Drinking

[.tim]

I have always seen these discussions of drinking, among fundamentalists, as curious.

Fundamentalists do not know what to do with Jesus and they stumble over themselves.

Unless your definition of "fundamentalist" is an extremely broad one, there are plenty of evangelicals within the Southern Baptist (and others) camp that would argue that Jesus nor the Bible ain't a problem for them, but recreational consumption of alcohol for Christians is.

Fundamentalists do not know what to do with Jesus and alcohol... I am sure, as you point out, that others do as well.

So, Alayman, are you among those who do not know what to do with Jesus?

The real question is, "Would Jesus Drink Pop?"

Sugar (corn syrup) is probably more harmful than wine.

 

[FSSL]

FWIW John MacArthur falls into the "Jesus didn't make alcohol" camp.

MacArthur is not very clear in his commentary on this:

Interesting... in reading this article, he doesn't make that claim. http://www.gty.org/resources/bible-qna/BQ040512/why-would-jesus-create-wine

His last sentence that it did not come through the normal process of fermentation may be misleading. The wine Jesus provided, nevertheless, was wine. MacArthur does point out that it was intoxicating and He provided enough for the feast with plenty left over as a gift for the bride and groom.

He also says, "The Bible does not say you cannot drink wine. I told you last time if it did, I'd read the verse and we'd go home. It doesn't say that. And so we have to get some other principles to determine whether it's right or wrong and if it is, then when it is and when it isn't and so forth. Should a Christian drink alcoholic beverages?" in this article: http://www.gty.org/resources/print/sermons/1938

Then MacArthur does complicate this using all of the common fundamentalist manipulations: "not best choice," "not necessary" "John the Baptist was the greatest man to have ever lived and did not drink" "we are called to the 'highest level'" "wine had a low alcoholic content"

Jesus made wine, gave it as a gift and drank it, offering it to all of the apostles right before He died. Paul now commands us all to drink wine as a remembrance.

Too bad that the excesses of our society have caused an overreaction by some Christians.

 

[.tim]

FWIW John MacArthur falls into the "Jesus didn't make alcohol" camp.

MacArthur is not very clear in his commentary on this:

Interesting... in reading this article, he doesn't make that claim. http://www.gty.org/resources/bible-qna/BQ040512/why-would-jesus-create-wine

His last sentence that it did not come through the normal process of fermentation may be misleading. The wine Jesus provided, nevertheless, was wine. MacArthur does point out that it was intoxicating and He provided enough for the feast with plenty left over as a gift for the bride and groom.

He also says, "The Bible does not say you cannot drink wine. I told you last time if it did, I'd read the verse and we'd go home. It doesn't say that. And so we have to get some other principles to determine whether it's right or wrong and if it is, then when it is and when it isn't and so forth. Should a Christian drink alcoholic beverages?" in this article: http://www.gty.org/resources/print/sermons/1938

Then MacArthur does complicate this using all of the common fundamentalist manipulations: "not best choice," "not necessary" "John the Baptist was the greatest man to have ever lived and did not drink" "we are called to the 'highest level'" "wine had a low alcoholic content"

Jesus made wine, gave it as a gift and drank it, offering it to all of the apostles right before He died. Paul now commands us all to drink wine as a remembrance.

Too bad that the excesses of our society have caused an overreaction by some Christians.

But would Jesus eat a McChicken?

 

[subllibrm]

This thread is making me thirsty!

 

[FSSL]

Stay thirsty my friend!

 

[BALAAM]

Had an O'Douls a while back.  Absolutely terrible!

 

[ALAYMAN]

I know that your marginalization of anybody who disagrees with you will leave you encapable of reasonable civil discussion.

Oh.... there for a second I thought you were having an epiphany about yourself.

Nevertheless... I will not drag you into a discussion about what the Bible actually teaches about wine. I will accept that you are "encapable."

And the portrait you paint of the Bible's absolute unilateral endorsement of alcoholic beverages is overly simplistic, therefore I doubt you'd consider the nuances of the discussion of abstentionists.  I'm not a teetotaler, and believe that the concept of alcohol consumption may be a possibility for the Christian, but the wreckless and irresponsible way that the party-hard-dude crowd presents their case convinces me that they don't want to consider any other argument than the pitiful caricature presented by "stay thirsty my friend".

 

[rsc2a]

If with Christ you died to the elemental spirits of the world, why, as if you were still alive 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. - Colossians 2:20-23 ESV

 

[FSSL]

Is someone lacking in the ability to appreciate a bit of humor?

