# The use of alcohol and tobacco - Yes or NO?



## BronxBriar (Apr 10, 2006)

Dear friends,

Is there general agreement among members on this forum regarding the use of alcohol or tobacco?

What is the general "puritan/reformed" position?

Thank you.


----------



## Scott Bushey (Apr 10, 2006)

BronxBriar,
Please click on the link at the botom of my post for board signature requirements.

Thanks.


----------



## blhowes (Apr 10, 2006)

> _Originally posted by BronxBriar_
> Dear friends,
> 
> Is there general agreement among members on this forum regarding the use of alcohol or tobacco?
> ...


I think there's a general agreement that the use of alcohol and/or tobacco isn't as bad as some Christians make it out to be. Most I think would agree that excessive use is sinful, use in moderation is not.


----------



## Scott Bushey (Apr 10, 2006)

Moderation. How many of us moderate our eating habits? As well, overindulgence of exercise could even border on the sinful......Would living in Los Angeles be sinful knowing the extent of the polution?

http://www.karinya.com/airpolution.htm

American Lung Association, 2004

Worst smog levels, US Cities:
1. Los Angeles (CA)
2. Visalia-Porterville (CA)
3. Bakersfield (CA)
4. Fresno (CA)
5. Houston (TX)
6. Merced (CA)
7. Sacramento (CA)
8. Hanford (CA)
9. Knoxville (TN)
10. Dallas-Fort Worth (TX)

Worst particle levels:
1. Los Angeles (CA)
2. Visalia-Porterville (CA)
3. Bakersfield (CA)
4. Fresno (CA)
5. Pittsburgh (PA)
6. Detroit (MI)
7. Atlanta (GA)
8. Cleveland (OH)
9. Hanford (CA)
10. Birmingham (AL)


----------



## blhowes (Apr 10, 2006)

BronxBriar - What do you think?


----------



## Larry Hughes (Apr 10, 2006)

We need to protect our witness, stop eating in restaurants as sinners indulge too much in food and heart disease is still the number one killer by far and large, and stop exercising its narcissistic and develops pride in self. Of course I'm being sarcastic here.

I had this discussion one time with a family member over another but similar neutral issue, they said, "I all too well know my flesh so I'm going to not do X". Then I said, "But what about your flesh that is so full of its self for "not doing X", which it actually desires more to glory in?" My humor/point was not taken too well.


----------



## RamistThomist (Apr 10, 2006)

If you are going to drink Natural Light, that probably is sinful.


----------



## Me Died Blue (Apr 10, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Draught Horse_
> If you are going to drink Natural Light, that probably is sinful.



...or smoke Black & Milds or Swisher Sweets!


----------



## Larry Hughes (Apr 10, 2006)

ehhh, swishers and natural light, that is at least a sin against the tongue!


----------



## mgeoffriau (Apr 10, 2006)

Hey, nothing wrong with a pack of Blacks.


----------



## BronxBriar (Apr 10, 2006)

> _Originally posted by blhowes_
> BronxBriar - What do you think?



I smoke a pipe once in while, have a cigar now and then, and sip Jack Daniels on occasion. In all things moderation.


----------



## Cuirassier (Apr 10, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> How many of us moderate our eating habits?



Excellent parallel



> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> As well, overindulgence of exercise could even border on the sinful



Excellent parallel



> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> Would living in Los Angeles be sinful knowing the extent of the polution?



Utterly meaningless comparison. I'm sorry Scott - but I think that's pretty weak.

I believe completely that in matters of alcohol, conscience and moderation are very much the rule to follow. Alcohol (in mild quantities) has been demonstrated biblically (most importantly) and scientifically to have a small measure of benefit--with careful precautions to both excess and becoming stumblingblocks to weaker brethren.

In the case of smoking, we have (1) unlike alcohol - no direct coverage in Scripture, and (2) we have massive documented science that tells us smoking produces ill effects on our bodies--God temple. There's also the element (3) of how the effect on a believer's testimony as seen by the unsaved around him.

