# Alcohol and the Christian (once again); Was Peter masters



## CalsFarmer

Abstinence is a choice. Not a biblical mandate.


The redirect to the Maters thread is: http://www.puritanboard.com/forum/viewthread.php?tid=15125

[Edited on 11-26-2005 by Scott Bushey]


----------



## Mayflower

> _Originally posted by CalsFarmer_
> Abstinence is a choice. Not a biblical mandate.


----------



## Mayflower

What i really to know, is if it would be a problem for you to know if your pastor drinks once in the while a glass of red wine (without becoming druk) ?


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot

Alcohol is a gift of God and not to be despised. To abstain from social drinking for personal reasons is one's prerogative. But Jesus Himself turned water into wine as his first miracle and used wine in the institution of the Lord's Supper. To adopt a prohibitionist position would be to 1) bind the conscience where God's word has not done so; and 2) to violate the ordinance of the Lord's Supper by altering one of the commanded elements (ie., wine). 

I commend Ken Gentry's book _God Gave Wine_ which is a thorough Biblical defense of the moderationist position in contrast with the prohibitionist and abstentionist positions.


----------



## Arch2k

> _Originally posted by VirginiaHuguenot_
> Alcohol is a gift of God and not to be despised. To abstain from social drinking for personal reasons is one's prerogative. But Jesus Himself turned water into wine as his first miracle and used wine in the institution of the Lord's Supper. To adopt a prohibitionist position would be to 1) bind the conscience where God's word has not done so; and 2) to violate the ordinance of the Lord's Supper by altering one of the commanded elements (ie., wine).


----------



## Jie-Huli

I do not judge harshly those who drink alcohol in moderation. I understand it is not a crystal clear question, and fine and faithful Christians have come to different conclusions.

But has anyone actually read the book in question? Can anyone point out where Dr. Masters has gone astray in his reasoning?

It is well enough to state your position on the issue, but can anyone interact with Dr. Masters' arguments?

Blessings,

Jie-Huli


----------



## BJClark

The only reasons I can think to abstain are:

1. if you may have a propensity to become a drunkard. 
(like a family history of drunkards)

2. If it may be a stumbling block to someone else.


----------



## bond-servant

> _Originally posted by VirginiaHuguenot_
> 
> 
> I commend Ken Gentry's book _God Gave Wine_ which is a thorough Biblical defense of the moderationist position in contrast with the prohibitionist and abstentionist positions.



Andrew, do you know where I can buy this book new?


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot

> _Originally posted by bond-servant_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by VirginiaHuguenot_
> 
> 
> I commend Ken Gentry's book _God Gave Wine_ which is a thorough Biblical defense of the moderationist position in contrast with the prohibitionist and abstentionist positions.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Andrew, do you know where I can buy this book new?
Click to expand...


Beth, You can get the book for $13 (the cheapest new price I have seen) right here.


----------



## fredtgreco

> _Originally posted by Jie-Huli_
> I do not judge harshly those who drink alcohol in moderation. I understand it is not a crystal clear question, and fine and faithful Christians have come to different conclusions.
> 
> But has anyone actually read the book in question? Can anyone point out where Dr. Masters has gone astray in his reasoning?
> 
> It is well enough to state your position on the issue, but can anyone interact with Dr. Masters' arguments?
> 
> Blessings,
> 
> Jie-Huli



I think this is wise. It is always helpful and respectful to be able to deal with opposing arguments on their ground - especially when they are the _de facto _position in the Church at large.


----------



## bond-servant

Thanks Andrew. Ordered it!


----------



## ReformedWretch

> _Originally posted by Jie-Huli_
> I do not judge harshly those who drink alcohol in moderation. I understand it is not a crystal clear question, and fine and faithful Christians have come to different conclusions.
> 
> But has anyone actually read the book in question? Can anyone point out where Dr. Masters has gone astray in his reasoning?
> 
> It is well enough to state your position on the issue, but can anyone interact with Dr. Masters' arguments?
> 
> Blessings,
> 
> Jie-Huli



I would be VERY intrested in this book, more so I would be inrested in seeing these two positions debated as you sem to be looking for here. I hope someone would be intrested but I am not counting on it.


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot

> _Originally posted by bond-servant_
> Thanks Andrew. Ordered it!



Cool!


----------



## Scott Bushey

My opinion, based upon recent discussions, it would be best to abstain for fear of stumbling anyone. In the same way I choose to embrace EP because of it's 'safety' factor in worship, I choose to abstain from drinking anywhere but in the privacy of my own home.


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot

> _Originally posted by Jie-Huli_
> I do not judge harshly those who drink alcohol in moderation. I understand it is not a crystal clear question, and fine and faithful Christians have come to different conclusions.
> 
> But has anyone actually read the book in question? Can anyone point out where Dr. Masters has gone astray in his reasoning?
> 
> It is well enough to state your position on the issue, but can anyone interact with Dr. Masters' arguments?
> 
> Blessings,
> 
> Jie-Huli



I haven't read Masters' book so I can't comment directly on what he says. Gentry's book deals with a prohibitionist named Stephen Reynolds. If you want to read a debate between Gentry and Reynolds on the subject, see the Volume II, Number 2 1991 issue of Antithesis.


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot

> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> My opinion, based upon recent discussions, it would be best to abstain for fear of stumbling anyone. In the same way I choose to embrace EP because of it's 'safety' factor in worship, I choose to abstain from drinking anywhere but in the privacy of my own home.



Scott, Is this your position on tobacco too?


----------



## Scott Bushey

I have not considered that Andrew. Do you think this would be inconsistant not to as well consider tobacco? I guesss I have seen more people destroyed over alcohol/substance abuse than I have tobacco, so I am inclined more toward the abstinence on that issue.




[Edited on 11-25-2005 by Scott Bushey]


----------



## Pilgrim

If it's a question of causing people to stumble, I'd think more professing Christians (whether considered "weak" or not) would oppose use of tobacco today, even in moderation, than would oppose moderate use of alcohol.


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot

> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> I have not considered that Andrew. Do you think this would be inconsistant not to as well consider tobacco? I guesss I have seen more people destroyed over alcohol/substance abuse than I have tobacco, so I am inclined more toward the abstinence on that issue.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> [Edited on 11-25-2005 by Scott Bushey]



I think there is no principial difference between alcohol and tobacco on Christian liberty issues (smoking is, I think, considered the greatest "sin" by many today) -- except that wine is a commanded element of the Lord's Supper. I think abstention of either for fear of what others think is not what Christian liberty is all about. As Martin Luther said, "Do not suppose that abuses are eliminated by destroying [or abstaining from] the object which is abused. Men can go wrong with wine and women. Shall we prohibit and abolish [or abstain from] women? The sun, moon, and stars have been worshipped. Shall we pluck them out of the sky." [edits mine]


----------



## Scott Bushey

Well, 
To be honest with you, based upon past discussions w/ Fred and P Way, I am totally confused. I don't want to go through the whole thing again here, but they have 'bound' my conscience. I don't fault Fred or Phillip for that, as they have alluded, Pauls warning is clear............so based upon that, I will approach the liberty w/ caution.

Make sense?


----------



## ReformedWretch

I think women and the sun, moon, and stars is a weak argument. I have a daughter who drinks, he used to drink to much and poissibly may still do so on ocasion. I HATE it was every passion in me. I never have drank, never knew anyone (before coming here) who drank responsably. If I drank it would further encourage my daughter and any other kid I work with that it's "cool". If the man who preaches Christ to them more than anyone else in their life drank beer it would without a doubt be a stumbeling block. If they read threads like this it would be a stumbeling block.

While smoking (which I do not do either) can cause you il health, you cannot get drunk from it. Absuing tobacco only harms you, abusing alcohol can harm anyone around you.


----------



## bond-servant

Would then total abstinance also preclude the BUYING of alcohol, though you may only use it for cooking b/c someone might stumble seeing you walk in a liqour store?

What about use of alcohol medicinally - a tablespoon of whisky to ward off the flu?


----------



## Scott Bushey

> _Originally posted by bond-servant_
> Would then total abstinance also preclude the BUYING of alcohol, though you may only use it for cooking b/c someone might stumble seeing you walk in a liqour store?
> 
> What about use of alcohol medicinally - a tablespoon of whisky to ward off the flu?



Beth,
I will not go any further with my convicition; I am drawing some lines for myself. 

As far as whiskey warding off the flu: A flu is generally viral. Alcohol does nothing to inhibit viral replication or proliferation; it may make you care less about it, but it is not an anti-viral.


----------



## ReformedWretch

How often is alcohol needed for cooking? Is it often? Isn't there "cooking alcohol"?

If I need medicine with alcohol I just use Nyquil.


----------



## heartoflesh

I think I'll pick up Master's book to see what he says. I've always held the moderationist position, by default, but do not want to do so without truly examining all the evidence. 

It seems to me the major point of contention is the alcoholic vs. nonalcoholic juice argument. For me it's like the subject of textual criticism, with one scholar disagreeing with another scholar until finally the poor layman's head is spinning! That's why I was wondering if Master's book is really that good, that good a defense of the abstainer's position. 

Of all the practical arguments from the abstainer's position, the one I find most convincing is that there are so many warnings against drunkeness in the Bible, and yet we are not told what consitutes drunkeness. Are we to decide for ourselves when we have "crossed the line"? Are we to be the judges between good and evil, and that after a couple glasses of Merlot? The mandate is to avoid drunkeness, period, and it would seem the line should be clear to draw. It would be foolish to think we can have a little fornication, a little covetousness, a little idolatry, and the same must go for drunkeness. 

I think that's their best argument. 

One thing I will say-- last night being Thanksgiving, I had a glass of red wine and ended up not enjoying it at all. I felt much better after a strong cup of coffee. I'd had the same experience recently at a restaurant after having a beer, which I have always enjoyed in the past. Just didn't sit well. Maybe I've become allergic to alcohol? Now that would solve all my problems, wouldn't it?


----------



## Scott Bushey

For me, the question remains, is it worth stumbling someone?


----------



## heartoflesh

> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> For me, the question remains, is it worth stumbling someone?



That probably is the million dollar question.

In the sermon
I was listening to by Rev. Hamilton, he brings up Spurgeon and his cigar smoking, and how this has been used to defend the Christian use of tobacco. He then related a story of how Spurgeon was riding around London one day and spotted a tobacco shop with a sign out front that read *"SMOKE THE SAME CIGAR THAT C.H. SPURGEON SMOKES!!"*, and that apparently he quit the habit after seeing that. 

Not sure if that's true, but it's in his sermon.


----------



## Scott Bushey

Rick,
I've heard the same story. The risk, is not worth the use. previously, I missed the most important point. I was focusing on making my heart glad in liu of considering my love for the brethren.


----------



## bond-servant

For what it's worth: For the last 15 years, neither dh or I have "had a drink" at home or otherwise, but I have had the same gut feeling about total abstinance out of conviction, as some Dispensational stuff: it was not properly balancing the Scriptures. We are currently leaning toward drinking in moderation, though have not really acted upon it.

Scott: haven't I seen a plethera of threads where you have spoken about which brew you were drinking? I haven't gone back and pulled up the threads, so I could have gotten you confused with someone else?

Also, do you not think smoking is just as (*if not more*) addictive, and even in moderation has been proven to be damaging to our bodies which is the temple of God? (and wine in moderation has shown to be beneficial or neutral)

Curious: Where are the relplies from the "active" social drinkers on this site?


----------



## R. Scott Clark

Regarding the old argument that wine in biblical times had less or no alcohol in it, has seemed it fails on a few counts:

1)Noah was able to get drunk. Presumably it is impossible to become intoxicated on non-alcoholic beverages. The LXX uses _Oinos_ in Gen 9:21, 24. This is the same noun in the NT. See also Gen 19:32; Prov 20:1 etc.

2) The background to the wedding at Cana and implied the narrative is that folk usually brought out the less expensive wine later in the feast (week) because folks were already "in their cups." (See John 2:10; same noun as Gen 9 etc in the LXX ) That is the assumption behind the surprise at the sudden appearance of excellent wine in the wedding.

3) If wine in biblical times contained no or little alcohol content (as compared to modern wine) then why the injunctions regarding drunkenness and wine? E.g., Eph 5:18. The injunction is not to be drunk (_Methuskomai_ - same verb used in Gen 9 etc in the LXX. The injunction is not to abstain. Hence the injunction in 1 Tim 3:8 not to be addicted/given to "much wine" (same noun as before). Hence Paul enjoins Timothy to "drink a little _oinos_" for his stomach's sake. 

Unless the noun _oinos_ has endless elasticity then it denotes an alcoholic beverage capable, when consumed immoderately, of producing intoxication. This beverage is not forbidden to Christians but its abuse is.

Why is this difficult?

I can understand prudential arguments against the consumption of alcohol, but I am pressed to see the exegetical or logical force of arguments against alcohol consumption that purport to be biblical or theological in character.

rsc


----------



## ReformedWretch

> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> Rick,
> I've heard the same story. The risk, is not worth the use. previously, I missed the most important point. I was focusing on making my heart glad in liu of considering my love for the brethren.



This is the answer R. Scott.

And Scott B., I sooo respect that approach!


----------



## Scott Bushey

Beth,
As mentioned, previously, I was leaning more towards the other extreme. The posts you remember were mine. I am not saying one should totally abstain, but be more considerate towards the harming or offending of our beloved brethren. I agree that smoking would as well fall into the same considerations.

1Co 8:13 Wherefore, if meat make my brother to offend, I will eat no flesh while the world standeth, lest I make my brother to offend.


----------



## tcalbrecht

> _Originally posted by bond-servant_
> Also, do you not think smoking is just as (*if not more*) addictive, and *even in moderation has been proven to be damaging to our bodies* which is the temple of God? (and wine in moderation has shown to be beneficial or neutral)



Do you have any studies that demonstrate moderate tobacco use is always harmful?


----------



## bond-servant

Scott: thanks for your answer. Funny this thread should come up now, since recently we have been re-examining our own stand of total abstinance. 

So your own convictions are that both drinking and smoking are Biblically allowed in moderation?
--
Dr. Clark, I appreciate your summary. I have heard the argument for abstinance in the Southern Baptist church for almost 20 years. It leaves many unanswered questions. The "old wine" vs. "new wine" argument doesn't quite add up in my opinion.
We'd be interested in any other thoughts you had on the matter
----
Adam, I know where you're coming from on not making your brother stumble. It was on this verse as well as "abstain from all appearance of evil" that we have totally abstained from drinking. There are so many inncoent things though, that may make our brother stumble....
If we eat an all vegetable dinner or are a vegetarian will it make our brother think that meat is wrong, if we are an example in thier eyes?
If we charge something on a credit card, although we pay off our card every month and carry no debt, will it make a brother stumble and go into debt?

These are the issues we are wrestling with...
When taken to the extreme, it makes one feel 

[Edited on 11-25-2005 by bond-servant]


----------



## Scott Bushey

Dr. Clark,
Can you understand my thinking in the matter?


----------



## Arch2k

> _Originally posted by houseparent_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> Rick,
> I've heard the same story. The risk, is not worth the use. previously, I missed the most important point. I was focusing on making my heart glad in liu of considering my love for the brethren.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is the answer R. Scott.
> 
> And Scott B., I sooo respect that approach!
Click to expand...


Then Christ failed at keeping the law, not only by his miricle at Cana, but by instituting the Lord's supper.

I think this line of reasoning only proves too much.


----------



## Pilgrim

In his book "Now That's a Good Question" R.C. Sproul recounts the story of an Episcopal priest who was being hounded by a woman for his smoking. She told him that the body is the temple of God. He said that he supposed he was staining the temple but told the obviously overweight woman that she was stretching it.


----------



## R. Scott Clark

We should be careful about how use the "weaker brother" argument. 

We should observe the context carefully. The context is cultic confusion. Paul's argument in 1 Cor 8 is that we are free to eat or not eat. What is remarkable is what, according to Paul, we are free to eat! 

He conditions our freedom, however, by reminding us that there are circumstances in which we may not exercise our freedom, especially when by doing so we might cause someone to turn away from Christ by returning to pagan worship or confusing pagan worship with Christian worship.

Folk often use this passage to warn against offending or causing others to stumble in ways that imply that if someone else doesn't like my behavior that I must refrain.

This isn't what Paul is saying. There are times when some folk need to be offended. I have in mind the self-righteous who think they have the law under control and want to hold us in bondage to their opinions. In that case we are, according to the protestants _in statu confessionis_. I think I remember reading about one of the Hodges or perhaps Archibald Alexander having a drink of whiskey (or some such) on his porch when the temperance Methodists came to town. Not that he was devoted to scotch, but he was devoted to Christian liberty.

If our behavior threatens to lead another believer toward apostasy, we should stop immediately (1 Cor 8:10) but if it is matter of placating pharisees, then we should dine with sinners and tax collectors. 

rsc


----------



## Arch2k




----------



## VirginiaHuguenot

> _Originally posted by bond-servant_
> Curious: Where are the relplies from the "active" social drinkers on this site?



