Who told us it is a Sin to Drink?

[Allan]

Paul was telling Timothy it would help to lighten up, and use what God provided for you. Drink some Wine to make your heart glad, helping with your infirmities.

Actually that isn't Paul's statement at all. He isn't saying lighten up and drink up (paraphrase).. but to take a small amount for your ailment, and even that 'small' amount was mixed typically 1 part to 3 part water to dilute it even more.

 

[Old Union Brother]

Just wondering isn't this the same topic that was debated for over 30 pages in the general discussion?

 

[Luke2427]

So if a child had a Jewish Father they are 'not' considered Jewish.. uh-huh.

The nationality of a child is historically understood to be designated by or through the Father and not the mother. We see this played out in the scripture regarding Timothy as well because he was not circumcised till Paul did it. Therefore we know that he did not participate in the Jewish customs which would have identified him to the community as being Jewish. However once the father is dead or the son is of responsible age 'he' may choose to continue in the nationality of his father, his mother, or both but the both aspect is rarely successfully done.

Paul allowed Timothy to be circumcised in order to over come the distrust of the Jewish Christians would have had and thus, who would otherwise have caused even more trouble. This would have weakened Timothy's position and his work as a preacher of the gospel. If his mother had not been a Jewess then Paul would have forbade him to be circumcised like he did with Titus.

Also.. We know from scripture that it IS true that Paul preached the abrogation of the law of Moses, taught them that it was impossible to be justified by it, and therefore we are not bound up any longer to the observance of it. However what they false Jewish zealots were trying to 'tack on' was the false notion that he taught them to forsake Moses;

Brother Allan, if this is all you have to support teetotalism- you don't have anything and you ought to abandon the notion forthwith.

 

[Allan]

Brother Allan, if this is all you have to support teetotalism- you don't have anything and you ought to abandon the notion forthwith.

Then it is apparent you read very little and know even less.

I would encourage you to read more to better reduce your both your ignorance on my position and potentially your arrogance. I have written a great deal on this subject, on the BB, over the years on why biblically believers should abstain or not. This thread is dealing with the FACT that the issue of not drinking alcohol dates back to the apostles and not simply to recent American History.

Thank you for your irrelevant post and addition of nothing to OP, or thread in general.

 

[Allan]

Just wondering isn't this the same topic that was debated for over 30 pages in the general discussion?

Not for what I'm discussing and the OP is requesting.
Who told us it is a sin to drink = OP
The thread began stating view began around early 1900's or so in America.
I was correcting that view and that it goes much further back but not necessarily that it was sin in and of itself to drink but that it is a sin TO continue to drink if you know a brother/sister in the Lord believes it is sin. In so doing you do not only sin against them but against your Lord as well.

My point is that it began much longer than a 100 years ago and is supported by scripture.

 

[Dr. Bob]

Because of the evils of drunkenness, the WCTU movement was founded. Goal = "temperance" or moderation in use of alcohol. THAT is laudable and biblical.

But like most movements, it was hijacked by the extreme over the next decades. And radicalized into "abstinence" instead of "temperance".

Blame falls mostly on the hyper-Victorianism that erected man-made rules to keep folks far away from breaking biblical prohibitions. And on the multi-million dollar empire Rev Welch founded to sell his concord grape juice to replace "evil" alcoholic wine.

Popularized by men like Sunday who had come from a live of drunkenness and debauchery. Reached its peak in the Volstead Act and prohibition. And taken about 100 years to run its course and the modern return to the biblical position of "temperance".

BTW, what did the Baptist in the 1600's, 1700's and even 1800's use for communion? Alcoholic wine or something else? THAT shows you the popularizing of the "abstinence" movement is of recent origin.

 

[Luke2427]

Then it is apparent you read very little and know even less.

I would encourage you to read more to better reduce your both your ignorance on my position and potentially your arrogance. I have written a great deal on this subject, on the BB, over the years on why biblically believers should abstain or not. This thread is dealing with the FACT that the issue of not drinking alcohol dates back to the apostles and not simply to recent American History.

Thank you for your irrelevant post and addition of nothing to OP, or thread in general.

I don't think that that is apparent to anyone who objectively reads you and I on here. Your position is indefensible and historically nonexistent for all practical purposes.