If you missed my comments on another thread, I gave my personal position. I will not have more than one beer or glass of wine at dinner. And that happens only when I am out of town, training a crew or meeting a friend. But... I don't need to justify my behavior. I am far more restrictive than most people you will find in the Bible.

You can snipe at my comments and say they are overly simplistic. Until you engage in an honest debate of the Bible's teaching, I find your position to be lacking.

The biblical portrait I painted was exactly what happened. Do you care to elaborate on the wedding in Canaan? I find myself agreeing with what MacArthur said. Jesus provided the best wine, made more than enough and gave the rest as a gift to the couple.

Did Jesus give everyone a .6 ounce of wine? Or did they have their own chalice? Did not Paul command that we drink wine at communion?

 

[ALAYMAN]

Is someone lacking in the ability to appreciate a bit of humor?

I lived with an alcoholic father, a good man who was enslaved to the bottle.  Forgive me if I don't find the subject real amusing.

If you missed my comments on another thread, I gave my personal position. I will not have more than one beer or glass of wine at dinner.

You can snipe at my comments and say they are overly simplistic. Until you engage in an honest debate of the Bible's teaching, I find your position to be lacking.

Nothing I or you say will change the other person's mind.  I'm sure you're well studied on it and convinced in your own mind, as am I.  My abstentionist position is not unique to the evangelical faith, nor is it legalistic as the spaz who recently responded implied.  I believe it was Leonard Ravenhill that said something to the effect that "anytime somebody in Christianity disagrees with somebody else's view of the Bible's commands they are then pronounced a legalist".  Without fail, that's the rally cry of many a libertine and antinomian.

The biblical portrait I painted was exactly what happened. Do you care to elaborate on the wedding in Canaan? I find myself agreeing with what MacArthur said. Jesus provided the best wine, made more than enough and gave the rest as a gift to the couple.

Macarthur had much more to say about those Young and Restless Reformed types (as you certainly seem to be, except for maybe the "young" part ) who flaunt their cigars, booze, and skinny jeans (I might add CCM here ).  All that has absolutely nothing to do with the verses that I would claim for support of my abstentionist position, which I'm pretty sure you already knew, but that wouldn't serve your efforts to pigeon-hole the discussion now would it?

 

[FSSL]

I believe it was Leonard Ravenhill that said something to the effect that "anytime somebody in Christianity disagrees with somebody else's view of the Bible's commands they are then pronounced a legalist".  Without fail, that's the rally cry of many a libertine and antinomian.

If a person is persuaded by Scripture, then I will allow them that liberty. Exactly the same kind of liberty I would expect from another. If a person fails to support their position, biblically, then until they do, they will be regarded as a legalist.

All that has absolutely nothing to do with the verses that I would claim for support of my abstentionist position, which I'm pretty sure you already knew, but that wouldn't serve your efforts to pigeon-hole the discussion now would it?

I pretty much pigeon-hole those who avoid using the Bible in these discussions. That should be pretty clear, by now. So, until you are able to discuss the subject, biblically... you are a pigeon in a hole.

 

[ALAYMAN]

All that has absolutely nothing to do with the verses that I would claim for support of my abstentionist position, which I'm pretty sure you already knew, but that wouldn't serve your efforts to pigeon-hole the discussion now would it?

I pretty much pigeon-hole those who avoid using the Bible in these discussions. That should be pretty clear, by now. So, until you are able to discuss the subject, biblically...

http://gallery.photo.net/photo/5683793-lg.jpg

That same Paul who commanded wine at communion also must have been schizophrenic because he said he'd refrain from using meat and drink that offended his brother.  He also said that the weaker brother would be cause enough to abstain from the meat in an idolatrous culture that used it for pagan sacrifices.  This American culture could certainly be argued to have idolatrous tendencies in regards to alcohol.  There are other Biblical principles on which the conscientious Christian bases their abstentionist position, but you ain't interested in them in sincerity, so go ahead and have the last word, because as I said, I'm not interested in beating a dead horse.

 

[subllibrm]

I know that your marginalization of anybody who disagrees with you will leave you encapable of reasonable civil discussion.

Oh.... there for a second I thought you were having an epiphany about yourself.

Nevertheless... I will not drag you into a discussion about what the Bible actually teaches about wine. I will accept that you are "encapable."