I suspect you will find them hanging out in the Puritan Pub with those who exercise their liberty in public like our Lord Jesus Christ did to drink wine and are therefore erroneously called "winebibbers" (Matt. 11.19).


----------



## Scott Bushey

> _Originally posted by Jeff_Bartel_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by houseparent_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> Rick,
> I've heard the same story. The risk, is not worth the use. previously, I missed the most important point. I was focusing on making my heart glad in liu of considering my love for the brethren.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is the answer R. Scott.
> 
> And Scott B., I sooo respect that approach!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then Christ failed at keeping the law, not only by his miricle at Cana, but by instituting the Lord's supper.
> 
> I think this line of reasoning only proves too much.
Click to expand...


Jeff,
The apostle Paul meant something when he said what he did.............


----------



## Scott Bushey

> _Originally posted by Pilgrim_
> In his book "Now That's a Good Question" R.C. Sproul recounts the story of an Episcopal priest who was being hounded by a woman for his smoking. She told him that the body is the temple of God. He said that he supposed he was staining the temple but told the obviously overweight woman that she was stretching it.




yuk yuk yuk


----------



## bond-servant

> _Originally posted by tcalbrecht_
> 
> Do you have any studies that demonstrate moderate tobacco use is always harmful?



Tom, there is a ton of resources out there that show that even moderate smoking produces unwanted health problems: from dental to damaged cilia and decreased immune systems. But there are also just as many that argue that moderate smoking has no unwanted side effects.

I CAN tell you that we have a child (7yrs old) with Respitory Airway Disease - this in his particular case, it is a severe life threatening asthma that is only brought on by eternal triggers: usually virus or smoke. So, if he were to breath in the second hand smoke from a moderate smoker, it could kill him.. almost instantly.


----------



## Scott Bushey

> If our behavior threatens to lead another believer toward apostasy, we should stop immediately (1 Cor 8:10) but if it is matter of placating pharisees, then we should dine with sinners and tax collectors.
> 
> rsc




My position exactly.


----------



## Arch2k

> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by Jeff_Bartel_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by houseparent_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> Rick,
> I've heard the same story. The risk, is not worth the use. previously, I missed the most important point. I was focusing on making my heart glad in liu of considering my love for the brethren.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is the answer R. Scott.
> 
> And Scott B., I sooo respect that approach!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then Christ failed at keeping the law, not only by his miricle at Cana, but by instituting the Lord's supper.
> 
> I think this line of reasoning only proves too much.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Jeff,
> The apostle Paul meant something when he said what he did.............
Click to expand...


I agree.


----------



## ReformedWretch

Christ did not come to 20th century America. The drunken wedding feasts (receptions) that happen every day in this Country I cannot see being condoned by the Lord.


----------



## Arch2k

> _Originally posted by houseparent_
> Christ did not come to 20th century America. The drunken wedding feasts (receptions) that happen every day in this Country I cannot see being condoned by the Lord.



I am not suggesting that Christ would condone drunkeness in any form. But I think that there is sufficient Biblical evidence to suggest that drunkeness is not new, and it was most likely just as much a problem back then, as it is now.


----------



## tcalbrecht

> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> Rick,
> I've heard the same story. The risk, is not worth the use. previously, I missed the most important point. I was focusing on making my heart glad in liu of considering my love for the brethren.



How does one determine whether or not one's behavior is truly a "stumbling block" (_proskomma_ and _skandalon_) for the weaker brethren?


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot

> _Originally posted by houseparent_
> Christ did not come to 20th century America. The drunken wedding feasts (receptions) that happen every day in this Country I cannot see being condoned by the Lord.



"Drink is in itself a good creature of God, and to be received with thankfulness, but the abuse of drink is from Satan; the wine is from God, but the Drunkard is from the Devil." -- Increase Mather


----------



## tcalbrecht

> _Originally posted by bond-servant_
> 
> Tom, there is a ton of resources out there that show that even moderate smoking produces unwanted health problems: from dental to damaged cilia and decreased immune systems. But there are also just as many that argue that moderate smoking has no unwanted side effects.



Hmmm ... couldn't one make the same argument for, say, eating red meat or drinking soft drinks? Some studies for and some against?

I would say that if your children are allergic to smoke, wheat flour, or peanuts, then you should not have them in your home for the love or your children. But a blanket regulation does not seem fitting in all cases. 

I'm not convinced that the idea that moderate smoking is always harmful is objectively supported by research. Thus my question.


----------



## ReformedWretch

I feel this will just always be something I disagree with most of you about. Unless of course the rampant abuse of alcohol, and the glorification of that abuse stops.

99% of the people I know see alcohol as an unchristian thing to partake of. That concerns me, but I don't think going to the local bar and partaking without getting drunk is going to change anyone's mind.


----------



## Formerly At Enmity

I think the Mather quote sums this up quite well......We often find situations where there is a thin line , but that thin line does not make one particular side (let's call it the "wise" side) less wise simply because of the Proximity to the "unwise" side....This is not to say that we should not be aware of the lion (Satan) that prowls.....As with all things, go into it w prayer......

In response to the question regarding public drinking, don't fan the flames! I will be going downtown w friends tonight to watch the University of Memphis beat up on Duke and will have a couple of beers.....Some may find this a bit silly, but when your waiter or waitress brings your beer or grub or whatever, simply tell them that you are about to bless the meal and would be glad to pray for anything that may be troubling them (this usually means a bad day at work). Liberty is much like the situation we find in scripture......Do we come BOLDLY before the throne or do we approach God HUMBLY? Well, it seems to be the humility leads to boldness. Don't know if you get my drift on that or not....Trying to get the point across that we should be thankful for beer, accept it humbly and show wisdom in how we handle it....


----------



## Scott Bushey

> _Originally posted by tcalbrecht_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> Rick,
> I've heard the same story. The risk, is not worth the use. previously, I missed the most important point. I was focusing on making my heart glad in liu of considering my love for the brethren.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How does one determine whether or not one's behavior is truly a "stumbling block" (_proskomma_ and _skandalon_) for the weaker brethren?
Click to expand...


Tom,
The issue is whether or not the possibility is present:

1Co 8:9 But take heed lest by any means this liberty of yours become a stumblingblock to them that are weak. 
1Co 8:10 For if any man see thee which hast knowledge sit at meat in the idol's temple, shall not the conscience of him which is weak be emboldened to eat those things which are offered to idols; 
1Co 8:11 And through thy knowledge shall the weak brother perish, for whom Christ died? 
1Co 8:12 But when ye sin so against the brethren, and wound their weak conscience, ye sin against Christ. 
1Co 8:13 Wherefore, if meat make my brother to offend, I will eat no flesh while the world standeth, lest I make my brother to offend.

"Take heed"
"...while the world standeth"

I am not for total abstinence. I am all for being conscious of the effect my liberty might impose on the weaker brethren.

[Edited on 11-25-2005 by Scott Bushey]


----------



## tcalbrecht

> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by tcalbrecht_
> 
> How does one determine whether or not one's behavior is truly a "stumbling block" (_proskomma_ and _skandalon_) for the weaker brethren?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tom,
> *The issue is whether or not the possibility is present:*
> 
> 1Co 8:9 But take heed lest by any means this liberty of yours become a stumblingblock to them that are weak.
> 1Co 8:10 For if any man see thee which hast knowledge sit at meat in the idol's temple, shall not the conscience of him which is weak be emboldened to eat those things which are offered to idols;
> 1Co 8:11 And through thy knowledge shall the weak brother perish, for whom Christ died?
> 1Co 8:12 But when ye sin so against the brethren, and wound their weak conscience, ye sin against Christ.
> 1Co 8:13 Wherefore, if meat make my brother to offend, I will eat no flesh while the world standeth, lest I make my brother to offend.
> 
> "Take heed"
> "...while the world standeth"
> 
> I am not for total abstinence. I am all for being conscious of the effect my liberty might impose on the weaker brethren.
> 
> [Edited on 11-25-2005 by Scott Bushey]
Click to expand...


I guess my question is, practically speaking, how do we apply that verse. In theory everything we do that is adiaphora has the *possibility* to cause another to stumble, from eating red meat to drinking coffee. Alcoholic beverages is just one visible potential stumbling block. Unless we are going to drop all such practices, how to we respond practically to the verses at issue?

Do we need to identify a real "weaker brethren" that is in true danger of sin because of our behavior? It seems to me it must involve more than just saying I'm going to stop because I might offend some unknown someone, otherwise, as I said, you would need to apply that same standard across the board to all sorts of activities.


----------



## Scott Bushey

Tom,
This is the million dollar question. Paul doesn't specify.


----------



## bond-servant

> _Originally posted by tcalbrecht_
> 
> I guess my question is, practically speaking, how do we apply that verse. In theory everything we do that is adiaphora has the *possibility* to cause another to stumble, from eating red meat to drinking coffee. Alcoholic beverages is just one visible potential stumbling block. Unless we are going to drop all such practices, how to we respond practically to the verses at issue?
> 
> Do we need to identify a real "weaker brethren" that is in true danger of sin because of our behavior? It seems to me it must involve more than just saying I'm going to stop because I might offend some unknown someone, otherwise, as I said, you would need to apply that same standard across the board to all sorts of activities.



 I agree. I had the same questions Tom...



> _Originally posted by bond-servant_
> There are so many inncoent things though, that may make our brother stumble....
> If we eat an all vegetable dinner or are a vegetarian will it make our brother think that meat is wrong, if we are an example in thier eyes?
> If we charge something on a credit card, although we pay off our card every month and carry no debt, will it make a brother stumble and go into debt?



These are questions I've wrestled with too: but am out of my league on this one - Can anyone address this?


----------



## ChristianTrader

In line with Dr. Clark's comments, how many people are actually going to go apostate if they see another Christian drinking some alcohol? I think very very few, while the vast majority of people will just be offended because you are going against their tradition of how a Christian should act.

Next, of the few people that would apostacize, what would they be leaving the faith over? They have it in their head that alcohol is evil and if Christianity is okay with it in moderation, then it must be wrong; therefore the gospel must be false?

How is that really any different than leaving over the Bible's view of homosexuality, the view on the six literal days of creation etc? They all hold in common a rejection of Biblical authority on the issue.

CT

[Edited on 11-25-2005 by ChristianTrader]


----------



## historyb




----------



## gwine

> _Originally posted by tcalbrecht_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by bond-servant_
> 
> Tom, there is a ton of resources out there that show that even moderate smoking produces unwanted health problems: from dental to damaged cilia and decreased immune systems. But there are also just as many that argue that moderate smoking has no unwanted side effects.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hmmm ... couldn't one make the same argument for, say, eating red meat or drinking soft drinks? Some studies for and some against?
> 
> I would say that if your children are allergic to smoke, wheat flour, or peanuts, then you should not have them in your home for the love or your children. But a blanket regulation does not seem fitting in all cases.
> 
> I'm not convinced that the idea that moderate smoking is always harmful is objectively supported by research. Thus my question.
Click to expand...


Maybe the reason you are not convinced that moderate smoking around others is not harmful is because you have not seen the results of it, as I have. Meat and soft drinks do no harm to others, unless you are a nursing mother. Second-hand smoke does.


----------



## heartoflesh

> _Originally posted by houseparent_
> I feel this will just always be something I disagree with most of you about. Unless of course the rampant abuse of alcohol, and the glorification of that abuse stops.



I very much respect this viewpoint, and it is enough to make me refrain from alcoholic consumption altogether. However, sex is abused even more by our society, and yet we are all prudent enough to realize that it is not sex itself, but the _abuse_ of it that is wrong. 

In trying to come up with any parallels to drunkeness, as far as sins that are subjective by degree, I thought of gluttony. Certainly eating is not wrong, but eating too much is. This is true for everything. 

Excess=bad.


----------



## john_Mark

Concerning fast food. On the health frontier, heart disease is the #1 killer in the USA and obesity is also a huge (no pun intended) problem. Yet, we don't here the same type of preaching against this from pulpits and papers. Actually, the SB churches may even encourage unhealthy eating with potluck meals. How often are warnings given of bringing low-fat meals and limiting one's portions?

Once on a Wed-nite service the teacher said that we shouldn't buy alcohol because it's poor stewardship. When I challenged him on that position since the "poor stewardship" could virtually be limitless he admitted he had no biblical mandate not to buy alcohol. 

My point is that there are many things that we do daily as Christians that could couner what could be poor witnessing from the jokes we hear and laugh at to the internet to the #1 value meal. There are many more addictions than just alcohol.

I also don't think the "Jesus didn't live in the 20 century" arguement to be one that could be detrimental were we to adapt this as our hermeneutic. The fact is that in the time of Christ there were alcoholics and drunkards. Yet, Christ still drank to a point that he was called drunkard. While Paul warned us about causing another to stumbled he also encouraged Timothy to drink alcohol. Today we also have many medicinal drugs that are far more addicting and could have far worse effects than alcohol. Should we still take them if the Dr. recommends them? 

Actually, I think we could use a beer as a witnessing tool or a tool to give proper teaching to the weaker brothers. We could explain to them that we aren't Mormons or JW's and that our religion is not about not drinking (and smoking?). Explain the freedom we have in Christ, etc. 

Done rambling....


----------



## ReformedWretch

Guys;

I suspect I run the risk of being jumped on here, but I will pregress nontheless..

I love video games, in my free time I feel they can be stress relieving and fun. I also know that they can be addicting and time consuming. If any of you came on here telling me I needed to give up gaming I would passionately defend my liberty to play games. Same with TV, there are a few shows I very much enjoy. (Notice I have not commented in the TV discussion in another thread).

However, I know I am biased in any discussion regarding two things I enjoy. I ask some of you to consider this in this discussion. Many of you seem to love alcohol consumption as much or more than I love gaming and television viewing. If not, it sure comes across that way. Some of you don't even seem willing to consider that consuing strong drink (especially in public) could be a bad idea, so much so that the "beware of the pharisees" warning has been sounded.

Our culture worships alcohol. It is hailed as a god. It will get you women, money, nice cars, and a social life like you can't even imagine. A recent alcohol commercial shows young people dancing wildly to loud music. For almost the entire commercial you have no idea what is being sold until they show a bottle and the announcer says something like "Yea, it's like that." While TV and video games can be bad, I don't see them being worshiped in that manner.

I have attended many wedding receptions where alcohol was celeberated far more than the bride and groom. I have seen people who would proudly profess Christ fighting over the last "jello shooter". When I make this argument with some CHristian bretheren I have been told that a drink would loosen me up!

I love this place, and I respect of all of you for your biblical knowledge and dedication, but it all honesty the passion of which alcohol is defended and praised here often makes me sad. I try as hard as I can to ignore it and will continue to do so. But a thread like this makes me feel that I am safe speaking up.


----------



## john_Mark

Hey Adam,

I understand where you are coming from and thanks for admitting your bias. (We all have them.) Our culture worships many more things that just alcohol including themselves. Yet we don't hear the same admonitions given in churches about the other idols of our culture.

I really don't believe that the folks here defend their freedom because they "love acohol consumption" to the nth degree so to speak. And I don't believe that's a fair accusation with which to paint folks. This tends to get into questioning the motives of those posting rather than proving your particular position. What I have seen so far is folks are hashing this issue out trying to be biblical or in the very least as biblical as possible as we do with all things. 

As to your wedding example, Christians sin. We do stupid, stupid things and I am so thankful we are saved by grace. There are too many worldly examples of these types of examples of Christians behaving badly that we could make doctrines out of. Thankfully, we don't or we just might all live Amish-like lives of isolation. Hey, sometimes this doesn't sound like such a bad idea. 

I am just not biblically convinced that total alcohol abstinence is a doctrine that should be binding of the consciences of the church.


----------



## ReformedWretch

Thanks Mark, I get worked up when I see the "pharisee" comment. I have had terrible experiences in my past when dealing with those I thought were friends and sin. When I wanted to hold my brothers (and myself) to higher standards I was literally called a pharisee. I want to think I have forgiven them, but that acusation sticks with me.

EDITED TO ADD:

PS- That situation in my past was NOT about alcohol.

[Edited on 11-25-2005 by houseparent]


----------



## tcalbrecht

> _Originally posted by gwine_
> 
> Maybe the reason you are not convinced that moderate smoking around others is not harmful is because you have not seen the results of it, as I have.



Could you please describe the environment where moderate smoking caused identifiable harm? How moderate was the smoking?



> _Originally posted by gwine_
> Meat and soft drinks do no harm to others, unless you are a nursing mother. Second-hand smoke does.



Interesting idea. I was on a plane fight once where they refused to serve peanuts because there was a child onboard with a peanut allergy. 

Is moderate second hand smoke any more harmful than, say, living in Los Angeles or New York City or any other city with significant air-born contaminates?