All that leaves as "defense" for smoking is Christian liberty. If a believer can, notwithstanding (1), (2), and (3), believe that smoking falls within the purvue of such liberty - well, there is nothing more than I can say - other than I will have to peaceably and lovingly agree to disagree with him/her.

That said, if folks believe that smoking is clearly an acceptable Christian liberty - then I say present it as just that. But arguing that parelleling smoking to living in a smoggy city - given the completely apples/oranges nature of this comparison - discredits, rather than supports the cause for Christians' smoking liberty.

No disrespect intended to those who smoke - please understand that. I'm contending with this argument, not with those of you who smoke personally.

dl


ps: on further reflection: if these facts about smog and particular matter truly and acurately equate to the amount of smoke one takes in by smoking (a comparison I feel is probably fairly accurate), then I believe they serve more as an indictment of how poorly stewarded God's natural earth in the hands of men then anything else.


----------



## BronxBriar (Apr 10, 2006)

> _Originally posted by joshua_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by BronxBriar_
> ...



Of course I am always willing to give em up. It's not like it's an everyday thing. I am quite content sipping Dr. Pepper.


----------



## Scott Bushey (Apr 10, 2006)

Daniel,
The comparison is not meaningless; saying that someone should not smoke because the effects challenge the integrity of one's lungs, imust be compared with knowing that living in a area where the smog could do just as much damage is more than relevant.


----------



## Cuirassier (Apr 10, 2006)

Scott, 

If the comparison is being made, then

(1) you're ackowledging that smoking harms your lungs (my point already)

(2) a person has infinitely greater control over whether they smoke or not, versus where they live, so the comparison is invalid.

(3) a person does not smoke for the same reason that he lives in a given place. People live in these cities in spite of their ill effects (for work, family family reasons). Furthermore, most sensible people in those cities will protect themselves to whatever extent they can - closed windows, etc. No such motivation (or effort to mitigate) is part of smoking, so again, the comparison is invalid.

I'll gladly grant you that the effects of both are likely the same--but that in and of itself does not mean that the both activities are equally valid. 

dl

[Edited on 4-11-2006 by Cuirassier]

[Edited on 4-11-2006 by Cuirassier]


----------



## BobVigneault (Apr 10, 2006)

We practice abstinence in moderation here.


Someone had to say it!

Personally, I'm against alcohol and tobacco.... unless you consider beer an alcoholic beverage... then I'm for it.


----------



## fivepointcalvinist (Apr 10, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Cuirassier_
> 
> I believe completely that in matters of alcohol, conscience and moderation are very much the rule to follow. Alcohol (in mild quantities) has been demonstrated biblically (most importantly) and scientifically to have a small measure of benefit--with careful precautions to both excess and becoming stumblingblocks to weaker brethren.
> 
> In the case of smoking, we have (1) unlike alcohol - no direct coverage in Scripture, and (2) we have massive documented science that tells us smoking produces ill effects on our bodies--God temple. There's also the element (3) of how the effect on a believer's testimony as seen by the unsaved around him.



excellent points; my thoughts exactly


----------



## BronxBriar (Apr 10, 2006)

Ask a simple question.......


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Apr 10, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Larry Hughes_
> ehhh, swishers and natural light, that is at least a sin against the tongue!



In Russia you would have a Cuban. In America? 

Actually I had a friend visit the USSR before the big change. He gave me a Black and Mild and thought I should enjoy it. I looked at him with disgust. He then told me I would pay lots of money in Russia just to have one. I was dupped and smoked it.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Apr 10, 2006)

> _Originally posted by BobVigneault_
> We practice abstinence in moderation here.
> 
> 
> ...




Seriously, though, anything not done in faith is sin. Even those things which we are permitted to eat or drink. Wine is specifically mentioned as something that God gave man to make the heart glad. It is a blessing but, like food or sex, can be over-indulged. We can pervert any blessing from God to feed our sinful nature or we can use them to His glory.


----------



## RamistThomist (Apr 10, 2006)

> _Originally posted by BobVigneault_
> We practice abstinence in moderation here.
> 
> 
> ...



