Wine is fine

I know what you mean. I care nothing for hard liquor. A few years ago when I worked for a private school, I confiscated a bunch of liquor from high school students and contacted their parents to take them home. (If they didn’t want us to call their parents, I had a Fort Worth police officer working with me who would take them downtown and let them face the criminal system.)

Anyway, one of the bottles was an unopened bottle of Everclear. I decided to take that one home since it is literally 95% pure alcohol. I used over the course of about 4 years as a disinfectant (great for wound care and such) and as a cleaner. The stuff was so strong though I had to keep it away from my eyes.

I cook with wine much more than I drink it. Wine is very good for roasting meats and making certain sauces. I used to be the editor of a cooking magazine and I learned from the professional chefs that wines designed for cooking are generally inferior to an inexpensive “drinking” wine in terms of flavor and cooking ease. Therefore, I usually have an inexpensive bottle (less than $10) of red wine in my refrigerator for cooking roasts (both in the oven and crock pot) and other red meats.

 

We often ask waiters at restaurants if it is possible to not use wine in the preparation of our meals. If not we will order something else. We get the strangest looks!

I agree with Brian that the Bible portrays wine as a blessing in the passages that he quotes. My view is that the situation is much different today. We have plenty of other options and the alcohol content is much greater, meaning it is much easier to abuse, even by accident.

In short, it is very dangerous, there is a high probability of causing others to stumble into sin, and the wide-spread affects among the general population are horrific. I don't want to have anything to do with the stuff.

Andy

 

I suppose you know that the alcohol in the wine is almost always cooked off in the preparation of food. Therefore, there is no 'danger' of having a problem with alcohol based on the use of wine in cooking.

 

Yes, I know. Still don't want to have anything to do with it. I told you, we get strange looks!

Andy

 

That was my point about wine, too.

Not true at all. As I mentioned earlier, I know Messianic Jews who are offended at the idea of eating pork or shrimp, and to some of them, it is offensive to watch a Christian do so. It is a bad witness to them, because they believe that we should be following the law in those regards. I happen to disagree strongly, but I still will not eat shrimp or pork when I'm with them.

Depending on the person, your testimony stands a good chance of being weakened if you are legalistic about avoiding a glass of wine. They could easily see that as attempting to gain heaven by works, not faith.

Fortunately, I am not in charge of how someone interprets my behavior, God is. And since God has not given me any Biblical instructions to avoid shrimp or wine at dinner, I have no reason to believe a person will -- by default -- stumble or suffer from a "bad testimony" if I eat shrimp or drink a glass of wine.

If it is sin for you, then don't do it. That's perfectly Biblical, and I admire you for taking that stance.

However, I don't buy the testimony explanation, for these reasons:

1. God is in control, not you or I

2. God defines the rules, not you or I

3. God said wine is a blessing

4. God defined what it means to abuse wine (to get high or drunk, or when it causes someone to stumble), and that is not what we're talking about

5. God NEVER said it is a bad testimony to drink wine (by default -- see exceptions in 4)

So while you are perfectly Biblical to avoid it yourself, and you are perfectly Biblical to avoid it in the presence of those for whom it may be a stumblinb block, your assertion that it hurts one's testimony by default is without Biblical merit.

 

I think you're confused. Paul is certainly serious and literal, but not about avoiding meat at all costs. And given the latter part of the quote from your post, I think you understand that.

If not, let me know when you find me the verse or historical document that says Paul became a vegitarian and decided never to eat meat again because it might hurt his testimony if anyone ever saw him eat meat. Otherwise, I'll assume Paul is making a point about how love for a brother takes precedence over eating meat.

Actually, Paul trumpets freedom quite loudly in Galatians -- so loudly, in fact, that he says he wishes the legalists would "cut themselves off".

He simply doesn't do it to offend anyone or to promote licentious behavior. IMO, that is the point people are making here -- that our freedom in Christ is important. I don't see anyone trumpeting it in order to make anyone drink wine or drag anyone into sin.

 

What I see here on this thread is a number of people attempting to say that seeing other Christians drinking may cause others to stumble.

I drink Beer reguarly, and if I had a guest who was an alcoholic I would certainley not drink in front of him. Many non christians probably would not either by the way, it is out of respect.

What I do see here is a number of people attempting to place judgement upon people that drink. Small comment here and there with a smack of self righteousness thrown in.

I'd like to point out that Judging others for drinking is not scriptural, and actually reflects on yourself. Keep it scriptural.

Interesting that none of those who oppose Alcohol consumption are willing to answer my question about Jesus Christ drinking Alcohol and suppling it to others.

 

But do you eat in restaurants that serve alcoholic beverages?

