuke is meaningless.

 

[His Blood Spoke My Name]

not falsely accusing if you advocate alcohol in the Christian's life.

Let's see, you've denied the clear Word of God when it says

Proverbs 23:31 (KJV) Look not thou upon the wine when it is red, when it giveth his colour in the cup, [when] it moveth itself aright.

Tell me Baptist Believer, when does the wine in that verse become alcoholic? After one has partook of it to some point and not before? or is it alcoholic the whole time one is rebelling against the clear command and drinking just one glass? in moderation?

The answer is clear. It is alcoholic all along. Not just after they have had what they have reasoned in their own minds is ok to drink. And God's Word says, 'Have nothing to do with it!'

Proverbs 14:12 (KJV) There is a way which seemeth right unto a man, but the end thereof [are] the ways of death.

Of course, you continue to deny your errors, have made false and unfounded claims about my doctrine and my Lord and Savior. It is your false accusations that are uncalled for.

 

[Baptist Believer]

not falsely accusing if you advocate alcohol in the Christian's life.

Advocate is a stronger word that I would use. I do not forbid alcohol in a Christian’s life.

But that was not one of the false accusations you made.

Let's see, you've denied the clear Word of God when it says

Proverbs 23:31 (KJV) Look not thou upon the wine when it is red, when it giveth his colour in the cup, [when] it moveth itself aright.

You have just told an utter falsehood. I do not deny any part of the word of God.

I simply advocate the whole counsel of God, not proof-texting like you are doing. As was stated before in this thread, you must look at the whole of chapter 23 to understand the context of that verse. Otherwise you are distorting the word of God.

Tell me Baptist Believer, when does the wine in that verse become alcoholic?

I don’t share your obsession about when the wine is alcoholic. The wine in that verse obviously contains alcohol.

After one has partook of it to some point and not before?

The wine was always alcoholic. (I think you have made an error. Are you actually asking when a person becomes an alcoholic?)

...or is it alcoholic the whole time one is rebelling against the clear command and drinking just one glass?

I don’t understand your loaded question. There is no “clear command” against drinking one glass according to the context.

in moderation?

Moderation is not directly addressed (although it is implied) in the context of that verse.

The answer is clear. It is alcoholic all along.

I didn’t realize that there was a question about it.

Not just after they have had what they have reasoned in their own minds is ok to drink. And God's Word says, 'Have nothing to do with it!'

Nope. The theme of Proverbs 23 is the foolishness of following youthful lusts. Since you seem to have trouble with this, let me point out some of the immediate context:

The foolishness of wanton youthful immoderation is reinforced in verses 20-21:

20 Be not among winebibbers; among riotous eaters of flesh:

21 For the drunkard and the glutton shall come to poverty: and drowsiness shall clothe a man with rags.

As you can see, this section is talking about gluttons who drink wine and meat to excess.

Then it continues a few verses later to directly address the misuse of wine again:

29 Who hath woe? who hath sorrow? who hath contentions? who hath babbling? who hath wounds without cause? who hath redness of eyes?

30 They that tarry long at the wine; they that go to seek mixed wine.

The context clearly speaks of those who “tarry long at the wine.” This is not describing those who have a glass of wine in moderation, but those who drink wine for the sake of drinking.

And then we have your favorite verse that must be interpreted in light of what came just before it:

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.

The writer makes a clear poetic allusion to wine as a serpent in their hands (for we know that wine does not rise up to bite like a serpent -->“moveth itself aright”) that causes those heavy drinkers to be transfixed by it until it stings them with destructive results.

Now beyond these few verses in Proverbs, we have the verse I quoted from Deuteronomy 14, the actions of Jesus, and the admonition of Paul to Timothy not to drink just water alone, but have wine for the sake of his health.

In comparison to that, you have quoted a verse from Deuteronomy that, if your interpretation is to be believe, also forbids the eating of bread for those who seek God. Do you actually believe that or are you going to continue to ignore it because you don’t want to admit that you have made a mistake?

