Christians and Alcohol
60 comments | Permalink
The latest Criswell Theological Review is devoted to the issue of Christians and alcohol.
As a friend wrote to me: "I think everyone would benefit from a little Latin: abusus usum non tollit ('Abuse does not take away proper use')." It's a biblical sentiment, and I would venture to say that if it's kept in mind when thinking through this issue, the basic conclusions are pretty simple and clear.
As a friend wrote to me: "I think everyone would benefit from a little Latin: abusus usum non tollit ('Abuse does not take away proper use')." It's a biblical sentiment, and I would venture to say that if it's kept in mind when thinking through this issue, the basic conclusions are pretty simple and clear.
posted by JT at Friday, April 18, 2008
60 Comments:
"Drinking with Calvin and Luther" by Jim West remains a fun and informative book on this topic. A good sense of humor makes it an enjoyable read, hopefully even for the abstainer.
Would you mind explaining what those simple and clear conclusions are?
Jesus was known for drinking in Matthew 11.
FYi.
I'm still waiting for the Southern Baptist study on gluttony.
It is interesting that he wrote "Jesus provides the supreme example of such a sacrificial
mentality." This same Jesus, of course, turned water into wine and pretty good wine at that.
This is a theological-journal-level "issue?" Wow.
It's important to note that the wine of Jesus' day isn't the same kind of thing as the wine of our day, at least according to this transcript.
For the record, I think drinking in moderation, without getting drunk, is a matter of liberty. I don't condemn Christians who drink. But I also think using the arguments, "Jesus drank," or "Jesus turned water into wine," aren't the way to argue the other way.
Justin,
Good advice that I concur with esp. in light of (1) I was raised in a family with alcohol abuse which often led to physical abuse, and (2) I'm currently reading your blog while I enjoy a nice glass of Wolf Blass Yellow Label Cab Sav red wine which is just heavenly! I'm fairly certain that the wine provided for the wedding supper of the lamb will be from Australia!!
Justin,
It is always nice to see common sense advocated as such.
God bless,
Philip
Amen to your friend's quote. Boddingtons on tap is my favorite beer. On this topic, I love Mark Driscoll's discussion of this in his book (I think that it was in The Radical Reformission: Reaching Out without Selling Out).
God bless,
Nick
You must be a Catholic if you think speaking Latin to Baptists will change anything.
Or at least a Presbyterian.
[/joke]
Frank - Generally, I'd go with you on the Catholic point. But, since we're dealing with speaking Latin to Baptists to persuade them to drink... I think I'm gonna have to go with Presbyterian ;). We didn't get the label "Pipes, Cigars, and Alcohol," for nothin' you know.
"Let us walk honestly as in the day; not in rioting and drunkenness"
"What the Apostle here teaches in a negative way, he positively expands and makes clear in II Corinthians 6:5 ("in watchings, in fastings"). He desires that Christians should show zeal in fasting and eagerly strive after moderation and temperance. ... To all he forbids gluttony and drunkenness as though these were pestilence. ... for gluttony and drunkenness are the fertile soil in which unchastity or debauchery thrive. For this reason the pious Fathers declared that whoever desires to serve God, must root out, above all, the vice of gluttony." -Martin Luther
perfect sentiment - love that Latin!
I too come from a background that includes alcohol abuse and physical abuse. I chose not to drink anything alcoholic myself until age 23 and even now, I only sip socially a few times a year.
But, I firmly believe there is liberty to enjoy without overindulgence.
I attend Alcoholics Anonymous meetings in my “spare time.” I have proved to myself over and over again that I cannot drink responsibly (!), so, for me, I cannot drink at all. That is the safest and best way for me to avoid the sin of drunkenness. This is the only prudent thing for me to do.
Does that make me a legalist? According to some it would. After all, I have added a rule that is not found in Scripture. I disagree, though. Establishing a rule for my own behavior that helps me avoid sin is not wrong in any way, shape or fashion. Why should I expose myself to temptations that I can avoid?
Would I try to enforce this rule upon others? Never in a million years. It wouldn’t even bother me if I went to dinner with someone who had a beer or two with their meal. My rule in this area is not their rule.
As to the issue for those who can drink responsibly, I like what one theologian said:
"Do you suppose that abuses are eliminated by destroying the object which is abused? Men can go wrong with wine and women. Shall we then prohibit and abolish women?" – Martin Luther
Looking forward to the day that I will be able to safely drink wine in the Kingdom (Luke 22:18, 30),
JK
JK - Driscoll has a useful phrase - he calls those kind of self-imposed limitations "personal legalisms," that one adopts due to personal reasons (such as not drinking due to past history with alcohol).
Gal 5:13 For, brethren, ye have been called unto liberty; only use not liberty for an occasion to the flesh, but by love serve one another.
A few more thoughts. Recreational alcohol has a reputation. Recreational alcohol is a controlled substance as are other drugs. One also must be very careful in applying a comparison of recreational alcohol of today with the wines of the Old and New Testament eras. Recreational alcohol today is a substance that clearly impairs judgment and lessens inhibitions in behavior.
