# Alcohol and chrstians



## bobtheman (Nov 25, 2015)

Alcohol and Christians: I come from a church that outright condemns the consumption of alcohol. I'm looking to study this subject matter more in-depth. My first thoughts are that the Bible doesn't appear to condemn the consumption, rather the over-consumption and particularly alcoholism and drunkenness. 

I also read an interesting blog post that stated: 
creating a new rule/commandment to not drink alcohol is a sin because you are being Pharisaical - creating rules that were never intended to exist- where as the consumption of alcohol in moderation is not a sin. .... interesting concept. 


Can anyone give me some suggestions for materials to reference, opinions on your interpretation of this issue, etc?


----------



## Jimmy the Greek (Nov 25, 2015)

Drinking with Calvin and Luther:

http://www.amazon.com/Drinking-With-Calvin-Luther-History/dp/0970032609


----------



## KMK (Nov 25, 2015)

God Gave Wine by Kenneth Gentry


----------



## timfost (Nov 25, 2015)

Jesus drank alcohol and made more of it for a wedding. He was not an alcoholic, though. 

For those who try to say that it was unfermented grape juice, they should consider:

1. Preservation in antiquity
2. The example of the wineskins (Matt. 9:17)

The idea that wine was not fermented is completely stretching biblical data, history and example.


----------



## SeanPatrickCornell (Nov 25, 2015)

http://www.reformedpresbytery.org/books/alcoholb/alcoholb.htm


----------



## Jack K (Nov 25, 2015)

If a Christian community agreed together not to drink alcohol due to its widespread abuse in the surrounding culture, either as a witness to that culture or as a safeguard for themselves, I would say those Christians may make such a "rule" among themselves and could be practicing godliness in doing so. But this should not be confused with a universal rule imposed by God in the Scriptures, and the practice ought to be enforced in a gentle and accomodating manner rather than a heavyhanded or condemning one, recognizing that it is more of an agreed-on strategy than a direct part of God's law.

It's always dangerous to make any sort of rule for the Christian community where Scripture makes none. Such rules quickly morph into improper tests of godliness. Yet, done with care they can also be helpful at times. Suppose a particular church noticed the prevalence of unwholesome material on the Internet and, and a witness to the culture and a safeguard for themselves, agreed to hold each other accountable to use Internet filters. That could be godly, right? But the enforcement must be gentle and accomodating, recognizing the nature of the "rule" as a situationally helpful application of the command to flee temptation rather than a direct command from God. It calls for wise elders who understand the delicate difference between man-imposed laws, helpful practices, and direct commands of God, and the tendency for any of these to be wrongly applied as if it were one of the others.


----------



## Bill The Baptist (Nov 25, 2015)

I would agree with what others have said above. There is nothing wrong with abstaining from alcohol if you feel so lead, but we must be careful not to turn this into a law or to pretend that doing so makes us any more righteous than those who do partake. God's word clearly prohibits drunkenness, but just as clearly does not prohibit moderate consumption.


----------



## bobtheman (Nov 25, 2015)

Jack K said:


> If a Christian community agreed together not to drink alcohol due to its widespread abuse in the surrounding culture, either as a witness to that culture or as a safeguard for themselves, I would say those Christians may make such a "rule" among themselves and could be practicing godliness in doing so. But this should not be confused with a universal rule imposed by God in the Scriptures, and the practice ought to be enforced in a gentle and accomodating manner rather than a heavyhanded or condemning one, recognizing that it is more of an agreed-on strategy than a direct part of God's law.
> 
> It's always dangerous to make any sort of rule for the Christian community where Scripture makes none. Such rules quickly morph into improper tests of godliness. Yet, done with care they can also be helpful at times. Suppose a particular church noticed the prevalence of unwholesome material on the Internet and, and a witness to the culture and a safeguard for themselves, agreed to hold each other accountable to use Internet filters. That could be godly, right? But the enforcement must be gentle and accomodating, recognizing the nature of the "rule" as a situationally helpful application of the command to flee temptation rather than a direct command from God. It calls for wise elders who understand the delicate difference between man-imposed laws, helpful practices, and direct commands of God, and the tendency for any of these to be wrongly applied as if it were one of the others.



I agree with your analysis, but I do see one problem with its application. 

The total abstinence of alcohol, particularly when this stance is a adopted by a group of individuals, immediately becomes a type of law. We abstain, and so should you. Even if this isn't vocalized, it is understood internally. The reasons why this hypothetical body adopts such a position is because they feel strongly about their stance, and would therefor also feel strongly when others diverge from such. You partake, and we view that as problematic. It becomes a point of disagreement, contention. 

