The point of intoxication

Salvation is based on the Lord Jesus Christ, yes. I agree. But, the Word of God teaches us that the Lord chastens whom He loves. If one does not feel the chastening hand of the Lord in his or her life when one is clearly going against God's Word, is that one truly saved as that one may surmise?

God's Word says 'Look not thou upon the wine.' What do we do with that? It does not say when you begin to feel tipsy, when your head feels numb, when you begin to reel, don't look upon the wine. It says look not upon it, period.

How do you positively know that you are not deceived by the wine as Proverbs 20:1 says Wine and strong drink do? How do you know that the wine has not deceived you with just the first drink? After all, God does say wine is venom. Let me ask you, would you give your child poison?

Jesus said a man who loved His child would not give him a serpent (Luke 11). He went on to say His Father would give good things to His children. That which God calls venom of asps is not a good thing.

Christ would not give His children alcoholic wine.

 

When I read that in Proverbs, I believe it is referring to someone who dwells on the wine, almost lusting after it. I have met such people, and you know there is a problem there.

I often look at the wine, in that it is in my eyesight, when I am at the grocery store...I don't think that is going against that scripture, is it?

We can read too much into these passages and wind up in quandry when we find that the Bible does reccomend wine for the stomache's sake. What then?

 

If you opt for the literal, verse by verse interpretation, quoting the verses out of their context and ignoring the principle that is being taught, you are going to have difficulty with this issue, especially when you get to those New Testament passages about taking a little wine for your stomach's sake, spoken by the Apostle Paul, or the passages where Jesus turned the water in to wine, from which there is absolutely no evidence whatsoever that it was just grape juice.

If you look at the question that was asked, stick to the answer. Problem is, I can't tell you where the point of intoxication comes, because, in following the Bible's clear, succinct instructions not to drink until drunk, I've never been as far as intoxication, and don't plan to go there.

 

We have strayed a bit from the OP.

In response to the OP, I do not drink because I always found that my discernment for where that line is diminishes as I drink. In other words, no matter where that line might be, I tend to cross it.

 

Ah, so you admit that the wine deceives then as Solomon said.

If it deceives you, it deceives everyone else... because that is the nature of alcoholic wine. Even after the very first swallow the deception has started.

Actually, it was before the first swallow. It deceived you to thinking there is nothing wrong with just a little.

 

I used to be a drunk for about 9 months... I never could stand the taste of beer, but I loved vodka....

If I were to taste alcohol again, I am afraid it would hook me.
There are a lot out there like me... Thet is one reason I am against the use of real wine in communion. Too much temptation.

Is it wrong?... It is for me...
Is it wrong for others... I dont have to answer for them. I have to answer for me... and I know what it will do to me.

This is one of those questions where there are great Christians on both sides of the table. I would be sitting on the conservative side.

 

Find anything on that drink in Colosse yet?

 

not yet, still looking... everything I have found references alcohol, and meat given to Idols...

One of the references was back to this verse
Romans 14:21
(21) [It is] good neither to eat flesh, nor to drink wine, nor [any thing] whereby thy brother stumbleth, or is offended, or is made weak.

Why would a brother be offended over wine if it was only grape juice?

Here is John Gill's take on it:
in meat or in drink; or on account of not observing the laws and rules about meats and drinks, in the law of Moses; such as related to the difference between clean and unclean creatures, to abstinence in Nazarites from wine and strong drink, and which forbid drinking out of an uncovered vessel, and which was not clean; hence the washing of cups, &c. religiously observed by the Pharisees. There was no distinction of meats and drinks before the law, but all sorts of herbs and animals, without limitation, were given to be food for men; by the ceremonial law a difference was made between them, some were allowed, and others were forbidden; which law stood only in meats and drinks, and such like things, but is now abolished; for the kingdom of God, or the Gospel dispensation, does not lie in the observance of such outward things, but in internal ones, in righteousness and peace, and joy in the Holy Ghost; it is not any thing that goes into the man that defiles, nor is anything in its own nature common or unclean, but every creature of God is good, so be it, it be used in moderation and with thankfulness:

Sounds like Gill would have supported a moderation application..