Ephesians 5:15 - 19 See then that ye walk circumspectly, not as fools, but as wise,
Redeeming the time, because the days are evil. Wherefore be ye not unwise, but understanding what the will of the Lord is. And be not drunk with wine, wherein is excess; but be filled with the Spirit; Speaking to yourselves in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing and making melody in your heart to the Lord;
It is troubling to see those in the Evangelical community who more and more want to see how close they can get to the things of the world without losing their piety. It is even more troubling to see their efforts to find some kind of cover in the Scriptures for their actions. Rather than how close can you get without going over the line, [in the world, but not of the world] why not how far away can you stay and maintain a strikingly different behavior that is so observable, that you will be asked, What is different about you? And then the opportunity will present itself for,
I Peter 3:15 But sanctify the Lord God in your hearts: and be ready always to give an answer to every man that asketh you a reason of the hope that is in you with meekness and fear:
The LORD has given us "wine to gladden the heart of man" (Psalm 104:15).
And even if some don't like to think about it, Jesus did turn water into good wine.
If we're going to demonize wine, I am speaking as a fool, let's be sure to go all the way and demonize the LORD and Jesus since they provided good, heart gladdening wine to people.
"If with Christ you died to the elemental spirits of the world, why, as if you were still live in the world, do you submit to regulations - "Do not handle, Do not taste, Do not touch" (referring to things that all perish as they are used)--according to human precepts and teachings? These have indeed an appearance of wisdom in promoting self-made religion and asceticism and severity to the body, but they are of no value in stopping the indulgence of the flesh.” (Col 2:20-23)
Some people should abstain as jk beautifully witnessed. Some people don't need to. Either way, we should all follow jk's lead when he writes "Would I try to enforce this rule upon others? Never in a million years."
As a side note, I do find it curious (amusing perhaps) that those who would consider old and new testament wine to be essentially grape juice don't call for abstaining from grape juice. Where is the consistency?
As I read these comments, most are using the same arguments/points which have always been used, pro and con. Most are missing 2 important points: First, alcoholic beverages today are significantly different (i.e., stronger) than Biblical wine and would seem to come under the Biblical warnings concerning "strong drink". Second, since alcoholic beverages were diluted with water (for various reasons), in order to be consistent those who wish to drink alcoholic beverages today should dilute their drink with water.
Some in this comments section seem to give the impression of being proud that they consume alcoholic beverages. I humbly submit that is a dangerous impression to give.
As we all know, we need the Lord's help in understanding & knowing our heart. Motives for drinking alcoholic beverages can be very deceptive. The trend among conservative evangelicals to accept the consumption of alcoholic beverages will eventually destroy the testimony of many.
A good resource which may be helpful is "Love, Liberty, and Christian Conscience" by Randy Jaeggli.
"First, alcoholic beverages today are significantly different (i.e., stronger) than Biblical wine and would seem to come under the Biblical warnings concerning "strong drink"."
"And you shall spend that money for whatever your heart desires: for oxen or sheep, for wine or strong drink, for whatever your heart desires; you shall eat there before the Lord your God, and you shall rejoice, you and your household." Deut. 14:26
Seems it is the Lord that is to be the focus. If he is the focus, then all that we do should glorify Him.
And we also need to esteem others above our own selves. Never are we to cause another to stumble.
"Do not destroy with your food the one for whom Christ died. Therefore do not let your good be spoken of as evil; for the kingdom of God is not eating and drinking, but righteousness and peace and joy in the Holy Spirit." Rom. 14:15-17
I think there may be something we don't understand about what it means to "destroy with your food the one for whom Christ died" or "to cause another to stumble."
I'm not claiming to have the answer. I don't.
Given that the LORD has given us "wine to gladden the heart of man" and that Jesus did turn water into good wine, there must be something to "destroying" and "causing to stumble" other than how it has been interpreted in relatively recent years by the prohibitionists.
It seems reasonable, following the logic of the prohibitionists, to charge the Lord himself with "destroying" and "causing to stumble" the weaker believers. That, however, seems completely mad.
Where are these people who are being destroyed today? Who is being caused to stumble? If someone is offended by what they see another doing, they should confront that person face to face. That would provide an excellent opportunity for learning.
I don't know if there would even be any "weaker brothers" (in this sense) today if it were not for modern Pharisees trying to lord it over their flocks. If the modern Pharisees want to rule the consciences of others they should be soundly rebuked.
Why not a call to stop eating meat? It was include with wine in Romans 14. Or is it OK to offend the die hard vegetarians in the Church? How about automobiles that pollute the earch? Is anyone ready to stop driving in order to not offend extreme environmentalists? Where does it end?
This whole topic seems rather silly to me, the son, grandson, and nephew of former alcoholics.
Nothing like persisting in a refuted argument, eh Stan? Or did you just not believe the transcript that I posted?
Like I said before, I think there's an argument that says it's not wrong for Christians to drink alcohol. "Jesus turned water into wine!" is not it. As Wally said, it was much more diluted than we're used to. It wasn't grape juice (a point that was made explicitly), because it was fermented. But it was significantly diluted with water.
I think you're right on track with the Colossians 2 passage. That's a consistent argument. But "Jesus turned water into good wine," is apples and oranges if you're trying to make a case for alcohol being OK.
To all those who declare that alcohol consumption, even in moderation (which appears to be the Scriptural position), is sinful:
1. Why do you not also preach against the sin of gluttony (which is clearly defined as sin in the Bible)?
I'm really tired of listening to overweight preachers railing against the moderate use of alcohol, but who NEVER rail against the abuse of food--overeating and unhealthy eating.