I dunno, maybe I'm wrong. 

But outside of the hypothetical it sounds as though you are stating: A church that teaches total abstinence and condemns individuals who drink alcohol in moderation ARE teaching false doctrine and are misrepresenting the word? 

Do you agree with that statement?


----------



## bobtheman (Nov 25, 2015)

Bill The Baptist said:


> I would agree with what others have said above. There is nothing wrong with abstaining from alcohol if you feel so lead, but we must be careful not to turn this into a law or to pretend that doing so makes us any more righteous than those who do partake. God's word clearly prohibits drunkenness, but just as clearly does not prohibit moderate consumption.



I take your comment to mean the following: 

abstaining from alcohol is not sinful, but stating that this abstinence is required by the bible and forcing this viewpoint onto others is unbiblical because the bible does not call for such. 


Is that an accurate deduction from your comment?


----------



## jwithnell (Nov 25, 2015)

The ancient Hebrews had separate words to denote certain qualities of wine, the region and time for growing the grapes, how long they had fermented... to say the Bible prohibits alcohol for all people comes from ignorance. That said, the scriptures give general guidelines. For example, alcohol is poor stewardship if you're broke, and a questionable health risk in pregnancy.


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Nov 25, 2015)

"He who begins by forbidding what the Bible allows, will end by allowing what the Bible forbids." attr. to J.G. Machen

Ps.104:15 testifies that it is the Lord's doing to make wine, oil, and bread for the blessing of humanity. This wine "makes the heart glad," (cf. Ecc.10:19; Zech.10:7). It's not credible to attribute this "gladness" of heart, evidently a blessing, to anything _exclusive of_ the loosening effect of alcohol in the bloodstream. It is a natural benefit, that--as with all God's good gifts--is open to various forms of abuse by sinners.

Certainly, the wedding at Cana and our Lord's contributions there show him the same in the NT as he is in the OT. His illustration of his Kingdom, using the analogy of wine fermentation appropriate only in new wineskins, would fall pitifully flat if alcoholic beverage was actually an intrinsic corruption of sorts. Unless one believes in a miraculous wine at the last Passover/first Communion, the grape-product consumed that spring night from a fall vintage was either an evil vinegar, or a successful wine.

Fermentation, the presence of alcohol, was a preservative for thousands of years when cold freshness (refrigeration) was impossible. Paul commends to Timothy (in need) the medicinal qualities of wine, 1Tim.5:23. Alcoholic beverage was positively, explicitly encouraged (if desirable) at Israel's most festive feast, see Dt.14:26. Scripture knows nothing of a general ban on alcohol; and at times seems to commend it.

Abusus non tollit usum.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## JimmyH (Nov 25, 2015)

One man's SBC point of view by Pastor Adrian Rogers ;

[video=youtube;vjMqvx3MXyE]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vjMqvx3MXyE[/video]


----------



## Bill The Baptist (Nov 25, 2015)

bobtheman said:


> Bill The Baptist said:
> 
> 
> > I would agree with what others have said above. There is nothing wrong with abstaining from alcohol if you feel so lead, but we must be careful not to turn this into a law or to pretend that doing so makes us any more righteous than those who do partake. God's word clearly prohibits drunkenness, but just as clearly does not prohibit moderate consumption.
> ...



Yes I would say that is an accurate summation of my thoughts.


----------



## Jack K (Nov 25, 2015)

bobtheman said:


> Jack K said:
> 
> 
> > If a Christian community agreed together not to drink alcohol due to its widespread abuse in the surrounding culture, either as a witness to that culture or as a safeguard for themselves, I would say those Christians may make such a "rule" among themselves and could be practicing godliness in doing so. But this should not be confused with a universal rule imposed by God in the Scriptures, and the practice ought to be enforced in a gentle and accomodating manner rather than a heavyhanded or condemning one, recognizing that it is more of an agreed-on strategy than a direct part of God's law.
> ...



I agree that to condemn those who partake in a lawful manner would be bad pastoring.

I do think it is possible for a community of believers to maintain a practice that the Bible does not mandate, and to do this in a way that is NOT pressuring or condemning. But the fact that it is possible does not make it easy. I'm always wary of such things, precisely because of the tendency for a good-sounding strategy to become a condemning, man-made law.


----------



## KMK (Nov 25, 2015)

Jack K said:


> I do think it is possible for a community of believers to maintain a practice that the Bible does not mandate, and to do this in a way that is NOT pressuring or condemning.



Can you provide any examples of this kind of community?