Bob, that was perfect.


----------



## CalsFarmer (Apr 11, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Draught Horse_
> If you are going to drink Natural Light, that probably is sinful.



Light beer...ugh there ought to be a law against it. 

Guiness rules.


----------



## BobVigneault (Apr 11, 2006)

There is Grace.

"The selling of bad beer is a crime against Christian love." -- Law, the City of Augsburg, 13th Century


----------



## crhoades (Apr 11, 2006)

> _Originally posted by CalsFarmer_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by Draught Horse_
> ...





I would practice abstinence but my church serves wine during communion...


----------



## Puritan Sailor (Apr 11, 2006)

Ouch! I guess I better abstain from the Black & Milds then. I don't want to offend my brethren


----------



## Larry Hughes (Apr 13, 2006)

> ...we have massive documented science that tells us smoking produces ill effects on our bodies--God temple.



Again, it is quite simple, it's a matter of moderations. We have massive documented science that tells us that over eating kills. The number ONE killer still remains by far and large, heart disease, and that by food. The number four killer, diabetes, again food is the issue and outside of moderation. --God's temple.




> There's also the element (3) of how the effect on a believer's testimony as seen by the unsaved around him.



Again moderation. What are we bearing witness to? That's fine if I'm bearing witness to mormonism or say Islam or working my way to heaven. Simple enough to prove and I've done it, ask an unbeliever why Christians don't drink beer then you'll find out what your bearing witness to in public and it will not be the Gospel. You shall be quiet surprised to find their answer in the form of, "They think its a sin or that's what Christianity is about...etc..." In short the witness is to works and/or about eating or drinking, the very thing Paul warns against. 

If you don't believe me, I'm a scientist I like experiments, go ahead and try the question out a few times on unbelievers. See what the evidence brings in. Worst case scenario you can give them the Gospel and use it as an opening!

Blessings,

Ldh


----------



## Arch2k (Apr 13, 2006)

> _Originally posted by puritansailor_
> Ouch! I guess I better abstain from the Black & Milds then. I don't want to offend my brethren





I might just be offended!


----------



## heartoflesh (Apr 13, 2006)

The following quote was posted on the board before, but I don't know where or by whom. Perhaps whoever it was will recognize it. Anyway, I love to use it in conversation.....

"If I were out with some fellow Christians at a restaurant, and the waitress came up to us asked if we would like to see the beer menu..... if one of my company said 'we're Christians, we don't drink', then I would have to order a beer for the gospel's sake"


----------



## BobVigneault (Apr 13, 2006)

We were at Olive Garden with our dear friends the Winebrenners (gwine) a few weeks ago. The waitress came to our table and asked us if we would like to try the house wine. Still a baptist at heart I told her, "We are baptists and we don't drink alcohol." She apologized to us but I didn't stop. I looked at the others and said, "Perhaps we should go."

I waited til the waitress was almost ready to cry and then I told her, "I'm just kidding, we're presbyterians, we drink like fish." She said, "Really?" I said, "No", we don't drink like fish and it's really not an issue. I would, however, like some sweet tea." Yes, I gave her a big tip.


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot (Apr 13, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Rick Larson_
> The following quote was posted on the board before, but I don't know where or by whom. Perhaps whoever it was will recognize it. Anyway, I love to use it in conversation.....
> 
> "If I were out with some fellow Christians at a restaurant, and the waitress came up to us asked if we would like to see the beer menu..... if one of my company said 'we're Christians, we don't drink', then I would have to order a beer for the gospel's sake"



See Christopher Hinton's post  from 7/01/04:



> _Originally posted by alwaysreforming_
> HOWEVER, what is more often the case, is that you have a pharisee in weak-brother's clothing who is ADDING to the Gospel and making salvation dependent on avoiding beer! If anyone should say, "No thanks, our table won't be having any beer, we are Christians and Christians don't drink beer!" , then, for the sake of the Gospel, one is almost compelled to order a beer!