That I have seen you refer to this Timothy business about three different times if memory serves (which is a nonargument since there is absolutely NO REASON to assume that Timothy was a teetotaler) shows that you have no case for this silly notion that God opposes the moderate use of alcoholic beverages.

You have no case. I have read a dozen of your posts or better and you cannot MAKE a case that holds water that God opposes the responsible consumption of alcoholic beverages.

You are reduced to using passages like this one which do not say anything like what you want them to say and passages in Proverbs which do not mean what you want them to mean either.

That's it Allen. That's all you have. Which is- nothing.

Is this post more helpful?

 

[Allan]

I don't think that that is apparent to anyone who objectively reads you and I on here. Your position is indefensible and historically nonexistent for all practical purposes.

That I have seen you refer to this Timothy business about three different times if memory serves (which is a nonargument since there is absolutely NO REASON to assume that Timothy was a teetotaler) shows that you have no case for this silly notion that God opposes the moderate use of alcoholic beverages.

You stand in the dark, or at least continue to stand there. Even those Reformed drinkers establish the very fact of Timothy not drinking alcohol by the Time Paul is writing to him.

Your last sentence proves not only your complete ignorance but also willing inability to comprehend.

You have no case. I have read a dozen of your posts or better and you cannot MAKE a case that holds water that God opposes the responsible consumption of alcoholic beverages

Not only do I have a case.. I have the most biblical case one can have
Though I do note it is apparent you haven't 'read' anything I have written because you are regurgitating the same mess of your own concoction and it has nothing to do with what I am speaking to.

However if you think it is permissible to continue drinking KNOWING that to another they believe it is sin and is a stumbling block, then yes.. we might need to talk since you would be teaching falsely.

You are reduced to using passages like this one which do not say anything like what you want them to say and passages in Proverbs which do not mean what you want them to mean either.

See, here you show you have read nothing I have I have written because I never used a proverbs passage. Each passage I used, I used in the context the writer intended it to be used..

That's it Allen. That's all you have. Which is- nothing.

Is this post more helpful?

It was.. it proves you know very little but speak with great boasting words about how much you know.

 

[Luke2427]

You stand in the dark, or at least continue to stand there. Even those Reformed drinkers establish the very fact of Timothy not drinking alcohol by the Time Paul is writing to him.

I didn't say he drank, Allen. Pay attention, ok, Bud? Pay attention.

I said there is absolutely NO REASON to deduce that Timothy was a teetotaler from Paul's words to drink a little wine.

You cannot know your head from a hole in the ground about hermeneutics if you are willing to make such a ridiculous leap.

Your last sentence proves not only your complete ignorance but also willing inability to comprehend.

Very classy. Very classy. You have no point- just ad hominem- but if that's how you roll.

My criticism of you is pointed at your arguments. I am not reduced to silly, petty, unfounded name calling.

Not only do I have a case.. I have the most biblical case one can have

No sir, you do not. Saying you have one does not make it so. I am telling you, you don't and if you are willing to present your "biblical case" for teetotalism I will prove it to you unequivocally.

Though I do note it is apparent you haven't 'read' anything I have written because you are regurgitating the same mess of your own concoction and it has nothing to do with what I am speaking to.

"Mess" is the word to describe your teetotalism argument from Paul's words to Timothy saying drink some wine for the belly's sake. To leap from that advice to teetotalism- now that is mess, isn't it?

However if you think it is permissible to continue drinking KNOWING that to another they believe it is sin and is a stumbling block, then yes.. we might need to talk since you would be teaching falsely.

What??? Are you no one should ever drink any alcohol based on the weaker brother principle?

See, here you show you have read nothing I have I have written because I never used a proverbs passage. Each passage I used, I used in the context the writer intended it to be used..

I'm sorry. You are probably right. But all you teetotalers run together. Most use Proverbs because those are the only passages that can even be construed as being against the moderate consumption of alcohol. Apparently you are reduced to totally taking texts out of context to teach your version of teetotalism.

It was.. it proves you know very little but speak with great boasting words about how much you know.

Another ad hominem. You are not attacking my position but my person. Classy.

 

[webdog]

My criticism of you is pointed at your arguments. I am not reduced to silly, petty, unfounded name calling.

You cannot know your head from a hole in the ground about hermeneutics if you are willing to make such a ridiculous leap.