 

Yes, unless the place is primarily known as a pub or something similar.

Andy

 

I will admit when I am wrong. After looking at the scriptures again, the waterpots were there for washing, there are no indications that they were full of wine. Sorry for the confusion.

Now, we know that the guest had been drinking wine from the governors statement, "have well drunk" was his words. I don't believe that "wine" in this context is fermented wine.

 

Actually, Paul trumpets freedom quite loudly in Galatians -- so loudly, in fact, that he says he wishes the legalists would "cut themselves off".

He simply doesn't do it to offend anyone or to promote licentious behavior. IMO, that is the point people are making here -- that our freedom in Christ is important. I don't see anyone trumpeting it in order to make anyone drink wine or drag anyone into sin. [/QB]</font>[/QUOTE]The legalist in Galatians with whom Paul was dealing were trying to make Christians obey certain portions of the law in order to be truly saved. That distorts the work of Christ on the cross. Paul says we are free from the OT requirements for salvation.

On this issue, I haven't read that anyone here is saying that those who drink are going to hell. No one I know is adding abstinence to the list of things we must do to be saved.

 

I agree that the issue was more clearly tied to salvation in Galatians. But what do you think it means when people say that having a glass of wine hurts their testimony? Their testimony about what? If you're honest with yourself on the answer to that question, then you'll see there's a direct tie to salvation, even though the connection is more subtle than telling people they have to be circumcized.

 

I see what you're getting at. And it's close, but I still think it's different.

A Pastor standing up and teaching that you'll go to hell for drinking is basically doing exactly what the people were doing in Galatians. He's teaching against what is written in scripture.

Calling a Christian, who doesn't want another to think badly about them or to question their faith, a legalist for not drinking is not accurate. If anything, it's the witnessing party who would be guilty of legalistic thinking in this case.

A Christian may know they have the freedom to drink, but may choose not to in order not to either offend or confuse others (who may be guilty of legalism). There's nothing wrong with this motive not to drink.

 

(to paraphrase the question, "do you eat in restaurants that serve alcoholic beverages")

I avoid places like that, too, but sometimes I wonder if that's the right thing to do. Would Jesus have avoided going into any pubs in order to avoid appearing as if He were participating in some of the sinful behaviors there, or would Jesus have had the confidence to go in and be a light to the lost?

 

I avoid places like that, too, but sometimes I wonder if that's the right thing to do. Would Jesus have avoided going into any pubs in order to avoid appearing as if He were participating in some of the sinful behaviors there, or would Jesus have had the confidence to go in and be a light to the lost? </font>[/QUOTE]My favorite place to eat in the world is the Oasis Bar and Grill - Downtown, Manhattan, Montana. It has the best steaks in America. I've eaten there three times. Every time our table had a public blessing and NO alcoholic beverages ordered. Even took my 4 year old Grandson there with us - You wouldn't believe the size of the kid's platter they serve!

 

YUM! IMO, except for venison, nothing beats a good steak.

 

I did my research paper for my English Comp 2 class on this topic. It seems that the only argument that abstainers have is that it could ruin a testimony, which really doesn't hold up that well anyways. I'm surprised I haven't heard the argument that there are supposedly 2 different types of wine in the bible, alcoholic and non-alcoholic. That's the main argument that I have heard, but it doesn't hold up to scripture at all.

 

[sarcasm]
What you fail to see is that by adding a rule to God's commandments, we can have a special righteousness of our own above and beyond God's righteousness. Even if it's not real righteousness, at least it has the appearance of being more righteous than what God requires, which no doubt makes Christ more compelling. It's a shame God didn't think of that, because I'm sure He would have added the rule, Himself, if He did. Perhaps God has a suggestion box?
[/sarcasm]

 

Well, I guess a lot of others have come to the same conclusion.

 

[sarcasm]
What you fail to see is that by adding a rule to God's commandments, we can have a special righteousness of our own above and beyond God's righteousness. Even if it's not real righteousness, at least it has the appearance of being more righteous than what God requires, which no doubt makes Christ more compelling. It's a shame God didn't think of that, because I'm sure He would have added the rule, Himself, if He did. Perhaps God has a suggestion box?
[/sarcasm]

</font>[/QUOTE]

(Glory Bound)
Well, I guess a lot of others have come to the same conclusion.

(Fish)
Maybe they have, but the argument does not hold up in light of scripture. The reason they say there are 2 types of wine is because of the different contexts that it is used in. But they make the assumption that the wine that God calls good is non-alcoholic, when there is nothing in the passage that would make that clear. Without that basic, non-scriptural, assumption, their argument falls apart.