[Edited on 11-25-2005 by tcalbrecht]


----------



## bond-servant

> _Originally posted by houseparent_
> Guys;
> 
> Many of you seem to love alcohol consumption as much or more than I love gaming and television viewing. If not, it sure comes across that way. Some of you don't even seem willing to consider that consuing strong drink (especially in public) could be a bad idea, so much so that the "beware of the pharisees" warning has been sounded. <snip>



Adam, once again I reiterate a comment I made in a previous post:


> _Originally posted by bond-servant_
> For what it's worth: For the last 15 years, neither dh or I have "had a drink" at home or otherwise, but I have had the same gut feeling about total abstinance out of conviction, as some Dispensational stuff: it was not properly balancing the Scriptures. We are currently leaning toward drinking in moderation, though have not really acted upon it.



Like Mark, I haven't seen anyone on this thread treat alcohol as a 'god'-
I have also seen our society treat sex as a god. Yet, abstaining contradicts Paul's charge to married couples as does God's command in Genesis. 
Dr. Clark made the same point about eating/drinking:


> We should be careful about how use the "weaker brother" argument.
> 
> We should observe the context carefully. The context is cultic confusion. Paul's argument in 1 Cor 8 is that we are free to eat or not eat. What is remarkable is what, according to Paul, we are free to eat!



I have not drunk now socially in 15 years, nor do I intended to go to bars, nor to I intended to violate Scripture and drink unto drunkeness...just a fellow servant of our Lord re-examining actions and Scripture.


----------



## mgeoffriau

I'm not sure I follow the argument that meat and soft drinks do no harm to others, but tobacco products do, and so that separates them into different catagories...

Counterexample #1:
Smoking is (apparently) wrong because you cause harm to others. What about chew and dip? Nobody is harmed by that but me, and if I brush my teeth frequently, then even my wife isn't offended by it.

Counterexample #2
Red meat and soft drinks harm only me, right? Well, unfortunately, the high death rate from obesity means that everyone pays more for health insurance and life insurance because of my abuses of red meat and soft drinks. So my abuse does in fact harm others.


My point? There are no hard and fast lines between "public sins" and "private sins".


----------



## ReformedWretch

Beth, if I sounded as if I was attacking you or anyone I am sorry. I wasn't. I just want some to consider that they may have a strong bias toward alcohol in the way I would about games or some TV watching. Simple as that.


----------



## bond-servant

Adam, no prob! I didn't feel attacked, just wanted for my position to be clear.


----------



## ReformedWretch

Sure Josh, but I don't see Society as a whole bow to the alter of video gaming like I alcohol use and partying. I know people who won't go to a party or function unless alcohol is served. I know people who refuse to go anywhere until they are told alcohol is being served then they suddenly cannot wait to go.

Surely you (meaning all of you) see those kinds of things as well?


----------



## ReformedWretch

Let me ask this.

What if alcohol was outlawed again? If video games were I would find it silly, but life would go on. I wouldn't campaign for them, I wouldn't buy them on the black market, etc. I would whine a little and let it go.

Those of you who enjoy alcohol, how would you reat if it were drink outlawed?

[Edited on 11-26-2005 by houseparent]


----------



## ChristianTrader

> _Originally posted by houseparent_
> Let me ask this.
> 
> What if alcohol was outlawed again? If video games were I would find it silly, but life would go on. I wouldn't campaign for them, I wouldn't buy them on the black market, etc. I would whine a little and let it go.
> 
> Those of you who enjoy alcohol, how would you reat if it were drink outlawed?
> 
> [Edited on 11-26-2005 by houseparent]



We would be like Machen and send off the warning bells. One gets in trouble trying to be holier than Jesus.

CT


----------



## Jie-Huli

Due to the time difference, there have been quite a lot of posts since the last time I checked. But it still seems there is no one else here who has actually read Dr. Masters' book, which is unfortunate. I would certainly encourage Rick (and anyone else interested in considering the subject) to read the book, since it seems there are not many reformed writers who have written from the abstinence position. Dr. Masters deals with all of the arguments that have been put forth in a scholarly (yet simple) way.

Well, I will not have time to post later today, but I did just want to address one point which I see has been made, in regard to the wine of biblical times being the same as the wine of today. Some verses were posted showing the point that it was possible for people to get drunk in biblical times (such as Noah, etc.), and therefore the conclusion was drawn that wine was the same then as today. What this fails to take into account is that though the fermented wine of the grape will always have similar qualities, in and of itself, in biblical times the wine that was normally consumed was much more heavily diluted. And the fact that the water of that time needed a mixture of some wine to be more sanitary should also be taken into account. Obviously people could overconsume even this, or dilute their wine less and get drunk. But the "moderate" consumption of wine which is apparently condoned in Scripture was with a much different substance than modern alcoholic beverages, I do not think this can be denied.

The Webmaster himself posted this in another thread (emphasis mine):



> _Originally posted by Webmaster_
> I definitely hear what you are saying, and under normal circumstacnes, OJ would violate the RPW. What if you were on a desert island, and only had Coconut Milk? How far or less far will someone go? *For example, the wine you use is NOT the same kind of wine the Apostles used. Thiers was 27 parts water and one part wine, if one wants to be technical. Some more or less fermented than others. *Others use pita bread, some use matza bread - which is better? is the "commonality" that Turretin argues for what should be used? or is there another standard that pops up that tells us how far or not far to go? Just some things to think through.
> 
> Personally, under all normal circumstances - I would use common wine, and common unleavened bread.



Obviously he was not arguing there in favour of abstinence, but the point remains that the wine used in Jesus' time was generally quite diluted.

Incidentally, I do see the issue of the Lord's Supper as the greatest challenge to a total abstinence position. Actually, at present I myself lean towards a position of total abstinence from drinking alcohol in day to day life, with the use of diluted wine for the Lord's Supper, though I do not condemn the use of unfermented grape juice either, since it is still the fruit of the vine.

Blessings,

Jie-Huli

[Edited on 11-26-2005 by Jie-Huli]


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia

Abstinence makes Christ to be a sinner and a false teacher.


----------



## tdowns

*A tid bit*

I'm on vacation, I've tried to read most, but just a little something that I was discussing with my friend that is interesting. 

My dad is totally anti-alchohol, and a good Christian, and he did not smoke either, but didn't have any neg. emotions behind it. So growing up is was alchohol is BAD, but we'd have a cigar after a Clint Eastwood movie or on a road trip (we're talking twice a year, swisher sweet, just for fun.). 

Well as I entered my college years, many of my friends took up smoking, and I never did, never wanted to, felt no need, but I hugely abused alchohol. So I find it interesting that the "vice" that my dad allowed, I handled with maturity (this was pre-christian) and the "vice" that was forbidden I abused. 
So I don't know about the stumbling argument..
when my Dad asked me once recently, "Do you want your daughter to drink like you do?" I said, "Yes, I do, because I drink under control now, I don't want her drinking like I used to."

I don't see how hiding something, that is o.k., is a good thing.


----------



## Jie-Huli

> _Originally posted by WrittenFromUtopia_
> Abstinence makes Christ to be a sinner and a false teacher.



The abstinence position put forward by Dr. Masters most assuredly does _not_ do such a wicked thing. Nor is Dr. Masters blind to the texts in the gospels which concern Jesus and wine. He deals with them very sensibly.


----------



## ReformedWretch

Jesus wants us to drink!

I hope my daughter never reads that.


----------



## ReformedWretch

> _Originally posted by joshua_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by houseparent_
> Let me ask this.
> 
> What if alcohol was outlawed again? If video games were I would find it silly, but life would go on. I wouldn't campaign for them, I wouldn't buy them on the black market, etc. I would whine a little and let it go.
> 
> Those of you who enjoy alcohol, how would you reat if it were drink outlawed?
> 
> [Edited on 11-26-2005 by houseparent]
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I would defy the law when partaking of the Lord's table.
Click to expand...


 Ok an exception is made for that, but not social drinking of any kind.


----------



## ChristianTrader

I know that many other countries are way more liberal with alcohol (in terms of ages etc.) than the US. Do those countries have the trouble that we have with alcohol?


----------



## ReformedWretch

Nope, but what can we do about that now? I have friends from Italy who have told me how they were raised to respect alcoholand how they used it. They have never been drunk and laughed at their friends as teens when that's all they wanted to do.

But now that our Country has glamorized it and made getting a buzz the thing to do I can't see how we as Christians should be out partaking of it with those who do drink in that way. Scott (or whoever) drinking a little at home is no big deal, but to be seen at a bar or out drinking at a party is a poor witness In my humble opinion.

I told my pastor that if my daugher ever repents and comes to church I would never want her to see beer in his fridge.


----------



## ChristianTrader

> _Originally posted by houseparent_
> Nope, but what can we do about that now? I have friends from Italy who have told me how they were raised to respect alcoholand how they used it. They have never been drunk and laughed at their friends as teens when that's all they wanted to do.



Because we have done bad things does not mean all hope is lost. We have learned to have a wrong attitude towards guns, but no one would say the solution is to not deal with guns.

I think the solution is to demonstrate responsible use, just as demonstration of responsible use of guns helps set a proper example.



> But now that our Country has glamorized it and made getting a buzz the thing to do I can't see how we as Christians should be out partaking of it with those who do drink in that way. Scott (or whoever) drinking a little at home is no big deal, but to be seen at a bar or out drinking at a party is a poor witness In my humble opinion.



I do not see how responsible use can be a bad witness. A person that drinks and then says "no, I have had enough for tonight", at the very least cannot be a bad witness. I personally think it to be a very good witness.



> I told my pastor that if my daugher ever repents and comes to church I would never want her to see beer in his fridge.



Lets imagine that the scenario that you describe was to happen. What exactly would your daughter be offended by? And then would her response be to reject the gospel that she has now embraced?


----------



## ReformedWretch

> I do not see how responsible use can be a bad witness. A person that drinks and then says "no, I have had enough for tonight", at the very least cannot be a bad witness. I personally think it to be a very good witness.



I want to see if I am understanding you here..

Are you saying it would be good for me to frequent the local pub tonight (I am terribly bored right now) and drink a beer or two while chatting to whoever is willing, stopping before I have had too much in order to be a good witness?



> Lets imagine that the scenario that you describe was to happen. What exactly would your daughter be offended by? And then would her response be to reject the gospel that she has now embraced?



If in her recent past she has had a hard time controlling alcohol and associated it with the rampant sinners she once spent all of her time with, I would assume she would see this as condoning alcohol use of which she (like me for MANY years) has never seen used in an acceptable way.


----------



## ChristianTrader

> _Originally posted by houseparent_
> 
> 
> 
> I do not see how responsible use can be a bad witness. A person that drinks and then says "no, I have had enough for tonight", at the very least cannot be a bad witness. I personally think it to be a very good witness.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I want to see if I am understanding you here..
> 
> Are you saying it would be good for me to frequent the local pub tonight (I am terribly bored right now) and drink a beer or two while chatting to whoever is willing, stopping before I have had too much in order to be a good witness?
Click to expand...


Hehe.

The argument was centered on engaging in alcohol in front of the general populace. Your new scenario is now centered on being in questionable scenario with or without alcohol.



> Lets imagine that the scenario that you describe was to happen. What exactly would your daughter be offended by? And then would her response be to reject the gospel that she has now embraced?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If in her recent past she has had a hard time controlling alcohol and associated it with the rampant sinners she once spent all of her time with, I would assume she would see this as condoning alcohol use of which she (like me for MANY years) has never seen used in an acceptable way.
Click to expand...


And.... How is this different from various other misconceptions, she will ask question/make accusations and at that point a discussion will take place. She will be straightened out and hopefully learn that alcohol in itself is not demon water.

CT


----------



## gwine

> _Originally posted by tcalbrecht_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by gwine_
> 
> Maybe the reason you are not convinced that moderate smoking around others is not harmful is because you have not seen the results of it, as I have.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Could you please describe the environment where moderate smoking caused identifiable harm? How moderate was the smoking?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by gwine_
> Meat and soft drinks do no harm to others, unless you are a nursing mother. Second-hand smoke does.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Interesting idea. I was on a plane fight once where they refused to serve peanuts because there was a child onboard with a peanut allergy.
> 
> Is moderate second hand smoke any more harmful than, say, living in Los Angeles or New York City or any other city with significant air-born contaminates?
> 
> [Edited on 11-25-2005 by tcalbrecht]
Click to expand...


To be honest I don't know how "moderate" the smoking was, as my dad is gone now, but he was diagnosed with emphysema and never smoked but worked in an office where people did.

My wife had asthma to the point of needing emergency shots when she was little and her dad smoked - again I cannot say how much. Another lady I worked for long ago had a chronic cough and her three little ones had many colds and respiratory problems and her live in (finally her husband) smoked.

Even today walking into a restaurant gives my wife problems if there is smoking near the waiting area. Of course, that doesn't happen much now because many restaurants in the area are smoke-free and we choose to frequent them instead of those that aren't.

I am not a passionate anti-smoker * but I believe there is sufficient reason to keep away from second-hand smoke and smoggy cities.

* In that I do not actively engage in anti-smoking campaigns or get in people's faces about smoking. I'm more of a passive guy who goes out of my way to avoid second-hand smoke. I believe too that parents who smoke around children are not being responsible stewards of God's gifts to them. (added as an edit)

[Edited on 11-26-2005 by gwine]


----------



## ReformedWretch

> hopefully learn that alcohol in itself is not demon water.



I am still learning that and I am not completely convinced. I promise you that you guys are the ONLY people I know who when they drink do not do so in excess.

That also goes back to my idea of going to the pub. WHERE is it all of you are drinking socially? When you go out to dinner? Where else? I know of no places to socially drink besdes some resteraunts and the bars. Even the resteraunts I know are clearly seperated, one half is for those who wish not to drink, the other half is for those who do. The idea being that the drinkers may be louder and "rowdier" and they don't want the non-drinkers to be disturbed.


----------



## gwine

> _Originally posted by houseparent_
> 
> That also goes back to my idea of going to the pub. *WHERE is it all of you are drinking socially?* When you go out to dinner? Where else? I know of no places to socially drink besdes some resteraunts and the bars. Even the resteraunts I know are clearly seperated, one half is for those who wish not to drink, the other half is for those who do. The idea being that the drinkers may be louder and "rowdier" and they don't want the non-drinkers to be disturbed.



How about going to other (reformed) friends's houses for supper and a good evening together? It's social but very small group - maybe just the 4 of us (and their children.)


----------



## ReformedWretch

> _Originally posted by gwine_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by houseparent_
> 
> That also goes back to my idea of going to the pub. *WHERE is it all of you are drinking socially?* When you go out to dinner? Where else? I know of no places to socially drink besdes some resteraunts and the bars. Even the resteraunts I know are clearly seperated, one half is for those who wish not to drink, the other half is for those who do. The idea being that the drinkers may be louder and "rowdier" and they don't want the non-drinkers to be disturbed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How about going to other (reformed) friends's houses for supper and a good evening together? It's social but very small group - maybe just the 4 of us (and their children.)
Click to expand...


Ok

I still thinin a much larger scale when I talk of social drinking.


----------



## gwine

> _Originally posted by mgeoffriau_
> I'm not sure I follow the argument that meat and soft drinks do no harm to others, but tobacco products do, and so that separates them into different catagories...
> 
> Counterexample #1:
> Smoking is (apparently) wrong because you cause harm to others. What about chew and dip? Nobody is harmed by that but me, and if I brush my teeth frequently, then even my wife isn't offended by it.
> 
> Counterexample #2
> Red meat and soft drinks harm only me, right? Well, unfortunately, the high death rate from obesity means that everyone pays more for health insurance and life insurance because of my abuses of red meat and soft drinks. So my abuse does in fact harm others.
> 
> 
> My point? There are no hard and fast lines between "public sins" and "private sins".



#1 Smoking and chewing are not the same. I've never heard of second hand spit, unless you are being careless. :bigsmile:

#2 Methinks you are trying to divert the problem (I know there is a name for that in the logic book). You might just as well argue that the PB causes harm since you could get carpal tunnel syndrome typing all night and then that would be an insurance issue, etc. etc.


----------



## gwine

> _Originally posted by houseparent_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by gwine_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by houseparent_
> 
> That also goes back to my idea of going to the pub. *WHERE is it all of you are drinking socially?* When you go out to dinner? Where else? I know of no places to socially drink besdes some resteraunts and the bars. Even the resteraunts I know are clearly seperated, one half is for those who wish not to drink, the other half is for those who do. The idea being that the drinkers may be louder and "rowdier" and they don't want the non-drinkers to be disturbed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How about going to other (reformed) friends's houses for supper and a good evening together? It's social but very small group - maybe just the 4 of us (and their children.)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ok
> 
> I still thinin a much larger scale when I talk of social drinking.
Click to expand...


I know that. But I am serious, since I am not into the social scene you are picturing. I average 1-2 beers a week and dropping, more because beer has calories, which are empty, and it is not as healthy for you as Bob Vigneault says (just checking to see if he's reading this.) And I did have a couple glasses of wine for Thanksgiving dinner tonight with our daughter-in-law's family (her dad is the pastor of our church), so this is my social setting.

But her grandpa, an OPC pastor as well, choose not to drink because it was his liberty not to and never suggested that his daughter or son-in-law (our pastor) should follow his example.

