Drinking

[Bob H]

"Perhaps Timothy was inclined to an asceticism which associated purity with total abstention (cf. 4:3–5), which in turn led in Timothy’s case to stomach ailments and frequent illnesses, perhaps due to the poor quality of the water he drank." Litfin, A. D. (1985). 1 Timothy. In J. F. Walvoord & R. B. Zuck (Eds.), The Bible Knowledge Commentary: An Exposition of the Scriptures (J. F. Walvoord & R. B. Zuck, Ed.) (1 Ti 5:23). Wheaton, IL: Victor Books.

Sorry. I was looking at the wrong verse. My bad

 

[FSSL]

No one knows why Timothy didn't drink. That's why I asked the stupid question to begin with. I'm sorry I did 

Ha! We tend to beat dead horses on this forum... but then, what good is a forum that doesn't make a good amount of horse steaks?! The more content, the better the forum!

I just took exception to the idea that I was not allowed to provide possibilities (which are noted in at least a few good commentaries) and your possibility has yet to be corroborated by any commentary

My comment was that I Tim 5:23 is not a good verse to prove whether drinking is good or bad. He was told to drink it for medical purposes.

Maybe we should start over and both admit that 1 Timothy would not be a standard proof text for teaching that social drinking is fine. However, it does demonstrate that drinking wine will not cause a person to become impure.

..BTW,  is interpreting & possibilities a contradiction of terms. Just asking. They just seem not to go together.

Since the context follows a discussion of the false teachers and the way Paul worded it to Timothy "stop drinking only water," does give this as a strong possibility.

Unfortunately, our IFB culture has limited the discussion of this verse to pertain only to medicine. There is more to the verse.

 

[Bob H]

[

..BTW,  is interpreting & possibilities a contradiction of terms. Just asking. They just seem not to go together.

Since the context follows a discussion of the false teachers and the way Paul worded it to Timothy "stop drinking only water," does give this as a strong possibility.

Unfortunately, our IFB culture has limited the discussion of this verse to pertain only to medicine. There is more to the verse.

It was a dumb question but I can't take it back. And I'm not a "B" so I can't blame it on that.

 

[Bob H]

I just took exception to the idea that I was not allowed to provide possibilities (which are noted in at least a few good commentaries) and your possibility has yet to be corroborated by any commentary

Macarthur did state that Timothy "obviously committed himself to total abstinence". Be that as it may he also stated "By advocating the temporary, curative use of wine, Paul does not ask Timothy to alter his commitment to the highest standard of behavior for leaders" {cf. Num 6:1-4; Prov. 31:4}. Mac doesn't use that passage to advocate drinking, in fact it seems just the opposite. Does that count?.........


BTW, it helps when you go to the right passage 

 

[Tarheel Baptist]

I just took exception to the idea that I was not allowed to provide possibilities (which are noted in at least a few good commentaries) and your possibility has yet to be corroborated by any commentary

Macarthur did state that Timothy "obviously committed himself to total abstinence". Be that as it may he also stated "By advocating the temporary, curative use of wine, Paul does not ask Timothy to alter his commitment to the highest standard of behavior for leaders" {cf. Num 6:1-4; Prov. 31:4}. Mac doesn't use that passage to advocate drinking, in fact it seems just the opposite. Does that count?.........


BTW, it helps when you go to the right passage 

Bob, it helps to understand that on the forum, drinking is always good and any indication otherwise is bad. My alcoholic father would have loved this place. 

 

[FSSL]

Actually... I think ChuckBob nailed it on the head, upthread.

IFBrs have only been given all of the passages about the bad regarding wine and alcohol. I don't think many IFBrs even realize that liquor, in and of itself, is not the problem.

It is one of God's great gifts to be enjoyed. Unfortunately, only the excesses and abuses are reported.

 

[Tarheel Baptist]

Actually... I think ChuckBob nailed it on the head, upthread.

IFBrs have only been given all of the passages about the bad regarding wine and alcohol. I don't think many IFBrs even realize that liquor, in and of itself, is not the problem.

It is one of God's great gifts to be enjoyed. Unfortunately, only the excesses and abuses are reported.

1. This post is not aimed at you specifically.
2. I am not one who preaches abstinence.
3. I am not an IFB.

I think that those who have coniptions any time drinking is referenced in any negative connotation are reacting to IFB-dom more so than the reality of alcohol's consequences.
Even my referencing the fact that alcohol consumption can have negative consequences will probably compel some to quote an obscure passage in Deuteronomy.