----------



## Cuirassier (Apr 13, 2006)

Brother Larry,

You've read enough of my post to know I already completely agree with you that moderation--whether eating, exercising, AND alcohol is Biblically commanded. All of these things have been given for our enjoyment, AND, in their moderate proportions, ENHANCE our health.

With smoking, however, there is NO such enhancement. With alcohol, there is a point where there are digestive benefits, and when you drink beyond that, the ill effects begin cancelling out the benefits. No credible science I have seen suggests there is an "optimum" amount of smoking where there are positive effects that outweight the negative effects.

So, as I mentioned, it's down to saying "nothwithstanding the whatever large or small amount of adverse effects of this indulgement, it falls within what my conscience will allow as liberty before God". Well, though I may disagree with that statement, it's at least being honest. 

What is being overlooked in this whole discussion is Paul's intent for our Christian liberties--and I believe that it is to glorify God. If indulging in said activity is going to do nothing more than satisfy a fleshly appetite, then one has to wonder why one is doing it. Whereas all the other liberties-sharing good food, a bit of wine, and an energetic hike through the woods give READY occasion to glorify God - I'm hard pressed to see how willingly ingesting carcinogens will have that effect.



> That's fine if I'm bearing witness to mormonism or say Islam or working my way to heaven.



Straw man Brother Larry. Do you truly believe I am suggesting that we need to be giving the world around us the impression that "good behaviour is what Christianity is all about?" The testimony I'm referring to is the whole package that the world sees in our life, as per Matthew 5:16: "Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works and glorify your Father in heaven." 

I know full well that the unsaved around me will give incomplete or innacurate reasons for why I do or don't do certain activities. What kind of answer do you think they'll give for why Christians read their Bibles, or why they avoid working on Sundays? Ought I to reconsider these things in case they'll erroneously think I'm doing it to work my way to heaven? I should hope not.

Let me share with you in my own experience how abstinence "opened the door". I spent 9 years in my country's Armed Forces - 5 as an NCO, and 4 as a commissioned officer. Based on my upbringing, I believed at the time that total abstinence from drinking, smoking, wild parties, etc was the order. Well, unless you are/have been in the military, you probably can only imagine how "out of place" I felt. But in short order, that stand opened the doors. The first question invariably was "why don't you drink/smoke/chase girls/etc? I can assure you that stand opened way more doors to the Gospel than asking my mates about their souls on a smoke break. Conveying I was Christ's and living for Him--was more effectively communicated without a beer in hand, and even more so without a cigaratte hanging out of my mouth. 

Now, I will grant, I was a very young man, and my view of alcohol and tobacco was framed completely by how I was raised, and not by having personally prayed and considered the issue (which would have cost my membership in the Free Presbyterian Church anyways, so it was moot point) . In later years, I have come to believe the Bible DOES NOT teach total alcohol abstention. That's why I've differentiated between alcohol and tobacco. I don't believe there's any positive/uplifting/God-glorifying aspect we communicate to the world when they see us smoking. 

We've all seen tons of threads here discussing anything from movies, music, clothing, careers, hobbies, - where the issue of reflecting Christ to the unsaved world is at least a part of the discussion. I humbly submit to you it is no less valid to consider the testimony we give by smoking, than by our choices of music, our hobbies, our eating habits, our clothing, and all the other aspects of earthly living about which we are called to make Godly choices.

Respectfully,

dl

[Edited on 4-13-2006 by Cuirassier]


----------



## puritan reformed (Apr 13, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Draught Horse_
> If you are going to drink Natural Light, that probably is sinful.



Yes Brothers, Natural Light has only one purpose---to get drunk and get drunk cheap.

As for Black and milds, when at times I have been away from a decent tobacconist and in a pinch, I have found black and milds to be pleasant on the pallet and the wallet. They can be found in any corner store it seems even in the most rural of areas. Not something I'd want to do all the time but not bad. There nice around a campfire too and the ladies don't put up a fuss but comment positively on there pleasing aroma.

[Edited on 4-14-2006 by RTSbound]


----------



## Larry Hughes (Apr 14, 2006)

Dear Brother Lopez,

I appreciate your candor and kindness and hope that I may in like respond for I know we are of concord on moderation. So let me first thank you and second give my firm stance.