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Nov 25, 2015)

Danger of being overwise: http://www.naphtali.com/articles/william-sprague/danger-of-being-overwise/

Calvin's discussion on Christian Liberty from the Institutes is also useful:



> 11. I will here make some observations on offenses, what distinctions are to be made between them, what kind are to be avoided and what disregarded. This will afterwards enable us to determine what scope there is for our liberty among men. We are pleased with the common division into offense given and offense taken, since it has the plain sanction of Scripture, and not improperly expresses what is meant. If from unseasonable levity or wantonness, or rashness, you do any thing out of order or not in its own place, by which the weak or unskillful are offended, it may be said that offense has been given by you, since the ground of offense is owing to your fault. And in general, offense is said to be given in any matter where the person from whom it has proceeded is in fault. Offense is said to be taken when a thing otherwise done, not wickedly or unseasonably, is made an occasion of offense from malevolence or some sinister feeling. For here offense was not given, but sinister interpreters ceaselessly take offense. By the former kind, the weak only, by the latter, the ill-tempered and Pharisaical are offended. Wherefore, we shall call the one the offense of the weak, the other the offense of Pharisees, and we will so temper the use of our liberty as to make it yield to the ignorance of weak brethren, but not to the austerity of Pharisees. What is due to infirmity is fully shown by Paul in many passages. “Him that is weak in the faith receive ye.” Again, “Let us not judge one another any more: but judge this rather, that no man put a stumbling-block, or an occasion to fall, in his brother’s way;” and many others to the same effect in the same place, to which, instead of quoting them here, we refer the reader. The sum is, “We then that are strong ought to bear the infirmities of the weak, and not to please ourselves. Let every one of us please his neighbor for his good to edification.” elsewhere he says, “Take heed lest by any means this liberty of yours become a stumbling-block to them that are weak.” Again “Whatsoever is sold in the shambles, that eat, asking no question for conscience sake.” “Conscience, I say, not thine own, but of the other.” Finally, “Give none offense, neither to the Jews nor to the Gentiles nor to the Church of God.” Also in another passage, “Brethren, ye have been called into liberty, only use not liberty for an occasion to the flesh, but by love serve one another.”46 455455 61 461 Rom. 14:1, 13; 16:1; 1 Cor. 8:9; 10:25, 29, 32; Gal. 5:13. Thus, indeed, it is: our liberty was not given us against our weak neighbors, whom charity enjoins us to serve in all things, but rather that, having peace with God in our minds, we should live peaceably among men. What value is to be set upon the offense of the Pharisees we learn from the words of our Lord, in which he says, “Let them alone: they be blind leaders of the blind,” (Mt. 15:14). The disciples had intimated that the Pharisees were offended at his words. He answers that they are to be let alone that their offense is not to be regarded.
> 
> 12. *The matter still remains uncertain, unless we understand who are the weak and who the Pharisees: for if this distinction is destroyed, I see not how, in regard to offenses, any liberty at all would remain without being constantly in the greatest danger.* But Paul seems to me to have marked out most clearly, as well by example as by doctrine, how far our liberty, in the case of offense, is to be modified or maintained. When he adopts Timothy as his companion, he circumcises him: nothing can induce him to circumcise Titus (Acts 16:3; Gal. 2:3). The acts are different, but there is no difference in the purpose or intention; in circumcising Timothy, as he was free from all men, he made himself the servant of all: “Unto the Jews I became as a Jew, that I might gain the Jews; to them that are under the law, as under the law, that I might gain them that are under the law; to them that are without law, as without law (being not without law to God, but under the law to Christ), that I might gain them that are without law. To the weak became I as weak that I might gain the weak: I am made all things to all men, that I might by all means save some” (1 Cor. 9:20-22). We have here the proper modification of liberty, when in things indifferent it can be restrained with some advantage. What he had in view in firmly resisting the circumcision of Titus, he himself testifies when he thus writes: “But neither Titus, who was with me, being a Greek, was compelled to be circumcised: and that because of false brethren unawares brought in, who came in privily to spy out our liberty which we have in Christ Jesus, that they might bring us into bondage: to whom we gave place by subjection, no, not for an hour, that the truth of the gospel might continue with you,” (Gal. 2:3-5). We here see the necessity of vindicating our liberty when, by the unjust exactions of false apostles, it is brought into danger with weak consciences. In all cases we must study charity, and look to the edification of our neighbor. “All things are lawful for me,” says he, “but all things are not expedient; all things are lawful for me, but all things edify not. Let no man seek his own, but every man another’s wealth,” (1 Cor. 10:23, 24). There is nothing plainer than this rule, that we are to use our liberty if it tends to the edification of our neighbor, but if inexpedient for our neighbor, we are to abstain from it. There are some who pretend to imitate this prudence of Paul by abstinence from liberty, while there is nothing for which they less employ it than for purposes of charity. Consulting their own ease, they would have all mention of liberty buried, though it is not less for the interest of our neighbor to use liberty for their good and edification, than to modify it occasionally for their advantage. It is the part of a pious man to think, that the free power conceded to him in external things is to make him the readier in all offices of charity.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Nov 25, 2015)

To build a bit upon what Calvin writes and to apply this.