 

[FSSL]

I am not taking it personally

I think you and I will have more agreements than disagreements. Yes, people unfortunately have suffered gravely over the abuses.

 

[Darkwing Duck]

My Pastor's position is that while he doesn't think that drinking alcohol is a sin, he also doesn't see any merit in it.
Why drink alcohol if you don't have to?
Plenty of people live their entire lives without drinking, they aren't missing anything.

 

[FSSL]

It is very true that you may "not need" wine.

However, since food and wine are presented in the Bible as gifts from God, isn't it manipulating the consciences of others to say "you don't need?"

Pastors that play the "you-don't-need-card" do so when they don't have substantive reasons to be opposed to something.

Wine is a gift from God:

Ge 27:25
Ge 27:28
2 Samuel 16:2
1 Chron 12:40
Ecc 9:7
Psalm 104:14-15
John 2:9
Amos 9:14
Isaiah 55:1

Wine pleases God: Note that wine was used as a drink offering.

If your conscience has been trained that wine is a doubtful thing... then practice Romans 14. However, realize that your conscience can be trained to accept it as a gift from God (as it truly is!)

 

[prophet]

I blame the social movement spearheaded by Billy Sunday, Ladies Temperance League, culminating in Prohibition.
Kept alive by Arm.'s like BJ Sr., and etc.
If you have no gift, rail against social ills until someone gives them up.  Then you can claim you have a convert.
It is similiar to Rev. Jackson railing against racism, ....cuz what else is he gonna address?  Adultery? 

Anishinabe

 

[Bruh]

Question for those that do not believe it is wrong to drink alcohol. 

If it were not illegal for your children to drink alcohol, would you, as their parent allow them to drink it with you in moderation? 

 

[The Rogue Tomato]

Question for those that do not believe it is wrong to drink alcohol. 

If it were not illegal for your children to drink alcohol, would you, as their parent allow them to drink it with you in moderation?

In Europe, particularly France, children routinely drink wine with meals, sometimes even in restaurants.  That's because they consider it a dinner beverage, not something to drink in order to get drunk. 

My parents gave me and my sister wine along with everyone else at every holiday meal, even when I was younger than a teenager (but not under 5, as far as I can remember).  They also gave me a little beer (maybe an ounce or two) with meals on the advice of our family doctor, in order to increase my appetite.  I don't remember how old I was, but it was pretty young. 

I let my kids sample wine and beer when they were as young as 13.  My 17 year old son often wants some of my wine when I buy it ("some" meaning 1/4 glass).  He enjoys it. 

I infrequently have wine with dinner, but when I do, my kids usually want some.  I give them about 1/4-1/3 glass.  They drink a little and leave the rest in the glass. 

Each to his own, but in my family, I think it took the "desiring that forbidden fruit" out of the picture for my kids.  They have no interest in going to some party where they can have what is forbidden at home. 

 

[rsc2a]

Question for those that do not believe it is wrong to drink alcohol. 

If it were not illegal for your children to drink alcohol, would you, as their parent allow them to drink it with you in moderation?

In Europe, particularly France, children routinely drink wine with meals, sometimes even in restaurants.  That's because they consider it a dinner beverage, not something to drink in order to get drunk. 

My parents gave me and my sister wine along with everyone else at every holiday meal, even when I was younger than a teenager (but not under 5, as far as I can remember).  They also gave me a little beer (maybe an ounce or two) with meals on the advice of our family doctor, in order to increase my appetite.  I don't remember how old I was, but it was pretty young. 

I let my kids sample wine and beer when they were as young as 13.  My 17 year old son often wants some of my wine when I buy it ("some" meaning 1/4 glass).  He enjoys it. 

I infrequently have wine with dinner, but when I do, my kids usually want some.  I give them about 1/4-1/3 glass.  They drink a little and leave the rest in the glass. 

Each to his own, but in my family, I think it took the "desiring that forbidden fruit" out of the picture for my kids.  They have no interest in going to some party where they can have what is forbidden at home.

^^ This

 

[lnf]

I lived in Germany from 8 to 12 years of age when my dad was stationed there.  My brother and I were always served wine when my dad ordered it in a restaurant.  My understanding of the culture was that if you could "belly up to the bar", you could order a drink. 

