Drinking

[ALAYMAN]

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.

I didn't insist that anybody here take my approach, and never said anybody was necessarily sinning by imbibing in moderation.  I also didn't accuse you of promoting the party mindset, but you assumed that charge was against you by jumping into the fray.

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.

Did I accuse you of that?

But to run with your rabbit, I do think that there's a strong case to be made that Jesus wouldn't have assisted in making people drunk, and that the wine that existed in those times wasn't necessarily absolutely correlative to that of our time.  There's more to say about that, but I really don't want to get further into this old dead horse (that was for somebody other than you ).

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.

You again make me laugh.  You add to the Scriptures, or read into them, or add historical information that is tenuous at best.  You cannot show that the context of Paul's admonition/rebuke regarding the stronger-weaker brethren was that they were eating idol meat in the love feast.  Many commentators insist that the eating being done in Corinth was in the pagan temples themselves, with pagan friends who they knew before their conversion.

 

[FSSL]

You again make me laugh.

Well then... great! I am a fun-loving person and am happy you are amused.

You add to the Scriptures, or read into them, or add historical information that is tenuous at best.  You cannot show that the context of Paul's admonition/rebuke regarding the stronger-weaker brethren was that they were eating idol meat in the love feast.  Many commentators insist that the eating being done in Corinth was in the pagan temples themselves, with pagan friends who they knew before their conversion.

Is it worse to ADD or SUBTRACT from the Scriptures?

Read 1 Corinthians 10:23-11:1

 

[subllibrm]

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.

I didn't insist that anybody here take my approach, and never said anybody was necessarily sinning by imbibing in moderation.  I also didn't accuse you of promoting the party mindset, but you assumed that charge was against you by jumping into the fray.

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.

Did I accuse you of that?

I made an observation that I had never seen anyone promote such. Did not accuse you of accusing me. So who is jumping to conclusions here?

Never said you accused me of that either but the accusation has been leveled more than once by folks here and you very well know it. Again an observation.

As a pretty smart fellow here has said to me in the past "it isn't always about you". 

 

[Biker]

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.

Too bad the excesses of the Biblical days have caused an overreaction by some Christians, aand even Almighty himself.


Proverbs 20

20 Wine is a mocker, strong drink is raging: and whosoever is deceived thereby is not wise.

2 The fear of a king is as the roaring of a lion: whoso provoketh him to anger sinneth against his own soul.

3 It is an honour for a man to cease from strife: but every fool will be meddling.

4 The sluggard will not plow by reason of the cold; therefore shall he beg in harvest, and have nothing.

Righteous Noah got drunk. While he was passed out like a light he laid in the tent naked (which I am not sure what the issue was) yet.. his son the perv did or said something pretty strange regarding it. Trying to make him a freak show somehow.

Drinking leads to sex, period. It leads to drunken driving and killing people, period. It makes a ton of fetal alcohol syndrome babies, we've fostered a few.  POT does not. It's not nearly as dangerous so please be wise about your intoxicants and choose the one that causes less damage to all. The constant fighting on these boards which opposes scripture only shows unbelievers that there are more of them than could ever be of us.
There is no way measure the level of intoxication as Drunkenness until you've already done it and sinned.

Listen to scripture. Adhere to it.

Macarthur is probably the clearest, most solid biblical teacher concerning this topic you'll ever find. He teaches exactly what I just did.
His Staff agrees not to drink recreationally. Why? Because it's not biblical. We don't normally have dirty water which causes ailments which this cures.


"Drink no water but a little wine for thy stomaches sake" 2 Tim means you need to stop drinking that contaminated water and disinfect your bacteria & toxic filled tunny with this drug.

 

[FSSL]

Do you realize that Proverbs is talking about people who are "deceived by it?" Yes. Getting drunk is bad.

Reread what MacArthur wrote. Granted... he has confused this issue. But he CLEARLY recognizes that one cannot say: "it is not biblical."

MacArthur: "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."

 

[ALAYMAN]

Is it worse to ADD or SUBTRACT from the Scriptures?