I remember years ago at my grandparents 50th wedding anniversary. My aunt arranged everything and alcohol was part of the arrangement, which was interesting since my grandparents didn't drink. Man, did the party get rowdy. It was sad . . .


----------



## ReformedWretch

> Man, did the party get rowdy



And therein lies my issue. I wish I could go to a few social gathering without having to worry about some idiotic drunks spoiling it.


----------



## gwine

> _Originally posted by houseparent_
> 
> 
> 
> Man, did the party get rowdy
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And therein lies my issue. I wish I could go to a few social gathering without having to worry about some idiotic drunks spoiling it.
Click to expand...


Come on over to our house. I promise we won't get rowdy.


----------



## ReformedWretch

That is my problem, I need more strong reformed Christian friends! Thing is I have a HECTIC work schedule (12 days on 2 days off) and almost all of our friends have several small children!


----------



## mgeoffriau

> _Originally posted by gwine_#1 Smoking and chewing are not the same. I've never heard of second hand spit, unless you are being careless. :bigsmile:



...which is exactly my point. Is this prevailing opinion that smoking is wrong _entirely_ dependant upon the idea that it is harmful to others? 



> _Originally posted by gwine_#2 Methinks you are trying to divert the problem (I know there is a name for that in the logic book). You might just as well argue that the PB causes harm since you could get carpal tunnel syndrome typing all night and then that would be an insurance issue, etc. etc.



It's not diverting the problem. It's simply a counterexample that illustrates the fact that there is not a clear line of demarcation between "public sins" and "private sins". My reason for pointing this out is that I believe this therefore cannot be a good criterium for determining what is acceptable behavior for Christians.

Can you offer a substantive argument to the contrary? Is there actually a clear line between actions that affect only oneself, versus actions that affect others in addition to oneself?


----------



## Scott Bushey

Abstinence, based upon unbiblical reasoning, in my opinion is legalistic/sinful. Abstinence, in relation to being concientious for the weaker brother is sacrificial and to be commended. Concientious abstinence does not mean one has to abstain in the privacy of your own home.


----------



## Scott Bushey

> _Originally posted by ChristianTrader_
> In line with Dr. Clark's comments, how many people are actually going to go apostate if they see another Christian drinking some alcohol? I think very very few, while the vast majority of people will just be offended because you are going against their tradition of how a Christian should act.
> 
> Next, of the few people that would apostacize, what would they be leaving the faith over? They have it in their head that alcohol is evil and if Christianity is okay with it in moderation, then it must be wrong; therefore the gospel must be false?
> 
> How is that really any different than leaving over the Bible's view of homosexuality, the view on the six literal days of creation etc? They all hold in common a rejection of Biblical authority on the issue.
> 
> CT
> 
> [Edited on 11-25-2005 by ChristianTrader]



I totally understand the premise; I leaned heavily this way previously. There is just enough doubt and grey to pretty much justify anything in that regard.

However, acting in love, sacrificially as Christ did, what would be the prudent thing to do? It is my feeling that what I am doing is most prudent; it keeps everything safe and aligned. I don't have to wonder if I have caused anyone to stumble, apostasize, etc. This should be all our thinking.


----------



## BobVigneault

> I average 1-2 beers a week and dropping, more because beer has calories, which are empty, and it is not as healthy for you as Bob Vigneault says (just checking to see if he's reading this.)



Huh? What? I was in the Puritan Pub and the beer-tender said someone was using my name.

Most everyone knows where I stand. I don't drink in public because of the stumbling factor. Many of my friends and family abstain and it was frustrating having them all here for Thanksgiving and nobody wanted to go down in the basement and watch the little bubbles percolate through my 5 gallons of ale mead.

Yeast eats sugar and excretes alcohol. If that's not overwhelming proof of Intelligent Desigh then I'm a monkey's uncle.

Firstly, it is a sin to say 'drinking alcohol is a sin' because it is blashemy against our Lord and I won't tolerate that line of reasoning.

Second, drunkeness is of course a sin and the Bible is very clear on that.

Thirdly, if you are fully convinced in your own mind that you shouldn't drink out of honor and devotion to God then for YOU to drink would be a sin. I may even be sinning if I try to encourage you to drink. Two people can and often do hold to exact opposite convictions yet still honor Christ in those convictions. This is our privilege and commandment.

Our first question must always be 'Am I fully convinced in my own mind that I am honoring Christ in this thing?" This is where debate on the board is crucial. We test and prove and separate biblical conviction from opinion and whimsy.

For me, I am looking forward to getting together with Gerry and Lord willing we will pop open a bottle of Moose Drool Brown Ale. We will discuss this thread. We will discuss the scriptures and what we've read recently. We will go watch the bubbles of fermentation coursing through my homebrew.....

and our hearts will be made glad. Blessed is the fellowship of God's people!


----------



## heartoflesh

> _Originally posted by Jie-Huli_
> Well, I will not have time to post later today, but I did just want to address one point which I see has been made, in regard to the wine of biblical times being the same as the wine of today. Some verses were posted showing the point that it was possible for people to get drunk in biblical times (such as Noah, etc.), and therefore the conclusion was drawn that wine was the same then as today. What this fails to take into account is that though the fermented wine of the grape will always have similar qualities, in and of itself, in biblical times the wine that was normally consumed was much more heavily diluted. And the fact that the water of that time needed a mixture of some wine to be more sanitary should also be taken into account. Obviously people could overconsume even this, or dilute their wine less and get drunk. But the "moderate" consumption of wine which is apparently condoned in Scripture was with a much different substance than modern alcoholic beverages, I do not think this can be denied.
> 
> The Webmaster himself posted this in another thread (emphasis mine):
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by Webmaster_
> I definitely hear what you are saying, and under normal circumstacnes, OJ would violate the RPW. What if you were on a desert island, and only had Coconut Milk? How far or less far will someone go? *For example, the wine you use is NOT the same kind of wine the Apostles used. Thiers was 27 parts water and one part wine, if one wants to be technical. Some more or less fermented than others. *Others use pita bread, some use matza bread - which is better? is the "commonality" that Turretin argues for what should be used? or is there another standard that pops up that tells us how far or not far to go? Just some things to think through.
> 
> Personally, under all normal circumstances - I would use common wine, and common unleavened bread.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Obviously he was not arguing there in favour of abstinence, but the point remains that the wine used in Jesus' time was generally quite diluted.
Click to expand...



No one has addressed this argument, unless I missed something.

Scholars?


----------



## BobVigneault

The alcohol content is not relevant to the debate. Until Dr. Welch figured out a way to stop fermentation all grape juiice prior to the 1800s all grape juice fermented. All wine in the bible had alcohol in it. The question was, should a Christian drink alcohol? Slippery slope arguments try to change this into a how much alcohol is a sin. That's easy, enough to get you drunk. 

Are we arguing, should a Christian drink alcohol or how much alcohol is a sin? I just don't see what arguing about alcohol level has to do with the debate.


----------



## Scott Bushey

> _Originally posted by Rick Larson_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by Jie-Huli_
> Well, I will not have time to post later today, but I did just want to address one point which I see has been made, in regard to the wine of biblical times being the same as the wine of today. Some verses were posted showing the point that it was possible for people to get drunk in biblical times (such as Noah, etc.), and therefore the conclusion was drawn that wine was the same then as today. What this fails to take into account is that though the fermented wine of the grape will always have similar qualities, in and of itself, in biblical times the wine that was normally consumed was much more heavily diluted. And the fact that the water of that time needed a mixture of some wine to be more sanitary should also be taken into account. Obviously people could overconsume even this, or dilute their wine less and get drunk. But the "moderate" consumption of wine which is apparently condoned in Scripture was with a much different substance than modern alcoholic beverages, I do not think this can be denied.
> 
> The Webmaster himself posted this in another thread (emphasis mine):
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by Webmaster_
> I definitely hear what you are saying, and under normal circumstacnes, OJ would violate the RPW. What if you were on a desert island, and only had Coconut Milk? How far or less far will someone go? *For example, the wine you use is NOT the same kind of wine the Apostles used. Thiers was 27 parts water and one part wine, if one wants to be technical. Some more or less fermented than others. *Others use pita bread, some use matza bread - which is better? is the "commonality" that Turretin argues for what should be used? or is there another standard that pops up that tells us how far or not far to go? Just some things to think through.
> 
> Personally, under all normal circumstances - I would use common wine, and common unleavened bread.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Obviously he was not arguing there in favour of abstinence, but the point remains that the wine used in Jesus' time was generally quite diluted.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> No one has addressed this argument, unless I missed something.
> 
> Scholars?
Click to expand...


One cannot miss the point that wine could make you drunk, whatever the concentration..........

I'm with Bob, the thread is digressing. Christians have the freedom.


[Edited on 11-26-2005 by Scott Bushey]


----------



## Jie-Huli

> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> I'm with Bob, the thread is digressing. Christians have the freedom.
> 
> [Edited on 11-26-2005 by Scott Bushey]



Digressing from what?

No offense meant to anyone, but since this thread was started to specifically discuss the book "Should Christians Drink: The Case for Total Abstinence" by Dr. Masters, and since out of more than 80 posts not one other person has actually had anything to say about this book, I would say that the entire thread has been a "digression".


----------



## Scott Bushey

Jie,
In that regard, you are absolutely correct. You've assisted in the derailing, but I won't hold that against you; ultimatley, the mods or myself should have kept the thread on topic. Who is modding here? Oh well, I will close this thread and open another more directed at the review.

[Edited on 11-26-2005 by Scott Bushey]


----------



## satz

> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by Rick Larson_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by Jie-Huli_
> Well, I will not have time to post later today, but I did just want to address one point which I see has been made, in regard to the wine of biblical times being the same as the wine of today. Some verses were posted showing the point that it was possible for people to get drunk in biblical times (such as Noah, etc.), and therefore the conclusion was drawn that wine was the same then as today. What this fails to take into account is that though the fermented wine of the grape will always have similar qualities, in and of itself, in biblical times the wine that was normally consumed was much more heavily diluted. And the fact that the water of that time needed a mixture of some wine to be more sanitary should also be taken into account. Obviously people could overconsume even this, or dilute their wine less and get drunk. But the "moderate" consumption of wine which is apparently condoned in Scripture was with a much different substance than modern alcoholic beverages, I do not think this can be denied.
> 
> The Webmaster himself posted this in another thread (emphasis mine):
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by Webmaster_
> I definitely hear what you are saying, and under normal circumstacnes, OJ would violate the RPW. What if you were on a desert island, and only had Coconut Milk? How far or less far will someone go? *For example, the wine you use is NOT the same kind of wine the Apostles used. Thiers was 27 parts water and one part wine, if one wants to be technical. Some more or less fermented than others. *Others use pita bread, some use matza bread - which is better? is the "commonality" that Turretin argues for what should be used? or is there another standard that pops up that tells us how far or not far to go? Just some things to think through.
> 
> Personally, under all normal circumstances - I would use common wine, and common unleavened bread.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Obviously he was not arguing there in favour of abstinence, but the point remains that the wine used in Jesus' time was generally quite diluted.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> No one has addressed this argument, unless I missed something.
> 
> Scholars?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> One cannot miss the point that wine could make you drunk, whatever the concentration..........
> 
> I'm with Bob, the thread is digressing. Christians have the freedom.
> 
> 
> [Edited on 11-26-2005 by Scott Bushey]
Click to expand...


My opinion"¦

The alcohol content of the wine in NT days does not really resolve the matter one way or another. I think the bible is clear enough that even in those days the abuse of wine was still associated with drunkenness.

Psalm 104:15 tells us God gave wine to make glad the heart of man. I feel that is a fairly clear reference to the effects of alcohol on drinkers when taken in moderate amounts. The bible doesn´t say that God gave grapes and the devil turned them into wine. Nor does it say that God gave wine to help the ancient people kill bacteria in their drinking water. The fact that wine was enjoyed as a beverage at weddings and the above psalm telling us wine was given to make man´s heart glad is I think indicative that there was enough alcohol back in those days for men to "˜feel it´ and not simply an undetectable amount to sanitize the water.

I feel the bible is fairly clear that moderate wine consumption is a gift from God to be enjoyed. To become drunk is to be strictly avoided, but that in no way detracts from the legitimacy of the proper use of alcohol. The issue of concentration in wine in NT days doesn´t really seem relevant to me. It only means we can drink less now ( in terms of glasses ) as compared to the people in olden times. If Jesus Christ had come to earth during our day that might mean he might make a bottle or two of wine at a wedding party as opposed to a whole barrel full, but it in no way makes it inappropriate for Christians to drink to day ( generally speaking).


----------



## gwine

> _Originally posted by mgeoffriau_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by gwine_#1 Smoking and chewing are not the same. I've never heard of second hand spit, unless you are being careless. :bigsmile:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ...which is exactly my point. Is this prevailing opinion that smoking is wrong _entirely_ dependant upon the idea that it is harmful to others?
Click to expand...


No. It's wrong if God says it's wrong.



> _Originally posted by gwine_#2 Methinks you are trying to divert the problem (I know there is a name for that in the logic book). You might just as well argue that the PB causes harm since you could get carpal tunnel syndrome typing all night and then that would be an insurance issue, etc. etc.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's not diverting the problem. It's simply a counterexample that illustrates the fact that there is not a clear line of demarcation between "public sins" and "private sins". My reason for pointing this out is that I believe this therefore cannot be a good criterium for determining what is acceptable behavior for Christians.
> 
> Can you offer a substantive argument to the contrary? Is there actually a clear line between actions that affect only oneself, versus actions that affect others in addition to oneself?
Click to expand...


I probably could not. This is a fallen world and every action is tainted with the consequences of it. Practically all that we do has (many times unintended) consequences. Cutting down trees faster than we plant new ones slowly destroys the ecosystem, so you could say that the books and newspapers we read are a sin by your line of reasoning.

But I still think there is a distinction to be made between a first cause and secondary causes, otherwise it seems to me that we remove ourselves from personal guilt over sin. If I smoke heavily and drink heavily thereby causing my body to fall into disrepair then I am personally guilty. If I smoke heavily and cause my children to have increased medical problems then I am personally guilty. And I would agree that if I ate irresponsibly and died too soon (although God alone knows what day is appointed) then I again am personally guilty.

But to enjoy what we have while grounded here on earth in the light of what we would hope is prudent information about the consequences of using or eating the product is a gift from God. Thus, I can enjoy a beer or read a book or drive a car or shoot a gun and many other things, knowing that any one of my actions has the potential for evil.

And with that, I am once again out of my league, so I will extend the right hand of fellowship with my brothers and sisters here on the PB and thank them for the lively debate that makes my head hurt.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

Evidently my post got moved. One more point that has been mentioned to me is that a drunk Uriah was more righteous than King David who was trying to hide his sin. (2 Samuel 11) I am not advocating drunkeness. I am advocating a pure heart. Proverbs 4:23 will go a long way if it is applied to a daily life.

Here is an artcle I posted in the other post. I posted it in the Pub a while back. It is very insightful.

[Edited on 11-26-2005 by puritancovenanter]


----------



## ChristianTrader

> _Originally posted by puritancovenanter_
> Evidently my post got moved. One more point that has been mentioned to me is that a drunk Uriah was more righteous than King David who was trying to hide his sin. (2 Samuel 11) I am not advocating drunkeness. I am advocating a pure heart. Proverbs 4:23 will go a long way if it is applied to a daily life.
> 
> Here is an artcle I posted in the other post. I posted it in the Pub a while back. It is very insightful.
> 
> [Edited on 11-26-2005 by puritancovenanter]



That article is quite nice.


----------



## R. Scott Clark

> _Originally posted by Jie-Huli_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> I'm with Bob, the thread is digressing. Christians have the freedom.
> 
> [Edited on 11-26-2005 by Scott Bushey]
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Digressing from what?
> 
> No offense meant to anyone, but since this thread was started to specifically discuss the book "Should Christians Drink: The Case for Total Abstinence" by Dr. Masters, and since out of more than 80 posts not one other person has actually had anything to say about this book, I would say that the entire thread has been a "digression".
Click to expand...


I have a question. I get regular requests to read or comment on this or that book. I don't usually take them up. In this case, it is demanded that I read yet another book arguing the abstinence case. 

When deciding what to read, one of the questions I ask is: who wrote it? I've heard the name Peter Masters and I have a vague impression that he's some broadcaster maybe a sectarian of some sort. I don't know. 

Why should I read this? Is this person a specialist in biblical studies or ethics or some how specially qualified to occupy my time and attention? I'm not aware that he is. Is this person making new or outstanding arguments never before made in this history of this question? If not, then I don't think I'm obligated to read it just as I'm not obligated to read every (usually self-published, unedited) book folks send to my mailbox. 

Call me an elitist. Fine. Most of the books I read have gone through some sort of screening process. They've been edited and selected for publication by a reputable publisher because they have some merit.

Does this work meet ANY of these standards? 

rsc


----------



## mgeoffriau

> _Originally posted by gwine_
> No. It's wrong if God says it's wrong.



