# Another thread on liberty



## jenson75 (Mar 18, 2006)

d


----------



## Scott Bushey (Mar 18, 2006)

> _Originally posted by jenson75_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by houseparent_
> ...



The same example Christ was by making wine as his first miracle!


----------



## Scott Bushey (Mar 18, 2006)

> _Originally posted by jenson75_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> ...



Jensen,
Men do not win men to Christ. Men deliver Gods word faithfully and the HS regenerates whom they want. Nothing that I do will either lose men that belong to Christ or win them per se. What I am called to do is lead a life faithful to Christ, give a reason for the hope that is in me, invite people to Christ via the mandates set in scripture and rest in that. Having a glass of wine does not denigrate that message. I would as well consider the situations as they are set before me; if in Thailand, do as the Thai do; if eating meat stumbles my brother, and I know that by him telling me, I would abstain; there is a difference between abstaining because of this and elevating Gods word to a legalistic position; I know the difference and would assimilate it rightfully under the needs of the situation.

Jesus Himself admitted he was a wine bibber:

Mat 11:18 For John came neither eating nor drinking, and they say, He hath a devil. 
Mat 11:19 The Son of man came eating and drinking, and they say, Behold a man gluttonous, and a winebibber, a friend of publicans and sinners. But wisdom is justified of her children. 

King David writes:

Pro 31:6 Give strong drink unto him that is ready to perish, and wine unto those that be of heavy hearts. 

Solomon writes:

Son 1:2 Let him kiss me with the kisses of his mouth: for thy love is better than wine. 

The Psalmist writes:

Psa 104:15 And wine that maketh glad the heart of man, and oil to make his face to shine, and bread which strengtheneth man's heart. 

Thornwell writes:

Here's an edifying quote from James H. Thornwell from his personal correspondence:

Dear Beloved Sister Adger...Now, it has occurred to me, that there is a proud place in your heart, which requires to be humbled. You have some unaccountable prejudices, from which it behooves you to be delivered; and my interest in your carnal comfort prompts me to deal very freely with you on this most delicate subject. I have no doubt that if you would open your mind to liberal views of that most delectable of all weeds, the tobacco plant, your sufferings might be greatly relieved, and greatly modified. Just reflect upon it as a balm which nature has kindly provided for aching teeth or agonized jaws. Let me advise you, as you prize your comfort, to provide yourself with a clean pipe and a short stem, and set to work upon the goodly process of inhaling the exquisite fragrance. There is no sight more truly venerable than that of a mother in Israel, in the chimney corner with her children about her, refreshing their senses with gales of incense as sweet and cheering as the tones which proceed from her mouth. It is the very picture of dignified repose. The very idea of neuralgia to such a matron would be a contradiction in terms. Only try it. I never have tooth-ache, jaw-ache, or any other face ache. The reason, perhaps, is that I have had no absurd prejudices against 'kind nature's sweet restorer,' a genuine article of tobacco. How delightful it would be, if you could overcome your antipathies, to visit sister Adger, of a moonlight night, at her hospitable mansion, and join with her in the calm, quiet, dignified composure which the blended fumes of the pipe and cigar would so freely and completely signalize! My dear, suffering sister, smoke, smoke, and again I say, smoke. It will do you good. Once begin, and you will need no arguments to perservere. The odour of a good conversation and the odour of tobacco sweetly harmonize, and form an exquisite incense. But enough...Be sure to smoke, and let us hear no more of neuraligia.


An article by Greg Price:

http://www.puritanboard.com/forum/viewthread.php?tid=12385

Something from K. Gentry:

Romans 14:21: It is good not to eat meat or to drink wine or to do anything by which your brother stumbles.
...
Along with Romans 14:13 and 1 Corinthians 8:13 this verse is one of the more misunderstood verses in the debate over Christian liberty. Some would wrongly understand this verse to mean that all Christians everywhere and under all circumstances are obligated by Holy Writ to maintain a life of total abstinence. But we can see that this is patently false by a quick reading of the text. Do the same people insist upon total abstinence from meat based on the text? Paul does say, after all: "It is good not to eat meat or drink wine."

Others who call for total abstinence argue in the following manner: "In light of the abuse of alcohol in present American culture the Christian should abstain from alcoholic beverages. After all, meat is not abused in America." This argument, of course, overlooks the ridicule in vogue by socialist world-planners, who claim that if America would quit feeding its grain to beef cattle, the whole world would have more bread. Those of this school of thought claim that America's love for grain-fed beef causes millions to starve to death by reducing the world's grain supply.

Oftentimes abstentionists bring in 1 Corinthians 8:13 to supplement their exposition of Romans 14:21. The Corinthians verse reads, "Therefore, if food causes my brother to stumble, I will never eat meat again, that I might not cause my brother to stumble." Several observations will help put this class of verses on Christian liberty into a proper perspective:

First, quite obviously Paul puts the religiously scrupled abstainers in the category of the "weak": (a) He couples abstinence from meat and wine together. Earlier he taught that those who abstain from meat were not strong (Rom. 14:1). (b) The previous verses warn of the danger of the weak stumbling at the liberty of the strong. That is precisely what he is speaking of in verse 21. (c) He is persuaded that nothing is unclean of itself (vv. 14, 20) but that the uncleanness arises in the mind of the partaker (v. 23). 