And the portrait you paint of the Bible's absolute unilateral endorsement of alcoholic beverages is overly simplistic, therefore I doubt you'd consider the nuances of the discussion of abstentionists.  I'm not a teetotaler, and believe that the concept of alcohol consumption may be a possibility for the Christian, but the wreckless and irresponsible way that the party-hard-dude crowd presents their case convinces me that they don't want to consider any other argument than the pitiful caricature presented by "stay thirsty my friend".

You know, I have participated in many of these wine/no wine threads and have never heard anyone promote a "party hearty" mindset. I don't drink. Never liked the stuff. Never struggled with it as a temptation.

I have seen more than enough bad results, poor decisions and ruined lives to be able to advise that staying away is a prudent choice. But I cannot and will not misuse scripture to take another person to that place.

 

[FSSL]

That same Paul who commanded wine at communion also must have been schizophrenic...

Certainly you see the difference between wine offered to idols and wine offered by Christ and within the context of the church.

... because as I said, I'm not interested in beating a dead horse.

See the above... I have framed my part in this discussion, entirely in Scripture and the terms used in Scripture. I am not arm twisting you to be involved in this discussion. I am not even calling you out to engage in it.

 

[FSSL]

But I cannot and will not misuse scripture to take another person to that place.

... and that is the point!

 

[ALAYMAN]

I have seen more than enough bad results, poor decisions and ruined lives to be able to advise that staying away is a prudent choice. But I cannot and will not misuse scripture to take another person to that place.

Because of course there couldn't just be a disagreement that is mutually agreed upon, it has to be a misuse of Scripture to advise somebody that all things lawful aren't necessarily expedient.

Certainly you see the difference between wine offered to idols and wine offered by Christ and within the context of the church.

There's so much wrong with this assessment that it's hard for me to even fathom that you offer it as an argument.  Do you think that the meat that was the cause of offense was being used in a church context? Of course not, but it was nonetheless something that Paul was willing to forego (and by application, urging brethren to do likewise in the remainder of his admonition to the church at Corinth).  Your analogy is completely unrelated.  I only respond to you, after having said that I was done with you, because this demonstrates so aptly why it is fruitless to engage you.

 

[The Rogue Tomato]

Stay thirsty my friend!

I don't always drink beer.  But when I do, it's not that bottled pee from Mexico.

 

[subllibrm]

I have seen more than enough bad results, poor decisions and ruined lives to be able to advise that staying away is a prudent choice. But I cannot and will not misuse scripture to take another person to that place.

Because of course there couldn't just be a disagreement that is mutually agreed upon, it has to be a misuse of Scripture to advise somebody that all things lawful aren't necessarily expedient.

No, that is exactly the scripture I use. As advice. Regularly. On more issues than just alcohol.

What I don't do is insist that my advice be taken. And I don't make it a fight and accuse someone who has an occasional beer of being a drunk or promoting a party hearty mindset.

On the FFF if I post that Jesus made wine, drank wine and served wine, there will usually erupt some accusation that I am promoting drunkenness.

 

[FSSL]

There's so much wrong with this assessment that it's hard for me to even fathom that you offer it as an argument.  Do you think that the meat that was the cause of offense was being used in a church context? Of course not, but it was nonetheless something that Paul was willing to forego (and by application, urging brethren to do likewise in the remainder of his admonition to the church at Corinth).  Your analogy is completely unrelated.  I only respond to you, after having said that I was done with you, because this demonstrates so aptly why it is fruitless to engage you.

If you are going to respond... then quit complaining about "beating dead horses" and "fruitless engagements."

Here would be a crisis in Paul's context: The church in Ephesus/Corinth/Smyrna gathers together for a love feast and wine provided were knowingly provided by a temple vendor. THAT would be a problem for the WEAK brethren who came out of a temple context and have not matured in their sanctification to appreciate that a piece of meat or chalice of wine offered as an idol has no intrinsic spiritual detriment.

Paul DID NOT say to become a teetotaler. He was willing to forego the wine within a CONTEXT of weak, immature believers. He was neither creating a principle of abstention, nor expecting an abstentious lifestyle.

In America, money is idolatrous to some... should I avoid making money?
In America, traveling freely in a RV across the country is idolatrous to some... should I avoid living this lifestyle?

See, it is all about context. Don't flaunt your liberty to drink in front of a WEAK Christian who struggles with it as an idol (alcoholic). It is not a blanket statement to never drink.

Did Paul stop using wine at the Lord's Supper? Nope. OR... would he make sure the wine was not bought from an idol vendor? There is a huge difference between the two.

 

[rsc2a]

For some, immaturity is a point of pride. Couple that with control over others and...