Or if it can be judged according to the proper and reasonable extension of principles of right/wrong in the Bible? Give me that much room, and I'll agree with you.



> _Originally posted by gwine_I probably could not. This is a fallen world and every action is tainted with the consequences of it. Practically all that we do has (many times unintended) consequences. Cutting down trees faster than we plant new ones slowly destroys the ecosystem, so you could say that the books and newspapers we read are a sin by your line of reasoning.
> 
> But I still think there is a distinction to be made between a first cause and secondary causes, otherwise it seems to me that we remove ourselves from personal guilt over sin. If I smoke heavily and drink heavily thereby causing my body to fall into disrepair then I am personally guilty. If I smoke heavily and cause my children to have increased medical problems then I am personally guilty. And I would agree that if I ate irresponsibly and died too soon (although God alone knows what day is appointed) then I again am personally guilty.
> 
> But to enjoy what we have while grounded here on earth in the light of what we would hope is prudent information about the consequences of using or eating the product is a gift from God. Thus, I can enjoy a beer or read a book or drive a car or shoot a gun and many other things, knowing that any one of my actions has the potential for evil.
> 
> And with that, I am once again out of my league, so I will extend the right hand of fellowship with my brothers and sisters here on the PB and thank them for the lively debate that makes my head hurt.



What's interesting is that we're arguing, and yet share the same position...I agree that things which have the potential for evil are not necessarily evil in and of themselves. I also agree that there is an intuitive difference between immediate and secondary causes, I would just say that the line between them is blurred enough that it is often not useful to attempt these kinds of detailed discussions about "how" wrong drinking is compared to smoking.

I am also of the opinion that the idea that we must take the utmost care for our bodies should be balanced with the knowledge that this flesh, while still a good thing, is a means to full and Christ-like living, and not an end to itself. I'm getting a glorified body (or this body will be glorified, however you want to look at it) when Christ returns anyway, so I'd feel gipped if I didn't use this one up at least a little (just kidding, just kidding...).


----------



## CalsFarmer

> _Originally posted by Mayflower_
> What i really to know, is if it would be a problem for you to know if your pastor drinks once in the while a glass of red wine (without becoming druk) ?



Only if it was a really cheap disgusting wine.....OR

If it was a lovely beaujolais and I was NOT INVITED!

One must maintain a standard here......


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot

I would commend to everyone this article by J.G. Vos called The Bible Doctrine of the Separated Life.


----------



## tcalbrecht

> _Originally posted by gwine_
> 
> To be honest I don't know how "moderate" the smoking was, as my dad is gone now, but he was diagnosed with emphysema and never smoked but worked in an office where people did.
> 
> My wife had asthma to the point of needing emergency shots when she was little and her dad smoked - again I cannot say how much. Another lady I worked for long ago had a chronic cough and her three little ones had many colds and respiratory problems and her live in (finally her husband) smoked.
> 
> Even today walking into a restaurant gives my wife problems if there is smoking near the waiting area. Of course, that doesn't happen much now because many restaurants in the area are smoke-free and we choose to frequent them instead of those that aren't.
> 
> I am not a passionate anti-smoker * but I believe there is sufficient reason to keep away from second-hand smoke and smoggy cities.
> 
> * In that I do not actively engage in anti-smoking campaigns or get in people's faces about smoking. I'm more of a passive guy who goes out of my way to avoid second-hand smoke. I believe too that parents who smoke around children are not being responsible stewards of God's gifts to them. (added as an edit)
> 
> [Edited on 11-26-2005 by gwine]



I guess the difficulty I have is with the presupposition that second hand smoke caused these ailments. For example, in the case of an office worker there may have been other environmental factors that could cause or contribute to emphysema. Even the building materials in some offices, without proper ventilation, could produce the irritation of the bronchial tubes that would eventually lead to emphysema.

My point is that more than anecdotal information is required to suggest that moderate smoking (one cigar or a couple cigarettes per day), like moderate drinking or the moderate ingestion of red meat, is at all harmful.


----------



## gwine

I can't help you with presuppositions, since we all have our own. But I never started out being in favor of avoiding smoke, 1st or 2nd hand. I know what the end results were for my dad and wife, and after watching my father in law and my best friend's dad die of lung cancer I have no problem going to the other side.

And with that I'll stop, since this thread has been hijacked too much already.

, my friend.


----------



## Jie-Huli

> _Originally posted by maxdetail_
> The alcohol content is not relevant to the debate. Until Dr. Welch figured out a way to stop fermentation all grape juiice prior to the 1800s all grape juice fermented. All wine in the bible had alcohol in it. The question was, should a Christian drink alcohol? Slippery slope arguments try to change this into a how much alcohol is a sin. That's easy, enough to get you drunk.
> 
> Are we arguing, should a Christian drink alcohol or how much alcohol is a sin? I just don't see what arguing about alcohol level has to do with the debate.



I would respectfully submit that the concentration of alcohol in the beverage is actually quite relevant to the debate. For example, the Bible gives clear counsel against "strong drink". (See Isaiah 5:22 and 28:7, for example). Therefore, if the modern alcoholic beverages contain 27 times more alcohol than the wine _commonly_ used in the days of the apostles and Jesus, I think this at the least raises a problem for those who say alcohol consumption is biblically-warranted while they are in fact drinking beverages that are much, much stronger than the wine Jesus and the apostles drank.


----------



## Jie-Huli

> _Originally posted by R. Scott Clark_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by Jie-Huli_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> I'm with Bob, the thread is digressing. Christians have the freedom.
> 
> [Edited on 11-26-2005 by Scott Bushey]
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Digressing from what?
> 
> No offense meant to anyone, but since this thread was started to specifically discuss the book "Should Christians Drink: The Case for Total Abstinence" by Dr. Masters, and since out of more than 80 posts not one other person has actually had anything to say about this book, I would say that the entire thread has been a "digression".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have a question. I get regular requests to read or comment on this or that book. I don't usually take them up. In this case, it is demanded that I read yet another book arguing the abstinence case.
> 
> When deciding what to read, one of the questions I ask is: who wrote it? I've heard the name Peter Masters and I have a vague impression that he's some broadcaster maybe a sectarian of some sort. I don't know.
> 
> Why should I read this? Is this person a specialist in biblical studies or ethics or some how specially qualified to occupy my time and attention? I'm not aware that he is. Is this person making new or outstanding arguments never before made in this history of this question? If not, then I don't think I'm obligated to read it just as I'm not obligated to read every (usually self-published, unedited) book folks send to my mailbox.
> 
> Call me an elitist. Fine. Most of the books I read have gone through some sort of screening process. They've been edited and selected for publication by a reputable publisher because they have some merit.
> 
> Does this work meet ANY of these standards?
> 
> rsc
Click to expand...


Dr. Peter Masters is not a "sectarian", nor is he principally a "broadcaster" (although his sermons are now broadcast on Sky-tv in the UK). He is the pastor of the Metropolitan Tabernacle church in London, the church which was pastored by John Gill and Charles Spurgeon in former days. Dr. Masters has been the pastor of the Metropolitan Tabernacle for 35 years now, since 1970, during which time this church has seen a tremendous revival. It had sunk into compromise and decline and had only a few elderly members remaining when Dr. Masters arrived. But during the ministry of Dr. Masters, during which time he has born a strong and consistent witness for the pure gospel and the great doctrines of the reformation, while taking principled stands against modern errors, the church has been greatly blessed of God and grown to a membership of many hundreds of people, who are also fervent in service to the Lord. Dr. Masters has published books on pastoral ministry, evangelism, Biblical interpretation, prayer, worship, Sunday schools, the errors of the Charismatic movement, the Ten Commandments, and commentaries on several books of the Bible. The annual "School of Theology" he oversees at the Tabernacle draws hundreds of reformed pastors and Christians from all over the UK, the U.S. and other places. And as for screening and selectivity in books, I can assure you that the bookshop at the Tabernacle, the largest reformed bookshop in London, is every bit as strict and selective about which books they stock as any publisher you know.

Does this warrant your reading his book on alcohol? That is for you to decide. My only meaning in the post above was that this thread (before Mr. Bushey wisely split it) was expressly created to discuss Dr. Masters' book. So if you have not read it, and do not care to read it, then my only point is that this thread perhaps was not the place for a general airing of views on the abstention position which have nothing to do with his book. There can be other threads on the general issue of alcohol. But if you are not interested in what Dr. Masters has written on the subject, then what need is there to post on a thread which is dedicated to discussing his book?

Having said that, I would argue that it would indeed be beneficial for you to read his book after all, for the following reason: Dr. Masters is a very mature and sober-minded Christian, and his Biblical learning and studies in the great reformed works are vast. The typical arguments in favour of modern alcohol consumption (which are clear enough to understand) are certainly not over his head. So if he has reasoned through the issues and come to an abstinence position, I should think you might at least be interested in knowing what would lead a man of his depth to take such a stance. To repeat and repeat the stock arguments in favour of alcohol, without really bothering to take the opposing side seriously and see where they disagree in their understanding of the "prooftexts" in question, will not convince anyone who is studying through the subject in earnest.

Kind regards,

Jie-Huli

[Edited on 11-27-2005 by Jie-Huli]


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

I must admit I knew who Peter Masters was way before I had ever heard of a Dr. R. Scott Clark.

At the same time I am not so sure that Peter Masters has anything knew to offer in the debate that I haven't already heard. I admit I am being lazy here. I have no desire to read another book on the subject. I will just say that I have other interests in my reading schedule and another book on this subject is out of the realm of interests. Thanks for bringing up the topic though.

[Edited on 11-27-2005 by puritancovenanter]


----------



## tcalbrecht

> _Originally posted by Jie-Huli_
> To repeat and repeat the stock arguments in favour of alcohol, without really bothering to take the opposing side seriously and see where they disagree in their understanding of the "prooftexts" in question, will not convince anyone who is studying through the subject in earnest.
> 
> Kind regards,
> 
> Jie-Huli
> 
> [Edited on 11-27-2005 by Jie-Huli]



Just curious, whuich of Master's arguments are not refuted by Ken Gentry in _God Gave Wine_ or any other reformed moderationist work on the subject? Would you say that Gentry does not take the other position seriously? What new does Maters bring ot the table?


----------



## Larry Hughes

History of Anti-Alcohol Movements in the U.S.

by David J. Hanson, Ph.D.

Organizations opposed to alcohol consumption arose in the US began before the Civil War (1861-1865). They began by calling for voluntary abstinence but with the passage of time began to insist that no one be permitted to consume any alcohol by force of law. However, the Civil War diverted attention to more pressing matters and interest in the movement largely died. 

Following the War, the movement for prohibition reemerged and began growing. A growing women's movement focusing on protection of the family, along with the strong support of many Protestant churches, propelled the movement forward beginning in the 1880s.

After that time a number of states adopted state-wide prohibition within their borders. However, it was World War I that made possible the passage of national Prohibition. The strong anti-German prejudice made brewers (who were generally of German origin) popular targets of hostility, the argument that alcohol beverage production diverted grain needed for the war effort, the lack of organization on the part of those who didn't support prohibition (the "wets"), the effective organization of prohibitionists (the drys), the strong support of the Ku Klux Klan (KKK), political intimidation, and the effects of decades of temperance propaganda made possible the passage of the Eighteenth Amendment establishing national Prohibition. National Prohibition of Alcohol in the US describes this subject in more detail.

National Prohibition not only failed to prevent the consumption of alcohol, but led to the extensive production of dangerous unregulated and untaxed alcohol, the development of organized crime, increased violence, and massive political corruption. Although Prohibition was repealed in 1933, there are still hundreds of dry counties across the United States today. Amazingly, some people today insist that Prohibition was a success! 

Because Prohibition is now recognized by most people as having been a disastrous failure and currently lacks strong political support, modern prohibitionists are using a different approach to achieve their goal. 

Their tactic is to establish cultural rather than strictly legal prohibition by making alcohol beverages less socially acceptable and marginalizing those who drink, no matter how moderately. Like the anti-alcohol activists who preceded them, the neo-prohibitionists of today (often called reduction-of-consumptionists, neo-drys, or neo-Victorians) don't distinguish between the use and the abuse of alcohol. Both should be reduced.

Neo-prohibitionists tend to believe that:

The substance of alcohol is, in and of itself, the cause of all drinking problems. 
The availability of alcohol causes people to drink. 
The amount of alcohol consumed (rather than the speed with which it is consumed, the purpose for which it is consumed, the social environment in which it is consumed, etc.) determines the extent of drinking problems. 
Alcohol education should focus on the problems that excessive alcohol consumption can cause and should promote abstinence. 
These beliefs lead neo-prohibitionists to call for such measures as:

Increasing taxes on alcohol beverages 
Limiting or reducing the number of sales outlets 
Limiting the alcohol content of drinks 
Prohibiting or censoring alcohol advertising 
Requiring warning messages with all alcohol advertisements 
Expanding the warning labels on all alcohol beverage containers 
Expanding the display of warning signs where alcohol is sold 
Limiting the days or hours during which alcohol beverages can be sold 
Increasing server liability for any problems that occur after alcohol consumption 
Limiting the sale of alcohol beverages to people of specific ages 
Decreasing the legal blood alcohol content level for driving vehicles or other activities 
Eliminating the tax deductibility of alcohol beverages as a business expense. 
Temperance Groups and Leaders

Some of the many anti-alcohol groups and leaders of the past and present are identified here alphabetically.

American Council on Alcohol Problems The American Council on Alcohol Problems is a federation of state affiliates promoting the reduction of consumption agenda. The Council was known as the Anti-Saloon League from 1893 until 1948, the Temperance League until 1950, the national Temperance League until 1964, and now as the American Council on Alcohol Problems. It partners with George Hacker's Alcohol Policies Project at the Center for Science in the Public Interest and other temperance groups

Resources: 
American Council on Alcohol Problems. Encyclopedia Britannica Online.
Asbury, Herbert. The Great Illusion: An Informal History of Prohibition. New York: Greenwood Press, 1968 (Originally published 1950).
Kobler, John. Ardent Spirits: The Rise and Fall of Prohibition. New York: G.P. Putnam's Sons, 1973.
Krout, John A. The Origins of Prohibition. New York: Knopf, 1925.

Anti-Saloon League The Anti-Saloon League was a non-partisan organization established in 1893 that focused on the single issue of prohibition. The League had branches across the United States to work with churches in marshalling resources for the prohibition fight.

From 1948 until 1950 it was known as the Temperance League, from 1950 to 1964 it was called the National Temperance League; from then it has been known as the American Council on Alcohol Problems. The current name disguises its prohibitionist agenda.

The best single source of information about the Anti-Saloon League is Peter H. Odegard, Pressure Politics: Story of the Anti-Saloon League. New York: Columbia University Press, 1928, reprinted 1966); the League's archives and other materials are now located at the Anti-Saloon home page (wpl.lib.oh.us/AntiSaloon/)

Resources:
Anti-Saloon League of America. Anti-Saloon League of America Yearbook. Westerville OH: American Issue Press, 1920
Cherrington, Ernest. History of the Anti-Saloon League. Westerville, OH: American Issue Publishing Co., 1913. 
Dohn, Norman Harding. The History of the Anti-Saloon League. Ann Arbor, MI: University Microfilms, 1976. 
Ewin, James Lithgow. The Birth of the Anti-Saloon League. Washington, D.C., 1913. 
Kerr, K. Austin. Organized for Prohibition: A New History of the Anti-Saloon League. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1985. 
Lien, Jerry.The Speechmaking of the Anti-Saloon League. University of Southern California, 1968. 

Califano, Joseph A. Joseph Califano says he felt that he was on a genuine religious mission by creating the Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse (CASA), explaining that "for me, establishing and building CASA and committing myself to this battle against substance abuse was doing the Lord's work." For Joe Califano, virtually any alcohol consumption is alcohol abuse. One observer reports that " Califano is essentially a reincarnation of the old temperance warriors." 

With messianic zeal Joe Califano and his Center have become well known for presenting highly questionable advocacy "research." To learn more about Mr. Califano visit Joe Califano and His Center for Addiction and Substance Abuse(CASA).

Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse (CASA) CASA has a long record of producing highly suspect papers about alcohol that are later discredited. For example, a researcher "examined some of the references in (a) CASA paper and found the conclusions in the articles to be shockingly different from the way CASA depicted them." Report after report by CASA has been exposed as lacking credibility, leading The Washington Times to observe that CASA has a "proven disdain for the facts." Understandably, scholars have a lot of negative things to say about the Center on Alcohol and Substance Abuse, "some of it unprintable" observed Christopher Shea in the Chronicle of Higher Education. 

More information about the CASA is found at The Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse: A Center for Alcohol Statistics Abuse? 

Center on Alcohol Marketing and Youth (CAMY) The Center on Alcohol Marketing and Youth (CAMY) was up and funded by the Pew trusts and the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation. The stated mission of CAMY is to monitor "the marketing practices of the alcohol industry to focus attention and action on industry practices that jeopardize the health and safety of America's youth." It explains that "reducing high rates of underage alcohol consumption and the suffering caused by alcohol-related injuries and death among young people" requires limiting the appeal of alcohol beverages to young people and their access to them." It seeks to create "public outrage" against alcohol advertising to achieve its objective. 