First, it is simply not Biblical to argue that, ipso facto, the consumption of alcohol is a sin. A person can consume alcohol without sinning in drunkenness (just as he may eat without being a glutton). One may thank God for the gifts He has given us and receive such in faith.

Secondly, there are occasions where people may abstain from alcohol for conscience's sake. It would be a sin for them to consume alcohol for they could not do so in faith. Such a person may not then judge another as sinning simply because they themselves feel conscience bound not to consume alcohol. I think the Lord's Supper is a separate issue. I'm thinking of consumption of alcohol for private use. If a person is convince that alcohol, as a substance, is sinful then I believe there are some basic issues of calling something sinful in itself which is not. That said, a person with a legitimate scruple need not be condemned and a Christian who otherwise may be at liberty to consume is also at liberty, for the sake of his brother, to not consume. That is to say that I will not serve alcohol in some cases for the sake of such a brother.

Thirdly, those who make rules for other Christians may be guilty (as Calvin noted) of adding to the Law and binding the consciences of others. I believe there are times when this spirit needs to be withstood to its face and called what it is.


----------



## bobtheman (Nov 25, 2015)

Its a difficult question that I struggle answering for my own thoughts 


I agree with almost everything that has been said, but I begin to ask things such as: 

1. Why do individuals drink? 
2. At what point is one "drunk"
3. Does alcohol serve any purpose other than intoxication? 
4. Is the referenced drunkenness really alcoholism - so an occasional instance of gluteny or drunkenness is permissible as long as it's not effecting your everyday life? 


in the media we often see individuals drinking after a hard day of work to take the edge off - is this taking the place of someone trusting in Christ and turning to him in prayer?


----------



## MW (Nov 25, 2015)

There is personal liberty in this matter but there should also be cautious advice to avoid the pitfalls of a drinking culture and to guard against "excess." Some of what passes for alcohol is nothing more than poison. The occasions for partaking can become far too regular. Social drinking is a danger. Alcohol can be a temptation to temporarily escape the pressures of life. The inexperienced must especially be wary. Those in places of responsibility over others are encouraged to be as clear-minded as possible, which may be an occasion for abstinence. As it is better to be in the house of mourning than the house of feasting one might choose to abstain from that which artificially makes the heart merry. Non Christians might have dissociated alcohol from Christianity to such a degree that they will not take your witness seriously if they know you drink alcohol. There are a whole range of factors which must be considered when choosing to exercise one's liberty in this matter.


----------



## Ryan&Amber2013 (Nov 25, 2015)

bobtheman said:


> I agree with almost everything that has been said, but I begin to ask things such as:
> 
> 1. Why do individuals drink?
> 3. Does alcohol serve any purpose other than intoxication?



I don't personally drink, but I don't condemn others for doing it. I know I cannot Biblically say it's wrong. I cannot rationalize it in my mind, though, and these questions above are really important to ask. The goal of alcohol is to alter the mood and mind; so the main function of alcohol is to damage our self control. For this reason, I can't find myself to desire to walk down this path. 

Some people will say that alcohol makes people comfortable in social situations, and spurs on Theological discussions, etc. But the reality is that the alcohol is damaging their self control, and therefore, people start to act out of their normal character. That is what is happening, and I don't think that's commendable. Scientific research clearly indicates that alcohol at its root, damages our self control. If you drink a little bit, your self control is affected a little, and if you drink a lot, your self control is affected a lot. For this reason, I would prefer that I have complete self control, therefore I avoid alcohol. It seems if I were to drink, this would be working against the work of the Spirit. 

I know this probably upsets a lot of reformed people, because a lot of us really have a strong liking for alcohol, but I just can't justify drinking, personally. But at the same time, I can't Biblically say it's wrong. Maybe someone can help me figure out the proposed issue above. Thanks!


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Nov 25, 2015)

Richard,
Unless you think that your choice to imbibe (as a believer) is likely to lead a different, more conscience-bound person to violate his limitation, then are your questions more than simple musings? As a pastor, I want a man to be interested in conforming his own conscience to the Word; and not so much about whether other people are asking the "right" questions.