Of course, you continue to deny your errors...

I don’t see any errors to be corrected. In fact, this dialogue with you has demonstrated to me how strong my position is.

...have made false and unfounded claims about my doctrine...

Am I wrong to say that you think bread, wine and strong drink is not for those who seek after God? That’s the verse and interpretation you reported.

Did you tell a lie or simply make a mistake?

...[you ... have made false and unfounded claims about] my Lord and Savior.

I simply pointed out the plain and straight-forward example of Jesus in John 2 and the implications of the only sensible meaning of the accusations against Jesus that claimed He was a drunkard and a glutton. I’m referencing whole chapters of scripture, in context, for my position. Furthermore, I accept the plain meaning of the words of scripture without trying to fit them to any kind of agenda.

If they are “false and unfounded” claims, they have enormous scriptural support, as well as the support of most Christians throughout the last 1950 years.

It is your false accusations that are uncalled for.

Why don’t you actually discuss the issues instead of throwing rocks?

A good place to start would be to admit you’ve made some mistakes in our discussion. That will show that you have come down off your high-horse and are willing to actually discuss the issues.

 

[mes228]

Strong Drink

This topic is really incredible!! It's hard to read this drivel and not comment. It clearly shows "mind control" is part and parcel of todays Churches and half-truth preaching. Pretty much makes me ashamed of being Baptist to read this stuff. Jim Jones, the Moonies, and even Moslems are slackers compared to some of the twisted positions espoused here. These are un-godly, ignorant positions, and are apparently being taught in Baptist Churches. Reminds me of the rich man in hell wanting to go tell his brother and being told no matter who told him he wouldn't listen. Some of these people won't listen either, to scripture, or God, or reason. No one on earth, that is honest, truthful, and sincere can reach a conclusion of total abstinence based on the totality of scripture. It's impossible, that's why Lutherans, Methodist, Episcopalians, Catholics, Universalist, and all the other denominations do not teach such a "doctrine". The sad fact is the Baptist do not teach that as doctrine either. They teach total abstinence as a position based on the evil impact of excessive alcohol consumption on families and society. It's a choice, not a tool to condemn others with. It's a sad thing that abstinence is/has been taught as something God requires. You may as well tell people "drink the kool-aid" it's God's will, as Jim Jones did. Some of you are pretty openly putting words in Gods mouth. When in truth it's your opinion, and a half truth you've been taught by good, motivational, inspiring, preachers using a portion of Gods word. Shame on him for teaching you that, and shame on you for letting him put such a thing into your brain. Your brain is yours - that's probably why God put it in your head. So no one can monkey with it. A preacher is not God. I recently heard a Moslem "teacher" give over 30 "proofs" from the King James Bible. Using christian scripture to "prove" Mohammed was the last and greatest of the prophets - including Jesus. He used your/our bible to do this. Was it valid?? No!! But the Moslems that heard this half truth, twisting, of scripture probably believed it. Same scenario on drinking applys here. I believe the Baptist doctrine and do not drink, but it is a "choice" I made. Not Gods commandment.

 

[npetreley]

As I pointed out, the people who truly wanted to be found in God's will did not buy that wine and strong drink. Reference Deuteronomy 29:6

They also didn't eat bread.

Down with bread!

 

[His Blood Spoke My Name]

Leavened bread... yes

 

[gb93433]

The Holy Spirit cannot be effectual in a person's life if that person is given to alcohol.

They would not be effective if given to water as well. The fact is that if you drink too much water it will kill you.

 

[gb93433]

And again, Scripture clearly shows abstinence, as I have proved. You just choose not to believe the Word of God.

I choose not to believe such ignorance.

Could you explain how Mt. 9:17 supports abstinence?

Mt. 9:17, "Nor do people put new wine into old wineskins; otherwise the wineskins burst, and the wine pours out and the wineskins are ruined; but they put new wine into fresh wineskins, and both are preserved."