CAMY begins with an assumption which it then sets out to prove. In doing so it is clearly an activist group rather than an objective scientific organization seeking to learn the truth. Judging from CAMY's statements and activities to date, it's doubtful if the Center would ever to find any alcohol advertising or any marketing practice to be acceptable. This may be an example of the Burger King phenomenon: Pew and Johnson pay for the research and "have it their way." 

Learn more about CAMY at Center on Alcohol Marketing and Youth : Its Objectives and Methods. 

Center for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI) The Center for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI) is not a science center but, by its own admission, a public advocacy action center. CSPI demonstrates a continuing pattern of presenting alarming but erroneous and misleading statistics to promote its agenda. A major goal of CSPI is reducing the alcohol consumption of adults, even among moderate drinkers. A full-time director, George Hacker, and his staff work toward this goal through the group's Alcohol Policies Project.

Both CSPI and its Alcohol Policies Project are dedicated to "preventing alcohol" rather than "preventing the abuse of alcohol." They promote prohibitionist and neo-prohibitionist goals rather than public health goals. That's all the difference in the world.

To learn more about the activities of the CSPI visit Center for Science in the Public Interest.

Center for Substance Abuse Prevention (CSAP) The Center for Substance Abuse Prevention (CSAP) is a massively-funded federal agency that aggressively promotes the reduction-of-consumption or neo-prohibition approach to reduce alcohol problems: "Less alcohol is always still too much alcohol."

Although it is a federal agency supported by taxpayers, the Center for Substance Abuse Prevention has long been guilty of illegally misappropriating taxpayer money for lobbying, of censoring citizens with whom it disagrees, of self-servingly distorting statistics, and of using its power to abuse innocent Americans.

Some observers think the agency should be abolished. Learn more about the agency at Center for Substance Abuse Prevention. 

Coalition for the Prevention of Alcohol Problems The Coalition for the Prevention of Alcohol Problems vigorously promotes a temperance agenda and should more accurately be called the Coalition for the Prevention of Alcohol. It is a coalition of temperance groups co-chaired by George Hacker of the Alcohol Policies Project and Stacia Murphy of the National Council on Alcohol and Drug Dependence (NCADD). 

Members of the Coalition include the Women's Christian Temperance Union (WCTU), the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints (Mormon Church), the American Council on Alcohol Problems (earlier called the Anti-Saloon League), the Temperance League of Kentucky, the General Board of Global Ministries, and the Illinois Church Action on Alcohol Problems.

The Coalition's Steering Committee meets weekly in Washington to set its agenda and plan it's political strategy. For more about the Coalition's organizer and leader visit George Hacker of CSPI. 

Hacker, George Lawyer George A. Hacker has headed the temperance-oriented Alcohol Policies Project of the Center for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI) for three decades. He is Co-Chair of the Coalition for the Prevention of Alcohol Problems, whose members include the American Council on Alcohol Problems (the current name of the Anti-Saloon League) and many other prohibition and temperance activist groups.

As part of his role as an anti-alcohol activist leader, George Hacker has authored and coauthored numerous publications to promote neo-prohibitionism. Hacker's efforts have not gone unnoticed. For example, he is described as "an outspoken anti-alcohol activist by journalist James Thalman in Utah's Desert News and as "the undisputed general" of the forces attacking alcohol by Michael Massing in the New York Times. 

To learn about his modus operandi, visit George Hacker of CSPI.

Hunt, Mary Mary Hanchet Hunt, who was born in 1830, became one of the most powerful women in the nation promoting prohibition. As Superintendent of the Women's Christian Temperance Union's Department of Scientific Temperance Instruction she worked at the grass roots level to ensure passage of laws mandating that textbooks teach every school child a curriculum promoting complete abstinence for everyone and mandatory prohibition. She acquired the power to veto any textbook of which she did not approve. And she didn't approve of any book that stated the fact that physicians sometimes prescribed alcohol or any book that even implied that drinking in moderation did not inevitably lead to serious alcohol abuse. That would send a "mixed message" inconsistent with the WCTU's goal of prohibition.

It is indisputable that "by the time of her death in 1906, Mary Hunt had shaken and changed the world of education" with her campaign for coercive temperance education or "institutionalized prohibitionist propaganda." In 1901-1902, 22 million school children were exposed to anti-alcohol "education." The WCTU was perhaps the most influential lobby ever to shape what was taught in public schools. Though it was a voluntary association, it acquired quasi-public power as a censor of textbooks, a trainer of teachers, and arbiter of morality." 

Mrs. Hunt's integrity and morality is another matter. In order to deal with the accusation that she profited from reform, she signed over to charity the royalties due her on the thousands of physiology textbooks sold annually. Her never-publicized charity was the Scientific Temperance Association, a group composed of Hunt, her pastor, and a few friends. The association used its funds to support the operations of the national headquarters of the WCTU's Department of Scientific Temperance Instruction, a large house in Boston that was also Hunt's residence. For Mary Hunt, charity both began and stayed at home.

Resources: 
Elson, Ruth M. in Guardians of Tradition: American Schoolbooks of the Nineteenth Century. Lincoln, NE: University of Nebraska Press, 1964.
Flanders, Jessie K. Legislative Control of the Elementary Curriculum. New York: Teachers College, 1925.
Hanson, David J. Alcohol Education: What We Must Do. Westport, CT: Praeger, 1996.
Hunt, Mary H. A History of the First Decade of the Department of Scientific Temperance Instruction in Schools and Colleges. Boston, MA: Washington Press, 1892.
Hunt, Mary H. An Epoch of the Nineteenth Century: An Outline of the Work for Scientific Temperance Education in the Public Schools of the United States. Boston, MA: Foster, 1897.
Mezvinsky, Norton. Scientific temperance instruction in the schools. History of Education Quarterly, 1961, 7, 48-56.
Ohles, John F. The imprimatur of Mary H. H. Hunt. Journal of School Health, WS, 1978, 48, 477-478.
Ormond, Chart. Temperance Education in American Public Schools. Westerville, OH: American Issue Press, 1929
Sheehan, Nancy M. The WCTU and education: Canadian-American illustrations. Journal of the Midwest History of Education Society, 1981, P, 115-133.
Sheehan, Nancy M. National pressure groups and provincial curriculum policy: Temperance in Nova Scotia schools 1880-1930. Canadian Journal of Education, 1984b, 9, 73-88.
Tyack, David, B., and James, Thomas. Moral majorities and the school curriculum: Historical perspectives on the legalization of virtue. Teachers College Record, 1985, 86, 513-537.
Zimmerman, Jonathan. "The Queen of the Lobby": Mary Hunt, scientific temperance, and the dilemma of democratic education in America, 1879-1906. History of Education Quarterly, 1992, 32, 1-30.

Jacobson, Michael Michael Jacobson established the Center for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI) in 1971, along with two lawyers from one of Ralph Nader's activist groups. Both lawyers soon dropped out so now, as Executive Director, Mr. Jacobson now operates his own activist group.

The Center for Science in the Public Interest isn't a science organization but a special interest advocacy group for public policy. Although it assumes the mantle of science in order to obtain legitimacy for its activities and programs, most of the CSPI's "science" hardly reaches the level of a high school science project. And high school students don't have a political agenda for which they distort the evidence or misrepresent the facts as Michael Jacobson and his Center for Science in the Public Interest apparently do.

Michael Jacobson calls for heavy taxes on foods of which he disapproves, numerous prohibitions, lawsuits against food producers, beverage producers, and convenience restaurants. He takes pride in being called the head of the food and beverage police.

For more on Michael Jacobson and his operation, visit Michael Jacobson and His Center for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI) 

Ku Klux Klan (KKK) One of the major supporters of Prohibition was the "second KKK." often called the KKK of the 1920s. The Klan was revived specifically to defend Prohibition, the enforcement of which was a cornerstone of its "reform" agenda. A historian has observed that "support for Prohibition represented the single most important bond between Klansmen throughout the nation." Another scholar wrote that "enforcement of Prohibition, in fact, was a central, and perhaps the strongest, goal of the Ku Klux Klan." 

For more about the anti-alcohol nature of the KKK visit The Ku Klux Klan (KKK), Alcohol, & Prohibition.

Marin Institute The Marin Institute for the Prevention of Alcohol and Other Drug Problems is a massively endowed organization that aggressively promotes reduction of consumption alcohol policies, equates alcohol with illegal drugs, and repeatedly reports as being accurate the often deceptive and misleading "research" and statistics generated by other anti-alcohol activist groups. The Marin Institute has been recognized for its anti-alcohol activities by the Prohibition Party.

More about the organization can be found at The Marin Institute: An Anti-Alcohol Activist Organization and Marin Institute Recognized.

Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD) Mothers Against Drunk Driving was created in 1980 to reduce drunk driving and the death and injury that it can cause. Over time, temperance forces have gained control of MADD and it has largely become anti-alcohol rather than anti-drunk driving. Candy Lightner, the founder and first President of MADD says "it has become far more neo-prohibitionist than I ever wanted or envisioned." She explains "I didn't start MADD to deal with alcohol. I started MADD to deal with the issue of drunk driving." More about MADD is located at:

Mothers Against Drunk Driving: A Crash Course in MADD 
Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD) Resources 
MADD IS Anti-Alcohol

Nation, Carrie Carrie Nation was one of the most colorful members of the Women's Christian Temperance Union (WCTU). Born in 1846, Carry Amelia Moore Nation (she adopted the name Carry A. Nation mainly for its value as a slogan and had it registered as a trademark) is best remembered for using a hatchet to smash and destroy bars and their contents (sometimes called "hatchetation"). Between 1900 and 1910, she was arrested 30 times for her destructive invasions of bars. She self-righteously believed she was doing God's work and was highly intolerant of those who opposed her or her actions. She derisively labeled them "rum-soaked, whiskey-swilled, saturn-faced rummies." 

Carrie Nation exploited her notoriety by appearing as a vaudeville entertainer, charging to lecture, publishing newsletters, selling photos of herself, and marketing souvenir hatchets. She died in 1911.

Resources:
Carrie Amelia Nation. Kansas State Historical Society
(http://www.kshs.org/people/nation_carry.htm+"Carrie+Nation"&hl=en)
Carry A. Nation: The famous and Original Bar Room Smasher. Kansas State Historical Society (Online Exhibit) (http://www.kshs.org/exhibits/carry/carry1.htm+"Carrie+Nation"&hl=en)
Carrie Nation. Wickipedia.
Carrie Nation (America 1900) pbs.org

Office of Alcohol and Other Drug Abuse (AMA) The American Medical Association (AMA) first passed a resolution supporting abstinence from alcohol even before National Prohibition was imposed in 1920 and continues to support it to this day.

Although the moderate consumption of alcohol is associated with better health and greater longevity than either abstinence or the abuse of alcohol, the AMA remains a temperance organization. This may be because so many physicians see the consequences of alcohol abuse, although the vast majority of people drink in moderation that's beneficial to their good health.

For whatever reason, the AMA promotes a temperance agenda. It describes its Office of Alcohol and Other Drug Abuse as "a national program office of the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation." Not only did the temperance-oriented Robert Wood Johnson Foundation establish the AMA's office with an initial $5 million dollar grant but also it has poured many more millions of dollars into funding its activities. 

For more about the Office of Alcohol and Other Drugs and other AMA temperance activities, visit American Medical Association: Abstinence Motivated Agenda. 

Prohibition Party The Prohibition Party was created in 1867 to advocate temperance and legislation prohibiting the production and sale of alcoholic beverages. It was an important force in US politics during the late 1800s and the early decades of the 20th century. The Prohibition Party is the oldest "third party" in the US and has nominated a candidate for president of the US in every election since 1872. 

Resources
Colvin, David L. Prohibition in the United States: A History of the Prohibition Party and of the Prohibition Movement. NY: George H. Doran Co., 1926.
Storms, Roger C. Partisan Prophets: A History of the Prohibition Party, 1854-1972. Denver, CO: National Prohibition Foundation, 1972. 
Wheeler, E.J. Prohibition: the Principle, the Policy, and the Party. NY: Funk & Wagnall's, 1889.

Robert Wood Johnson Foundation The Robert Wood Johnson Foundation attempts to stigmatize alcohol, de-legitimize drinking, and marginalize drinkers. It spent over a quarter of a billion dollars ($265,000,00.00) in just four years alone further developing and funding a nation-wide network of anti-alcohol organizations, centers, activist leaders, and opinion writers to achieve its long-term goal.

An in-depth report, Behind the Neo-Prohibition Campaign: The Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, demonstrates that "nearly every study disparaging adult beverages in the mass media, every legislative push to limit alcohol marketing or increase taxes, and every supposedly 'grassroots' anti-alcohol organization" is funded by the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation (RWJF). 

More information on the RWJF is found at Robert Wood Johnson Foundation: Financier of Temperance. 

Sunday, Billy William Ashley Sunday was born in 1862 and left a highly successful career as a baseball player to become an evangelist who focused on alcohol. He said " I am the sworn, eternal and uncompromising enemy of the liquor traffic. I have been, and will go on, fighting that damnable, dirty, rotten business with all the power at my command." Sunday preached that "whiskey and beer are all right in their place, but their place is in hell."

"While Sunday gained the devotion of millions and helped bring Prohibition to America, he also became the subject of derision. One of his revival songs, 'Brighten the Corner Where You Are,' became a drinking song in the blind pigs that prospered during Prohibition. One line, 'Someone far from harbor you may guide across the bar' called the waiter for another stein of beer."

Although Prohibition was a failure, Billy Sunday was very successful financially and died a wealthy man in 1935 at the depth of the Depression when about one-third of the population was unemployed. He left a large estate as well as trust funds for his children. 

Resources: 
Allen, Robert A. Billy Sunday: Home Run to Heaven. Milford, MI: Mott Media, 1985.
Baulch, Vivian M. How Billy Sunday battled demon rum in Detroit. Detroit News, October 29, 1916. (http://info.detnews.com/history/story/index.cfm?id=200&category=people)
Billy Sunday OnLine (billysunday.org)
Ellis, William T. Billy Sunday: His Life and Message. Philadelphia, PA: John C. Winston Co., 1914.
McLoughlin, W. G. Jr. Billy Sunday Was His Real Name. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press, 1955.

Volstead, Andrew John Andrew Volstead is known as "The Father of Prohibition" because he authored the National Prohibition Act, better known as the Volstead Act, which provided the legal mechanism to enforce the 18the Amendment to the US Constitution. That amendment prohibited "the manufacture, sale, or distribution of intoxicating liquors." The Volstead Act defined intoxicating liquors as beverages containing more than one-half of one percent alcohol and it gave federal authorities the power to prosecute violations.

Volstead was born in 1860 and elected to the first of his ten terms as a member of the US House of Representatives from his native state of Minnesota. Following the loss of his congressional seat in 1922 shortly after Prohibition was imposed, Volstead was hired as legal adviser to the chief of the National Prohibition Enforcement Bureau. Upon Repeal of Prohibition in 1933, Volstead returned to Minnesota where he practiced law and died in 1947.

Resources: 
Volstead, Andrew John, (1860-1947) bioguide.congress.gov/
Andrew Volstead. spartacus.schoolnet.uk 
Andrew Volstead. lawzone.com 
The man behind the act (Andrew J. Volstead). American History, 2001, 35(6), 50.

Wheeler, Wayne Wayne Wheeler, born in 1869, graduated from law school and within a few years became the attorney and General Counsel for the National Anti-Saloon League and its head lobbyist. He became widely known as the "dry boss" because of his enormous influence and power. 

Under Wheeler's brilliant leadership, the League focused entirely on the goal of achieving Prohibition. It organized at the grass-roots level and worked extensively through churches. It supported or opposed candidates entirely based on their position regarding prohibition and nothing else. It completely disregard their party affiliation or position on other issues. Unlike other temperance groups, the Anti-Saloon League worked with the two major parties rather than backing the smaller Prohibition Party. Wheeler developed what is now known as pressure politics, which is sometimes also called Wheelerism.

Wheeler, was the de facto leader of the Anti-Saloon League and he wielded awesome power, as described by one historian:

Wayne B. Wheeler controlled six congresses, dictated to two presidents of the United States, directed legislation in most of the States of the Union, picked the candidates for the more important elective and federal offices, held the balance of power in both Republican and Democratic parties, distributed more patronage than any dozen other men, supervised a federal bureau from outside without official authority, and was recognized by friend and foe alike as the most masterful and powerful single individual in the United States. 

By 1926 Wheeler was being criticized by some members of Congress who were questioning the League's spending in some congressional races. Wheeler retired shortly thereafter and died in 1927. 

