# Al Mohler, SBTS & alcohol



## john_Mark (Sep 19, 2005)

Has anyone heard about this discussion of banning alcohol for SBTS students? Mohler and Moore recently held an alcohol and ministry on the subject. Steve McCoy and a few others have responded. A sermon by Mark Driscoll was even referenced which was pretty good.

Just wondering what some of your thoughts here are. I think some of the reasons Mohler and Moore gave weren't very strong. Not to mention the immediate labeling of "fundemantalists" and blanket charges of immaturity. It just seems that to a point the same type of faulty appeals are made by the anti-calvinist crowds rather than having a real diaglogue.


----------



## Ivan (Sep 19, 2005)

I highly doubt that alcohol was ever an accepted beverage at Southern. It is a Southern Baptist seminary.


----------



## RamistThomist (Sep 19, 2005)

J.P. Boyce--charter member, etc-- was a wine connesieur. How the mighty have fallen!

[Edited on 9--19-05 by Draught Horse]


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia (Sep 19, 2005)

The professors aren't allowed to drink wine at all at SBTS/Boyce. Even for medical reasons (doctors rec. that a patient have a glass of wine every night).

Everyone I talked to that went to the 'talk' on alcohol said it was your typical fare. The wine in Biblical times wasn't alcoholic compared to ours today (ours today is poisonous in comparison). Ministers should not be drinking at all. Etc.


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia (Sep 19, 2005)

I meet the most SBTS students at Liquor Barn, by the way. There will be 10 of them in there at once on the weekends.


----------



## BrianBowman (Sep 19, 2005)

> _Originally posted by WrittenFromUtopia_
> I meet the most SBTS students at Liquor Barn, by the way. There will be 10 of them in there at once on the weekends.



How do you recognize them?


----------



## crhoades (Sep 19, 2005)

> _Originally posted by BrianBowman_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by WrittenFromUtopia_
> ...



I think they put on Westminster/Covenant/RTS shirts in order to throw people off their scent. Trying to make us Presbyterians look bad.

Of course they only succeed at making us look bad if they buy cheap beer or cheap whiskey!

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## ABondSlaveofChristJesus (Sep 19, 2005)

It seems logical to prohibit drinking to avoid the possibility of drunkenness. If there is no substance period, then it definitely can´t be abused. But what if we applied this logic to everything? What if we through our "œhuman reasoning" reasoned that to prevent fornication we could just outlaw sex? Or to avoid the possibility of the stars being worshiped we should out law "œstar gazing?" What seems to be wise in our own depraved minds many times pans out to be foolish. Yet we have the audacity to apply commandments on people universally? This is why God told us not to add or take away from his commandments. The fact of the matter is that wine, sex, and stargazing are all blessings, and are perfectly godly within the bounds of those regulations. They are a God-given right to all Christians approved by God. If God didn´t want His children to drink alcohol period, He would have established it in His word. Yet throughout the entire Bible alcohol is praised and even commanded many a time. It is referred to as a "œblessing." The only time alcohol is ever frowned on by God is when it is being abused. However there are many other elements of life that are proper in moderation but can be abused that the John Brown lifestyle covenant mentions nothing about. Why the inconsistency? The prohibition of alcohol in the John Brown covenant claims that it is was for "œprudential rules" that are "œconsistent" but not "œrequired by" scripture (what is that suppose to mean anyway?). The only explanation I can think of for not drinking alcohol in general is if it is drank in the presence of a brother with convictions against it. However, this doesn´t apply to alcohol alone. It can apply to virtually anything that is not a direct command of God, such as eating meat in Paul´s case. God however does not ban meat or wine but requires that we drink and eat in the context of loving our neighbor. God leaves the issue to the judgment of the Christian. John Brown University does not. Therefore John Brown contradicts God and forces their contradictory rules on their entire student body. If it is prudent and consistent with scripture not to drink period for the sake of the community, then Jesus Christ himself and his apostles must not be prudent nor consistent with scripture, since they all drank wine. 

When Jesus dealt with the temptations of Satan He claimed "IT IS WRITTEN" 

It is written, "œYou shall not add to the word which I am commanding you, nor take away from it, that you may keep the commandments of the LORD your God which I command you."


----------



## RamistThomist (Sep 19, 2005)

> _Originally posted by WrittenFromUtopia_
> I meet the most SBTS students at Liquor Barn, by the way. There will be 10 of them in there at once on the weekends.



Cardinal rule of pragmatic ethics: Forbid it and they will come!


----------



## Pilgrim (Sep 19, 2005)

My understanding is that the RPCNA until recently had an official stand on abstinence that made the SBC look weak; abstinence was an ordination vow and furthermore, abstinence was required to be admitted to the Lord's Supper. Today the RPCNA constitution says: 

"To prevent damage to our neighbor, to provide mutual help in godly living, and to strengthen each other in living a disciplined life it is altogether wise and proper that Christians refrain from the use, sale and manufacture of alcoholic beverages." 

This appears to be essentially the same as Mohler and Moore's view. Now whether 90% of RPCNA churches will be closed to you if you drink is something that I have no knowledge of. But, I would tend to doubt it, notwithstanding their previous stance. 

