The point of intoxication

Yet this wine cannot compare to the wine The Lord of Hosts serves and makes.

 

Whine......And The Beat Goes On....

non-Baptist post deleted

 

Romans 14 has been explained, and apparently ignored by the moderation advocates just as you, Ubersmith, seem to ignore the fact that you are not supposed to be posting in this thread even though you were told by a moderator.
.

 

This is no different than it has always been with various medications.

And who created those pretty little white mushrooms that grow in lawns? The ones called 'angel of death' about which we have had to warn our kids so sternly. Who created marijuana? Peyote? All manner of various poisonous things such as a number of plants that we grow in our yards...

Is there another creator the Bible has not told us about?

Oh yeah, and tobacco! God invented that, too, didn't He? It's a pretty good insect killer when you mix it with hot water and spray it around your house! I appreciate the stuff for that. Man chose to abuse it by sticking it in his mouth and lighting one end!

And food. Wow, but we have so many deaths due to weight-related issues! And, in fact, there are an awful lot of members of BB who are quite overweight. Why would God create something like food that He KNEW would cause so many problems?

And sex! Oh my, but look at all the homosexuality and HIV and SIDs and the broken homes and hearts and so much more! Why would God create something that He KNEW would cause so many problems and deaths?

Do you see? You are fixating on something YOU don't approve of, for whatever reason. Yes, just like food, sex, and the rest, it is dangerous when not in moderation. It is healthy and often recommended and also good in moderation -- right time, right place, etc. Tobacco is a better insect killer than anything allowed here in Oregon! Sex is wonderful in marriage. Food is rather nice, we have found, taken in moderate amounts. And so is wine.

I hope you are being sarcastic. The norm for a child who is in a family where wine is used is to have a tiny bit mixed with water.

Wrong. The total abstinence is recommended, even demanded, during the early months of the pregnancy. Wine is sometimes recommended during the last month or so, as I will show next.

FAS occurs when the mother drinks during the formative stages of the pregnancy.

Sorry, but it WAS recommended for me during the last month. The little guy had me in false labor (three minutes apart for over two weeks) 24/7. I was desperate for sleep. The Rx? A little wine and a hot shower. That was guaranteed to either bring on real labor or stop the nonsense.

In his own time, Scott was born at 9 lb. 5 oz, 22" long, slept through the night at two weeks, was a gifted child all the way through school, and is the leader of his computer engineering team now earning more than double what I ever got as a school teacher -- and that without counting his perks. He is also a leader in his church, a strong Christian young man, and engaged to a wonderful Christian young lady whom we just adore.

Yes, I know what damage can be done by alcohol. My son-in-law is in a wheelchair due to a drunk driver. I know the damage that can be done by sex -- my Dad died of AIDS five years after a triple coronary bypass when he received an awful lot of blood. And I see the damage that can be done by food any day I go downtown and see grossly obese people in carts because they cannot even stand up anymore. They will not live long.

The paranoia about wine leaves me quite puzzled, though, especially since the Bible really is quite clear about both its use and abuse.

 

First you say that the wine Jesus made was alcoholic.
Second you say that in the time of Jesus they used prescription drugs.
Then to my objection of Jesus knowing that these two things mixed together could be fatal, you blithely say it has always been that way with variuos medications. What kind of logic is that?
Get focused back on the wedding of Cana?
Let me put it bluntly:
Would Jesus have created an alcoholic beverage knowing that he would have possibly murdered someone as a consequence, according to your statement of people taking prescription drugs at that time?
DHK

 

This is crazy. Would Jesus supply food to an overweight person who has a problem with food? Oh, wait...He probably did when feeding the multitude. Our sin cannot be put onto someone else.

 

This has been one of the most unbelievable threads of this forum. This tops communion, Calvinism, and the rest. It is amazing that the majority of people who are either pastors, deacons, or some other type of ministry or leadership position are looking for excuses from Scripture to drink.

Why not be a bold Christian and let the Holy Spirit guide you in all things? If you feel comfortable with a Holy God and being in the minsitry that He has given you to drink, then by all means drink. If Romans 12:1 and the Holy Spirit in you does not send up a red flag about alcohol, then by all means, go for it. To search the Scripture for this or that verse as an excuse to drink, shows no leadership and very little backbone.