Resources: 
Childs, Randolph W. Making Repeal Work. Philadelphia, PA: Pennsylvania Alcoholic Beverage Study, Inc., 1947.
Hanson, David J. National Prohibition of Alcohol in the US 
Hanson, David J. Preventing Alcohol Abuse. Westport, CT: Praeger, 1995.
Hogan, Charles Marshall. Wayne Wheeler: Single Issue Exponent. Cincinnati, OH: University of Cincinnati, 1986; 
Steuart, Justin. Wayne Wheeler, Dry Boss: An Uncensored Biography of Wayne B. Wheeler. New York: Fleming H. Revell Company, 1928. 

Women's Christian Temperance Union (WCTU) The Women's Christian Temperance Union was founded in 1874 and claims to be the oldest voluntary, non-sectarian women's organization in continuous existence in the world. WCTU membership peaked at about 200,000 members in the late 19th century. Membership still requires signing a pledge of abstinence and paying dues. Current membership is reported at 8,000 members. The WCTU remains active in promoting its temperance agenda and partners with such temperance activist groups as the Coalition for the Prevention of Alcohol Problems. 

Resources 
Blocker, Jr., Jack S. Retreat from Reform. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1976. 
Blocker, Jr., Jack S. "Give to the Winds thy Fear": The Women's Temperance Crusade, 1873-1874. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1985.
Blocker, Jr., Jack S. American Temperance Movements: Cycles of Reform. Boston, MA: Twayne,1989.
Bordin, Ruth. Woman and Temperance: The Quest for Power and Liberty, 1873-1900. Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press, 1981.
Erickson, Judith B. Making King Alcohol tremble. The juvenile work of the Women's Christian Temperance Union, 1874-1900. Journal of Drug Education, 1988, 18, 333-352.
Epstein, Barbara Leslie. The Politics of Domesticity: Women, Evangelism and Temperance in Nineteenth-Century America. Middletown, CT: Wesleyan University Press, 1981.
Gordon, Elizabeth Putnam. Women Torch-Bearers: The Story of the Woman's Christian Temperance Union. Evanston, IL: National Woman's Christian Temperance Union, 1924.
Pauly, Philip, J. The struggle for ignorance about alcohol: American physiologists, Wilbur Olin Atwater, and the Women's Christian Temperance Union. Bulletin of the History of Medicine, 1990, 64, 366-392.

Conclusion

The activists who promoted National Prohibition (1920-1933) acted in a time when there was little scientific knowledge about the effects of alcohol and they had strange ideas. Consider these ridiculous assertions:

Alcohol is the dirtiest drug we have. It permeates and damages all tissue. No other drug can cause the same degree of harm that it does. 
Alcohol is harmful to the body (no level of consumption indicated). 
Alcohol is a poison, and drinking it might lead to death. 
Alcohol is toxic (no level of consumption indicated). 
The effects of alcohol on men (no level of consumption indicated) are that hormone levels change, causing lower sex drive and enlarged breasts. 
Alcohol is a gateway drug leading people into illicit drug use. 
Alcohol (no level of consumption indicated) can cause deterioration of the heart muscle. 
Astonishingly, all these statements, which are very misleading at best, were not made by prohibitionists of old but by officials representing governmental agencies of today. Significantly, the comments are not based on scientific evidence but instead seem to reflect a neo-prohibitionist effort to stigmatize alcohol.

The effort to stigmatize alcohol includes promoting the prohibitionist belief that there is no difference between moderate drinking and alcohol abuse--the two are portrayed as one and the same. This leads the U.S. Department of Education, for example, to direct schools and colleges to reject educational programs which promote responsible drinking among adults and instead favor a simplistic call for total abstinence.

Part of this oversimplified approach is the belief that alcohol is a dangerous gateway drug that causes users to begin using illegal drugs. The supposed "proof" provided is that most people who are involved with illicit drugs drank alcohol initially. Of course, most illicit drug users also drank milk, ate candy bars, and drank cola previously. But don't annoy the neo-prohibitionists with evidence or logic.

Government agencies and activist groups also systemically attempt to equate legal alcohol consumption with illegal drug use. For example, federal guidelines direct agencies to substitute "alcohol and drug use" with "alcohol and other drug use," to replace "substance abuse" with "alcohol and other drug abuse," and to avoid use of the term "responsible drinking" altogether.

Alcohol is also frequently associated with crack cocaine and other illegal drugs by discussing them in the same paragraph. Often the effort is more blatant. A poster picturing a wine cooler warns "Don't be fooled. This is a drug."

Technically, this assertion is correct. Any substance --salt, vitamins, water, food, etc.-- that alters the functioning of the body is a drug. But the word "drug" has negative connotations and the attempt is clearly to stigmatize a legal product that is used pleasurably in moderation by most American adults.

In stigmatizing alcohol as a "drug," however, neo-prohibitionists may be inadvertently trivializing the use of illegal drugs and thereby encourage their use. Or, especially among youngsters, these zealots may be creating the false impression that parents who use alcohol in moderation are drug abusers whose good example should be rejected by their children. Thus, this misguided effort to equate alcohol with illicit drugs is likely to be counterproductive.

Instead of stigmatizing alcohol and trying either to scare or force people into abstinence, we need to recognize that it is not alcohol itself but rather the misuse of alcohol that is the problem. The vast majority of American adults do in fact use alcohol in moderation to enhance the quality of their lives with no ill effects. The neo-prohibitionist attack on alcohol is proving to be not only deceptive and ineffective, but dangerously counterproductive in the effort to teach the responsible use of alcohol.

It's obvious that temperance activists of today are remarkably similar to those of the past in both their beliefs and methods.



Resources on Temperance and Prohibition 

Especially interesting and useful are:

Asbury, Herbert. The Great Illusion: An Informal History of Prohibition. New York: Greenwood Press, 1968 (Originally published 1950).

Cashman, Sean D. Prohibition: The Lie of the Land. New York: Free Press, 1981.

Furnas, J. C. The Life and Times of the Late Demon Rum. New York: G. P. Punam's Sons, 1965.

Kobler, John. Ardent Spirits: The Rise and Fall of Prohibition. New York: G.P. Putnam's Sons, 1973.

Krout, John A. The Origins of Prohibition. New York: Knopf, 1925.

Sinclair, Andrew. Prohibition: The Era of Excess. Boston, MA: Little, Brown & Co., 1962.

Also useful but generally more specialized are:

Aaron, Paul, and Musto, David. Temperance and Prohibition in America: An Historical Overview. In: Moore, Mark H., and Gerstein, Dean R. (eds.) Alcohol and Public Policy: Beyond the Shadow of Prohibition. Washington, DC: National Academy Press, 1981. pp. 127-181.

Bader, Robert S. Prohibition in Kansas: A History. Lawrence, KS: University Press of Kansas, 1986.

Billings, John S. Physiological Aspects of the Liquor Problem: Investigations Made by and Under the Direction of John 0. Atwater, John S. Billings and Others. Sub- Committee of the Committee of Fifty to Investigate the Liquor Problem. Boston: Houghton, Mifflin, 1903. (This is the report on the WCTU's "Scientific Temperance Instruction")

Cherrington, Ernest H. The Evolution of Prohibition in the United States of America. Westerville, OH: American Issue Press, 1920.

Clark, N. H. Deliver Us From Evil: An Interpretation of American Prohibition. New York: Norton, 1976.

Engs, Ruth C. Resurgence of a new "clean living" movement in the United States. Journal of School Health, 1991, 61, 155-159.

Feldman, Herman. Prohibition: Its Economic and Industrial Aspects. New York: D. Appleton and Co., 1928.

Hanson, David J. Preventing Alcohol Abuse: Alcohol, Culture, and Control. Westport, CT: Praeger, 1995.

Heath, Dwight, B. The new temperance movement: Through the looking glass. Drugs and Society, 1989, 3, 143-168.

Hofstader, Richard. The Age of Reform: From Bryan to F.D.R.. New York: Vintage, 1965.

Isaac, Paul E. Prohibition and Politics: Turbulent Decades in Tennessee, 1885-1920. Knoxville, TN: University of Tennessee Press, 1965.

Kyvig, David E. Repealing National Prohibition. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press, 1979.

Lee, Alfred M. Techniques of social reform: An analysis of the New Prohibition Drive. American Sociological Review, 1944, 9, 65-77. Reprinted as the New Prohibition Drive. In: McCarthy, Raymond G. (ed.) Drinking and Intoxication: Selected Readings in Social Attitudes and Controls. New Haven, CT: College and University Press, 1959. pp. 412-428.

Lender, Mark E., and Martin, James K. Drinking in America: A History. New York: The Free Press, 1982.

Levine, Harry. The birth of American alcohol control: Prohibition, the lawlessness. Contemporary Drug Problems, 1985, 12, 63-115.

McConnell, D. W. Temperance Movements. In: Seligman, Edwin R. A., and Johnson, Alvin (eds.) Encyclopedia of the Social Sciences. New York, NY: The Macmillan Co., 1963.

Mendelson, Jack H., and Mello, Nancy K. Alcohol: Use and Abuse in America. Boston, MA: Little, Brown & Co., 1985.

Merz, Charles. The Dry Decade. Seattle, WA: University of Washington Press, 1969. (Contains a new introduction by the author. Originally published in 1930.) 

Odegard, Peter H. Pressure Politics: The Story of the Anti-Saloon League. New York: Columbia University Press, 1928.

Prendergast, Michael L. A History of Alcohol Problem Prevention Efforts in the United States. In: Holder, Harold D. (ed.) Control Issues on Alcohol Abuse Prevention: Strategies for States and Communities. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press, 1987. pp. 25- 52.

Rorabaugh, William J. The Alcoholic Republic: An American Tradition. New York: Oxford University Press, 1979.

Rorabaugh, William J. Alcohol in America. Magazine of History, 1991, 6, 17-19.

Rubin, Jay L. The Wet War: American Liquor Control, 1941-1945. In: Blocker, Jr., Jack S. (Ed.) Alcohol, Reform and Society: The Liquor Issue in Social Context. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1979. pp. 235-258. 

Schmidt, Laura A. "A battle not man's but God's": Origins of the American temperance crusade in the struggle for religious authority. Journal of Studies on Alcohol, 1995, 56, 110-121.

Thomton, Mark. The Economics of Prohibition. Salt Lake City, UT: University of Utah Press, 1991.

Tietsort, Francis J., (ed.) Temperance-or Prohibition? New York: American, 1929.

Timberlake, James H. Prohibition and the Progressive Movement, 1900-1920. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1963.

Willebrandt, Mabel W. The Inside of Prohibition. Indianapolis, IN: Bobbs-Merrill, 1929.


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot

> _Originally posted by Jie-Huli_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by maxdetail_
> The alcohol content is not relevant to the debate. Until Dr. Welch figured out a way to stop fermentation all grape juiice prior to the 1800s all grape juice fermented. All wine in the bible had alcohol in it. The question was, should a Christian drink alcohol? Slippery slope arguments try to change this into a how much alcohol is a sin. That's easy, enough to get you drunk.
> 
> Are we arguing, should a Christian drink alcohol or how much alcohol is a sin? I just don't see what arguing about alcohol level has to do with the debate.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I would respectfully submit that the concentration of alcohol in the beverage is actually quite relevant to the debate. For example, the Bible gives clear counsel against "strong drink". (See Isaiah 5:22 and 28:7, for example). Therefore, if the modern alcoholic beverages contain 27 times more alcohol than the wine _commonly_ used in the days of the apostles and Jesus, I think this at the least raises a problem for those who say alcohol consumption is biblically-warranted while they are in fact drinking beverages that are much, much stronger than the wine Jesus and the apostles drank.
Click to expand...


From _Drinking With Calvin and Luther_ by Jim West, p. 143-144:



> An irrefutable argument for alcoholic beverages in the Old Testament is revealed by the Hebrew word _shekar_, which is used some 22 times and literally means "inebriating drink." Its verbal form means "to become drunken." With the possible exception of Numbers 28:7, _shekar_ is associated with wine. It is translated "strong drink" (_New American Standard_, _King James Version_, _ English Standard Version_, _1599 Geneva Bible_), "liquor" (_Moffatt_), "hard liquor" (_Living Bible_), "intoxicating liquor" (_Complete Jewish Bible_), and even "beer" (_New International Version_).
> 
> The _shekar_ was so pleasing to the Lord that he commanded it as a drink offering to himself, saying, "And the drink offering thereof shall be the fourth part of an hin for the one lamb: in the holy place shalt thou cause the strong wine to be poured unto the Lord for a drink offering" (Numbers 28:7). The command tells us that the _shekar_ was good and that the people of God manufactured and drank it.
> 
> _Shekar_ is the exact word in Deuteronomy 14:26, which is the classical drinking text for both Calvinists and Lutherans. We may reverently call it the "Moses Stout Text." It reads:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And you shall bestow that money for whatsoever your soul lusts after, for oxen, or for sheep, or for wine, or for strong drink, or for whatsoever your soul desires: and you shall eat there before the Lord your God, and you shall rejoice, you, and your household.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What Romans 8 and 9 is to Arminianism (pulverizing the idol of free will), so is Deuteronomy 14 to prohibitionism. As we see in the Moses Stout Text, the "rejoicing tithe" may be spent for "wine, or for strong drink [_shekar_], or for whatsoever your soul desires..." The people of God are not only permitted to drink _shekar_, but are to drink it "before the presence of the Lord," and "in the fear of the Lord" (14:23). Also, the Hebrew verb here for "lust" ('_avah_ in Hebrew and _epithumeo_ in Greek) is the same verb found in the Decalogue, where God commands us not _to covet_ (Deuteronomy 5:21). Only here an amazing thing is said: God states that it is lawful to "lust" after wine, or strong drink, so long as these things are not the cellared property of your neighbor. Thus, the Moses Stout Text commends strong alcoholic beverages in five ways: (1) we may drink wine and Moses Stout; (2) we may even lust after Moses Stout; (3) we must always drink wine and Moses Stout in the fear and presence of the Lord; (4) we must rejoice when we drink wine and Moses Stout; (5) our households may drink wine and Moses Stout with us.
Click to expand...


----------



## CalsFarmer

I did not author this thread. 

The original auhtor deleted his original post. May I say that this is totally unacceptable? Probably not but said anyway. It seems that this board is pretty well out of control these days.

Moderators??????


----------



## mgeoffriau

Settle down.

The thread was so off-topic (from the thread originator's intent) that the moderators decided to change the title on this thread, and to reopen a new thread for his original purpose. I do not know who deleted the initial post, the author or the moderators, but I imagine it had something to do with that.

The board may or may not be out of control, but I don't think this can be considered evidence for that; if anything, I'm glad they considered how far afield we had gotten, and reopened a new thread for the first poster.

EDITED TO ADD: If you would read through this thread, you would have found the post that explained this.

[Edited on 11-28-2005 by mgeoffriau]


----------



## bond-servant

> _Originally posted by VirginiaHuguenot_
> 
> Beth, You can get the book for $13 (the cheapest new price I have seen) right here.



Andrew, thanks again for the link to Gentry's book "God Gave Wine". It was excellent!!! 
I love the research he presents behind the Hebrew and Greek words translated 'wine'

A few neat points from the book:

1) You could just stop here: Isa 25:6 On this mountain the LORD of hosts will make for all peoples a feast of rich food, a feast of well-aged wine, of rich food full of marrow, of aged wine well refined. 

2) There is no rhyme or reason to why the Hebrew employs some words for intoxicating wine, and then later uses the same for non-intoxicating wine. There are several words translated 'wine' used in both contexts. If God had intended for us to avoid alcoholic wine, He could have made the matter clear in Scripture. He does not 

3) Wine (intoxicating) is part of many sacrifices (Lev 23:13, Num 15:5,7,10 Num 28:14) If wine were evil, why would God require it as an offering to Himself? On the other hand, if He commends it as an offering, He obviously required His Old Testament people to produce it, at least for sacrificial purposes. 

4) Jesus drank wine, [obvious from the comparison He makes between Himself and John the Baptist ](Mark 11:19) Jesus made wine as His 1st miracle. 

5) Grapes as soon as they are crushed begin to ferment naturally. In Palestine´s natural environment, it would have been impossible for them to keep the crushed grapes from some degree of fermentation 

6) Paul commands Timothy for leaders in 1 Timothy 3:8 "not to be addicted to much wine" and "not addicted TO wine" We would have to change Eph 5:18 from "And do not get drunk with wine" to "Do not drink wine" 

7) Interesting point on the 'stumbling block' thought: We often overlook the command to the weak in part b of verse 3: Rom 14:3 The 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*. The command to the strong is further addressed in Gentry's book.

8) On the "˜potential alcoholic´: Was Jesus and His apostles not aware of potential alcoholics when they partook of wine openly? Luke7:33-35 Was He leaving a bad example for us to follow??

9) How much is too much wine? One can also get drunk on water if one consumes too much in too short a time. Can Google on "˜water intoxication´

10) There are times alcohol is recommended for health reasons: 1 Timothy 5:23 "œNo longer drink only water, but use a little wine for the sake of your stomach and your frequent ailments"
Modern medicine has proved that alcohol in moderation is good for the heart.


----------



## gwine

> Modern medicine has proved that alcohol in moderation is good for the heart.



Although read this latest article in the schizophrenic wars about alcohol and health, which I do not endorse. Merely a FYI.