Could there be more than one answer to #1? Seems to me, there might be several reasons, not all able to boil down to one or two.

Question 2 is beyond any quantifiable measure. The state sets legal measures, and applies a one-size-fits-all criteria. I should think a Christian loath to be in any way "out of control." Sensing that one is slipping that direction, or having brethren around who can; imposing prior restraint on self, conducive to self-control; both of these sound like common-sense prevention of going too near the edge.

Is Q.3 empirical? Or if the answer was "none," does that mean that "a glad heart" gained as a result of intake not-too-much alcohol still has suspicion attached?

As for Q4, Paul seems opposed to getting drunk, period. 'Be not drunk with wine, wherein is excess." In essence, this activity amounts to a form of idolatry, since the Spirit of God should be in the place of that alien control.

If a man's conscience does not rebuke him, when he relaxes with a beer, should you or I be advising him to be more "pious?" But if you thought you should do the latter in place of the former, then your conscience should be directing your steps. As for him, "to his own master he either standeth or falleth." Rom.14:4


I also want to agree with Rev.Winzer on something. Drunk-culture has in many places now become "normal," and if we become associated with the drinkers, how will this affect our testimony? There is also in parallel to the normalization of inebriation, a zero-tolerance policy of enforcement against particular failures of drunkenness. We are ministering in a schizophrenic culture, often to people who are victims both of their own folly, and of what frequently amounts to official caprice. We have to hold the reins with incredible care, even while we remain adamantly opposed to Phariseeism.


----------



## RamistThomist (Nov 25, 2015)

bobtheman said:


> Its a difficult question that I struggle answering for my own thoughts
> 
> 
> I agree with almost everything that has been said, but I begin to ask things such as:
> ...



Because God said it makes glad men's hearts



> 2. At what point is one "drunk"



Legally or spiritually? Largely different for different people. A big country boy around 300lbs will get drunk at a different time than I will.



> 3. Does alcohol serve any purpose other than intoxication?



If people drink without getting drunk, then does that fellowship count as a "purpose"?





> in the media we often see individuals drinking after a hard day of work to take the edge off - is this taking the place of someone trusting in Christ and turning to him in prayer?



I can't speak for the motives and struggles of 200 million people, so I don't know.


----------



## Edward (Nov 25, 2015)

> 3. Does alcohol serve any purpose other than intoxication?



I'll take the easy one. Moderate alcohol consumption can improve cerebral function in the elderly.


----------



## Jerusalem Blade (Nov 25, 2015)

Bob, here's a booklet (in PDF) by G.I. Williamson you may find of interest, Wine in the Bible and the Church. He's a retired OPC minister.


----------



## Edward (Nov 25, 2015)

MW said:


> Non Christians might have dissociated alcohol from Christianity to such a degree that they will not take your witness seriously if they know you drink alcohol.




Education might be the better response to ignorance.


----------



## MW (Nov 25, 2015)

Edward said:


> MW said:
> 
> 
> > Non Christians might have dissociated alcohol from Christianity to such a degree that they will not take your witness seriously if they know you drink alcohol.
> ...



Undoubtedly, in the long term; but in the meantime, all things to all men is the apostle's rule, even to the point of proverbially beating his body.


----------



## Philip (Nov 25, 2015)

bobtheman said:


> in the media we often see individuals drinking after a hard day of work to take the edge off - is this taking the place of someone trusting in Christ and turning to him in prayer?



One might just as well ask whether drinking coffee in the morning is taking the place of personal devotions. For nonbelievers undoubtedly it can take the place of prayer, but I find that coffee pairs well with the Word. And similarly, I can come home and give thanks to God for a beer after a long day.


----------



## Edward (Nov 25, 2015)

MW said:


> Edward said:
> 
> 
> > MW said:
> ...



Let me make sure I understand what you are saying - Christians should live a lie and put a false face to the world to make sure that they don't offend the mis-conceived notions of Pagans?


----------



## MW (Nov 25, 2015)

Edward said:


> Let me make sure I understand what you are saying - Christians should live a lie and put a false face to the world to make sure that they don't offend the mis-conceived notions of Pagans?



Is drinking alcohol one's life? If not, I fail to see how it can be living a lie to forego something indifferent for the sake of saving one you love. If one cannot forego it, maybe it has ceased to be the matter of "freedom" it should be.


----------



## VictorBravo (Nov 25, 2015)

Edward said:


> Let me make sure I understand what you are saying - Christians should live a lie and put a false face to the world to make sure that they don't offend the mis-conceived notions of Pagans?