> With smoking, however, there is NO such enhancement. With alcohol, there is a point where there are digestive benefits, and when you drink beyond that, the ill effects begin cancelling out the benefits. No credible science I have seen suggests there is an "optimum" amount of smoking where there are positive effects that outweight the negative effects.


This is not entirely accurate which sets the tone of the snare upon which I will not be entrapped. These things are not given us for sheer pragmatic medical benefits. Wine, beer and strong drink for example are not only imbibed in moderation for its "œhealth benefits" but rather for joy and enjoyment. These are gifts from God showing His Fatherly goodness to us, not just "œnatural" pharmaceuticals to be prescriptively taken by a cold and lifeless deity. Quoting our dear departed brother Spurgeon on this issue, specifically cigars, "œThere is growing up in society a Pharisaic system which adds to the commands of God the precepts of men; to that system I will not yield for an hour. The preservation of my liberty may bring upon me the upbraidings of many good men, and the sneers of the self-righteous; but I shall endure both with serenity so long as I feel clear in my conscience before God"¦When I have found intense pain relieved, a weary brain soothed, and calm refreshing sleep obtained by a cigar, I have felt grateful to God, and have blessed His name; this is what I meant, and by no means did I use sacred words triflingly." Likewise wine, beer and etc"¦ Even on the pragmatic argument there are some health benefits by this calming effect due to the effects of nicotine as any credible scientist, whom I work with in great number every day including and especially health risk assessors, will tell you, it is indeed why some do it. But like any good thing over indulgence has detrimental effects as does a McDonald´s hamburger. This dispenses with this argument.



> What is being overlooked in this whole discussion is Paul's intent for our Christian liberties--and I believe that it is to glorify God. If indulging in said activity is going to do nothing more than satisfy a fleshly appetite, then one has to wonder why one is doing it. Whereas all the other liberties-sharing good food, a bit of wine, and an energetic hike through the woods give READY occasion to glorify God - I'm hard pressed to see how willingly ingesting carcinogens will have that effect.



A slight excursion:

By the way, when you are eating that "œgood food" in America today, you are willingly ingesting carcinogens. All modern produce, beef and chicken contain numerous carcinogens. The prevailing cancer rate for these alone are, regional differences aside, at about 1X10-5. Your clean water that is purified at the local treatment plant produces de minimus carcinogens based on the treatment alone (e.g. trihalomethanes, highly carcinogenic, from chlorination which is used to treat biologicals). The rates of bladder cancer are today on an alarming rise both in shear number and age group (seeing it in 20 and 30 year olds as opposed to bygone days when it was both rare and in 70 year olds). I can compile for you tons of risk assessment data on this very issue so that you may be informed and not willingly ingest carcinogens. If one is going to use science, use it correctly.

Back to the trail:



> "¦satisfy a fleshly appetite"¦



This is the heart of Gnosticism or in like what Luther called a theology of Glory. Why do I say that? To garner anger and argument for the sake of argument? Not at all. For it misses entirely just what the flesh of man is, the severity of the fall, and by extension the Good News. That is the fallen flesh as opposed to the body strictly speaking. The flesh is all that is a man fallen body, mind, soul, spirit, heart...all that he is. The Gnostics and theologies of glory or more generally the fallen religions of man in all their varied and subtle forms fundamentally are always the same. There is this attack (explicitly or implied, "œthe more spiritual man or real Christian will______") on the creation itself in some form as if that is the source of sin and not the flesh, the whole of man through and through and then some form of strength or island of good (pre or post conversion) from within man is held out that is supposedly good or can do good and pleasing things to God. Yet the Scriptures are quite clear on this: the fallen flesh manifests itself both in gross sin and the worse white washed religious fraud of false saintliness. This is why Luther called the Law the hammer of God because it destroys with one blow both open sinners and false saints and empties utterly all claims of man before or after coming to faith, even claims "œby the power of the Spirit" upon which God may smile.
You must realize that the real fallen flesh is ultimately not so much the gross sinner, though it includes this lesser case, but most brazenly reveals itself when it is a religious fraud and thinks it "œpleases God" or "œseeks God" in some way "“ even under Christian guise. To wit; the prime sin was not seeking the lesser and baser things of life (all of fallen religion´s, the Pharisee´s, the monk´s, Rome, much Protestantism today and false aberrations of Christianity´s have this as their basis for the flesh), but rather trying to seek to be like God, have the knowledge due to God alone, ascend to the knowledge of good and evil for self, build the Tower of Babel to heaven, to be more pious than God, and thus to be ultimately one´s own god "“ this is the true Satanic fall of mankind, not seeking the baser things which from the beginning were created good, very good. Hence the flesh really reveals itself when it is trying to be pious, though to the fallen eyes of man such piety has value and is overlooked as the flesh and as such the gross sins are the ones picked out and worse the false creation of sins out of things that are not sinful. The later can be explicit (don´t dance, smoke, drink"¦) or implicit (the real Christian or spiritual man will not do xyz or will "œprotect his witness"). Rome really hasn´t gone that far away.
Thus, by saying that one - a Christian we speak of here, covered by the righteous robes of Christ alone - is indulging the "œflesh" in an activity that is pleasing and enjoyable to a man that is not by Biblical account sin by implying or explicitly stating that it is sin is Satanic and signatory of the flesh and fallen religion. The flesh is really revealing itself. For the flesh ultimately does not desire so much the baser things in life but to seek God itself, build a righteousness and piety of its own and at length be more pious than God by drawing God´s attention to it so that God will glory in it (the flesh). In a word the flesh wants to hear from God in a self glorifying way, "œOh, flesh you have so pleased me by your religious piety, I stand in aw of your piety and you are worthy of my love." The flesh seeks to reverse the loves of God and man and be god itself.

Thus, what Paul´s intent in Christian liberty is to glorify God whether you eat or drink or whatever you do is by giving absolute glory to the cross of Christ as alone the righteousness from God given gratuitously to man without ANY consideration of man´s "œdoing" before or after conversion and then and only then be thankful for the gift enjoyed. Furthermore, Paul´s intent with Christian liberty is at length to slay all of man´s false pretense for he argues from the perspective of the liberty not the bondage, the intent being liberty in Christ should be growing as it is a sign of grace growing, not diminishing and that because the greater liberty is understood, the greater the understanding of the Cross and the greater the glory of Christ and God´s mercy and from THIS arises true love and peace for all fellow man rather than a sneering Pharisee. This why Calvin said Christian liberty is an appendage, not a hindrance, to the faith and the Gospel. This is why Paul said of those who say or imply "˜don´t eat and don´t drink and etc"¦´ IS a doctrine of demons. This is how the godless Roman church in medieval time grew to despise marriage and domestic duty for sheer monkery "œas a witness". This is how the godless prohibitionist aligning alongside the KKK and Masonic lodge among others forced upon the church and society prohibition and a false witness of the church, which failed.
The restraint put on liberty is IF it should hinder the very Gospel which would lead to that same liberty, not the social whims, personal offences or opinions of men and false "œdo gooders".

Quote:
That's fine if I'm bearing witness to mormonism or say Islam or working my way to heaven. 




> I know full well that the unsaved around me will give incomplete or innacurate reasons for why I do or don't do certain activities. What kind of answer do you think they'll give for why Christians read their Bibles, or why they avoid working on Sundays? Ought I to reconsider these things in case they'll erroneously think I'm doing it to work my way to heaven? I should hope not and etc"¦



There in lies the false dilemma. For it is certain that the watching world will indeed give those answers, "œwhy do you not drink, smoke, read you bible and etc"¦" the world says, "œworking your way to heaven." But you are mixing and mingling. You may drink or not drink, or smoke or not smoke as you like, I´m not placing a law on you either way let me be clear about that. But don´t think for one second such abstinence of neutral things is a good witness and whereby you create a false law to place on another Christian and surreptitiously rob him of the Gospel. That´s the insidious subtlety of it all, "œthe really spiritual Christian will______". It´s a false dilemma, because it rest upon a false pretense of a work.