Moderate drinking may not be good for you


----------



## VictorBravo

So Gerry, are you going to take your medical advice from a bunch of fallible doctors, or are you going to follow Paul's advice to Timothy? :bigsmile:

In light of the contually contradictory medical news that we keep hearing, I wondered what would have happend if I only followed medical news once each 10 years. So I did a little review of old magazines. It wouldn't have helped.

In the 20s, drinking was bad for you and smoking was good for you. 

In the 40s, drinking was OK and smoking was still good for you.

In the 50s hi-balls were good for you and smoking was OK. 

In the 60s sweet wine was good for you, smoking was looking bad, but marijuana was probably OK.

In the 70s, everything except smoking was OK.

In the 80s, drinking is a social ill, smoking is definately bad, marijuana is starting to be medicine.

In the 90s, wine is OK, but beer is bad.

In the early 00s, wine is good for you, beer is OK. But soft drinks are bad.

So, all I know is that I'll continue to eat homemade soup and pot roasts and try to keep trim through exercise. Oh, and for me and my house, we'll have a bit of wine.

Vic


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot

Excellent points, Beth and Vic! 

Science must never bind our conscience. Because of the wisdom of J.G. Vos on this precise point I will again reiterate my commendation of his article.



> _Originally posted by VirginiaHuguenot_
> I would commend to everyone this article by J.G. Vos called The Bible Doctrine of the Separated Life.


----------



## Me Died Blue

> _Originally posted by VirginiaHuguenot_
> Science must never bind our conscience.



I was thinking about this basic principle recently, and was reminded of an objection I have heard from friends from my former church who are against smoking altogether: They raised the objection that if tobacco is lawful for the Christian in liberty since Scripture never forbids it, why would heroine and crack not be the same if they were legalized?

The seemingly obvious answer I gave was that it has been clearly shown that those substances can kill very quickly and are essentially inevitably harmful. But I then realized that upon making that argument, I have moved from the realm of objective biblical truth to subjective scientific reasoning, contra your statement above. That thought was further confirmed to me by the fact that their response to that comment of mine about heroine and crack was essentially, "Well, smoking has been shown to be quite harmful to health in most cases as well," at which point the discussion inevitably degenerates into a type of "Science has shown such-and-such with this much certainty," "No, only _that_ much certainty," "Well this article said," "Yeah, but..."

So I must admit I'm a bit confused at this point on how we would answer such an objection, and to what extent "science" can or cannot be said to bind our consciences as a result of the implications of that answer. We would obviously say that drinking poison is not lawful under Christian liberty - but why do we say that? Because of the nature of the substance as science has shown us, and the risk percentage close to 100. But at that point, it all seems to become a question of what risk percentage is and isn't lawful under Christian liberty, rather than a principled issue of what is forbidden by Scripture.

Thoughts?


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot

> _Originally posted by Me Died Blue_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by VirginiaHuguenot_
> Science must never bind our conscience.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I was thinking about this basic principle recently, and was reminded of an objection I have heard from friends from my former church who are against smoking altogether: They raised the objection that if tobacco is lawful for the Christian in liberty since Scripture never forbids it, why would heroine and crack not be the same if they were legalized?
> 
> The seemingly obvious answer I gave was that it has been clearly shown that those substances can kill very quickly and are essentially inevitably harmful. But I then realized that upon making that argument, I have moved from the realm of objective biblical truth to subjective scientific reasoning, contra your statement above. That thought was further confirmed to me by the fact that their response to that comment of mine about heroine and crack was essentially, "Well, smoking has been shown to be quite harmful to health in most cases as well," at which point the discussion inevitably degenerates into a type of "Science has shown such-and-such with this much certainty," "No, only _that_ much certainty," "Well this article said," "Yeah, but..."
> 
> So I must admit I'm a bit confused at this point on how we would answer such an objection, and to what extent "science" can or cannot be said to bind our consciences as a result of the implications of that answer. We would obviously say that drinking poison is not lawful under Christian liberty - but why do we say that? Because of the nature of the substance as science has shown us, and the risk percentage close to 100. But at that point, it all seems to become a question of what risk percentage is and isn't lawful under Christian liberty, rather than a principled issue of what is forbidden by Scripture.
> 
> Thoughts?
Click to expand...


Chris,

This very objection is answered in the article by Vos that I cited.



> Someone may object that opium and marihuana, for example, are not indifferent, but sinful in themselves. We have already shown that no material thing can be sinful in itself. Now if opium, marihuana or any other particular material substance is to be regarded as an exception to this principle, the problem is raised as to what authority is competent to decide which substances are exceptions to the principle that no material things can be sinful in itself. There is, no doubt, general agreement among Christian people that such substances as opium and marihuana, for example, are so dangerous and harmful that they should not be used at all. This general agreement is, however, no proper ground for church judicatories authoritatively pronouncing such substances sinful in themselves, or declaring their use to be sinful per se. The Word of God, not the so-called Christian consciousness, is our only infallible rule of faith and conduct. What authority is competent to determine the harmfulness and on this basis to infer the inherent sinfulness of the use of a particular material substance, withal making this inference binding on the consciences of the Lord´s people? Are church judicatories qualified to issue authoritative pronouncements on such matters? By what right does a synod or assembly composed of ministers and elders decide questions concerning the physiological action and toxic properties of various narcotic drugs? If we grant to ecclesiastical bodies the right to decide concerning opium and marihuana, do we not thereby concede the entire principle that the church may legitimately decide for its members concerning the use of things indifferent? And if so, could we consistently object, for reasons of principle, if a church judicatory were to enact a rule prohibiting the use of tea or coffee? We are far from holding that it is legitimate for Christians to use dangerous drugs. What we are contending for is not license to use poisonous drugs, but freedom under God to decide for ourselves what material substances we ought to leave alone. We would keep the consciences of Christian people free from what Dr. Machen called "œthe tyranny of the experts." We maintain that the individual Christian, and not the church, must pass judgment on the pronouncements of experts concerning such things, so far as questions of morality are concerned. We are far from holding that it is "œall right" to use opium, marihuana or a great many other material substances, but if the question as to the sinfulness of the use of these things is to be decided for us by a synod or pope, then our freedom of conscience is destroyed and our soul reduced to bondage to the commandments of men. If the thing is indifferent in itself, whatever it may be, then the individual Christian, not the church, has the God-given right to decide ethical questions concerning its use. We fully agree with the general opinion of Christian people that such substances as opium and marihuana should not be used at all, except possibly by a physician´s orders; but we claim the God-given right to make this decision ourselves, and not to have it made for us by an ecclesiastical judicatory. The conscience of each and every one of the Lord´s people is enlightened by the Holy Spirit; to require Christian people to accept ecclesiastical regulations on such matters is akin to the "œimplicit faith, and absolute and blind obedience" which is required by the Church of Rome.


----------



## Me Died Blue

> _Originally posted by VirginiaHuguenot_
> We are far from holding that it is "œall right" to use opium, marihuana or a great many other material substances, but if the question as to the sinfulness of the use of these things is to be decided for us by a synod or pope, then our freedom of conscience is destroyed and our soul reduced to bondage to the commandments of men. If the thing is indifferent in itself, whatever it may be, then the individual Christian, not the church, has the God-given right to decide ethical questions concerning its use.



Even in light of Vos' surrounding comments, I have trouble seeing how these statements are reconcilable. If the improper nature of the use of such substances can ultimately be decided by no one else than the individual believer (even granting that he should try and make responsible decisions), then his statement that it is not really "all right" for Christians to use poisonous substances would seem to ultimately a void statement at heart - which is further confirmed by the fact that he puts quotation around the phrase, because of its inherent vague and (ultimately) null nature. If a fellow believer drank a pint of mercury and instantly died from it, would any living believers then be able to consistently say anything beyond, "Well, I wouldn't have thought it wise if I were in his shoes, but hey, it was his decision to make and thus none of us have any right to judge what he did as _wrong_ to any extent."

I'm not trying to tear Vos' position apart and simply show it invalid, I'm trying to honestly understand it in light of biblical principles, which I simply do not as of yet.


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot

> _Originally posted by Me Died Blue_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by VirginiaHuguenot_
> We are far from holding that it is "œall right" to use opium, marihuana or a great many other material substances, but if the question as to the sinfulness of the use of these things is to be decided for us by a synod or pope, then our freedom of conscience is destroyed and our soul reduced to bondage to the commandments of men. If the thing is indifferent in itself, whatever it may be, then the individual Christian, not the church, has the God-given right to decide ethical questions concerning its use.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Even in light of Vos' surrounding comments, I have trouble seeing how these statements are reconcilable. If the improper nature of the use of such substances can ultimately be decided by no one else than the individual believer (even granting that he should try and make responsible decisions), then his statement that it is not really "all right" for Christians to use poisonous substances would seem to ultimately a void statement at heart - which is further confirmed by the fact that he puts quotation around the phrase, because of its inherent vague and (ultimately) null nature. If a fellow believer drank a pint of mercury and instantly died from it, would any living believers then be able to consistently say anything beyond, "Well, I wouldn't have thought it wise if I were in his shoes, but hey, it was his decision to make and thus none of us have any right to judge what he did as _wrong_ to any extent."
> 
> I'm not trying to tear Vos' position apart and simply show it invalid, I'm trying to honestly understand it in light of biblical principles, which I simply do not as of yet.
Click to expand...


Vos is not saying that we shouldn't utilize the knowledge gained from science to make choices about what substances are wise or unwise for us to partake. Nor is he saying that we can't form judgments about the external conduct of others. I would encourage you to read his Commentary on the Westminster Larger Catechism where he remarks on the Sixth Commandment duty to employ "a sober use of meat, drink, physic [which Vos defines to mean primarily drugs, as in medicine], sleep, labor, and recreations." Thus, the Catechism was wise to refrain from saying "mercury is sinful" but rather "whatsoever else tends to the destruction of the life of any." 

What he is arguing against is a concept articulated so well by Dr. Machen and alluded to previously in this thread -- the "tyranny of experts." Frankly neither theologians nor scientists are competent to judge the moral implications of all substances. Common sense has its place -- but common sense can be wrong too. The collective understanding of common sense is often gnostic in its approach to substances, thereby making things adiaphora (such as alcohol) evil _per se_. 

When a church starts legislating against substances rather than conduct (such as saying that more than two glasses of wine is always sinful rather than saying that drunken behavior is always sinful) then the church is guilty of binding the conscience of men without warrant from the word of God.

[Edited on 12-10-2005 by VirginiaHuguenot]


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot

I found this excerpt from _Fighting the Good Fight: A Brief History of the Orthodox Presbyterian Church_ by D. G. Hart and John Muether to be interesting:



> Disputes about dispensationalism revealed two distinct camps within the leadership of the OPC"”one side Old School Presbyterian in outlook, the other fundamentalist. The Old School party, led by Machen, consisted of the majority of Westminster´s faculty, many of whom came from non-American Reformed traditions such as Scottish Presbyterianism (John Murray), and Dutch Calvinism (Cornelius Van Til, Ned B. Stonehouse, and R. B. Kuiper). This group was characterized by a high regard for the Westminster Confession, Presbyterian polity, and Reformed piety (e.g., liberty in various matters such as beverage alcohol and tobacco, where Scripture is silent). The fundamentalist party was led by Carl McIntire, J. Oliver Buswell, and Allan MacRae, professor of Old Testament at Westminster. Though Buswell and MacRae disavowed the dispensationalist label, this group was premillennialist and defended the liberty of OP congregations to use the Scofield Reference Bible. They also were less rigorous in their application of Presbyterian polity and promoted a form of piety that featured abstinence from liquor, tobacco, movies, dancing, and cards.
> ...
> The last issue that split the OPC concerned Christian teaching on personal morality. Specifically, the church was divided over total abstinence from alcoholic beverages. While this issue might seem foreign to Christians living at the end of the twentieth century, most American Protestants had supported vigorously the Eighteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, an act which prohibited the production and sale of beverage alcohol and which was not reversed until 1933. So whether Christians could drink in good conscience was still a hotly contested matter when the OPC was founded.
> 
> Debates about total abstinence came to a head at the 1937 General Assembly, though the issue had been lurking in the background for some time. Fundamentalists such as Buswell and McIntire were displeased by the Westminster Seminary faculty´s unwillingness to condemn liquor. The faculty held that to advocate total abstinence was to reject the example of Christ, who at the wedding of Cana (John 2) changed the water into wine. Nevertheless, rumors circulated throughout the church that seminary students drank in their rooms with the approval of the faculty. It did not help matters that several of Westminster´s faculty also smoked tobacco. While debates about the consumption of alcohol and tobacco concerned the significant matter of the Bible´s teaching on Christian liberty, the breach within the OPC also reflected cultural differences. A majority of Westminster´s faculty came from non-American backgrounds where drinking and smoking in moderation were acceptable. What is more, Machen had been a vigorous opponent of prohibition and was known to bring cigars to faculty meetings even though he did not smoke them himself.
> 
> Nevertheless, despite these cultural differences, an important aspect of Christian practice was at stake. At the Third General Assembly, Buswell threatened withdrawal if the denomination did not renounce drinking. Two overtures came before the assembly"”one urging total abstinence came from Buswell´s Presbytery of Chicago; the second argued that simple adherence to the Westminster Standards was as far as the church could go. Each side appealed to Scripture, to precedents in American Presbyterianism, and to Machen´s own practice and convictions. In the end, Buswell´s overture lost by a large margin. The OPC based this decision on the principle that Christians should be free to follow the dictates of their own consciences in "œmatters where the Bible has not pronounced judgment." Immediately following the assembly in May 1937, fourteen ministers and three elders, led by Buswell and McIntire, withdrew from the OPC and in 1938 formed the Bible Presbyterian Synod.


----------



## gwine

> _Originally posted by victorbravo_
> So Gerry, are you going to take your medical advice from a bunch of fallible doctors, or are you going to follow Paul's advice to Timothy? :bigsmile:
> 
> In light of the contually contradictory medical news that we keep hearing, I wondered what would have happend if I only followed medical news once each 10 years. So I did a little review of old magazines. It wouldn't have helped.
> 
> In the 20s, drinking was bad for you and smoking was good for you.
> 
> In the 40s, drinking was OK and smoking was still good for you.
> 
> In the 50s hi-balls were good for you and smoking was OK.
> 
> In the 60s sweet wine was good for you, smoking was looking bad, but marijuana was probably OK.
> 
> In the 70s, everything except smoking was OK.
> 
> In the 80s, drinking is a social ill, smoking is definately bad, marijuana is starting to be medicine.
> 
> In the 90s, wine is OK, but beer is bad.
> 
> In the early 00s, wine is good for you, beer is OK. But soft drinks are bad.
> 
> So, all I know is that I'll continue to eat homemade soup and pot roasts and try to keep trim through exercise. Oh, and for me and my house, we'll have a bit of wine.
> 
> Vic



Actually the reference cited was tongue-and-cheek directed at my good friend Bob Vigneault (maxdetail here on the PB) because he had posted earlier a reference that beer was good for you. That's why I referred to the article as being part of the schizophrenic wars. And For what it's worth, Bob and I are on the same side of the page. Beer *is* good for you.

I never have figured out how to respond to what medical science has to say about various nutritional needs of the body, although I do have a stronger opinion on smoking, as you will note from reading my earlier posts. But I digress.

And since I don't have a weak stomach, I probably won't follow Paul's advice, but I will be drinking either a Robert the Bruce (3 Floyds Brewery - Scottish Ale 9.1%) or Powder Hound Winter Ale (Big Sky Brewery - English Ale a measly 6.2%) real soon now, maybe after work tonight.

And my advice, since I'm not a medical professional, is to include home-made bread and sprouts in your diet.


----------



## gwine

> _Originally posted by VirginiaHuguenot_
> 
> Science must never bind our conscience.



If it has already been addressed, please forgive me, but is there any room for the fact that there are laws against the use of certain substances that would make the use of same a sin?

I know we have travelled down this road with the speeding laws so maybe I should just re-read those threads.


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot

> _Originally posted by gwine_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by VirginiaHuguenot_
> 
> Science must never bind our conscience.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If it has already been addressed, please forgive me, but is there any room for the fact that there are laws against the use of certain substances that would make the use of same a sin?
> 
> I know we have travelled down this road with the speeding laws so maybe I should just re-read those threads.
Click to expand...


Yes, from a Fifth Commandment perspective as to substances which the civil magistrate has declared to be unlawful to possess or use, the Christian has a duty to obey insofar as such obedience does not conflict with God's law (Prohibition made an exception for wine at the Lord's Supper, but if it hadn't, then disobedience would have been called for, in my opinion). There are threads that have addressed Prohibition, Cuban cigars and the Christian's obligations to the civil magistrate previously.

This thread has focused, I think, more on Christian liberty (which does touch on the Fifth Commandment in an ecclesiastical context) and the Sixth Commandment as they relate to the use of substances.


[Edited on 12-12-2005 by VirginiaHuguenot]


----------



## gwine

Thank you, Andrew.


----------