So let me ask all of you, what is it that you are trying to accomplish by mixing alcohol with your ministry? Possibly exploring the limits of Christian liberty without making someone stumble? And prey tell, how does it help your witness to a lost and dying world? Also, how many have died and gone to hell in the time that you have spent looking for the Christ-like way to drink?

You think they are just stories, so forget the Bible. Alcohol has nothing positive to it. It destroys families, jobs, marriages, and the ability to live in general. Why do people drink, duh, to get drunk for the most part?

To answer the title of the thread, "What is the point of intoxication?" The answer is NOTHING, there is no point to intoxication. And to those who are intoxicated, the only point is the one on top of their head.

So, let the Holy Spirit lead you, and if He says drink, then by all means drink.

 

In some cases it can.
Whether he be a bar owner or a house owner, the owner of one giving or selling alcoholic drinks can be charged under the law for contributing to a peron's death if he allows that person to walk out of the door drunk, and a death results from a DUI. The bartender can be charged. You can be charged if you hosted the party. In the wedding of Cana, I suppose Christ could have been charged along with the governor of the feast. Are we making Christ into a criminal here. Who is being ridiculous here. We are dealing with what used to be a banned substance in many years of the history of both England and America. It still is in many countries of the world today. Food is not banned in Pakistan, but alcohol is. I wonder why.

"Woe unto him who gives his neighbor to drink..."
Would Jesus have gone against His own Word, His own nature, and have brought a curse upon himself? I think not!!
DHK

 

The next passage of Scripture is probably the most misunderstood in Christian circles regarding total abstinence. It reads:

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. Romans (14:21)

Some Christians have quite well intentionally written that this verse is a case for total abstinence from alcohol, but this is not the case. The Apostle Paul had already dealt with this in the previous chapter (13:13,14), as he is writing a systematic and orderly epistle. Here in Romans chapter 14, he is dealing with an entirely different subject.

Others have been more ignorant, and have stated that this is the only case for abstinence from alcohol. This again is totally incorrect. This erroneous view from the Hastings Bible Dictionary, quoted in F.N. Peloubet's Bible Dictionary, which states:

the apostle Paul has stated the case for total abstinence in Romans 14 in a way that does not need the treacherous aid of doubtful exegesis for it's support.

This is quite a bold statement, which in itself is doubtful and has no Scriptural support whatsoever. As stated previously, Romans 14, is not the only case for total abstinence from alcohol, as we have seen, and will see again from Scripture. The exegesis is not doubtful or treacherous as the authorities above would have us believe. For the truths come straight from the mouth of God Himself:

Every Scripture is God-Breathed... (2 Tim. 3:16, Amplified Bible).

The opening three verses of Romans chapter 14, declares what the chapter is all about:

1 Him that is weak in the faith receive ye, but not to doubtful disputations. 2 For one believeth that he may eat all things: another, who is weak, eateth herbs. 3 Let not him that eateth despise him that eateth not; and let not him which eateth not judge him that eateth: for God hath received him. Romans 14:1-3

First of all we should note before we look at verse 21, the verse that concerns us most, that the Apostle is not dealing with the case for total abstinence from alcohol. Because this is not a "doubtful disputation" but Scriptural. The Apostle had only just written against those who indulged in drinking and the resulting evils associated with it, moments before in the previous chapter which we just examined (Romans 13:13,14).

What the Apostle sets out to do here in chapter 14, is to clear up the disputes regarding certain customs and practices in the church. This is the sole purpose of the chapter. Alan F. Johnson explains:

It should be clear by what follows that Paul is not talking about any specific commands of God or Biblical prohibitions, such as adultery, lying, and idolatry. The argument was over the use of certain material things and the observance of social customs.

Here we have the point. These things were not important; the ones who found fault in eating or drinking certain things, were not to pass judgment on those who did. And those who did, were to do likewise to those who did not. The Apostle Paul then goes on in verse 17, to state the most important and crucial aspect of the Christian life:

For the kingdom of God is not meat and drink; but righteousness, and peace, and joy in the Holy Ghost.