Though none, zero, of these things, drinking/not drinking, smoking/not smoking are the Gospel, not even reading your bible "“ "œYou search the scriptures and think that in them you have life, but it are these that continually bear witness of Me." (John 5:39, Christ to the Pharisees). The witness of the Gospel is to imputed redemption not "œcleaning up one´s life". Christianity is not a move from vice to virtue, nor a witness to the same but from virtue to grace. There is a huge infinite difference, two entirely different religions. 

One´s smoking or not smoking (the neutral activities) in sharing the Gospel is neither here nor there, that´s the point. What question would a hearer bring up to a smoker bearing witness to the real Gospel to him/her that he could not immediately eliminate with the Gospel itself both destroying one´s false idea of the Gospel, which is deadly, and giving the very treasure itself, which is life? One could just as easily bear witness to Christ with, yes, a cigarette in their hand or a glass wine at their lips as Jesus Christ amply did! One´s not smoking is absolutely irrelevant to the Gospel and could be in fact, if misused, a hindarance. The Gospel is not about "œI´m convicted as a smoker, as if that´s my real problem at all, because I see this white wash over here not smoking". It is not about me or you but Christ. 

Here in lies the false dilemma, it is not about your commitment to Christ or for that matter mine, but Christ Himself for sinners period! I am not to, nor are you, to point them or attract them to me/you, but rather Christ. And that can be done by a smoker or non-smoker. If one thinks for one second that one´s not smoking giving the Gospel is better than a smoker giving the Gospel, then one has missed the Gospel altogether. Letting your light shine is the same as giving an answer for the joy that is in you, the joy that is the fruit of the Holy Spirit, the Holy Spirit that bears witness to Christ and Him crucified and risen for me/you regardless of life today good or bad. That´s the light contra the theologies of glory that think the light is a good show of lifestyle! To be sure in the case of real sin, Christians will strive to avoid them, but in the case of neutralities they will not be bound by a doctrine of demons but the Gospel of Christ. Only IF a neutral activity hinders that Gospel OR not doing a neutral activity hinders that same Gospel is a Christian to alter his/her actions "“ and that takes thinking and assessing rather than a blanket false religious policy. There could be a time when a Christian would not drink or smoke, if you do, for that very reason. And there could be a time when a Christian must drink or smoke, even if you otherwise don´t, to bear witness to the Gospel. It cuts both ways and there are two, not one, but two ways to obscure the light that should be shining, the Gospel, or to use that term which is really poor because of its implication, "œprotect my witness".

The whole idea that one juxtapositions a neutral activity of doing and not doing as if one is not sinful and the "œnot" is good or more spiritual or more witness is 100 percent contrary to the Gospel, and a sign of that old flesh, the religious fraud, before mentioned rearing its head. Again, the flesh manifests itself in subtle ways but is most manifest, ironically most hidden to men´s eyes, when it finds itself doing something or abstaining in a religious mode. John the Baptist came neither drinking or eating and they said he had a devil, Jesus came eating and drinking and they called Him a glutton and a drunkard, this disposes nicely of the argument at hand.

Again, I mean this in a spirit of healthy discussion and please please don´t take it any other way.

Mutually Respectful and Always Grace and Peace,

Ldh


----------



## biblelighthouse (Apr 14, 2006)

> _Originally posted by fivepointcalvinist_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by Cuirassier_
> ...





Matthew (fivepointcalvinist), 

I hope you don't mind if I tease you . . . it's just way too funny that these are 'your thoughts exactly' . . . all the while you have a SPURGEON picture up as your avatar! 



(I'm just poking a little fun . . .)




> "When I have found intense pain relieved, a weary brain soothed, and calm refreshing sleep obtained by a Cigar, I have felt grateful to God and have blessed his name."
> - Charles Spurgeon


----------



## Cuirassier (Apr 17, 2006)

Dear Brother Hughes,



> Again, I mean this in a spirit of healthy discussion and please please don´t take it any other way.