I've often wondered if Europe has the same problems as we do in the US with underage drinking/alcoholism.  Mr. Tomato brings up a interesting question...does including the kiddies in a (partial) glass of wine with dinner remove the "forbidden fruit" factor of alcohol? 

My parents did not continue the practice when we returned to the US 4 years later, so I really don't have a point of reference.  Although I do still enjoy a good riesling on occasion!

 

[ALAYMAN]

Nah... you are getting confused.

Alayman STRONGLY APPEARS to say that the false teachers are only "latter day" teachers, not contemporary with Timothy.

I said that Timothy may have been influenced by SOME of their teachings regarding abstinence from wine. That does not demand, or even imply, that Timothy would have been influenced by ALL their teachings.

The point I was making was that Paul was not rebuking Timothy for anything that Timothy had done wrong, but was warning of things that could/would happen in the future (even if it was the near future).  Paul says that the young preacher boy has followed good doctrine.  He's not admonishing Timothy based on any bad praxis in Timothy's character, unless you include the list of apostasy and other things that are a continuous thought starting with verse 1.

 

[ALAYMAN]

Well... Alayman... you continue shooting from the hip. Your points are not very informed.

In about the strongest way possible, in Koine Greek, Paul tells Timothy to stop being a water-drinker.

He uses an adverb that means "no longer" and an imperative with the verb. Then he uses a very emphatic form of "but." Combined, there is a pretty powerful command on Paul's part.

Of course, Timothy had much for which to be commended. HOWEVER, there is a weakness in Timothy's thinking and it was contributing to his poor health.

About you wanting to categorically say Timothy had to have all of the errors of the false teachers... Look into your own thinking Alayman. You hold to some very common errors that stem from the Fundamentalist movement. I would not claim that you hold to all of their errors, but there has been some influence.

This could be the case with Timothy. He got some bad thinking along the way about water-only, from someone.

More and more and more speculation on your part, but absolutely nothing from the context would lead one to your conclusions.  Matter of fact, you've completely fled the immediate context  of I Timothy 4 and lept to chapter 5 to make your point.  Your ad hominem also shows a sign of weak argumentation.  Your attempt to label me a fundy in order to dismiss the argument is complete obfuscation.  There are tons of reasons why Timothy might have been refraining from wine (none of which stem from Timothy "getting caught up in false teaching"), and Paul very easily could have been telling him to use it for medicine and don't worry about the ascetes.  You seem to have quite the aversion to keeping exegetically tethered to the context, in favor of speculation and conjecture.  I know which is the more worthy hermeneutic.

 

[Recovering IFB]

Well... Alayman... you continue shooting from the hip. Your points are not very informed.

In about the strongest way possible, in Koine Greek, Paul tells Timothy to stop being a water-drinker.

He uses an adverb that means "no longer" and an imperative with the verb. Then he uses a very emphatic form of "but." Combined, there is a pretty powerful command on Paul's part.

Of course, Timothy had much for which to be commended. HOWEVER, there is a weakness in Timothy's thinking and it was contributing to his poor health.

About you wanting to categorically say Timothy had to have all of the errors of the false teachers... Look into your own thinking Alayman. You hold to some very common errors that stem from the Fundamentalist movement. I would not claim that you hold to all of their errors, but there has been some influence.

This could be the case with Timothy. He got some bad thinking along the way about water-only, from someone.

More and more and more speculation on your part, but absolutely nothing from the context would lead one to your conclusions.  Matter of fact, you've completely fled the immediate context  of I Timothy 4 and lept to chapter 5 to make your point.  Your ad hominem also shows a sign of weak argumentation.  Your attempt to label me a fundy in order to dismiss the argument is complete obfuscation.  There are tons of reasons why Timothy might have been refraining from wine (none of which stem from Timothy "getting caught up in false teaching"), and Paul very easily could have been telling him to use it for medicine and don't worry about the ascetes.  You seem to have quite the aversion to keeping exegetically tethered to the context, in favor of speculation and conjecture.  I know which is the more worthy hermeneutic.

It was just a matter of time

 

[ALAYMAN]

It was just a matter of time

Do you EVER have anything substantive to add?


Oh, and knock off the booze.  Your punctuation is already showing your buzz.

 

[rsc2a]

Clearly alayman's ad hom revealed a weak argument in his part.