You know--preach a sermon against all use of alcohol and then head right to the potluck dinner and consume several plates of food--an ostentatious and blatant display of gluttony--outrageous sin.
But...apparently gluttony is not a sin anymore--hardly anyone preaches against it.
Why is that?
2. Health wise--if you drink soda on a regular basis, you're doing much more damage to your health than if you drank alcohol in moderation.
Most nutritionists and dietitians will tell you that soda ought to be completely eliminated from our diets, as there is no nutritional value in soda.
Soda is just plain sugared water filled with tons of empty calories.
How many anti-alcohol types consume soda beverages on a daily basis, perhaps addicted to the caffeine in them, or the sugar kick?
Personally, I'm beginning to think eating junk food (fast food, cookies, chips, sodas) IS SINFUL, as these foods are almost completely unhealthy, and thus not a wise and responsible treatment of our bodies.
Anti-alcoholers--are you willing to give up your McDonalds and Cokes and Pepsis for the sake of those who view these foods as sins?
Isn't it worth it to make that sacrifice rather than offend those who see these foods as part of an unhealthy and gluttonous lifestyle?
It is not sin to enjoy alcohol for the glory of God as long as one does not become drunk. To say otherwise is pure legalism and contradicts the gospel itself.
1 Timothy 6:17: "Command those who are rich in this present world not to be arrogant nor to put their hope in wealth, which is so uncertain, but to put their hope in God, who richly provides us with everything for our enjoyment."
Did anyone else read Norman Geisler's article linked to on that page? Whoa! No wonder it wasn't included in the print issue.
Lighten up Norm!
Mike,
I'd be careful on the "watered down wine" idea. Remember what the host said after he tasted the wine?
"Everyone brings out the choice wine first and then the cheaper wine after the guests have had too much to drink; but you have saved the best till now."
What did the guests generally have too much of?? The good wine. The idea is that the good wine got them drunk so they wouldn't notice the not-so-good wine being served later.
Kind of like saving the American beer until you've had a few real ones...
Mike,
No. I don't believe the transcript you posted. Wine that has been diluted with much water is not going to make for a merry heart and is not going to make guests at a party drunk (John 2:10). The transcript does nothing to refute that.
I really don't see how Jesus turning water into wine is apples and oranges in this argument. If Jesus gave wine to guests who had apparently been drinking a bit, I would find it very hard (if not impossible) to believe he would turn around and have a problem with Christians drinking wine. Also, how could Jesus doing so not be a stumbling block if simply drinking a glass of wine allegedly is according to some?
Please elaborate on the apples and oranges. One of my hobbies is beating dead horses but I'd rather not waste the energy if it's not necessary.
Chris,
Norman Geisler's article was something. It was anything but sober. Perhaps his usual acumen had been watered down. I would not have expected something so poor from him.
Reading the article makes me think there must be an alternate universe out there where there exists only two possibilities regarding wine: 1)total abstinence; 2) drunkeness.
This post has been removed by the author.
"What is not of faith is sin"
Also, there are many defenders but no defense.
I trust that we can move from this and not become lost in this. Like Loren Eaton said, "This is a theological-journal-level issue?"
Joshua,
You said:
"Also, there are many defenders but no defense."
To whom were you referring?
Stan,
It's apples and oranges because the entire thing begs the question.
If what Jesus turned the water into was not the wine that we know today, then you can't say because Jesus turned water into extensively diluted, no stronger than a 2:1 ratio of water to wine that we can drink a 1:1 or 0:1 ratio of water to wine. Your argument necessarily assumes that the wine Jesus made was the same that we drink. History doesn't seem to bear that out.
Now, if you reject that the wine from then was different from the wine of today, then it's not apples and oranges... it's just ignorance. I don't know what basis you would have for rejecting the article discussed in the transcript I posted. If it's documented that Homer used 20:1, and both Plutarch and Athenaeus say that only barbarians drank wine half and half with water, we understand that that was the custom. That was the wine that the ancients drank. It's as if the word meant two totally different things but has the same name.
And certainly John 2:10 cannot be shown to say that the people were drunk. It says: "Every man serves the good wine first, and when the people have drunk freely, then he serves the poorer wine." That's just a present perfect... not saying the people were drunk. "After the people have had their drinks, then there's the poor wine." Not: "After everyone is drunk, then they serve the poor wine."
Hope that clarifies.
mike riccardi said...
"And certainly John 2:10 cannot be shown to say that the people were drunk. It says: "Every man serves the good wine first, and when the people have drunk freely, then he serves the poorer wine." That's just a present perfect... not saying the people were drunk. "After the people have had their drinks, then there's the poor wine." Not: "After everyone is drunk, then they serve the poor wine.""
I think you miss Stan's point. Why would one hold onto the bad wine until everyone had drunk freely? Because at that point people's senses were dulled and they wouldn't be able to as readily tell the difference. Stan wasn't arguing the tense of the verb (I think), he was saying (correctly, in my view) that the text implies that the guests were a little buzzed at this point, or else these comments are nonsensical.
Also, even if the wine were not as strong as today's, what does that have to do with anything? It was still strong enough to do the job, as evidenced by the constant admonitions of Scripture to avoid drunkeness. To me, this whole argument seems to be a red herring.