The next point in the RPCNA constitution says that tobacco is to be avoided. I'm referencing points 6 and 7 of the Testimony (basically the RPCNA commentary) in WCF Chapter 26 "Of the Communion of Saints". 

I'm not posting this to point fingers, but just to note the tendency to which even Reformed churches can fall prey to moralism. 

On the other hand, I have seen some young people (especially) who have come to the Reformed convictions (or have some sympathy for them) out of fundamentalism and legalism who do seem to fixate a little too much, or in some cases, way too much, on their new found liberty in this area. 

I think Calvin's comment on 1 Tim. 5:23 is appropriate for those with this tendency, some of whom, unfortunately, fly the Reformed banner: 

"How few are there at the present day, who need to be forbidden the use of water; or rather how many are there that need to be limited to drink wine soberly! It is also evident how necessary it is for us, even when we are desirous to act right, to ask from the Lord the spirit of prudence, that he may teach us moderation."


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia (Sep 19, 2005)

If part of the ordination vow in the RPCNA is to say I will refrain from tobacco and alcohol use, I will leave the church and serve God elsewhere.


----------



## pastorway (Sep 19, 2005)

When the Bible talks about liberty, it talks about using liberty to promote peace and unity. Liberty is never to be used to encourage disputes (Rom 14:1), neither is it to be used to indulge the flesh.

We are to use the liberty we have been given in Christ to minister to OTHERS, not self!

Too often in reformed communities liberty is an essential to the faith. But for Paul, it was true that he was willing to deny himself a God given freedom if it meant he would prevent a weaker brother from stumbling.

If liberty is not motivated by love for God and others then it will inevitably be abused as we love ourselves! 

It is never about me, but always about the Body! 

Phillip


----------



## Pilgrim (Sep 19, 2005)

> _Originally posted by WrittenFromUtopia_
> If part of the ordination vow in the RPCNA is to say I will refrain from tobacco and alcohol use, I will leave the church and serve God elsewhere.



My understanding is that they have dropped or modified it at some point in the last 25-30 years or so. But apparently abstinence is still strongly encouraged, given the passage I quoted in my post. I don't know about a vow on tobacco (or alcohol, for that matter), but it's definitely something to check out. 

I know a pastor who took said ordination vow in the early 1970's and also had to enforce it against a couple in the church. He then heard a sermon on tape (by John R deWitt, I believe) and became convicted. He wrote his presbytery, repenting of that vow and the result was suspension from exercise of his duties as TE.


----------



## fredtgreco (Sep 19, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Pilgrim_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by WrittenFromUtopia_
> ...



This is different and far worse than any school policy. A school may say that it does not permit drinking (or smoking, or even the eating of McDonalds hamburgers) on campus. The students have voluntarily submitted themselves to the authority of the school, and so long as the school does not require sin, it may do so. Submission is required, even if the policy is just plain dumb (take a look at 1 Peter 2). The Bible knows nothing of "God given rights." It knows an awful lot about giving up what is permitted for the sake of others.

But what the school cannot do is bind the conscience of the believer in toto. It cannot, in my estimation, say that a student may never engage in behavior that the Bible does not call sin.

Even further, the Church may not call that sin which is not sin. It may not discipline its members for something other than Biblical sin. That is man-made arrogance.


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia (Sep 20, 2005)

It is my belief that the position of abstinence is blasphemy against Christ. I will never condone or approve it. This is not about me exercising my liberty or pushing for the indulgence of the flesh, so the slander can stop right now. If someone just prefers not to drink (because they don't like it, don't like the taste, don't care, etc.), that is fine. To make a statement about such a position in any way as a "recommended" one is where you cross the line and become a legalist, denying the Word of God for your own extra-Biblical commandments.


----------



## pastorway (Sep 20, 2005)

ah yes, I hear the resounding thunder of slander as you, Gabriel Martini, are dashed against the rocks of reason and singled out for retribution and judgment because of your extremism......

in other words, and without the sarcasm - quit thinking it is always about you.

And to equate a position of abstinence with blasphemy is to make Paul out to be a Satanist. For he gladly would refrain from eating meat or drinking wine if either would ever cause a brother to stumble.

Phillip


----------



## ABondSlaveofChristJesus (Sep 20, 2005)

> _Originally posted by fredtgreco_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by Pilgrim_
> ...



I agree 100 %


----------



## ABondSlaveofChristJesus (Sep 20, 2005)

> _Originally posted by pastorway_
> ah yes, I hear the resounding thunder of slander as you, Gabriel Martini, are dashed against the rocks of reason and singled out for retribution and judgment because of your extremism......
> 
> in other words, and without the sarcasm - quit thinking it is always about you.
> ...


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia (Sep 20, 2005)

> _Originally posted by pastorway_
> ah yes, I hear the resounding thunder of slander as you, Gabriel Martini, are dashed against the rocks of reason and singled out for retribution and judgment because of your extremism......
> 
> in other words, and without the sarcasm - quit thinking it is always about you.
> ...



Nice spin.


----------



## fredtgreco (Sep 20, 2005)

> _Originally posted by WrittenFromUtopia_
> It is my belief that the position of abstinence is blasphemy against Christ. I will never condone or approve it. This is not about me exercising my liberty or pushing for the indulgence of the flesh, so the slander can stop right now. If someone just prefers not to drink (because they don't like it, don't like the taste, don't care, etc.), that is fine. To make a statement about such a position in any way as a "recommended" one is where you cross the line and become a legalist, denying the Word of God for your own extra-Biblical commandments.