I suppose I could give a practical answer. Routinely I'm invited to "go out" with other lawyers for some drinks. I routinely decline. I tell them, "I only drink at home with my wife, and I only drink wine I have made. Unfortunately for me, I haven't made any wine in 5 years and it's all gone."

I'm known as a Christian in my circles. I have confirmed that I have liberty to drink, but that I avoid the culture of drinking. All my pagan (and Roman Catholic) friends seem fine with that.


----------



## Edward (Nov 26, 2015)

> I'm known as a Christian in my circles. I have confirmed that I have liberty to drink, but that I avoid the culture of drinking. All my pagan (and Roman Catholic) friends seem fine with that.



Your position appears to be the exact opposite of that taken by the Reverend Winzer. (And I would note that you and I would find ourselves largely on the same page). Rev. Winzer would have you pretend to your friends and colleagues that you lack such liberty and drink only in secret.


----------



## Jack K (Nov 26, 2015)

KMK said:


> Jack K said:
> 
> 
> > I do think it is possible for a community of believers to maintain a practice that the Bible does not mandate, and to do this in a way that is NOT pressuring or condemning.
> ...



With drinking alcohol, I saw something like this in the church in which I grew up, where my dad was a missionary pastor. The church was among American Indians, and those believers were acutely aware of the dangers of alcohol abuse. Many had been rescued from that lifestyle. Many others were tempted daily, or had experienced abuse due to the frequent drunkenness of those around them. In addition, that culture knew nothing of the concept that one could have a drink socially, or to relax, without having several drinks to get drunk. Alcohol consumption and drunkenness were inseperable, culturally. I suppose folks realized that in other parts of the world, and in Bible times, there were people who would drink without getting drunk. But they didn't personally know _anyone_ like that. All drinking they knew was for getting drunk.

What's a pastor to do in that setting? Certainly my dad, born in Europe, did not take a European approach and have a beer or a glass of wine with dinner while among those believers. This would have been badly misunderstood. Instead, he chose to abstain altogether, as did every believer we knew there. I wouldn't say there was pressure or condemnation in the apporach; rather, there was a recognition that by their abstinance believers could be a good witness to the culture and supportive to others who were trying to stay sober.

My dad said many times that the Bible did not forbid drinking alcohol, and that only Christ—not staying sober—could make a man right with God. I don't believe he ever told the congregation that they should abstain (though he surely said this to certain, individual strugglers). But the culture of the church, in that setting, made abstinance an informal "rule" of life in Christ. My dad did not fight this. In fact, he joined in. He clarified the biblical position now and then, but he also embraced the way those believers applied Christ's command to be new people who left old and sinful lifestyles behind.

Might he have used the situation to make points about how it's possible to drink responsibly, or how Christ gives freedom, or how we should not add to God's law, etc.—by having an occasional drink and doing so responsibly? I suppose he might have tried. But he was far more concerned with demonstrating how good it is to flee sin, how necessary it is to to leave old lifestyles behind when coming to Christ, and how Christians hate anything which causes harm and pain in the lives of others. I think his priorities were right. I think that was a good place not to fight the abstinance culture in the church. And from what I could tell, he did so without heaping guilt or pressure or condemnation on anyone. Believers already sensed it was loving and wise to abstain in that setting. My dad affirmed those impulses while reminding folks not to turn it into a legalistic command.

My dad surely didn't pastor perfectly in this regard, but I think his overall approach was wise and biblical. I am always wary of legalism. But I think we need to not be so wary that we stifle efforts to take a tough approach to besetting sin.


----------



## au5t1n (Nov 26, 2015)

Edward said:


> Rev. Winzer would have you pretend to your friends and colleagues that you lack such liberty and drink only in secret.



I must have missed that post. If either you or the person who found your post helpful would care to point out where he said he would have anyone pretend to have no liberty to drink and then to drink privately, that would be great. Otherwise some consideration of the Ninth Commandment may be in order.


----------



## Bill The Baptist (Nov 26, 2015)

au5t1n said:


> Edward said:
> 
> 
> > Rev. Winzer would have you pretend to your friends and colleagues that you lack such liberty and drink only in secret.
> ...



I would concur with Austin, I found no such inference in Rev. Winzer's post. I think we must be careful not to construct a theology of antithesis. Just because teetotlers are in error does mean that the complete opposite position must therefore be correct. Rev. Winzer, in my estimation, was merely recognizing the realities of the culture in which we all live, and we would all do well to do the same. Indeed we have liberty, but with liberty comes responsibility.


----------



## Afterthought (Nov 26, 2015)

What is meant by "social drinking"? Do you mean "going out to have a drink"? Or "going out to get lots of drinks and get tipsy or drunk"? Or do you mean "going out to eat and get a drink along with the meal"?