Also, the idea that the wine Scripture commends was mixed heavily with water seems problematic when one considers Isaiah 1:22, when diluted wine is used as an unfavorable metaphor for the sin of Judah!
"How the faithful city
has become a whore,
she who was full of justice!
Righteousness lodged in her,
but now murderers.
Your silver has become dross,
your best wine mixed with water." -Isaiah 1:21-22
If wine mixed with water was truly good, why does God use it as an example of sin, in the same breath with whoredom and impure silver?
Back to the dead horse...
d.j.,
You're correct that I was referring to guests being somewhat buzzed. Good word from Isaiah (my son's middle name, I might add).
Mike,
First, every place I have looked for the meaning of the greek (of which I am not an expert) behind "drunk freely" I have found it to have a meaning of being drunk.
Second, not believing the transcript you posted does not make one ignorant. For one thing, I don't recognize Homer, Plutarch and Athenaeus as authorities. For another, as d.j. stated, the wine got the job done whether mixed with water or not.
You say my "argument necessarily assumes that the wine Jesus made was the same that we drink." I am not assuming anything about the similarities or differences of wine today and wine in biblical times other than the fact that wine from both periods can get one drunk.
Whether one bottle of wine has twice the alcohol content of another bottle is irrelevant in my estimation. Some wine today has twice the alcohol of other wines. That's one reason that port is served in small glasses.
Perhaps some people diluted their wine 20:1 but I don't think the guests would have been too thrilled about it. Could that have been the "poor wine" from John 2? To get a buzz from that would require at least 40 glasses, assuming 2 glasses for any sort of buzz. That is a lot of fluid.
The alcoholic content of any drink and the propensity for someone to get drunk with that drink are, in my opinion, not at all related. I had friends growing up who would get passed out drunk whether it was from beer, wine, or whiskey. They adjusted their level of consumption based on what they were drinking.
I'm still not getting the apples and oranges. Sorry.
Guys,
I had left a comment earlier about being a regularly attend Alcoholics Anonymous. I do not drink because I have the personal habit of getting drunk when I drink. I do not try to enforce this on others, because I do not feel I have the right.
I do have one request: Don’t make this such an important issue. As I read these comments, I find two sides.
On the one side, I seem to find a group of people who are convinced it is their God-given duty to convince everyone that they should go out a have one or two beers. It seems to have become a mark of the true Christian with this group. It is almost as if those who imbibe are a visible manifestation of the elect. I would request of this group that you start inserting a line or two in your ramblings concerning the fact that there are so who, as a matter of prudence, should not drink alcohol, namely those who have a problem moderating their drinking. That is a good way to honor weaker brothers like me. (See Romans 14)
The other group is bound and determined to convince the rest of the world that modern alcohol consumption is completely of the devil. These people seem to believe that only the abstainers are on the way to heaven. Kindly stop trying to argue the rest of the kingdom into your position. We have a saying in AA: Live and Let Live. Let other Christians stand before their God; He has the knowledge to judge and the power to execute that judgment. He is simply better than you are for the task. (See Romans 14)
To both groups: stop obsessing on this issue! Stop making this the central issue of theological debate. We have much more important things to talk about in an age where penal substitutionary atonement is questioned and a new atheism is beginning to dominate religious discussion. Let’s get back to sharing the gospel, shall we?
I would highly recommend the writings of R. C. Sproul on this subject, especially his commentary on the book of Romans. (Again, see Romans 14) He brings balance.
In a Humble Attempt to Further the Glory of the Just Judge of the Universe,
JK
JK,
You make a great point to both groups.
I will say, though, that this issue of whether or not Christians are at liberty to drink alcohol in moderation or not is a matter of Christian liberty--which is inextricably bound up in the Gospel.
John Calvin said as much:
"We are now to treat of Christian Liberty, the explanation of which certainly ought not to be omitted by any one proposing to give a compendious summary of Gospel doctrine. For it is a matter of primary necessity, one without the knowledge of which the conscience can scarcely attempt any thing without hesitation, in many must demur and fluctuate, and in all proceed with fickleness and trepidation. In particular, it forms a proper appendix to Justification, and is of no little service in understanding its force."
--The Institutes of the Christian Religion (emphasis mine)
J.K. Jones said...
"there are so who, as a matter of prudence, should not drink alcohol, namely those who have a problem moderating their drinking. That is a good way to honor weaker brothers like me. (See Romans 14)"
Absolutely. This is a matter of personal conscience, and I have great respect for (in fact, I serve in ministry with) those who abstain from alcohol use for various reasons. For some, it is a wise choice. It's just not a universal rule of faith.
J.K. Jones said...
"To both groups: stop obsessing on this issue! Stop making this the central issue of theological debate. We have much more important things to talk about in an age where penal substitutionary atonement is questioned and a new atheism is beginning to dominate religious discussion. Let’s get back to sharing the gospel, shall we?"
I certainly agree that this is not the penultimate issue of the Christian faith, but I would disagree that we are "obsessing" over it. After all, it is the topic of this post and we're seeking to discuss it intelligently and with Christian charity. A heart for sharing the gospel doesn't preclude discussion on secondary issues of faith, in fact, I agree with Jesse that a passion for the gospel will show itself partially by a desire to work through the implications of the gospel. I understand your concern, but I believe the conversation has been civil and edifying.