Seriously, Luke...you need to get a grip. It might do you some good to log off for a while and take a walk, enjoy the afternoon...you live in a beautiful part of the country.

 

[Old Union Brother]

Not for what I'm discussing and the OP is requesting.
Who told us it is a sin to drink = OP
The thread began stating view began around early 1900's or so in America.
I was correcting that view and that it goes much further back but not necessarily that it was sin in and of itself to drink but that it is a sin TO continue to drink if you know a brother/sister in the Lord believes it is sin. In so doing you do not only sin against them but against your Lord as well.

My point is that it began much longer than a 100 years ago and is supported by scripture.

Allan, I stand corrected. I agree with your stand on consumption of alcohol. sometimes it feels as if we are :BangHead: when we talk to someone with an opposing viewpoint.

 

[DixieBoy]

So if a child had a Jewish Father they are 'not' considered Jewish.. uh-huh.

The nationality of a child is historically understood to be designated by or through the Father and not the mother.

That's not accurate, Allan. Fathers has nothing at all to do with who are Jewish. It is passed from their mother. I'm in the same boat as Timothy my mother's mother was Jewish. So, I am also Jewish.

A Jew is any person whose mother was a Jew or any person who has gone through the formal process of conversion to Judaism.

It is important to note that being a Jew has nothing to do with what you believe or what you do. A person born to non-Jewish parents who has not undergone the formal process of conversion but who believes everything that Orthodox Jews believe and observes every law and custom of Judaism is still a non-Jew, even in the eyes of the most liberal movements of Judaism, and a person born to a Jewish mother who is an atheist and never practices the Jewish religion is still a Jew, even in the eyes of the ultra-Orthodox. In this sense, Judaism is more like a nationality than like other religions, and being Jewish is like a citizenship. See What Is Judaism?

Source

Jewish identity is passed on via the mother. If the mother is Jewish, the child is 100% Jewish. This is true regardless of who the father is, and whether he is Jewish or not, and regardless of whether the Jewish mother practiced another religion. That is the unwavering rule. At the same time, if someone's father is Jewish (but not the mother), then the child is 100% NOT Jewish.

Jewish identity passed on through the mother has been universally accepted by Jews for 3,000 years, and was decided by God, as recorded in the Five Books of Moses in Deut. 7:3-4. The Talmud (Kiddushin 68b) explains how this law is evident from those passages. According to Jewish law, this will remain the person's status forever. There is no way one can lose his status as a Jew even if he thinks he has gone so far as to convert to another religion!

Source

Timothy was very aware of his heritage. He was taught scriptures as well from his youth. So, he would have been aware of the customs dealing with the festivals that included the drinking of wine.

We see this played out in the scripture regarding Timothy as well because he was not circumcised till Paul did it. Therefore we know that he did not participate in the Jewish customs which would have identified him to the community as being Jewish.

That is not the case at all. The Passover meal would be the only thing that an uncircumcised person would be excluded from.

 

[ituttut]

JDixieBoy and Allen ust can't let this pass

Generally, if a child has a Jewish mother they are considered Jewish. Jews are still required to obey the Laws of Moses and Jewish customs. This was established in the NT.

Act 21:21 They have been told that you have been teaching all the Jews who live in Gentile countries to abandon the Law of Moses, telling them not to circumcise their children or follow the Jewish customs.

Act 21:24 Go along with them and join them in the ceremony of purification and pay their expenses; then they will be able to shave their heads. In this way everyone will know that there is no truth in any of the things that they have been told about you, but that you yourself live in accordance with the Law of Moses.

Sure can't argue with what these scriptures say. But neither can we argue with scripture just proceeding when Paul disobeyed God. Years before God had warned Paul to get out of Jerusalem for they would not here his message, of through faith justification. They had already been blinded, and do their best to kill him.

If one will begin in Acts 18 we can see what happened. God treats the Saved all the same, when they disobey, and Paul is no exception. This incident proves Paul was taken to the woodshed, hit beside the head with a 2x4 to confuse him in order to embarrass him in Jerusalem where God had told him not to go. Again please begin in Chapter 18 for better understanding of what is taking place. Pau's desire to save Israel, with Jesus Christ's words from heaven, was so strong he it led him to disobey God, and just like Moses, God took action against them. There was only ONE PERFECT MAN, and that Man was Jesus.