----------



## alexandermsmith (Nov 26, 2015)

Philip said:


> bobtheman said:
> 
> 
> > in the media we often see individuals drinking after a hard day of work to take the edge off - is this taking the place of someone trusting in Christ and turning to him in prayer?
> ...



I think bobtheman's point was if people routinely go for a drink at the end of a working day to "take the edge off" or "relax", then that is clearly idolatry. Instead of resting on Christ they are resting on alcohol. And it's just the same with coffee. When things like these become "necessities" and we start having cravings or get into patterns then something's not right. We need to eat and drink to nourish the body but we should never need alcohol or caffeine.

ReformedReidian said:

"3. Does alcohol serve any purpose other than intoxication?
If people drink without getting drunk, then does that fellowship count as a "purpose"?"

Do they need alcohol to have fellowship though? If so, there's something wrong. It's the Spirit which unites, not alcohol. Or at least that's how it should be.

The drinking of alcohol in small amounts is lawful. But in reaction to those churches which prohibit it, there are many in the Reformed community who go to the opposite extreme and extol it and promote it in a way which is unseemly and sinful. For a start, Christians should not be going to pubs and other places where alcohol consumption is the focus and where it is promoted as an end in itself. Noisy, raucous venues where people routinely drink to excess- even if the Christian doesn't- are the venues of the world. They are where the world goes to talk about the things of the world whilst drinking the drinks of the world. This is no place for a Christian.

But even in our own homes we need to be careful. Some say that the drinking of alcohol aids theological discussion. I find this a very shaky argument. There was a Reformed Forum Christ the Center episode- no. 200 maybe?- which was just a 2 hour roundtable discussion. Throughout that discussion the men were imbibing (by their own admission and from the frequent openings of bottles) and, surprise surprise, as the discussion progressed they got louder, more raucous, more argumentative and it ended up becoming a most unedifying spectacle (for the ears). They were drunk and it was obvious they were drunk. It was really quite shameful. Is this the sort of theological discussion we want? And it's not just alcohol. Certain quarters in the Reformed camp also extol the virtues of smoking! And they combine the two. Smoking, which is basically a violation of the 6th commandment.

It is often from a spirit of licentiousness that the arguments in favour of these things is made. I think if arguments like "we need to watch to see when we might start slipping into drunkenness or have others watch" are problematic. We should never be in that situation in the first place!


----------



## alexandermsmith (Nov 26, 2015)

KMK said:


> Jack K said:
> 
> 
> > I do think it is possible for a community of believers to maintain a practice that the Bible does not mandate, and to do this in a way that is NOT pressuring or condemning.
> ...



The Nazarites; the Rechabites in Jeremiah 35. Both groups are noted in Scripture for their godliness and piety. Whilst not requiring that all follow their example.


----------



## earl40 (Nov 26, 2015)

Bill The Baptist said:


> Just because teetotlers are in error does mean that the complete opposite position must therefore be correct. Rev. Winzer, in my estimation, was merely recognizing the realities of the culture in which we all live, and we would all do well to do the same. Indeed we have liberty, but with liberty comes responsibility.



Well I am not sure we "all" live in the same culture. In my surroundings (culture) the pagans know those that teach total abstinence from alcohol is not what is taught in scripture.


----------



## KMK (Nov 26, 2015)

Jack K said:


> KMK said:
> 
> 
> > Jack K said:
> ...



Thanks for this, Jack. It sounds like this was not an 'official' church position, but more of an 'unofficial' practice led by example. Your father sounds like he had a true pastor's heart.

The problem with this kind of culture is it makes grape juice a necessary element of the Lord's Supper. This binds the consciences of those who have what we all agree are correct convictions about the use of alcohol.


----------



## bobtheman (Nov 26, 2015)

KMK said:


> Jack K said:
> 
> 
> > KMK said:
> ...



Assuming I understood your comment correctly

I don't think everyone here feels as convicted about the consumption of alcohol as you portray. An important aspect of this question, at least for myself, is the use of grape juice during communion ... like you referenced. 

Part of me almost feels like the use of 'grape juice' during communion is sinful verses using actual alcohol. With, of course, the exceptions of those who cannot drink alcohol for health purposes or age restrictions. I dunno maybe im off my rocker here.


----------



## Alan D. Strange (Nov 26, 2015)

This is, as it has developed, a rather complex and multi-textured discussion. I agree with the appropriate cautions expressed by several, especially given the debauched nature of much of culture in many quarters. I don't appreciate the judgmental statements, however (cf. Romans 14). 