JK,
I sincerely hope that you're not placing me into that second category you described. Throughout my posts (from the 6th one in till this one), I've stated that I don't think drinking is "completely of the devil," as you say, but rather a matter of liberty, so long as one isn't drunk, as the Bible clearly prohibits drunkenness.
The only thing I've called into question was the validity of the argument that since Jesus turned water into wine, that gives us free rein to drink. As I've also said, there are good arguments as to why Christians can indeed drink alcohol in moderation (Col 2 and 1Tim 4 being two of them).
Also, I don't think it would be fair to say that anyone on the thread (maybe I'm missing someone) is saying that alcohol is evil and of the devil and should be abstained from by all Christians. There are folks who are expressing concern at those whom you describe in your first group, who seem to want to clear their consciences for the drinking they do, but nobody's saying, "We should never drink." At least as far as I can tell, anyway. If there is someone saying that, I apologize. I missed it.
I also think it's important to recognize that these matters of liberty are indeed matters of liberty (cf. Rom 14) as you say. But we also have to be sensitive to the consciences of others, and make sure we're admonishing and sharpening one another in love, to inform our consciences rightly, so they'll never have to be violated. So while PSA is indeed a more essential doctrine to be defending, it's important to not leave these "disputable matters" undisputed (though they are to be disputed without judgment), for the sake of those with weaker faith on the one hand, or excessiveness or intemperance on the other hand.
JK, I fear you come very close to violating the 9th commandment. I've read all of these comments, and I have found no statements which reflect your statement,
"On the one side, I seem to find a group of people who are convinced it is their God-given duty to convince everyone that they should go out a have one or two beers."
Who are these people? And what specific statement reflects what you have said here? If you cannot quote such a statement, you would do well to retract. I don't know of anyone is on such a crusade. Such a person might exist somewhere, but if such a statement has been made here, I must have missed it.
I re-read my comment jsut above.
I was a jerk. I'm sorry.
JK,
Nah. You might have been a jerk had your response been different. As it is, I'd say you're a man of honor.
Jim
I read both the articles by Gentry and the one by the SBC guys.
Neither is completely convincing, and I don't agree with total abstinance, but Gentry makes the fatal flaw of conflating 'weaker brother' with 'the act of drinking' as well as the converse implication that somehow drinking is 'stronger' behavior.
The scripture says no such thing.
The brother is weaker bc alcohol (or meat/food) is a temptation to him.
I'm a diabetic, and though I don't demand it of anyone, it would be rude for a brother to invite me to join him at Krispy Kremes or to always bring them around when we lunch together.
This, I think, is representative of JK's point. The concern is to not tempt a brother who is weaker at resisting something that turns dangerous for him, especially by indulging my freedom in his presence, or becoming so known for engaging my freedom that he or anyone else equates it with my spiritual strength. BTW, this is the biggest impact it has on youth who observe spiritual elders drink and brag about it as their freedom in Christ.
The act is not strong or weak, the person is strong or weak bc they are tempted or not tempted by it.
I read a post on the Criswell site of a pastor hoping someday to get his people to bring their own goblets with them on Sundays. That struck me as precariously responsible modeling.
We are free to enjoy wine in our lives so long as it doesn't tempt those who watch us to embrace something that would lead them to sin, especially if it's because they want to be more like us.
Frankly, a strong argument could be made that as soon as we think alcohol consumption is evidence of being a stronger Christian, or an action that helps us model strength, we might very well be the weaker brother with blinders on to our weakness.
I would forgo my freedom to enjoy a glass around such a brother as much as I would around one who tells me he attends AA.
I'm not stronger because I consume wine or french fries from time to time as if the activity was one of spiritual strength.
My strength resides in the willpower (by the Grace of God) to turn it down for many (any) good reasons, especially for the sake of a brother.
Those who insist their indulging is a sign of strength or that they are free to enjoy it for all to see or to model strength, maybe the weaker ones unable to turn it down without a fight or a grumble.
Food (and beverage) for thought.
i firmly believe - as a recovering alcoholic - that there is a lot of genetics that predispose people to alcoholism. my grandfather died of it, and i should have died of it. that said, the wisest course then is never to start drinking, simply because you don't know where it will ultimately lead.
that's not a legalistic view, it's just a cautionary lesson from someone who learned all this the hard way.
mike rucker
fairburn, georgia, usa
mikerucker.wordpress.com
Mike Rucker said...
"that said, the wisest course then is never to start drinking, simply because you don't know where it will ultimately lead."
I would say that is a wise course, and it may be the wisest course for you, but I'm sorry, I've got a problem with you saying that it's the wisest course for everyone. If that is the case, then Christ, the apostles, and a great host of OT saints didn't follow the wisest choice. I find that a hard pill to swallow.
BTW - As a die hard Carolina Panthers fan, anyone named Mike Rucker gets bonus points today. :)
I have posted twice before & would like to leave some final comments. I will be blunt, but I do not intend to be mean-spirited.
1. I have never drank an alcoholic beverage. I had many opportunities in high school & college but was graciously kept from that experience. My parents never drank, although they did smoke.