 

[His Blood Spoke My Name]

Old wineskins contained old sediment, which, when allowed to mix with the new wine, would cause the skins to expand and burst.

New wine signifies unfermented wine. If it is put into old wineskins, it would burst.

 

[npetreley]

Old wineskins contained old sediment, which, when allowed to mix with the new wine, would cause the skins to expand and burst.

New wine signifies unfermented wine. If it is put into old wineskins, it would burst.

sediment

The grainy, bitter-tasting deposit sometimes found in wine bottles, most often with older wines. Sediment is not a bad sign but in fact may indicate a superior wine. It's the natural separation of bitartrates (see acids tartaric acid), tannins and color pigments that occurs as wines age. Although generally associated with finer red wines, sediment occasionally appears in white wines, usually in the form of nearly colorless crystals. For port drinkers, the term crust synonymous with sediment, is often used. Sediment should be allowed to settle completely before the wine is decanted into another container so that when the wine is served none of the deposit will transfer to the glass.

...also...

During the fermentation process, new wine releases gasses and needs room to expand; it requires a container that will stretch and adapt, one that will grow to contain the wine. As old wineskins have been through the process before, they have lost their elasticity and will not expand, rather would tear during the fermentation process resulting in both ruined skin and wasted wine. New wine skins, on the other hand, are fresh and pliable; they will stretch and expand, and accommodate the new wine.

 

[His Blood Spoke My Name]

The historian Josephus has recorded wine that was not fermented that was over 100 years old, thereby proving that new wine was unfermented and when put in new wineskins, could remain in that unfermented state for more than a century.

Old skins would swell and burst because of the sediment that had been exposed to air mixing with the new wine.

 

[His Blood Spoke My Name]

sediment

The grainy, bitter-tasting deposit sometimes found in wine bottles, most often with older wines. Sediment is not a bad sign but in fact may indicate a superior wine. It's the natural separation of bitartrates (see acids tartaric acid), tannins and color pigments that occurs as wines age. Although generally associated with finer red wines, sediment occasionally appears in white wines, usually in the form of nearly colorless crystals. For port drinkers, the term crust synonymous with sediment, is often used. Sediment should be allowed to settle completely before the wine is decanted into another container so that when the wine is served none of the deposit will transfer to the glass.

...also...

During the fermentation process, new wine releases gasses and needs room to expand; it requires a container that will stretch and adapt, one that will grow to contain the wine. As old wineskins have been through the process before, they have lost their elasticity and will not expand, rather would tear during the fermentation process resulting in both ruined skin and wasted wine. New wine skins, on the other hand, are fresh and pliable; they will stretch and expand, and accommodate the new wine.

Although you did not cite your source, I see it is from Barron's Wine Lover's Companion for the first paragraph & http://rabbitinthewoods.blogspot.com/2006/12/i-wineskin-part-i.html for the second paragraph.

I got mine from 1st Century AD Historian Josephus and from the Word of God... both more reliable sources that Barron's.

 

[Shiloh]

They would not be effective if given to water as well. The fact is that if you drink too much water it will kill you.

Shows Spiritual ignorance, God never told us "Look not thou upon the water".

 

[Baptist Believer]

Leavened bread... yes

So are you saying that people who seek after God must abstain from leavened bread?

 

[Baptist Believer]

They would not be effective if given to water as well. The fact is that if you drink too much water it will kill you.

Shows Spiritual ignorance, God never told us "Look not thou upon the water".

But He did tell us:

Deuteronomy 14:26 (KJV) "And thou shalt bestow that money for whatsoever thy soul lusteth after, for oxen, or for sheep, or for wine, or for strong drink, or for whatsoever thy soul desireth: and thou shalt eat there before the LORD thy God, and thou shalt rejoice, thou, and thine household..."

Since I don't believe that scripture contradicts itself, I understand that direct commands like this must be given more weight in interpretation than general statements of advice in the Proverbs. Moreover, since the context of Proverbs 23 does not support the interpretation you are trying put on it, you are misinterpreting scripture.