The first term here "righteousness," has to do with the Believer's relationship with God. He is to be obedient to the commandments of God if he is to enjoy the peace and joy in the Holy Ghost.

Abstinence from alcohol is not an option, but a Scriptural command. Proverbs 23:31, makes this absolutely clear:

Look not thou upon the wine when it is red, when it giveth his colour in the cup...

The conception therefore, that the Apostle Paul only endorses total abstinence from alcohol on the account of the feelings of a fellow brother or sister, is not valid. A key verse, which explains this even further, is verse 20, which states:

For meat destroy not the work of God. All things indeed are pure; but it is evil for that man who eateth with offence.

The word translated "meat" here properly denotes food. The NIV states:

Do not destroy the work of God for the sake of food.

taken from Leighton G. Campbell's book, 'Wine in the Bible and the Scriptural Case for Total Abstinence' pp. 334-336

 

Why would God have them water the alcohol down for children if it is sanctioned for the Passover? That would make no sense. Especially since Passover was a type and shadow of Christ becoming our Passover. Now, why would God want to feed His children a watered down Christ? How silly to think wine was to be alcoholic in the Passover!

Yes, it is very clear. Don't use it.

 

Ouch!! Make that Double Ouch!!

Ed

 

Ya know, somewhere in the Scripture I remember Jesus saying 'Come unto me, and I will give you rest.'

Christ certainly would not have told you to take poison like your doctor did.
Any person who claims to be a Child of God should question their doctor when he or she prescribes that which the Word of God expressly forbids. And that person should let the doctor know that they cannot take it.

I would tell my doctor that I am allergic to it. God's Word bears that out. When we become His, we should develope allergies to things of the world. Allergies that will be very harmful to our spiritual health in the end. Alcohol mocks and deceives until just like a serpent, it bites and stings. And the one who is stung does not even realize it. When he awakes, he says, 'I will drink more.'

 

But I say it is Biblically correct for Jesus said it, not I. He will not tell us anything different if we ask Him about this. I know for He told me yes this is what He said when I asked is this really true. He said this is specifically when I said I came for the "Gentiles, and kings, and the children of Israel". He said it is after my resurrection?

The above in Matthew is in the context presented in the Bible in the correct setting.

But what you say is not in keeping within context. God did chose the Hebrew Abraham, and with wife Sarah was Isaac, and Jacob that followed, of which I believe you may not wish to disallow. He did not talk to His heavenly apostle at that time to reveal His Purpose. He tells us He Hide certain information until the appropriate time. I Corinthians 2:6-8, "Howbeit we speak wisdom among them that are perfect: yet not the wisdom of this world, nor of the princes of this world, that come to nought: 7. But we speak the wisdom of God in a mystery, even the hidden wisdom, which God ordained before the world unto our glory: 8. Which none of the princes of this world knew: for had they known it, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory." Tactfully speaking we are to correctly divide the Word.

God saved by Grace by faith before Israel according to my Bible - Hebrew 11th chapter. The Gentile has always been able to come as a proselyte into the Jewish faith if circumcised obeying the laws and ordinances of the Jew, but cannot enter into the "inner court" of the Temple. He chose the nation Israel for His own, and when He came He said He came for only His own. The first "great commission" is Matthew 10:5-7, "These twelve Jesus sent forth, and commanded them, saying, Go not into the way of the Gentiles, and into any city of the Samaritans enter ye not: 6. But go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel. 7. And as ye go, preach, saying, The kingdom of heaven is at hand."

He did not come for me a Gentile on His first visit as He became man, and it is heresy to teach otherwise. It is only after Damascus Road that we find we (me) can be in the Body of Christ justified through faith. "Seeing it is one God, which shall justify the circumcision by faith, and uncircumcision through faith", Romans 3:30.

Is this not the very first the world saw in print what Jesus said? In His day no one understood what He was saying, the Bible vouching for same. Over time the Holy Spirit opened the earthly Apostles understanding of things said in the OT, and then in the NT.