It is pretty clear from this that you do not know the definition of a legalist or what Christian liberty is.

[Edited on 9/20/2005 by fredtgreco]


----------



## pastorway (Sep 20, 2005)

"I'm free, I'm free, I'm free...........uh, what's with this chain?"


----------



## kceaster (Sep 20, 2005)

I know how we are in America, but what of the rest of the world where it may or may not be a stigma?

That's what I think drinking (or smoking) in this country is, a stigma. It is a sin insofar as it has become a stumbling point.

And I'll agree to put prohibitions in place where needed. But to make a professor or clergyman vow never to drink or smoke is beyond the pale. Be a missionary to Germany or Italy. I'm pretty sure they'll not care.

In Christ,

KC


----------



## kceaster (Sep 20, 2005)

Another thought....

How are we at calling it a sin when people become offended at every little thing a pastor or a professor does?

There has to be some onus on the other side. Some "stumblings" are like the fouls committed against the great Michael Jordan. He tripped over his teammate, Dennis Rodman, and the foul was called on the defender, John Havlicek, who was 3 feet away.

I would commend to you all an article by Rev. Larry Wilson in Ordained Servant, entitled, "That Offends Me!" It is in volume 8 number 2. Find it here.

In Christ,

KC


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia (Sep 20, 2005)

> _Originally posted by fredtgreco_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by WrittenFromUtopia_
> ...



Oh really? That's interesting.


----------



## LadyFlynt (Sep 20, 2005)

Gabriel, you stated that to have a "reccomended" position is to be a legalist. 

Legalism:

The belief that one's salvation depends upon strictly following religious laws and rituals. The belief that salvation is at least partly dependent on one's good works. 

Strict conformity to the letter of the law rather than its spirit. 

Legalism, in Christian theology, is a pejorative term referring to an improper fixation on law or codes of conduct, or legal ideas, usually implying an allegation of pride and the neglect of mercy, and ignorance of the grace of God. Legalism may also be alleged, in Christian theology, in criticism of theories which are perceived to be excessively dependent upon legal concepts. It represents the opposite extreme from antinomianism, the claim that moral laws are not binding on Christian belief. 


The Baptists reccomend abstinence from alcohol and yes, many avoid it altogether for various reasons). But few think or say that it is a sin to drink it. They see it more as a stone that some might stumble over...thus, if they wish to keep that stone out of their institutions, then I can't say that I blame them or would criticize them. But they are NOT being legalistic about it. As far as they are concerned on the Communion, they are simply misinformed due to the baptist rumor about the wines being different...it was merely an excuse to keep their ppl from the stuff...now in that case, SOMEONE's legalism got out of hand...but don't put it on all baptists.


----------



## fredtgreco (Sep 20, 2005)

> _Originally posted by LadyFlynt_
> Gabriel, you stated that to have a "reccomended" position is to be a legalist.
> 
> Legalism:
> ...



Exactly. Legalism is not being more strict than someone else in the application of the law. It is believing that one's obedience has merit before God.

This is a critical distinction that is lost on the vast majority of American Christendom.


----------



## john_Mark (Sep 20, 2005)

Why does it seem that the teetotalling folks never seem to take heed and not condemn those who feel free to drink? Those who are convicted not to drink should not hold those who do in contempt, but how often is this talked about?

Did Paul bind the church in total to never touch a drop of alcohol including using wine in the Lord's Supper? It's as if certain denominations have grown with rules have been set in place by the "weaker brother" to a point in which it is now the norm. This just seems backwards to me.

Most of the arguments are pleas from what plagues the worldly culture and not necessarily what plagues the church. There are many things which plague the culture which the same folks don't talk about as strongly as alcohol. Sin and the unregenerate heart are the problems not alcohol. 

Jack Graham even used the "body is the temple of the Lord" argument against alcohol. He says alcohol causes "poverty, gluttony, immorality and laziness." No, sin causes those things. We don't hear the same folks preaching that fast-food and junk food cause obesity, heart disease, diabetes and death. That TV and internet cause infidelity and porngraphy. The world uses God's gifts to its detriment.

We take things like TV and internet and use them for ministry. We can do the same thing with alcohol by explaining that our religion is not about alcohol as we are not mormons, but it's about grace. We've now created a stigma in society that Christians don't do x, y or z so we are seen as righteous when it's Christ who is righteous not us. This is what gets lost on the lost. Alec Baldwin said in an interview with his brother who had become a Christian that: It's okay to kill and animal and eat meat, but if you smoke a cigarette or drink a beer you're going to hell? Wrong message, but it's the exact one I was raised on as an RLDS.

Yes, I am ranting a bit, but it's not the alcohol or the internet that is going to stand and be judged while the perpetrator watches from the sidelines.


----------



## RamistThomist (Sep 20, 2005)

Press the antithesis; force the issue. Call them to the HIGHLY EMBARRASSING FACT THAT SBTS FOUNDER/CHARTER MEMBER JAMES PETTIGRU BOYCE WAS A WINE CONNESIUER.