Second, Paul gives the admonition here in a specific social context; the strong must abstain on occasions when it would possibly lure the weaker believers to stumble (ie., actually sin against their consciences). When Paul says it is good not "to eat" and not "to drink" he does so by employing the aorist infinitive. Blass De Brunner's classic work, A Greek Grammar of the New Testament, comments on the aorist infinitive in this specific instance: "The aorist is to be taken strictly: 'it is good not to eat meat for once (in a specific instance) if it might cause offense'; it is not a question of continuous abstention."[44]

In his commentary, Lenski agrees: "The aorists are to be understood exactly: eating at one point in time...in a given case, where offense would be caused; permanent abstention is not discussed."[45] Jamieson, Fausset, and Brown note in their commentary that Paul's "directions are to be considered not as prescriptions for one's entire lifetime, even to promote the good of men on a large scale, but simply as cautions against the too free use of Christian liberty."[46] Clearly the prohibition against meat or wine is not a unversally mandatory obligation. Scripture simply enjoins it upon strong believers when the real possibility exists that a brother may in fact be lured into doing that which he personally deems to be evil. 

Third, we must understand 1 Corinthians 8:13 similarly. There Paul says he would "never eat meat again." Consider the following observations on this statement: (a) He does not say that he was, in fact, abstaining from meat because some stumble over the practice. He speaks in a conditional sense: "if." (b) Paul does not apostolically command others to this practice. It is Paul's personal testimony as to how he would choose to handle a specific situation. This is similar to his testimony in 1 Corinthians 7:7-8, where Paul suggests that it is good for the unmarried to remain so, "even as I." Note the lack of imperative exhortation and the personal reference to himself: "I will never eat meat again." (c) Paul conditions all of this on a certain circumstance: He will not eat meat ever again if his eating would cause a brother to stumble (i.e., sin against his conscience and be destroyed). Certainly we cannot think that everywhere Paul goes and in every moment of his life, fragile Christians crowd around him ready to stumble over this issue. 

Fourth, in the broader context of Paul's teaching we find a two-fold reason for any temporary abstinence from food, wine, or any such thing: (a) He would abstain in order not to prompt a weaker brother into actually sinning against his conscience (see previous discussion). (b) He would abstain in order to assist the weaker brother in overcoming his unnecessary scrupulosity. In 1 Corinthians 9:20-23 we learn that he would adopt the position of the weaker brother in order to establish a point of contact with him -- with the ultimate hope of winning him out of his weakness. That is, Paul has a goal to train the weaker brother in strength -- not to confirm his ill-founded religious scrupulosity and establish him in his weakness.[47] "To theweak I became weak, that [hina, in order that] I might win the weak" (1 Cor. 9:22). The Christian does the weaker brother no favor by confirming him in his weakness. With a balanced and gentle approach and patient teaching, the weak can become strong.

A thread on the Christian and Alcohol:

http://www.puritanboard.com/forum/viewthread.php?tid=15111#pid215092

You are stuck in traditions governed by men; the last thing I want to convey to anyone is unbiblical mandates. You've heard the term legalism? Well that is exactly what you are practicing. You have elevated Gods word above and beyond what it dictates and are trying to bind the consciences of men with your silly notions. You may see this as a digression; thats exactly what the devil would have you believe. 

As far as your invitation via u2u to go over to your blog to continue this discussion, why would I want or need to do that whan we have some of the finest theologians right here on PB. I know you are fond of Phillip Way, James White. Ask either of them if you are being legalistic; I promise you you will get an answer of yes from both of them.

[Edited on 3-18-2006 by Scott Bushey]


----------



## satz (Mar 18, 2006)

When Paul warns the corinthians about not abusing their liberty with regards to idol meats, he could easily have told them to simply stay away from all idol meat because there was the chance it could ruin their witness.
But he didn't, he told them to abstain 'if any man say unto you, This is offered in sacrifice unto idols'. 

The time to abstain is not simply because of the hypothetical possibility that someone might be offended. It is when a real life brother makes an issue of the matter that we should prefer his peace of conscience over our enjoyment and abstain.

If someone was ministering in an area where it was the common (but mistaken) view that wine was evil, should he not preach against their mistaken opinion the same as he should correct all other mistaken views and practices from the word of God? Off course all this time he might well be abstaining from any alchohol himself, so as not to create a cause for stumbling, but he should never actually say the bible condemns wine, since it does not.


----------



## Gregg (Mar 18, 2006)

I've found that getting involved/debating this subject is a lesson in Futility 101, but my question would be the issue of stewardship. Can buying tobacco and beer ever be considered wise stewardship of the Lords finances?


----------



## RamistThomist (Mar 18, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Gregg_
> I've found that getting involved/debating this subject is a lesson in Futility 101, but my question would be the issue of stewardship. Can buying tobacco and beer ever be considered wise stewardship of the Lords finances?