If you will study this closer you find that God would not allow Paul to offer a blood sacrifice, nor pay.


God interrupted the proceedings, just as Agabus prophesied in Acts 21:10-12. God is going to get Paul to Rome just as he told Paul to do, and Paul said twice before he was going to the Gentiles, but did not.


The third time he obeyed God as we can see in Acts 28:28, "Be it known therefore unto you, that the salvation of God is sent unto the Gentiles, and that they will hear it." Do we believe this, or that OLD Message to the Jew that has been set aside. Those of the LAW departed to reason just among themselves. Those today of Works, and of the Law are still at it, while we preach the Grace of God that justifies those of THROUGH Faith, without any works of their own. We are told it is a GIFT. Up to us to accept, or refuse salvation ON HIS TERMS.

 

[ituttut]

Actually that isn't Paul's statement at all. He isn't saying lighten up and drink up (paraphrase).. but to take a small amount for your ailment, and even that 'small' amount was mixed typically 1 part to 3 part water to dilute it even more.

Hello Allen. It continues to amaze me that so many Christians continually come up with watered down wine, grape juice, of the devil, etc.

God says except for a very few, it is acceptable in the OT, and the NT (as divided in our Bibles). He doesn't say we have to, and He doesn't say don't do it. It is up to each individual to partake, or not. It is up to each church to tell each and every one that joins that church if they Can Drink, Not Drink, or do what is in their heart on this matter.

If a church judges drinking to be a sin then it is their duty to tell any new member they will not tolerate sinful acts of any kind, including drinking. They should inform any that are already members to head for the exit, for that church will not associate with unsaved sinners, could claim to be a member of that church. Can they visit? They should be able to, but the members should not accept them as members, but observers perhaps looking to be saved by the standards set for that church.

 

[ituttut]

I do believe all skipped over my post on page 3. Can anyone dispute this fact?

 

[ituttut]

Because of the evils of drunkenness, the WCTU movement was founded. Goal = "temperance" or moderation in use of alcohol. THAT is laudable and biblical.

But like most movements, it was hijacked by the extreme over the next decades. And radicalized into "abstinence" instead of "temperance".

A man of wisdom in areas of His Word.

 

[ituttut]

Not that anyone will notice

Leaving early in the morning for Thanksgiving with family, returning after Thanksgiving.

Happy Turkey Day to all, and be instant in His Word.

 

[Old Union Brother]

Leaving early in the morning for Thanksgiving with family, returning after Thanksgiving.

Happy Turkey Day to all, and be instant in His Word.

we noticed:thumbsup:

 

[Steadfast Fred]

The first Temperance Movement:

588 B.C.
Jeremiah 35:6-10 But they said, We will drink no wine: for Jonadab the son of Rechab our father commanded us, saying, Ye shall drink no wine, neither ye, nor your sons for ever: Neither shall ye build house, nor sow seed, nor plant vineyard, nor have any: but all your days ye shall dwell in tents; that ye may live many days in the land where ye be strangers. Thus have we obeyed the voice of Jonadab the son of Rechab our father in all that he hath charged us, to drink no wine all our days, we, our wives, our sons, nor our daughters; Nor to build houses for us to dwell in: neither have we vineyard, nor field, nor seed: But we have dwelt in tents, and have obeyed, and done according to all that Jonadab our father commanded us.

Jeremiah 35:18-19 And Jeremiah said unto the house of the Rechabites, Thus saith the LORD of hosts, the God of Israel; Because ye have obeyed the commandment of Jonadab your father, and kept all his precepts, and done according unto all that he hath commanded you: Therefore thus saith the LORD of hosts, the God of Israel; Jonadab the son of Rechab shall not want a man to stand before me for ever.

 

[convicted1]

Allan, I stand corrected. I agree with your stand on consumption of alcohol. sometimes it feels as if we are :BangHead: when we talk to someone with an opposing viewpoint.

Bro OUB,

I am a "tee-totaller" all the way, but I will not infringe upon those who drink in moderation. I do not believe this is the way to go, but we all have to do what we feel is right in the sight of God. The reason why I am a tee-totaller is because I don't think I could be a good witness to anyone while holding a Bud Lite in my hand. The bible does say to "Let not your good be evil spoken of", but as I have already stated, what someone does is their business and not mine. :thumbs::tonofbricks::jesus: