Wine & Alcohol part 37

If you two think you are Holy on your own then you have problems that are deeper then the people you condem with your judgement rightouness or not.

We are holy based on what Jesus has done alone. Not by anything we do. With out the work of Jesus we are nothing but dirty rags. And drinking or not drinking does not affect our salvation. Like I said if I am wrong I am still saved by the Blood of Christ.

 

No, I did not. verses 33 - 35 are speaking of drunkenness, but verse 31 is not. It is speaking of abstaining from the drink that intoxicates altogether. Verse 33-35 shows if one does not abstain, it can lead to drunkenness. Verse 32 shows it is like a serpent's bite that will kill. And it has killed.

Also, verse 1 of chapter 20 clearly shows that wine, not drunkenness, deceives.

 

If one thinks that one can continue in sin and be found in Christ, one is deceived. Ye cannot drink of the cup of the Lord and the cup of devils.

 

The Bible says over and over again that drunkenness is sin. It also has strong warnings and examples. Too many Christians are playing GOD by taking an extra step and saying that all drinking is sin.

I used to believe that all drinking was sin, because that was how I was raised. I kept finding passages in the Bible that stated otherwise. I finally started with a clean slate, dismissing all I was taught in a Christian home and went to the Bible and took what God's word says as the authority.

I realize that alcohol has caused a lot of abuse, broken marriages, and the list is just about endless. But, it does not matter what you and I think. It's what GOD say in His word that matters.

In the love of Christ!

 

Then you are either sinless or you have judged my sins to be worse then yours.

 

Too many people are playing God by taking an extra step and saying drinking in moderation is not sin. The Bible has a strong warning against the child of God drinking in any amount. Proverbs 23:31 Have no experience of, do not approve of.

Amazing! Throw out all one is taught in a Christian home and starting with a clean slate. There's a way that seemeth right unto a man but the end thereof are the ways of death. Do I detect rebellion?

You are right, what God says in His Word matters. His Word says 'Look not'.

 

Sorry, I missed it.

If I may summarize your post, the words translated "wine" and "strong drink" may refer to alcoholic liquids or maybe not, and the way we tell which is which is that if the Bible says they are OK then it is not alcolholic, and if the Bible says they are bad then it is alcolholic. Is this summary correct?

 

The man said he threw out the traditions he was taught and trusted the word of God. You are saying that is bad. Why are you not Catholic?

I was raised Mormon. When I realised they taught what was not in the Bible then I threw out what I was taught and started with a clean slate. Was that wrong?

I have decided you dont have a clue what you are talking about. You spout what you hear.

I am done here. :sleeping_2:

 

I do have a clue what I am talking about. And yes, I do spout what I hear. I hear from the Word of God

Romans 10:17 Now faith cometh by hearing, and hearing the Word of God.

It is funny, I use the Word of God in context to prove that alcoholic beverages are forbidden in the life of a christian and I am accused of not having a clue what I am talking about. Others claim it is ok to drink without scripture to back it up and they think themselves smart.

 

Answer this question: In the entire history of the Church, has there ever been a cup, blessed in the name of Jesus, which contained alcohol-- 10%, 1%, 0.1%, 0.000001%,....?

 

Maybe in the past by certain churches, yes. But by God, no. His Word is clear to the fact that we are not to partake of alcoholic beverage.

Might I add that at the Last Supper, the Bible says Jesus took the cup and gave thanks for it. But He streses that the contents of the cup are the 'fruit of the vine.' He does not say it is wine as many claim it was. Jesus used the word 'wine' in many illustrations he gave in the gospels, would He not have called the substance in the cup 'wine' if it were? instead of 'fruit of the vine.' No, the only place He used the phrase 'fruit of the vine' was at what we recognize as the Last Supper.

Why not call it 'Fruit of the vine' in His illustrations?

Fruit of the Vine (grape juice) was used at the Last Supper.

 

To continue along the thought that HBSMN brought up concerning the fruit of the vine...

Matthew 26:29 But I say unto you, I will not drink henceforth of this fruit of the vine, until that day when I drink it new with you in my Father's kingdom.

Jesus said an interesting word in this verse that one should pay particular attention to. That word is "henceforth." It means "from this moment on".

By using that word "henceforth," we see that Jesus had been drinking the fruit of the vine prior to the last supper and could not have been drinking an aloholic beverage as many accuse our Lord of doing.

 

Ephesians 5:18 And be not drunk with wine, wherein is excess; but be filled with the Spirit;

To me the scripture is clear not to be drunk and goes on to point out in excess as in the qualification of a deacon per say where it says not to drink to much wine.

why would it say wherein is excess or not to much ?? well it leads me to believe that moderation is permitted. I know some of you will not have it. thats fine, I know your mind is settled on it. One thing is for sure there is a church out there for any and every thing a person believes. But this is what I believe and I used scriptures here and on pg. 4. to show why. History of the church and even the jews today still use wine like they always did. Its when the Methodist Deacon from whales pasteurized welschs grape juice when churches started dropping wine for it (I believe that was in the '50s). I know our group of churches started dropping it in the 60s and when one of our churches went back to wine as they felt was right it caused a separation. you go back to the 1800s and you will probably not find a baptist church not using wine in communion that is in the SBC. But hey I will let every one follow their own conviction. if you believe in wine and your church does not use it, then you should find one that does and vise versa. I for one would not take grape juice in communion nor would i take regular leaven bread. this is my conviction. and I can let other churches follow theirs ..........JBS

 

So according to your posts on this thread the previous one now closed, is absolutely everyone who portook of this feremented communion cup in hell or going there?

What do you mean "stresses...'fruit of the vine?'" What did he say to 'stress' that? That shows your bias in reading scripture. Besides, when Jesus did say "wine," then he meant the kind with some [ranging from very small to small] alcoholic content? And furthermore, which of those 2 different kinds (and it's your dichotomy) is it that he hasn't drank since that night and won't til "new in the Kindgom of Heaven?"

Alrilght, you are proving my point. The "new wine in old windskins" parable refers to "wine," not 'fruit of the vine.' No one wishes for new wine after drinking old, for the old is good (Luke 5:39) referes to "wine," not 'fruit of the vine.' And what Jesus made at the wedding at Cana (John 2) was "wine," not 'fruit of the vine,' because "the only place He used the phrase 'fruit of the vine' was at what we recognize as the Last Supper." Okay.

 

You must also remember that the word 'wine' in the Bible can mean both fermented and unfermented, depending on the context. It is not all alcoholic.

For instance, how can wine that is said to be venom of asps be the same wine that makes the heart glad?

BTW, Jesus would not have made an alcoholic wine to give to those guests who had already 'well drunk.' This would have been adding to drunkenness if it were alcoholic.

 

Hi His Blood Spoke My Name. What is in this name you use. Does His Blood speak of "grape juice", or "wine"?

Jesus was not a "winebibber", but He was called one, and He did not deny He was the very opposite of John the Baptist. Is Christ at His table in eternity going to be toasted, and toast with "grape juice"? When grape juice is distilled it is made "pure". We know from Deuteronomy 32:14 that wine represents the blood for it is pure. "………………and thou didst drink the pure blood of the grape." Wine represents the Pure Blood of Christ.

Melchizedek brought both bread and wine. Jesus made and drank wine, as did His Apostles drink also. Is it we Christians with understanding that cause the "babes" to stumble? It looks to be the "Word of God". Israel stumbled, not because of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Joseph, Moses, David, Jesus or His Apostles. It is their "unbelief" in not believing the Word of God.

We are not to be blatant in our liberty and freedom in Christ, but we are obligated to point out scripture, or hope those that reject the Word, will grow in grace accepting His Word, rather than what man puts forth instead of His Word. Those at fault are to be told, just a Paul told Peter.

Does the "drinker" condemn those that don't "drink"? I don't believe so - they just don't understand from where the non-drinker gets their authority to damn them. We have approval to drink (not get drunk) in both the OT and the NT.

I cannot understand why Christians are so "afraid" of wine. How many who consider wine in itself to be "evil" would have told Melchizedek to get lost had he brought you a "gift" of wine?

We can see that it is not the "wine" but how each man uses it. Abigail brought a blessing of food and wine for the warriors with David, to revive and strengthen them. Should she be condemned for furnishing these men "wine"? Should David be condemned for accepting and have such a horrible drink distributed to his men with their food? These poor ignorant warriors didn't know any better so that drank that damnable drink - Wine. We know this wine was imbibed on this occasion in very small amounts, to be sure less than what they would normally, so wine is good in little dabs, and normal amounts.

But for a man of folly who is Abigail's husband, a good thing in his hands becomes "bad" for him. What is good for one is another man's poison. It seems "good" people of God all through the Bible enjoyed their wine. It seems the "bad" people also enjoyed their wine. Others reject it outright. Two of the three are justified, so no one should be condemning another brother. Just point out scripture understood.

God says He will bless His people with the corn, which has many uses (whisky included) and the wine. Some will refuse this gift that God has given to "common" man, and Kings; some will accept what God gives to gladden our hearts. Paul say the "weaker" will judge, being unsettled of mind, those they believe are committing a sin in their eyes, but he doesn't say they will fall. Again, we should not flaunt our liberty in Christ, but endeavor to have them read and understand the Word of God, and the Love He has for us, and the Love we are to show among ourselves, not condemning, but to praise and thank Him for "all" gifts He gives to man.

 

Quite expectedly, you shift gears, from the emphasis of wine being unfermented because it's called "fruit of the vine," to it can be either. What happens to the "stress" of it being nonalcohol?

Medical research shows one glass a day does help your heart. But it doesn't necessarily have the same effect on your asp.

So you are admitting that the wine they had-- regardless of source-- was alcoholic?

 

I am curious how many glasses that you folks think it takes to get "drunk"

Do some of you feel a buzz after one glass? If you do, is that buzz part of intoxication?

 

One glass is part of intoxication whether one feels a buzz or not.