In that case let's live on bread and water, since that is ultimately what we need to be physically sustained.


----------



## Gregg (Mar 18, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Draught Horse_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by Gregg_
> ...



What about the need for shelter and clothing as well as providing for ones own?


----------



## Scott Shahan (Mar 22, 2006)

If one can drink, drink up. If you can drink and not get drunk drink. There is a lot of the population that drinks to get drunk. Drunkeness is a sociablly acceptable sin. It isn't acceptable to our Lord. Alcohol can become a form of idolatry, and people can get themselves inslaved to the bottle. I personally can't drink, the Lord delievered me from my drunkeness almost 18yrs ago. I have seen KING alcohol destroy many lives, in fact most folks that are sitting in our state pennititery are there due to alcohol/drugs. I am not against drinking, scripture is not against drinking, but it is definetly against drunkeness.. "First man takes the drink then the drink takes the man".


----------



## brymaes (Mar 23, 2006)

> What kind of an example would one be setting, by doing these things?



Thankfulness, hopefully.


----------



## Mike (Mar 23, 2006)

> _Originally posted by jenson75_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by houseparent_
> ...


I will only really address the first two, as I don't know much about UFC; I know it is extremely brutal, and don't know if I consider it to be uniformly an exhibition of sinful human interaction in need of our disdain rather than excitement. I am not taking this position, but I really don't know enough about it to talk about ti, assuming that its brutality and style are what are in contest.

As far as something like smoking a cigar goes, I don't see how it is a bad example. They seem to be used mainly for two purposes principally: connoisseurship and celebration. That is to say, virtually all the times I can think of cigars being smoked it was a case of someone wanting to enjoy a cigar and appreciate how good it tasted and felt, or they wanted to enjoy themselves, often with great reason for celebration. This sounds exactly like things Christians should be into, to me. We are the only people with real reasons to celebrate. We should be heigtened in our appreciation for this world, knowing its Creator.

As for alcohol, it gladdens the heart of men. The example would be of gladdening one's heart. It seems to me the common conception that Christianity and alcohol are at odds is one that should be combatted. It seems to me that it can make sense to show people the Christians are not legalists, but rather the people who best enjoy this earth.


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot (Mar 23, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Mike_
> As far as something like smoking a cigar goes, I don't see how it is a bad example. They seem to be used mainly for two purposes principally: connoisseurship and celebration. That is to say, virtually all the times I can think of cigars being smoked it was a case of someone wanting to enjoy a cigar and appreciate how good it tasted and felt, or they wanted to enjoy themselves, often with great reason for celebration. This sounds exactly like things Christians should be into, to me. We are the only people with real reasons to celebrate. We should be heigtened in our appreciation for this world, knowing its Creator.
> 
> As for alcohol, it gladdens the heart of men. The example would be of gladdening one's heart. It seems to me the common conception that Christianity and alcohol are at odds is one that should be combatted. It seems to me that it can make sense to show people the Christians are not legalists, but rather the people who best enjoy this earth.


----------



## RamistThomist (Mar 23, 2006)

Bud Light does not glorify God.


----------



## southern phoenix (Mar 23, 2006)

Mike, with that logic, then we can tell the sunday school kids to drink wine and smoke cigarettes too. maybe not in US nor in Japan, but you can do that in Indonesia.

apart from this thread, I guess you'd better think of a "good-for-health" celebration 

[Edited on 3-23-2006 by southern phoenix]


----------



## RamistThomist (Mar 23, 2006)

Ultimately it comes down to the Bible determing our cultural morality, especially with regard to drinking. Psalm 104:15.

I would also like to see someone handle Gentry on this subject.


----------



## VictorBravo (Mar 23, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Draught Horse_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by Gregg_
> ...



But, but, but, I <b>need</b> babyback barbequed ribs, too!

I think holding a stewardship argument to an extreme negates God's command.

Deut 12:15:

"Notwithstanding thou mayest kill and eat flesh in all thy gates, whatsoever thy soul lusteth after, according to the blessing of the LORD thy God which he hath given thee: the unclean and the clean may eat thereof, as of the roebuck, and as of the hart."

We are told we may glorify God even in filling our pleasurable desires. There is a time for indulgence, and a time for fasting. 

Vic


----------



## Mike (Mar 23, 2006)

> _Originally posted by southern phoenix_
> Mike, with that logic, then we can tell the sunday school kids to drink wine and smoke cigarettes too. maybe not in US nor in Japan, but you can do that in Indonesia.


1. I'm not telling _anyone_ to drink wine (other than participation in Communion) or smoke tobacco. 

2. Obviously there are people who should not be enjoying these things of God. I highlighted the good things about alcohol and cigars in that post. We have to be balanced of course, and I hope no one is taking my post to mean that we should encourage all to use these things. However, the reason for any abstention on SS children's abstention ought to be parental leadership, not sending the wrong message. The latter was the issue this thread was started about.



> apart from this thread, I guess you'd better think of a "good-for-health" celebration


I really don't know what you're saying right here. Perhaps you could explain or rephrase.


----------