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia (Sep 20, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Draught Horse_
> Press the antithesis; force the issue. Call them to the HIGHLY EMBARRASSING FACT THAT SBTS FOUNDER/CHARTER MEMBER JAMES PETTIGRU BOYCE WAS A WINE CONNESIUER.



If I was still a student there I might bother to meet with Al-Mo on this. But, right now I'm just happy to be where I am.


----------



## govols (Sep 20, 2005)

> _Originally posted by john_Mark_
> Why does it seem that the teetotalling folks never seem to take heed and not condemn those who feel free to drink? Those who are convicted not to drink should not hold those who do in contempt, but how often is this talked about?
> 
> Did Paul bind the church in total to never touch a drop of alcohol including using wine in the Lord's Supper? It's as if certain denominations have grown with rules have been set in place by the "weaker brother" to a point in which it is now the norm. This just seems backwards to me.
> ...



This just in:

SBTS just banned sinners from attending and even banned sinning on campus. They did just see a 100% drop in attendance though.


----------



## LadyFlynt (Sep 20, 2005)




----------



## LadyFlynt (Sep 20, 2005)

SBC, IFB, etc...yes.


----------



## LadyFlynt (Sep 20, 2005)

LOL...worried ya, eh?


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia (Sep 20, 2005)

> _Originally posted by joshua_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by LadyFlynt_
> ...



MGD??


----------



## Pilgrim (Sep 20, 2005)

> _Originally posted by WrittenFromUtopia_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by joshua_
> ...




MGD=Miller Genuine Draft.


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia (Sep 20, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Pilgrim_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by WrittenFromUtopia_
> ...



I am aware, hence my wall-head-banging. I'm a beer snob, sorry.


----------



## Pilgrim (Sep 20, 2005)

Domestics aren't usually my first choice either. But in my opinion, MGD isn't a bad choice. Coulda been worse, like Schaefer Light or Busch. 


I've got Grolsch in the refrigerator. Is that on your approved list?


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia (Sep 20, 2005)

Never tried it. Sounds good though, any Beer that has too many consonants in a row in its name is good.


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia (Sep 20, 2005)

> _Originally posted by joshua_
> Miller Genuine Draft is the only beer yet to hit my taste buds and be appealing.



Try...

Tennent's Lager of Scotland
Harp
Bass

... and let me know.


----------



## heartoflesh (Sep 20, 2005)

There you go guys again being showy, and downright immature!

Personally I prefer Budweiser, but I'm partial since my brother works at the brewery in St. Louis.


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia (Sep 20, 2005)

List of immature people, according to THE Al R. Mohler:

- Me
- Joshua here
- Europeans

Oh yeah, I almost forgot!

- James P. Boyce, founder of SBTS and architect of the SBC
- Charles Hodge
- A.A. Hodge
- Martin Luther
- John Calvin
- Francis Turretin
- The Westminster Divines
- Augustine
- Timothy (cf. 1 Tim 5:23)
- Paul the apostle

and, finally...

- Jesus the Messiah

Well, Mohler, I'll gladly be immature along side those men and you can enjoy maturity while I enjoy a McEwan's.

I wonder if he realizes he would not approve the founder of SBTS to be on its faculty? Or, Calvin? Or Jesus Christ himself?

If that isn't legalism and SIN, then I certainly don't know what is.


----------



## doulosChristou (Sep 20, 2005)

Just a clarification. Drs. Mohler and Moore did not change school policy or say anything new. Their two central points were:

1) Those who affirm that drinking alcohol is a sin are wrong and are guilty of adding to Scripture.

2) Those who have an attitude that says "I am going to drink alcohol no matter what anyone says or thinks or feels because no one has a right to limit my Christian liberty" are wrong and are guilty of pride.

The school policy was only briefly commented upon. Students and faculty are required to submit to the policy that has been in place for countless decades, namely refraining from drinking alcoholic beverages during the time of their tenure or enrollment. This does not forbid communion wine, medicinal uses such as alcohol in cough medicine, or cooking with or eating dishes cooked with wine, just alcoholic beverages.

Is it a silly policy reflective of typical Southern Baptist culture?

Absolutely.

Am I and others at Southern obligated to submit to it?

Yes, and joyfully as unto the Lord.


----------



## doulosChristou (Sep 20, 2005)

> _Originally posted by WrittenFromUtopia_
> Well, Mohler, I'll gladly be immature along side those men and you can enjoy maturity while I enjoy a McEwan's.
> 
> I wonder if he realizes he would not approve the founder of SBTS to be on its faculty? Or, Calvin? Or Jesus Christ himself?
> ...



No, you certainly do not know what is.

"You younger men, likewise, be subject to your elders; and all of you, clothe yourselves with humility toward one another, for GOD IS OPPOSED TO THE PROUD, BUT GIVES GRACE TO THE HUMBLE." - 1 Peter 5:5 (NASB)


----------



## SolaScriptura (Sep 20, 2005)

> _Originally posted by doulosChristou_
> Just a clarification. Drs. Mohler and Moore did not change school policy or say anything new. Their two central points were:
> 
> 1) Those who affirm that drinking alcohol is a sin are wrong and are guilty of adding to Scripture.
> ...



Amen. I submit... for the duration!


----------



## ABondSlaveofChristJesus (Sep 20, 2005)

> _Originally posted by doulosChristou_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by WrittenFromUtopia_
> ...



What if your church elders disagree? Out of curiosity does this apply to you on and off campus?

[Edited on 9-21-2005 by ABondSlaveofChristJesus]


----------



## fredtgreco (Sep 20, 2005)

> _Originally posted by doulosChristou_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by WrittenFromUtopia_
> ...



Agreed. Those who continually use "legalism" in this false sense need to understand the Biblical doctrine.


----------



## fredtgreco (Sep 20, 2005)

> _Originally posted by ABondSlaveofChristJesus_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by doulosChristou_
> ...



What if church elders think 9 year olds should be able to drink alcoholic beverages? Does that permit you to reject the legitimate authority of the State?


----------



## Larry Hughes (Sep 20, 2005)

Gabriel,

If your not under the SBC I'd not worry about it. In the bigger picture, yes, it is a weakness in that grasp of the faith. Both Luther and Calvin considered our freedom an appendage to our grasp of justification and not a mere ancillary issue as some would suppose. However, as the stronger brother use it wisely. I have wine and ale at home and if I so desired when out to eat. 

I've personally had opportunities to actually share the Gospel over the issue of alcohol and NOT taking the stance of abstinence and they listened. My wife herself has also had a few times to share the faith under the very same circumstances. On that alone I'm against the abstinence stance as it does indeed end up obscuring Christ. That is the great tragedy when this sacred idol of abstinence is protected (and IT IS an Idol) - in its errection it hides Christ and the Gospel. And it is prominant here in Kentucky among southerners, I cannot speak for other states.

The one time, to my admitted shame, that I did have the opportunity to share the Gospel over drinking beer that I didn't was a most disgusting but eye opening event to me. I admit up front that I failed, but at the same time learned something. A lady at a wedding dinner which served beer who was herself not a believer asked the table, myself and about 4 other Christians if we minded if she drank a beer "since we were Christians". It appalled me that that is what the watching world saw as Christianity, eating and drinking (that too cuts both ways), she saw nothing that a Mormon or Tom Cruiz couldn't bear witness to AND THAT IS an outcome of the abstinance movement.

Basically I function this way:

When around those whose conscience is weak on this issue (a rare thing in reality today) or similar I don't throw it in their face, but do use it as an opportunity to teach about it. However, it cuts both ways according to Paul, the weaker brother is not to condemn the stronger brother in his freedom, many forget that part of the Scripture. AND it is key to remember that Paul argued from the stronger brother position and never intended for the church to become entangled into the weaker position. It is the greatest hatred to leave a weaker brother bound and not teach him/her of His freedom in Christ - that is to say growing in grace. Such is tantamount to stunting a child's growth and repugnant all the more because it is guised under "good" and "unity". When in fact the abstinant position IS the position that has caused disunity in the first place. It is like me making a wrong turn down a road then blaming you for pointing it out to me, absolutely ridiculous.

Both Calvin and CH Spurgeon did say that forms of legalistic thinking should be opposed because the process of such becomes increasingly restricting and the implication becomes "justification by works" not explicitly "justification by works". They did not mean gross legalism per se either, most catch that. It is indeed very crucial to realize that one can intellectually and with lip affirm "justification by faith alone" but be functionally "justification by grace + something else". Look to at the functionality rather than just a verbal affirmation of the faith. A strict definition of legalism will miss this. Most people today in the Christian church would say, "justified by grace alone", but in reality they function much different than that. Be very aware of those who bind you by pretending if you disagree with them your are binding yourself (this is a pietistic trick). Keep Christ, the Gospel and faith highest at all times. This is your shield and weapon.

The alcohol issue today is not strict legalism as in "if I do this, then I'm justified". It is more like a subtle form of pietism which says "No of course drinking beer is not a sin. But (there always will be a "but") the more spiritual person (there will always be a higher class of spiritual person) Christian will be concerned with greater things." The sum total of the implication (note it is implication rather then explicit, the later being more toward strict legalism and the former the insideousness of pietism) is "blessed are those who 'do this thing' (fill in the blank)".

Drink your wine, beer and ale with sound descretion and be joyful and thankful to the Lord for His gift and especially His gift of freedom in Christ. The Kingdom of heaven is more than eating or drinking BOTH ways. The pietist hears that as abstinance. But the one free in Christ hears its real truth: those who make alcohol an issue of necessary abstinance do MAKE the Kingdom of heaven about eating and drinking. You never can satisfy them, either you have a demon or are a drunkard and a glutton.

I use to be a raw pagan and typical of any college student I drank unto the fallen kingdom all the time denying God and Christ so viscious was I as an atheist/agnostic. Now, by sheer grace, free in Christ I can glorify Him by enjoying His blood bought freedom by drinking (not drunkeness) wine or beer to His glory. It goes without saying, the one forgiven more knows true freedom when he has been given it. 

Blessings In Christ Alone,

Ldh

[Edited on 9-21-2005 by Larry Hughes]


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Sep 20, 2005)

"Those who begin by forbidding what the Bible allows will end up allowing what the Bible forbids." J Gresham Machen

Principles:
1) I will submit to lawful authority. Particularly if I knew what the rules were when I signed up, and made any exceptions known, and allowed the powers to approve or reject them, and then made my decision whether I could abide by their dictates in good conscience.

2) I will bear with weaker brethren, and not offend (cause to sin) a brother or cause him to stumble, and avoid giving cause for sin in either one of us.

3) I will drink alcohol _right in front_ of a true legalist, and let him know I'm a minister to boot, and he is anathematized by the apostle Paul. The "I'm offended at that!" attitude over a matter that is not sin is properly met with a stony, "And...?"

Paul circumcised Timothy (Acts 16:3) when the circumstances warranted, but he _could not be compelled_ to circumcise Titus (Gal. 2:3).


You do need to be careful to distinguish between that for which a person will condemn you or themself (legalism), and that which they simply scruple about. And if they want to make "house rules" regarding certain things, you have to respect that if you want "in the house." This is still a free country--you still get to pick who you walk with. If you choose to walk with a group that already has a conversation, you bear the guilt (not they) if you disrupt it, or flout your foreign tongue trying to force a new norm upon them.

The line is crossed when men deliberately add to God's Word, to law or gospel, and judge accordingly.


----------



## Larry Hughes (Sep 20, 2005)

Well said Bruce!

Ldh


----------



## RamistThomist (Sep 20, 2005)

Michael Horton brilliantly illustrated the issue. He said on "White Horse Inn," "If you are eating out with a bunch of abstainers (read "weaker brethren--whatever that means) and the waitress asks, 'Can I get yall some drinks (alcoholic)?" and the teetotalers respond, "No, we don't drink. We are Christian."

Horton powerfully concludes,
"You must for the gospel's sake, order a beer!"

I agree. I respect the "weaker brethren," but there is no logical barrier to what is off-limits, given the nature of the case.


----------



## BrianBowman (Sep 20, 2005)

For those who think that Baptists in general don't look upon drinking as a sin, I would ask how much experience you have had with Baptists of the "Independent/Fundamental" (e.g. IFCA) types? They _definitely_ view drinking alcohol as SIN. Even my former "free grace Dispensational sect" (GGWO), which has the same classical-Dispensational foundation that most of the IFCA folk have, taught that drinking defiled the temple of God (i.e. our bodies) and that the wine of Jesus Christ's time was the so-called "fruit-of-the-vine" was not fermented. At some point in its history, GGWO had the celebrated Dr. Arnold Fruchtenbaum (an Dispensational of Jewish descent) in to teach on the "unleaved" nature of wine in the O.T. They basically bought "hook, line, and sinker" and it was taught as "THE AUTHORITY" on drinking thereafter. As a Pastoral candidate in GGWO for 2 years, I could of been censured or even removed from the Ordination process if I had drank (I did not out of conscience and respect to the organization) and been found out.

With moderation, I now enjoy a good micro-brew and/or wine several times per month. My love for the Scriptures, confidence to present the Gospel/defend the faith, and prayer life have *never* been better. Christian liberty is indeed good!

[Edited on 9-21-2005 by BrianBowman]


----------



## ABondSlaveofChristJesus (Sep 20, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Larry Hughes_
> Gabriel,
> 
> If your not under the SBC I'd not worry about it. In the bigger picture, yes, it is a weakness in that grasp of the faith. Both Luther and Calvin considered our freedom an appendage to our grasp of justification and not a mere ancillary issue as some would suppose. However, as the stronger brother use it wisely. I have wine and ale at home and if I so desired when out to eat.
> ...


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia (Sep 20, 2005)

I personally have seen people (read: pagans, unbelievers) desire to start going to church and getting plugged in with a community of believers _as a result_ of the fact that I wasn't "legalistic" like the Christians they knew growing up. They know I drink, but I don't get drunk. They know why I drink, b/c I tell them and simultaneously share the true gospel of God's grace with them.

Here are some ... interesting ... points of Mohler's talk that bothered me to say the least:



> "The moral transformation that the gospel was to bring about in evident form in new believers should bring about a distaste for that which leads to such misery and to such, uh, loss of faculties ... that being, beverage alcohol."
> 
> "There is something deeply sinful and tragic and grotesque about the desire of sinners for alcohol for abuse."
> 
> ...


----------



## Larry Hughes (Sep 21, 2005)

Jacob,

Great Horton quote, he has a way of summing it up nicely.

Just a side note: In Kentucky the origins of the huge KY Burbon industry, baptist pastors of old by in large started it as a legitimate business income. My my how far we have come.

Larry


----------



## ABondSlaveofChristJesus (Sep 23, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Draught Horse_
> Michael Horton brilliantly illustrated the issue. He said on "White Horse Inn," "If you are eating out with a bunch of abstainers (read "weaker brethren--whatever that means) and the waitress asks, 'Can I get yall some drinks (alcoholic)?" and the teetotalers respond, "No, we don't drink. We are Christian."
> 
> Horton powerfully concludes,
> ...



Can you help me understand this? What does he mean by "the gospels" sake?


----------



## Larry Hughes (Sep 24, 2005)

"for the Gospel's sake..."

Tim,

Maybe this will help. He describes a situation in which say "you" are with some other Christians. You all are in a restaurant eating out that serves drinks, a nicer restaurant that is one in which this question would not be odd. A waiter or waitress comes up to you and asks, "Would you like some drinks", usually meaning while you wait would you like a good beer, wine, etc... The server is likely an unbeliever, the one that will receive the "witness" being now made. It is inescapable at this point!