 

I haven't accused you falsely of anything. You made a statement which is not only theologically incorrect, but as far as I am concerned borders on heresy. Here it is:

"He came for no one else but them" That is false; total error. As I pointed out; he came for the Ninevehites, for Rahab, for Ruth. In fact in the OT he came so that Israel might be a shining light to all the world. He came for the world. God is not willing that any should persih. That was just as true in the OT as it is now in the NT. Any thing less than that is to put it tactfully "gross theological error."

John 3:16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.


I am not offended by what I wrote, if you are quoting me. I don't doubt or question God's Word I believe it. I am not the one that needs God to explain it to me, as I already know what I believe and why I believe it. Like many cults you have taken one verse (Mat. 15:26) and seem to have hung all your thelogy on that verse. Is this what Reformed theology does? Is that what you believe?
You have a favorite verse and base all your theology on just that one verse? That's kind of like the J.W.'s who take that verse in Isaiah "Ye are my witnesses saith Jehovah," and then start building their theology from there. They neither know Jehovah, nor are his witnesses.

I will disregard your remark about the gospel of Paul. There is but one gospel--the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ. It was preached by Paul and all the other apostles including Peter before Paul was even saved. The gospel was preached on the day of Pentecost and 3,000 were saved. Philip preached Christ (the gospel) to the Ethiopian eunuch, and he was saved. There is only one gospel, and it is not Paul's Gospel. It is the gospel of Christ; it is Christ crucified. Paul said that if you or anyone else bring any other gospel you are accursed. Read Gal.1

\
What you say is only partly true.
It is true that hindsight is always better than foresight.
It is true that now we have the completed Word of God, it makes our knowledge of spiritual things more complete, and since the invention of both the priniting press and an ever growing technology since then we have no excuse not to study the Scriptures compared to the first century Christians who had the Scriptures painstakingly copied out on large scrolls, that were not made as readily available to the common person as the Bible is to us today.
However, even with all those disadvantages the Bereans were able to check up on the things that Paul preached. Philip led the Ethiopian to the Lord; Paul led the jailor to the Lord--with very little Scripture; Peter led Cornelius to the Lord. Stephen preached one of the greatest sermons recorded in the Bible. The gospel in its entirety is preached by Stephen. And Paul wasn't even saved then. There is no such thing as "Paul's Gospel." Paul doesn't not have any divine claim on the gospel. The gospel comes from the Lord, verified in the Word of God.

This is all seemingly irrelevant, though I agree with you about Easter and Christmas.

Perhaps you could start a thread on the topic: "On which day did Christ die?" It would be interesting. I have heard arguments for Wednesday, Thursday, and Friday.
DHK

 

One cannot read too much into the OT storeis lest the allegorize away the entire Old Testament. That is the danger of allegorization. I am not in favor of it. You can believe what you want here. You could come to the conclusion that because Jonah was spouted out of a whale it means that he came out of a spaceship. He was an alien from outerspace. Sound reasonable. You can do anything you want with allegorization. So, no I don't believe you at this point in your allegorical story, or your allegorization of a simple historical story of Jonah and the whale. Jesus made the point the needed to be made.
"As Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of the whale, so also shall the Son of Man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth."

Sorry, I reject your outlandish allegories. I'd rather believe that Jonah came from Mars. It makes just as much sense.

Don't worry I won't. I am not a sucker for punishment of the mind.

Here you have it part right. The Book of Jonah does show that God was interested in the Gentiles and not just in the Hebrew nation, as you erroneously claimed before. Israel was also judged. Judah in 586, and northern Israel in 722, albeit a remnant was spared for David's sake. Because of their continued rejection the nation again was destroyed in 70 A.D., then scattered all over the world, and did not become a nation again until recently in 1948.

True, I am not the one denying Scripture. Some people however, look at Scripture through rose colored glasses, only from one point of view. In other words their mind is made up before they even read it.

Why not? Abrahm was justified by faith long before he was circumcisd. Read Rom. 4. Justification by faith is a major theme of the entire Bible--OT and NT. Circumcision has nothing to do with it.

Your theology is very confused at this point. There is only one gospel. Those who do not believe so are accursed. Read Gal. 1.

Again I don't by into your allegorization which is now leading into the direction of gnosticism.