Jesus said this while on earth, so why didn't Matthew, Mark, Luke, James, Peter, or Jude tell us this "good news" as quickly as possible? This privilege was given to Paul. We find this thought in the gospel of Paul written over 30 years earlier. It sounds like things Christ revealed to Paul from heaven. John was allowed to "tarry" as Jesus said, and it was to bring credence to the gospel of Paul for the benefit of the Jews. This is the reason John is so different from the other Gospel's.

After appointing Paul to His office of Apostle to the Gentile's, Christianity will come into being. In the beginning of Christianity for Paul to be accepted by the world with the gospel of Christ Jesus from heaven, Christ convinced Peter to go to the first Gentile that Peter had ever preached to, and this is the first recorded Gentile justified through faith as seen in Acts 10. Peter in His second book issues a warning that it is imperative to understand Paul's gospel. Please check out what I am pointing out in scripture. It is what scripture will tell you, and no I.

I know what God has told me to believe, so that is what I believe. You say you do not need "God to explain it to me", and this is what I am telling you. He will.

Jesus healed a "few" Gentiles while here, but He never offered them the "kingdom". I urge you to check this out. Jews were not to be in fellowship, or go into a Gentile home or gathering as shown in scripture (Acts10). Jesus ignored most requests of the Gentiles for healing as shown Matthew 15:23-24, and we see His Apostles wanted Him to send her away.

Jesus was on a mission and did not have time for those He said He didn't come far. This incident was not by accident for the Lord wants us to see and understand His purpose on His first coming to this earth. He says, "I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel." Who will dare change this wording or the meaning?

I teach from the Bible, and not what man puts forth. I find truth to be taught in the above verses. We today are not those lost sheep of Israel, and no Gentile is referred to as "lost sheep of the house of Israel" ever in that "dispensation".

You are having a hard enough time with this one "verse", so how are you going to be able to handle it all at once. No one can. Paul couldn't, and it took years. Peter and John couldn't, and it took years, so don't feel so bad. It took 30 or so years of study in His Word for me (a slow learner) to understand His interpretation. He interprets, and not we in our theological, and some in teleological studies, outlined by man.

Try this on for size, to see if His Word will fit you.

Kingdom church - The OT program of the "great commission" carried over into Pentecost.

Body of Christ Church - Began when Christ Jesus commissioned Saul/Paul as the only Apostle to the Gentile, kings, and Jews. No other Apostle was ever given the authority to preach justification through faith, until after Damascus Road. The Apostles in Jerusalem shook hands with Paul, Barnabas, and Titus, that they would not preach their gospel (the Jewish Apostolic) to the uncircumcised. Galatians 2:9 and Acts chapter 15 should help all to see to what gospel we are to listen to today.

Kingdom church - The Jerusalem church added believers, Acts 2:41.

Body of Christ Church - The Body of Christ has "birth" announcements as shown in Acts 13:1-2. Here is something that is Brand New, "Therefore if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature: old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new." This is only turning the key to get the motor running.

There are lots more than what we can count on our fingers and toes as to dividing of the Two.

One verse? We must start with one verse, for we "babes" must be taken from the breast, progressing " For precept must be upon precept, precept upon precept; line upon line, line upon line; here a little, and there a little", Isaiah 28:10".

End page one

 

Page 2 to DHK

Explained on page one, but why didn’t Peter tell us we could be saved just as Cornelius in Acts 10? He couldn't for He didn't know the gospel that Christ was teaching to Paul.Not until after Christ had appointed Paul as the Apostle to the Gentile, could Christ command Peter to preach to a Gentile "dog", and His household.

Christ had not told Peter previously the "real purpose of the Cross", for if He had the princes of this world would not have crucified MY Lord, and Yours. I Corinthians 2:8, " Which none of the princes of this world knew: for had they known it, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory."

Please consider reading Acts again to see the moving away from the by faith gospel into the through faith gospel of Christ as revealed to Paul. We can find only in the Epistles of Paul his gospel for the "dispensation" we live in. God could not tell any before Damascus Road the "secret". It was not His purpose until He purposed it to be. We cannot jump the gun and say Damascus Road is not the beginning of OSAS justification through faith, because we knew all this stuff long before we ever read the Epistles of Paul, can we? How vain. How proud we are in our all knowing knowledge of His Word, as taught by man. That teaching? Justification has always been by faith.