Then your Christian friends or one of them says, "No thanks we are Christians." The immediate implication being we don't drink alcohol because we are Christians. The secondary implication being TO THE RECEIVER OF THIS KIND OF "WITNESS", "They don't drink because they are Christians, because alcohol is evil (this is blaspheme toward God's creation), drinking AT ALL is a sin and by extension one must not drink to be a believer, go to heaven, be a Christian that is to say be Christ's, IN SHORT TO MAKE IT TO HEAVEN I MUST BE GOOD OR WORKS." That is how much blaspheme there is in that one seemingly innocent "witness to the world" via abstinence.

Hence, Michael Horton says that NOW you are obligated to order a beer, wine or other as a true Christian witness to the Gospel. And it need necessarily counter and be at complete odds with the former devil's witness calling itself falsely a "christian witness".

In short you must then for the sake of the TRUE Gospel bear witness that it is not about works but free grace and that this none sinful activity is free to the believer. You must bear witness to the freedom Christ's precious blood has purchased. And believe me they, the observer, will think about THAT and not the false witness which they as unbelievers would scoff at any way.

Legalism no matter how small it appears to be causes atheism and sustains it. It is foul to the nth degree and mocks Christ.

Hope that helps,

Larry


----------



## LadyFlynt (Sep 24, 2005)

I personally think it's in err to not order or to order alcohol "because" of being a Christian. Both are in a ditch. You either order it or don't. I'm not obligated either way. Sometimes I am obligated based on circumstances (ie, my hubby avoids going to the bar with the work crew because there is ALOT more to do with their attendance there than just having a beer).


----------



## Michael Butterfield (Sep 24, 2005)

> _Originally posted by pastorway_
> When the Bible talks about liberty, it talks about using liberty to promote peace and unity. Liberty is never to be used to encourage disputes (Rom 14:1), neither is it to be used to indulge the flesh.
> 
> We are to use the liberty we have been given in Christ to minister to OTHERS, not self!
> ...


----------



## Me Died Blue (Sep 24, 2005)

> _Originally posted by LadyFlynt_
> I personally think it's in err to not order or to order alcohol "because" of being a Christian. Both are in a ditch. You either order it or don't. I'm not obligated either way. Sometimes I am obligated based on circumstances (ie, my hubby avoids going to the bar with the work crew because there is ALOT more to do with their attendance there than just having a beer).



I think we all agree that there is ultimately no obligation to order or not order alcohol in general because of being a Christian or not, because as believers we are not prohibited from drinking, and we are certainly not commanded to, either (other than in the Supper, but that is another issue). In light of that, I think Horton's point (on which Larry did a good job elaborating) relates to the obligation issue in the same sense in which you spoke of possible "circumstance obligation" - namely that _if_ it is already a given that your surrounding peers already told the waitress they are abstaining _because_ they are Christians, right then the Gospel will be misunderstood by her.

So at that point, even if one does not order a drink in response, I would say the person would _at least_ be obligated to counter the impression given to the waitress, remarking that your Christianity is _not_ the reason you are not ordering a drink; the actual ordering of one at that point could simply be one possible way of driving that point home with emphasis.


----------



## Michael Butterfield (Sep 24, 2005)

> _Originally posted by pastorway_
> ah yes, I hear the resounding thunder of slander as you, Gabriel Martini, are dashed against the rocks of reason and singled out for retribution and judgment because of your extremism......
> 
> in other words, and without the sarcasm - quit thinking it is always about you.
> ...


----------



## RamistThomist (Sep 25, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Larry Hughes_
> "for the Gospel's sake..."
> 
> Tim,
> ...



Right. Horton was using hyperbole. The point was his friends had reduced the gospel into a few "don't do's."


----------



## Larry Hughes (Sep 25, 2005)

Exactly for if such a so called "witness", abstinence in this case, could be translated as to "what it means" or "sets forth" or "points to" one could receieve the same "witness" from a mormon, JW, muslim or Tom Cruise. For one has not only set forth or pointed away from the gospel & hence Christ - but in the opposite direction & unto further death, hell & misery. Or as AW Pink called it, "...the clean side of the broad road that leads to hell."

Even Peter was sharply rebuked by Paul for such hypocrisy. I use to mysel fall into this trap early on in the faith.


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia (Sep 25, 2005)

... And like I said earlier, I've had many pagans express interest in getting back into Church and the things of God as a direct result of them knowing that I drink alcohol to the Lord and that this is not only "okay with God" but He has created it to bless us and make us happy.


----------



## Larry Hughes (Sep 25, 2005)

John Calvin on Christian Liberty a wise excerpt:

Section Twelve:
Who are to be regarded as weak and Pharisaical. Proved by examples and the doctrine of Paul. The just moderation of Christian liberty. necessity of vindicating it. No regard to be paid to hypocrites. Duty of edifying our weak neighbors.