2. Comparisons between today's alcoholic beverages and Biblical alcoholic drinks are not valid because Biblical wines were much weaker than today's drinks. To insist on the "right" to drink alcohol today because people drank alcohol in Biblical times is to basically insist on the right to drink a very strong cup of coffee.
3. I have preached on gluttony, laziness, foolishness, and other sins from Proverbs. Yes, it is hypocritical to speak against alcohol yet be 50 lbs overweight because of overeating.
4. Comparisons between alcohol and soft drinks are not entirely valid since soft drinks will not produce the problems alcohol will, although some are "addicted" to soft drinks, which does create some similarity in principle.
5. Just because Christians disagree about an issue does not automatically make that a "Christian liberty" issue. Christians disagree about abortion, homosexuality, and smoking as well.
6. If alcohol is OK, then why not chewing tobacco, snuff, a pipe, cigars, etc.? Alcoholic drinks are basically a man-made beverage, but tobacco is a natural plant, although the end product is man-made.
7. I have seen the serious problems and consequences of the life-dominating sin of alcohol. To insist of the "right" to drink alcohol is to insist on the "right" to be foolish. I have counseled with many people who are controlled by alcohol yet who never intended that to happen when they first started drinking.
8. I have not had nor will ever have in my pulpit anyone who believes that drinking today's alcoholic beverages is acceptable. The same standard applies to smoking.
9. We have many, many more choices concerning beverages today than those in Biblical times. Wine was a common and convenient beverage in a time of limited choices and unsafe water. We do not have that same problem today.
10. I hope that those who insist on their right to drink alcohol will not one day find their teenage or adult child addicted to alcohol because the parent insisted on their rights.
11. Christian liberty focuses more on what we give up than what we are allowed to do. I rarely see that emphasis.
12. The emphasis on the right to drink alcohol reveals a deeper problem in evangelicalism: weakening authority of Scripture. We talk much about not conforming to the world, yet conveniently rationalize our way around it.
Again: I do not intend to come across as mean-spirited. But if more & more evangelicals insist on their right to drink alcohol, then the day will come when evangelicalism is not much different than yesterday's liberalism.
Wally Morris said:
"Comparisons between alcohol and soft drinks are not entirely valid since soft drinks will not produce the problems alcohol will, although some are "addicted" to soft drinks, which does create some similarity in principle."
Actually, the abuse of soft drinks produces obesity, diabetes, and all kinds of other sugar related ailments.
There is no benefit to drinking sugary sodas today as these are completely unhealthy, sugar-filled, empty calories with no nutritional value--so why do some people insist on their right to drink sodas when doing so can be seen as a bad witness because it is so unhealthy and detrimental to the body?
Wally Morris said:
"I have not had nor will ever have in my pulpit anyone who believes that drinking today's alcoholic beverages is acceptable. The same standard applies to smoking."
You're excluding a LOT of Godly pastors and theologians then. A lot.
Wally Morris said:
"Christian liberty focuses more on what we give up than what we are allowed to do."
I think Christian liberty focuses more on how we live in light of the Gospel--as the Apostle Paul said:
Colossians 2:20-22
20 If you have died with Christ to the elementary principles of the world, why, as if you were living in the world, do you submit yourself to decrees, such as,
21"Do not handle, do not taste, do not touch!"
22(which all refer to things destined to perish with use)--in accordance with the commandments and teachings of men? (emphasis mine)
Wally Morris said:
"But if more & more evangelicals insist on their right to drink alcohol, then the day will come when evangelicalism is not much different than yesterday's liberalism."
I think evangelicalism in many quarters is already similar to liberalism, but not because of alcohol consumption.
Rather so many evangelicals are either Arminian or even semi-Pelagian and focus more on preaching sermons about our personal behavior--stop abortion, stop global warming, find your purpose in life, have a better family, don't drink alcohol--rather than straight-forward proclamation of the Gospel.
Wally,
Hear the Word of the Lord from Romans 14:1-4:
"As for the one who is weak in faith, welcome him, but not to quarrel over opinions. One person believes he may eat anything, while the weak person eats only vegetables. Let not the one who eats despise the one who abstains, and let not the one who abstains pass judgment on the one who eats, for God has welcomed him. Who are you to pass judgment on the servant of another? It is before his own master that he stands or falls. And he will be upheld, for the Lord is able to make him stand."
Wally, in the name of the Lord, I welcome you, but not to quarrel over opinions. I believe I can drink anything. You drink only coffee, water, and soft drinks. I don't despise you. I kindly request that you don't pass judgment on me. Who are you to pass judgment on me, the servant of another? It is before the Lord that I stand or fall and he is able to make me stand.
Wally, I wish to make one observation concerning your recent post, and then ask if you might do us the favor of responding to a couple of questions.
First, I wish to note that though your post consisted of 12 assertions regarding your view of the Christian's use of alcoholic beverages, they are all, in their entirety, just that...assertions. You make not one argument on the basis of Scriptural exposition.
In an effort to bring the discussion back to that which, I assume, we each claim as our authority, would you please reconcile your view that the use of alcohol is always wrong for the people of God with Deuteronomy 14:26, in which God says to His people,
"You may spend the money for whatever your heart desires: for oxen or sheep or wine or strong drink, or whatever your heart desires; and there you shall eat in the presence of the Lord your God and rejoice, you and your household."