Read 1 Corinthians 10:23-11:1

10:27 If any of them that believe not bid you to a feast....


lol, the love feast was for unbelievers????


tsk, tsk.....your desperation and scripture twisting is a bit embarrassing.

 

[Biker]

Do you realize that Proverbs is talking about people who are "deceived by it?"

Yes. Getting drunk is bad.
If you have an ailment or infirmity, your water is contaminated thus you need to drink, then fine. And if you drink a little too much to become intoxicated, oh well...

That's a whole different ballgame than getting deceived by it trying to push it's ok for us to drink recreationally, because NO WHERE does it say that.

I haven't read the MacArthur stuff, but I know he's getting old. But I've watched a video where he explains it and it was spot on. I'll read this after dinner.

Reread what MacArthur wrote. Granted... he has confused this issue. But he CLEARLY recognizes that one cannot say: "it is not biblical."

MacArthur: "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."

Yes, who is deceived by it. Why is this even a debate? What do you not get? [/quote]

Scripture is clear of when it tells the circumstances arise which dictate this drug to be ingested.

For Digestive disorders and other stomache ailments. Back then, that was expected to be a drinker. They all drank to ward off diseases.

Those who try to justify intoxicants for any other purpose are being deceived. Drink Grape Juice but that's not good enough because what some want is DRUGS.

Drinking alcohol for medicinal uses IS BIBLICAL and it IS THE REASON God gave us this gift. MacArthur knows this. It's Not to go around calling ourselves Christians while trying to justify a reason others need to imbibe...all just for the hell of it. If you have what you feel is a medical reason then I am probably the more flexible of most about agreeing  with you. That for now, you need it. But I would also be studying your ailments, how it makes you feel, and if there is a safe alternative to getting that same feeling, whether it be calmness, rowdiness, or whatever.

There is no excuse to drug yourself, to any extent, unnecessarily. It's just not biblical nor healthy

JUST
SAY
NO  8)

 

[FSSL]

10:27 If any of them that believe not bid you to a feast....

Since this part of 1 Corinthians 10 is new to you, please continue reading that passage. It expands to include "any man" vs 28 and "Jews", "Gentiles" and "church of God" vs 32

 

[FSSL]

MacArthur knows this.

As you have edited your post, I find that you are getting to know MacArthur a bit better. But you have a ways to go. Again.. if I must repeat myself, MacArthur gives mixed signals.

You would do FAR better to read what the Bible DOES say about wine, who used it, promoted it, celebrated with it, gave it as a gift and expected us to remember the violent bloody death He suffered.

Of course, getting drunk is not good! It is bad! You are committing the logical fallacy of the "excluded middle" which is very well described throughout Scripture.

Isaiah 55:1 IS in the Scripture as well: Come, all you who are thirsty,
        come to the waters;
        and you who have no money,
        come, buy and eat!
        Come, buy wine and milk
        without money and without cost.

 

[ALAYMAN]

10:27 If any of them that believe not bid you to a feast....

Since this part of 1 Corinthians 10 is new to you, please continue reading that passage. It expands to include "any man" vs 28 and "Jews", "Gentiles" and "church of God" vs 32

Are you actually arguing that this passage is about the love feast, AND that the love feast was for unbelievers?

 

[Biker]

MacArthur knows this.

As you have edited your post, I find that you are getting to know MacArthur a bit better. But you have a ways to go. Again.. if I must repeat myself, MacArthur gives mixed signals.

You would do FAR better to read what the Bible DOES say about wine, who used it, promoted it, celebrated with it, gave it as a gift and expected us to remember the violent bloody death He suffered.

Of course, getting drunk is not good! It is bad! You are committing the logical fallacy of the "excluded middle" which is very well described throughout Scripture.

Isaiah 55:1 IS in the Scripture as well: Come, all you who are thirsty,
        come to the waters;
        and you who have no money,
        come, buy and eat!
        Come, buy wine and milk
        without money and without cost.

I have no disagreements with anything you've posted here^^. I believe it was a common drink at the time FOR MEDICINAL USES. Bad water.

I studied MacArthurs believes on this many years ago when this topic came up many times over. My memory is fading but I know his Staff does not drink. I've spoke about this topic to him once but he was talking a bit jumbled that day. Or i wasn't following. Once he starts talking, man you gotta have the attention span of an elephant to keep up.