The matter still remains uncertain, unless we understand who are the weak and who the Pharisees: for if this distinction is destroyed, I see not how, in regard to offenses, any liberty at all would remain without being constantly in the greatest danger. But Paul seems to me to have marked out most clearly, as well by example as by doctrine, how far our liberty, in the case of offense, is to be modified or maintained. When he adopts Timothy as his companion, he circumcises him: nothing can induce him to circumcise Titus, (Acts 16: 3; Gal. 2: 3.) The acts are different, but there is no difference in the purpose or intention; in circumcising Timothy, as he was free from all men, he made himself the servant of all: "Unto the Jews I became as a Jew, that I might gain the Jews; to them that are under the law, as under the law, that I might gain them that are under the law; to them that are without law, as without law, (being not without law to God, but under the law to Christ,) that I might gain them that are without law. To the weak became I as weak that I might gain the weak: I am made all things to all men, that I might by all means save some" (1 Cor. 9: 20-22.) We have here the proper modification of liberty, when in things indifferent it can be restrained with some advantage. What he had in view in firmly resisting the circumcision of Titus, he himself testifies when he thus writes: "But neither Titus, who was with me, being a Greek, was compelled to be circumcised: and that because of false brethren unawares brought in, who came in privily to spy out our liberty which we have in Christ Jesus, that they might bring us into bondage: to whom we gave place by subjection, no, not for an hour, that the truth of the gospel might continue with you," (Gal. 2: 3-5.) We here see the necessity of vindicating our liberty when, by the unjust exactions of false apostles, it is brought into danger with weak consciences. In all cases we must study charity, and look to the edification of our neighbor. "All things are lawful for me," says he, "but all things are not expedient; all things are lawful for me, but all things edify not. Let no man seek his own, but every man another's wealth," (1 Cor. 10: 23, 24.) There is nothing plainer than this rule, that we are to use our liberty if it tends to the edification of our neighbor, but if inexpedient for our neighbor, we are to abstain from it. There are some who pretend to imitate this prudence of Paul by abstinence from liberty, while there is nothing for which they less employ it than for purposes of charity. Consulting their own ease, they would have all mention of liberty buried, though it is not less for the interest of our neighbor to use liberty for their good and edification, than to modify it occasionally for their advantage. It is the part of a pious man to think, that the free power conceded to him in external things is to make him the readier in all offices of charity.


Ldh


----------



## ABondSlaveofChristJesus (Sep 28, 2005)

This is how I stand on the issue as of now. It is as though Paul wrote this specific section just for this subject, because after reading it, I believe that it is made clear enough the proper actions to be taken. 

Romans 14

1Now *accept* the one who is weak in faith, but not for the purpose of passing judgment on his opinions. 2One person has faith that he may eat all things, but he who is weak eats vegetables only. * 3The one who eats is not to regard with contempt the one who does not eat, and the one who does not eat is not to judge the one who eats, for God has accepted him.* *4 Who are you to judge the servant of another? To his own master he stands or falls*; and he will stand, for the Lord is able to make him stand. 5 One person regards one day above another, another regards every day alike Each person must be fully convinced in his own mind. (does this verse damage the rpw?) 6He who observes the day, observes it for the Lord, and he who eats, does so for the Lord, for he gives thanks to God; and he who eats not, for the Lord he does not eat, and gives thanks to God. 7For not one of us lives for himself, and not one dies for himself; 8for if we live, we live for the Lord, or if we die, we die for the Lord; therefore whether we live or die, we are the Lord's. 9For to this end Christ died and lived again, that He might be Lord both of the dead and of the living.10*But you, why do you judge your brother? Or you again, why do you regard your brother with contempt? For we will all stand before the judgment seat of God.*

11For it is written,
"AS I LIVE, SAYS THE LORD, EVERY KNEE SHALL BOW TO ME,
AND EVERY TONGUE SHALL GIVE PRAISE TO GOD."

12So then each one of us will give an account of himself to God. *13Therefore let us not judge one another anymore, but rather determine this--not to put an obstacle or a stumbling block in a brother's way.* 14 I know and am convinced in the Lord Jesus that nothing is unclean in itself; but to him who thinks anything to be unclean, to him it is unclean. *15 For if because of food your brother is hurt, you are no longer walking according to love Do not destroy with your food him for whom Christ died.* 16Therefore do not let what is *for you* a good thing be spoken of as evil; *17for the kingdom of God is not eating and drinking, but righteousness and peace and joy in the Holy Spirit.* 18For he who in this way serves Christ is acceptable to God and approved by men. 19So then we pursue the things which make for peace and the building up of one another.
*20 Do not tear down the work of God for the sake of food All things indeed are clean, but they are evil for the man who eats and gives offense.* 21It is good not to eat meat or to drink wine, or to do anything by which your brother stumbles. 22The faith which you have, have as your own conviction before God. Happy is he who does not condemn himself in what he approves. 23But he who doubts is condemned if he eats, because his eating is not from faith; and whatever is not from faith is sin.

The issue seems to revolve around the concept of unity with the essentials, liberty with the nonessentials, and love above all. Through this passage we find specifically that wine is not an essential. The proper way to deal with this is for both sides to refrain from judging the other for following their convictions over such nonessential matters. Once judgment is passed then a spirit of hostility rather than charity enters the picture. Causing disunity within the body of Christ over such a non essential thing as wine is to make the Kingdom of God about meat and drink and to ignore God's command of loving your neighbor by respecting their convictions. When a school forces you to abstain they are causing disunity by making the Kingdom of God about meat and drink, as well as forcing their opinions on you. 



[Edited on 9-28-2005 by ABondSlaveofChristJesus]


----------