Thanks. I look forward to your response.
Jim H.
i think all of you are missing my and wally's intent. we are not arguing from scripture. we are arguing from experience.
to say "Jesus drank" is kind of stupid - considering His parents, i think it's safe to say he had no genetic risk of alcoholism.
in the end, it's much better and safer to abstain; that's the point we're making.
but go ahead and take your chances if you want to. it's all certainly within your Christian liberty.
just remember you might have kids watching you, and that they will sooner or later be heading to colleges where binge drinking has become an epidemic.
sometimes we decide not to do things without a scripture reference, but based on life experiences, as shocking as that might sound to some of you...
As I said before, I am unable to post any more comments. As for Scriptural references, others on this thread have posted several references. For more Scripture, see Dr. Geisler's article (http://criswell.files.wordpress.com/2008/04/ctrgeislerformatted.pdf) and also his article in BibSac 139:553, pp.46-56. The PDF article at the Criswell Review site seems to be an update and expansion on his BibSac article. In conclusion, I stand by my comments.
Mike:
Here's the problem. You have admitted that you are not arguing from Scripture, but from experience. Fine. Thanks for stating it so clearly. Unfortunately, you go on to speak of this issue, based on your experience, not scripture, in terms of what others ought to do or not do. You cannot, however, universalize your experience and turn it into an "ought" for anyone else. Only the Scripture has that authority.
As for the fact that Jesus drank, you say:
1)that his parents must have had no genetic disposition to alcoholism. This is a strange way to deal with the word of God, isn't it? You take a concept which is foreign to Scripture, and then proclaim without any basis whatsoever regarding either the reality of that concept (genetic disposition to alcoholism) or the genetics of the people of which you speak, that they clearly did not have that disposition. Scripture, which is supposed to be our authority, remember, never hints at any genetic basis for anything it says about alcohol, pro or con.
2) After having admitted that you are not arguing from one one source that would provide an "ought", you say, "...its much better and safer to abstain..." Says who? Says you, not Scripture. You do realize, of course, that you have just accused Jesus of not doing that which is "better and safer."
But that's what happens when we argue from our experience rather than Scripture.
Mike Rucker,
I wonder, since Wally won't deal with it, if you would. If it is better and safer to abstain, would you please reconcile this with Deut. 14:26 in which God Himself permits and even encourages his people to partake of not only wine, but also strong drink, as they celebrate in His presence.
thanks.
Wally,
It is strange that you post an additional comment saying that you are unable to post anymore comments. Just for the record, I wasn't asking for any Scriptural references. I gave you a reference and asked you to explain it in the light of what you have said regarding the use of alcohol.
In the passage that I quoted, God permits and encourages His people to buy not only wine but also strong drink for use in celebrating in His presence.
Was God wrong, to do so? Did He not understand that drunkenness might result? Did He not know of these so-called genetice dispositions?
I'm not asking for much. I would just like you or Mike or anyone to explain how an "ought not" can be supported in regards to something when God Himself says, "Go ahead."
people in the time of scripture didn't have a clue about genetics. take that as you will.
but methinks the spurgeonite doth protest too much ... :)
do you really think it's a COMMAND from God that we partake of strong drink? do you use wine in communion, or jack daniels? of course, if your church advertises the JD, attendance would probably shoot through the roof.
i am not telling anyone to do anything, and i wish you'd quit reading that into my comments.
i'm well aware that something i will never convince you of is that experience sometimes trumps 2-4,000 year old writings. and you will never convince me of the opposite, either.
one verse you keep overlooking is Paul's admonition to "not be drunk with wine." of course, if you ask anyone drinking if they're drunk, the answer is always no - and the number of drinks they've had is always two.
and, yes, i know this from experience...
mike rucker
fairburn, georgia, usa
mikerucker.wordpress.com
Wally,
If you're going to stand on Dr. Geisler's article don't be surprised if you begin to have a shaking sensation. Your rant and run is unfortunate. I do hope you'll consider Romans 14.
Mike,
Your comment that "to say 'Jesus drank' is kind of stupid" seems a bit harsh. I don't believe you meant it to be.
Mike,
"Experience sometimes trumps 2-4,000 year old writings?" Your experience NEVER trumps the Word of the Most High God. That's dangerous ground your on.
I understand your experience with alcohol greatly influences your opinion in this area. Let me assure you that I, and probably everyone posting here, agree with Paul when he says we should "not be drunk with wine."
You say "if you ask anyone drinking if they're drunk, the answer is always no." You have never asked ME that question when I'm drinking a glass of wine. My answer would be "no" because that would be the truth. And usually, "the number of drinks" would be one rather than two.
This is what it boils down to:
Mike, arguing against the wisdom of moderate alcohol consumption, says:
"i think all of you are missing my and wally's intent. we are not arguing from scripture. we are arguing from experience."
And:
"i'm well aware that something i will never convince you of is that experience sometimes trumps 2-4,000 year old writings. and you will never convince me of the opposite, either."
Meanwhile, those arguing for the freedom of Christians to drink alcohol in moderation are arguing from Scripture.
I think the Bible trumps any human being's experience every time.
Your comment that "to say 'Jesus drank' is kind of stupid" seems a bit harsh. I don't believe you meant it to be.
i meant in relation to alcoholism being genetic. sorry if the tone was offensive.