He can, at times, come up with a few comments regarding it that I cannot jump on board with. He doesn't care for it.

The Pastor who started our church couldn't seem to get it at first. He was fat.  He wanted to cycle with our group, he had lost some weight and rode for about 3 months on his own. His body clearly was molding so we knew he was in shape some years before and it wouldn't take long. Later I learned he quit drinking.

Invite my biker friends to a bar on the first few rides and that person wont be invited back to ride. Obvioulsy he's not fat anymore and my guess is, still doesn't drink. He told me years later he quit because of me. And others in our church, one Elder & his wife who can't stand it. He'd go off..It's never been discussed at church, maybe because of them, dunno.
People who drink have a too casual an attitude about sex. I don't want adulterers around me (socially) so to cut out the drinkers is the easiest way. Those people are different. Always have been, always will be. Christian or not.
I don't need any drug to help me along with being influenced to commit adultery. 80-90% of Adultery initially starts because two people drank too much and it got out of hand. We all know this. That specific drug has horns, it causes more destruction in families than any other drug in the world

 

[FSSL]

Are you actually arguing that this passage is about the love feast, AND that the love feast was for unbelievers?

You apparently read neither my posts nor 1 Corinthians 10.

Anyone familiar with this passage would see that the example that I gave is but one legitimate application of this passage. I did frame the post by saying: "Here would be a crisis in Paul's context: The church in Ephesus/Corinth/Smyrna gathers together..."

The fact that I mentioned the "WEAK" "spiritually immature" and mentioned a few historical churches in which this could apply should clue you in. The passage INCLUDES believers. So, my point is that if there were a love feast in a believer's house, and there was a question about the marketplace-sourced food, of course, this passage would apply.

What you are diverting from is this point: "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."

 

[FSSL]

I have no disagreements with anything you've posted. I believe it was a common drink at the time FOR MEDICINAL USES. Bad water.

I beg to disagree. I doubt that Jesus' purpose was to make medicine for the marriage feast.
Even if you think it is for "medicinal uses" we are being told in the OP that it is not.

People who drink have a too casual an attitude about sex. I don't want adulterers around me (socially) so to cut out the drinkers is the easiest way.

Well... Jesus took a different approach.

 

[ALAYMAN]

Are you actually arguing that this passage is about the love feast, AND that the love feast was for unbelievers?

You apparently read neither my posts nor 1 Corinthians 10.

Anyone familiar with this passage would see that the example that I gave is but one legitimate application of this passage. I did frame the post by saying: "Here would be a crisis in Paul's context: The church in Ephesus/Corinth/Smyrna gathers together..."

The fact that I mentioned the "WEAK" "spiritually immature" and mentioned a few historical churches in which this could apply should clue you in. The passage INCLUDES believers. So, my point is that if there were a love feast in a believer's house, and there was a question about the marketplace-sourced food, of course, this passage would apply.

What you are diverting from is this point: "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."

You'll find ZERO support for any of your Scripture twisting.  This passage was not about the love feast.  It is not about allowing unbelievers to follow their conscience at love feast.  In all my years of the FFF, other than the weirdo dingbats that have occasionally infested the place, I've never seen a worse mangling of the word of God in order justify a point.  Just admit that you grasped for straws and at least salvage a little bit of dignity.  To go on trying to justify your poor interpretation and addition to Scripture is just plain sad, but I see why those Sunday School Lessons are Free.  And then you have the absolute gall to accuse me of "distraction" after running the doooozie of all end-arounds .  I'm literally speechless, but I'll leave the reader to see what you've written, and they can judge for themselves who wanted to have a sincere discussion about Scriptural application for the abstentionist position.  You see, I never claimed a Teetotaler postion, nor did I say that Paul prescribed it.  That's you doing what you do, and what you've regularly done to Aleshanee.  You've changed people's arguments, moved the goalposts, obfuscated, and generally been pretty shifty.

 

[FSSL]

I was giving an APPLICATION of how this would play out during a meeting among believers. There was NO moving of goal posts. You did not read my post. You made some bad ASSUMPTIONS about what I wrote.