Absolutely - and let me first reply with a since "thanks". Rather than dismissive sarcasm, your posts were very honest and constructive - so thanks for giving thought and care to your reply.

I agree 100% with you that no amount of "clean living" is going to help or hinder an unsaved man's salvation. I also agree 100% with you that no amount of "clean living" counts even one iota in God's eyes. Indeed, Isaiah 64.6 considers our supposed righteous as filthy rags. So, lest anyone here believe that I espouse either a "good works" salvation, or pharisaical pietism - let me me be clear: that is NOT what I believe.

Please understand that I would never look to the fact that I do not smoke as meriting some sort of special acknolwedgement or reflecting greater sanctification - perish the thought. Whatever measure of wisdom, restraint, or insight we all have is testament to God's grace, and our glorying ought always to be in Christ and in Him alone!

Why then do I not smoke? Well, on a lighter note, I grew sick and tired of eating meals in smokey mess halls, and having my uniform smell for the rest of the day ...  OK - so yes - I clearly do not desire it, which of course is no argument at all .... 

The main argument for why I do not smoke is a conscience-borne belief that my doing so will not glorify God. The more comonly-held belief on the PB, however, is that it--like alcohol--is also a area of liberty, to be enjoyed by those who can do so in moderation. As you've noted, you are clearly convinced in that view - and I will gladly respect that.

Since the key pillar of your argument has been that the Gospel is not about doing/not doing certain things (in effect a straw man, since we both reject that erroneous view of the Gospel), I remain convinced in my stated point of view. Certainly (and I do not know why this is done) the repeated citing by others of Spurgeon's view of smoking seems petitio principii at best, since his approval of smoking presupposes its approval by God--which is the question we're debating!! 

I respect the sincerity and humility with which you've presented your case - In the spirit of brotherly respect and submission, I'll gladly agree to disagree - confident that you can do likewise. To do otherwise, might simply be  

God bless you brother - thanks for your kind and sincere words.

dl

ps: My view on cigars has another clear advantage: I don't have to buy them!!!  With the birth of our first child here in a few months, I have colleagues and friends alike hoping I will follow "custom" and provide them with celebratory cigars .... hmmm .... Shouldn't I get the cigar? Actually, with my wife doing all that work, shouldn't SHE get the cigar? 

what's with that custom anyway??? Is that done in the US too? Orgins? 

[Edited on 4-17-2006 by Cuirassier]

[Edited on 4-17-2006 by Cuirassier]

[Edited on 4-17-2006 by Cuirassier]

[Edited on 4-17-2006 by Cuirassier]


----------



## BaptistCanuk (Apr 17, 2006)

Remember that it is what comes out of a man's mouth that makes him unclean and not what goes in. One can make a case that the smoke one exhales would make him unclean but really, smoking does not make one unclean. I don't smoke and never wish to. I do like to have a glass of wine at times though and will in the future.

Larry, excellent post and you gave me much to think about.

[Edited on 4-17-2006 by BaptistCanuk]


----------



## fivepointcalvinist (Apr 17, 2006)

> _Originally posted by biblelighthouse_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by fivepointcalvinist_
> ...



hey! im going to have to change my avatar now!!


----------



## Larry Hughes (Apr 20, 2006)

Brother Lopez,

Thanks again for your graciousness back, I appreciate it just as much. I think we've well covered the subject in a cordial debate. By the way I don't smoke not for reasons other than I don't like the after taste, but do defend those who enjoy it. I do like good wine though, which has proved to be a good health thing for me. I've had a good cigar on occasions with my brother-in-law, a SB pastor, who loves them.

Congradulations on your new baby a GREAT blessing. After seeing my wife have two back to back I tend to agree...the wives deserve the cigars!!!

Grace and peace be yours in abundance in Christ our Lord,

Larry

[Edited on 4-20-2006 by Larry Hughes]


----------



## heartoflesh (Apr 21, 2006)

Actually, nicotine has the ability to enhance focus and concentration, as well as being a good laxative.


----------