So these "mysteries" were revealed to you. That, my friend, is pure gnosticism. And it is a heresy.
DHK

 

tinytim,

I have been studying that Colossians 2:16 and when taken in context (along with 2:11 - 2:23), Paul is not speaking of a specific kind of food, nor a specific kind of drink. He is speaking of the act of eating and drinking itself. Some outside the church at Colosse (possibly pastored by Philemon's son), were passing judgment on the Colossian church for keeping the Jewish festivals. Paul was telling them to obey God and not to worry about the men outside the church that were judging them.

When looking at the Old Testament, the many verses that speak of alcoholic beverages bringing a curse, it would not make sense to say that the drink mentioned here would be alcoholic as it was a festival ordained of God.

 

We've just had a very tragic incident here in Japan that illustrates how very important this thread is. A 22-year-old young man crashed his car on a bridge into the back of a family 4WD with the parents and three little kids in it (up to age six), going home from a family outing. The family car was shoved through the railing into the river, drowing all three children, in spite of the parents' and others' efforts to save them.:tear:

The young man had been drinking and "karaoke" singing for two hours before the incident. He obviously did not think he was impaired enough that he shouldn't drive, since he was traveling with a friend at a high rate of speed.

If someone is reading this who can't answer the OP, you are in extreme danger of killing someone and wrecking your own life. In addition to the Bible quotes on this thread, note what Shakespeare said about alcohol in Othello: "O God, that men should put an enemy in their mouths to steal away their brains! That we should, with joy, pleasance, revel, and applause, transform ourselves into beasts!"

 

I have not admitted anything different than I did in my first post on this thread. But, no, this does not mean that someone else would have the same expereince with alcohol. I have met many people who have no problem knowing where the line is and not going past it.

 

Brother, we normally agree on quite a bit, but not on this...

Is it the alcohol that has broken up the homes and lives...or the misuse of it? I can argue the same thing about automobiles. If alcohol is a "tool of the devil"...does that make cars a "tool of the devil" too? Guns? Food?

By "mind messed up with alcohol" I'm assuming you are referring to drunkeness. I agree that you cannot worship God while drunk in the same way you cannot worship God while having an affair. Drunkeness is sin. Alcohol consumption is not.

This is nothing more than shoving personal convictions down the throats of others...biblical "bullying". With a comment like this, I would not be welcome at your church...neither would Christ, as it's very clear from Luke 7:33-35 that Christ DID drink wine.

 

The Passover

 

Read most of the thread and went back to the beginning.

1. Wine is FAR less poisonous than most medications, especially those used for muscle relaxation. However, 4-6 ounces and a hot shower are the best, not any more and not a cold shower!

2. It WAS definitely alcoholic wine at Passover, which is in the spring, as there was no fresh grape juice available; and the moment grape juice is pressed it begins to ferment (that's what Welch made so much money -- he figured a way to keep the taste and stop the fermentation).

3. It is alcoholic wine which is prescribed by Paul for Timothy, and current science has finally caught up with the Bible. Most stomach ulcers are caused by bacteria, which the alcohol in the wine weakens/kills. Other alcoholic beverages are capable of doing this, but only wine has the flavenoids which promote healing and reduce scar tissue.

I never have more than one glass (4 ounces about) of wine at a time, and only have that a couple of times a month. There is no flush, no buzz, no nothing. Why do I have it? Because I think it is good with steaks and some meals. I never have it alone, but only when friends are over and only if they would like some wine. Then I don't want to make them feel awkward because we won't have any. My husband does not drink but does not see anything wrong with my enormous wine intake of one or two glasses a month!

I did get drunk once in college, acting like an idiot. That is a far cry from my consumption now. But I guess I had better figure on not attending some of your churches if my husband and I are speaking in your area!

 

Scripture does not say it was alcohol at the passover. As a matter of fact, Jesus used the word 'wine' in ohter passages. At the Last Supper, Jesus used the term 'fruit of the vine'.

Alcoholic wine cannot be read into the Passover.

 

Jesus did not drink alcholic wine. This has been proven Scripturally over and over.

 

Knowledge of vineyards and the act of wine making (Christ had a vast knowledge of this) does tell us it's alcoholic.