"Experience sometimes trumps 2-4,000 year old writings?" Your experience NEVER trumps the Word of the Most High God. That's dangerous ground you're on.
i've already fought that battle, Stan, through a lot of mental wrestling, as well as a whole lotta reading, discussion, etc. if it's dangerous ground, well, like somebody famous said, "i can do no other." we all emphasize some parts of scripture over others - if you're a calvinist, you ignore parts that are quite clearly in opposition; if you're arminian, you obviously ignore the sections on election. and most of these decisions are based on experience, and how you've seen God work in your own life and in the lives of others.
You say "if you ask anyone drinking if they're drunk, the answer is always no." You have never asked ME that question when I'm drinking a glass of wine. My answer would be "no" because that would be the truth.
au contraire ... one and a half SMALL glasses of wine puts you at the legal limit for DUI in most states. and i bet you put that thing on your head in your picture after drinking, didn't you... :)
again, stan, i'm not making the case for anything except this: one is safer off never starting. and i think that's very solid ground to stand on.
btw, you're only drinking wine?! does this mean you're ignoring God's command to consume strong drink?! you're not choosing to ignore this part of scripture, are you? tsk, tsk, tsk. :)
mike rucker
fairburn, georgia, usa
mikerucker.wordpress.com
Mike, please, will you engage with what I actually say?
1)The point had nothing to do with whether or not individuals in the time of scripture knew about genetics. Of course they didn't. But if there is some kind of genetic disposition, don't you think God would know that? And yet...Deut. 14:26.
2) No one has said that God has commanded it. The entire point of the argument is that He has never forbidden it, has explicitly allowed it, and has described it as a blessing.
3)Technically, I suppose you are not telling anyone to do anything. But you are placing yourself in judgment upon others by saying that your personal convictions are "better", which is an offense against the clear teaching of Scripture in Romans 14.
4) I'm not overlooking Paul's admonition. If the question were drunkenness, Eph. 5:18 would certainly pertain. But I have yet to read anyone who has said that it is ok to be drunk. The question is not whether or not drunkenness is permitted, but rather whether the use of alcohol is permitted. They are two different things.
5) In the end, nothing I have said, matters. You have been very honest in stating,
"...experience sometimes trumps 2-4,000 year old writings."
That being the case, your statement that "you will never convince me of the opposite" is obviously true, for you recognize no authority above yourself. You will decide, according to your statement, when Scripture will be authoritative and when your experience will be authoritative. That being the case, you are always authoritative for you set yourself as judge over the Word of God.
If nothing else has been accomplished, at least that has been made clear.
Mike,
You're a fun guy. If you're ever in Central Florida, you must contact me.
You quoted "i can do no other" from Luther. The entire quote (if wikipedia is to be trusted) is:
"Unless I am convicted by Scripture and plain reason--I do not accept the authority of popes and councils, for they have contradicted each other--my conscience is captive to the word of God. I cannot and will not recant anything for to go against conscience is neither right nor safe."
Luther did not stand on his experience. His conscience was captive to the word of God.
You said "if you're a calvinist, you ignore parts (of scripture) that are quite clearly in opposition." If by calvinist you mean the "Five Points" I don't think there are "parts that are quite clearly in opposition." If there were, I would change my position. I, and no other "calvinist" I know, do not "ignore parts (of scripture)."
As for "the legal limit for DUI in most states", I don't think that is a measurement Paul's "do not be drunk with wine." Aside from that, I'm not sure where you came up with one and a half glasses of wine (which is not a strong drink). According to http://www.ahealthyme.com/topic/drunkdriving "A typical 170-pound man with an empty stomach would have to drink four servings of alcohol in an hour to reach a BAC of 0.08 percent. (A 12-ounce beer, a glass of wine, and a shot of hard liquor all count as a serving.) A 135-pound woman could have a BAC of 0.08 percent after just three drinks -- or fewer if the bar or party host is pouring larger-than-normal servings." My wife and I at most drink half of those estimates and would do it in a period longer than an hour.
As for the hat, that is my football gameday hat. My wife doesn't let me wear it at home or when eating out. The only places I drink wine are at home (or at a friends) with dinner or eating out. Thus, no alcohol was involved with the hat. Now that I think about it, it's probably worse that way.
I can't go along with you on the "safer off never starting" as a general rule. Looking back, some people would have been better off never starting. I'll even grant you that there are people who probably should never start.
However, if we take that position with alcohol, why not with everything else out there that could harm us. Let's look at wheat. I have a condition called celiac sprue. I never had any symptoms until 2006 and was diagnosed in April 2007. With this condition, wheat (actually the wheat protien) can wreak havok in your system and can even lead to death. Should everyone stay away from wheat because it could possibly kill them. I don't think so.
How about ice cream? My wife and I can only buy one container of ice cream at a time. That's because I will consume all ice cream in my fridge in a matter of minutes. That's not healthy. If I ate as much ice cream as I might have the urge to, I would balloon up significantly. As it is, I am happy to be under 200 pounds.
How about driving automobiles? Accidents will result in many deaths. No question about it. Some people will end up driving aggressively. Do will all take the attitude of "safer off never starting"? I don't think so.
Or how about wearing silly hats?
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home