Why the invective? Only those with weak arguments are left to defend themselves in that manner.

 

[FSSL]

You see, I never claimed a Teetotaler postion, nor did I say that Paul prescribed it.

When you said "All that has absolutely nothing to do with the verses that I would claim for support of my abstentionist position" I took that to mean you were convinced by Scripture for being an abstentionist (which is a teetotaler).

But, you know what you meant... so I will try to understand your position better.

That's you doing what you do, and what you've regularly done to Aleshanee.  You've changed people's arguments, moved the goalposts, obfuscated, and generally been pretty shifty.

She didn't read some of my posts either, but I think we got over it. Let her fight her own battles.

 

[ChuckBob]

This one says. That ones says. This verse says and that verse says. I says that after a long day of wading the Caney Fork River in pursuit of the rainbow trout and following a fine supper of stew and dutch oven biscuits a special time arrives. Several gentlemen of the South gather around a fire with our dogs there on the river bank. This is in itself not that unusual. Men have been sitting around fires on the banks of the Caney Fork with their dogs for the past five or so thousand years. What makes it special is that our group has been doing it since 1948. Now, originally it was our grandfathers and great uncles who camped there but through the years as each of us has attained manhood he has taken his place around the fire. The ritual used to include a quart fruit jar full of the best Tennessee shine but has evolved into including a fine single malt scotch served in a tin cup. We sip while we watch the full moon come up over Wolf Creek Ridge across the river. We talk of long ago hunts, twelve point bucks, fine hunting dogs and big fish that got away. We also share stories of those of us that have passed on and no longer share our fires. We raise a battered tin cup to their memory grateful for the legacy that they have passed to us. The chance to grow up as we did and when the time came to take our place around the fire with the elders. It just wouldn't be the same with iced tea.

ChuckBob

 

[ALAYMAN]

I was giving an APPLICATION of how this would play out during a meeting among believers. There was NO moving of goal posts. You did not read my post. You made some bad ASSUMPTIONS about what I wrote.

The argument I invoked abou the weaker brother has NOTHING to do with unbelievers.  You introduced that canard.  You also brought the love feast into this, even though the passages I am referencing in regards to the weaker brother has nothing to do with love feasts.  Strike two.  The APPLICATION that may be drawn from the weaker brother and idolatrous meat context is most germane to our alcohol discussion due to recreational boozing becoming a stumbling block (and not necessarily or even as likely in a religious context).

Why the invective? Only those with weak arguments are left to defend themselves in that manner.

2invective
noun
: harsh or insulting words : rude and angry language

Before I even called your eisigesis out you used these words in relation to me....

encapable, dishonest, legalist


pot, meet kettle.

When you said "All that has absolutely nothing to do with the verses that I would claim for support of my abstentionist position" I took that to mean you were convinced by Scripture for being an abstentionist (which is a teetotaler).

But, you know what you meant... so I will try to understand your position better.

You obviously don't know what the difference is between an abstentionist and a teetotaler.  I said I was the former, and not the latter.  Find out what the difference is and you'll discover yet another reason that you have mistakenly attributed arguments to me that are not legitimate.  I made that distinction abundantly clear in almost my first post in this thread when I said...

Reply# 73

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".

 

[ALAYMAN]

This one says. That ones says. This verse says and that verse says. I says that after a long day of wading the Caney Fork River in pursuit of the rainbow trout and following a fine supper of stew and dutch oven biscuits a special time arrives....

Chuck, I like ya man, but all that you just said was effectively "I like my tradition more than I care about what the Bible says on the subject", which at its core is nothing more than vain humanistic philosophy.

 

[subllibrm]

This one says. That ones says. This verse says and that verse says. I says that after a long day of wading the Caney Fork River in pursuit of the rainbow trout and following a fine supper of stew and dutch oven biscuits a special time arrives....

Chuck, I like ya man, but all that you just said was effectively "I like my tradition more than I care about what the Bible says on the subject", which at its core is nothing more than vain humanistic philosophy.

Kinda like the folks who don't like CCM!  ;D