There were two gospel's of Justification running simultaneously during the time of the Apostles.

Then you dismiss Paul as a fraud beginning in Acts 9. Also that rascal Luke that wrote Acts cannot be trusted. And that weirdo Ananias claimed He talked to God, is the biggest liar ever.

I'll comment no further on this portion.

Seemingly, but not. It brought us to the "bread and the cup".

Thanks, I may take your advise. Anyone that believes Jesus knows it is impossible to be a Friday. The preparation day could only be on a Wednesday.

 

What's unbelievable is the fact that pastors and deacons cannot exegete Scripture properly when it comes to alcohol. I'm a Christian...a follower of Christ. I'm not a Baptistian...a follower of what baptists have always taught. If more of you would read Scripture without the teetotaler lenses that have been thrust upon you from "tradition", you would understand what the Bible has to say about this subject. This "tradition" of baptists is no different than some of the very "traditions" we condemn the RC for. That's hypocritical. We are not looking for "excuses" to do anything. We are removing the heavy yolk put upon us by "baptist tradition" of condemning the use of ANY alcohol.

I can ask you the same question.

In one breath you say if the Holy Spirit does not send up a red flag, to follow Him...and then you say, again, if we do, we are looking for "excuses" and have no leadership or backbone. Please stop with the double talk.

Who has said they mix alcohol and ministry?

What? Who would stumble...legalists?

The same way eating a pork chop does. You get the picture.

How many have gone to hell while you condemn fellow brothers in Christ by your legalism?

Same old tired ignorance I have come to expect from the "my convictions are right...yours are wrong" crowd. It amazes me that people actually think alcohol is a living, breathing object that does all of these horrible things like killing people, breaking up couples and wreaking havoc on humanity. News flash: It the PEOPLE who misuse that kill, cheat and lie. One doesn't have to touch a drop of anything to commit sin.

..."but you are wrong...looking for excuses...have no leadership...have no backbone"

 

Where did that come from?

Habakkuk 2:15 Woe unto him that giveth his neighbour drink, that puttest thy bottle to him, and makest him drunken also, that thou mayest look on their nakedness!

Oh, I see, you forgot to include the motive...

There is a bit more to the verse than what you quoted.

 

Details! Details! Why would any of us want to quote a whole verse? It might not say what we are wanting it to say!

Ed

 

Ed, try not to make me laugh out loud. ("They" might hear me....shhhh)

:laugh: :laugh:

 

The remark by the governor of the feast in which he says, "thou hast kept the good wine until now" deserves a full explanation, as many automatically assume that the best wine must have been the most alcoholic. The problem with some is, as Jesus said, Ye judge after the flesh. (John 8:15) In understanding the nature of the wine we should again take heed to our Lord's words, Judge not according to the appearance but judge righteous judgment. (John 7:24) The Rev. Dr. William Patton quotes the Rev. Dr. Jacobus' comments on the wine our Lord created, which states:

This wine was not that fermented liquor which passes now under that name. All who know of the wines then used will understand rather the unfermented juice of the grape. The present wines of Jerusalem and Lebanon, as we tasted them, were commonly boiled and sweet, without intoxicating qualities, such as we here get in liquors we call wines. The boiling prevents the fermentation. Those were esteemed the best wines which were the least strong.

He also quotes Dr. S.M. Isaacs, an eminent Jewish rabbi as saying:

In the Holy Land they do not commonly use fermented wines. The best wines are preserved sweet and unfermented.

We also find agreement with this in Professor Moses Stuart's writings, which state:

Facts show that ancients not only preserved their wine unfermented, but regarded it as of a higher flavor and finer quality than fermented wine.

taken from Leighton G. Campbell's book, 'Wine in the Bible and the Scriptural Case for Total Abstinence' pp 146,147

 

All of which, of course, was why you were not to drink it until you were drunk! Remember Noah? He drank it until he was passed-out drunk. Sweet grape juice? I think not....he might have gone diabetic, but hardly drunk.

There would be no need of the warnings in the Bible about wine if all the Jewish people were drinking was grape juice.