Here's an additional and somewhat different thought than offered thus far. While I fully appreciate Vic's response to his colleagues, for instance,and don't question its propriety, I would suggest that one might alternatively decide, on occasion at least, to join the colleagues for drinks and take the opportunity in such an occasion of interface share the gospel with said colleagues. This can be an opportunity to testify to the fact that our righteousness does not lie in eating, drinking and the like but in Christ alone. If this sounds far-fetched to some, I assure you that friends of mine have done such (as well as have I) to good effect. I can think of several instances in which someone said something like, "I was surprised that you had a drink with me, because I thought that you Bible-believing Christians were all opposed to that, but I've learned that something else is really your agenda [referring to the gospel that had been shared with them]." 

Again, I appreciate all the cautions expressed by brothers (I am thankful especially for Jack's relating his father's experience), but wanted to offer a different approach that may be beneficially employed. 

Peace,
Alan


----------



## Edward (Nov 26, 2015)

au5t1n said:


> I must have missed that post. If either you or the person who found your post helpful would care to point out where he said he would have anyone pretend to have no liberty to drink and then to drink privately, that would be great. Otherwise some consideration of the Ninth Commandment may be in order.



Rev. Winzer made a post. I wasn't sure that I understood what he was saying. I asked for a specific clarification. My post was acknowledged by Rev. Winzer in a subsequent post, but my understanding of the original post was not addressed, so it remains my understanding until HE indicates that I did, in fact, misunderstand. His comment was:


> Non Christians might have dissociated alcohol from Christianity to such a degree that they will not take your witness seriously if they know you drink alcohol.



Which certainly does seem to me at this point to suggest that you should hide the fact that you consume alcohol, or as I phrased it above, put on a false face. 

Certainly, if HE tells me that he meant something entirely different, my comment would be inapplicable. But until then, I certainly won't confess to a 9th Commandment violation at your behest. 



Bill The Baptist said:


> Rev. Winzer, in my estimation, was merely recognizing the realities of the culture in which we all live, and we would all do well to do the same.



I would suggest that the culture of Australia, the culture of the Bible Belt might be significantly different.


----------



## Edward (Nov 26, 2015)

MW said:


> If not, I fail to see how it can be living a lie to forego something indifferent for the sake of saving one you love.



I do not understand this post at all, particularly what you intend to communicate by the word 'save' here. I certainly hope you are not using it in the sense that 'saved' is use in WCF VII.3, as a sip of wine with dinner is certainly not capable of keeping from heaven one of the elect, and conversely refraining from a sip of wine with dinner would not enable one who is not elect to enter in. So you must be using it in some other sense.


----------



## au5t1n (Nov 26, 2015)

Edward,
Your understanding is not consistent with what he has already said. The references to foregoing something indifferent and beating the body make it clear he is talking about actual abstinence for the sake of others, not lying about it and then consuming in private. Complaining that he did not specifically correct an uncharitable understanding which never had any basis in what he said misses the point.

I will concede, however, that it may not have been my place to weigh in, and supposing it were, I should have stated my objection directly ("He didn't say that") instead of couching it in sarcasm.


----------



## Edward (Nov 26, 2015)

au5t1n said:


> make it clear he is talking about actual abstinence for the sake of others, not lying about it and then consuming in private.



"...if they know you drink" suggests to me that the issue is the knowledge of the unbeliever, and not the conduct of the believer which is in issue. So what is clear to you isn't at all clear to me.


----------



## MW (Nov 26, 2015)

Edward said:


> "...if they know you drink" suggests to me that the issue is the knowledge of the unbeliever, and not the conduct of the believer which is in issue. So what is clear to you isn't at all clear to me.



I said, "Non Christians might have dissociated alcohol from Christianity to such a degree that they will not take your witness seriously if they know you drink alcohol." I did not use the simple condition you claim I used. It was a part of a complex possibility statement. I clarified in another post that your statement concerning education was undoubtedly correct in the long term; and it should have been fairly obvious that I used "save" in the sense it is used in 1 Cor. 9, which I had just quoted about being all things to all men. If all this still leads you to find fault, there is nothing I can say to help you to a better understanding; I will leave it there.


----------



## VictorBravo (Nov 26, 2015)

Alan D. Strange said:


> While I fully appreciate Vic's response to his colleagues, for instance,and don't question its propriety, I would suggest that one might alternatively decide, on occasion at least, to join the colleagues for drinks and take the opportunity in such an occasion of interface share the gospel with said colleagues.



To further muddy the waters, I'll add another response I've sometimes used: "I don't go to bars because Washington law would require me to be disarmed...besides, I don't drink in public because it might affect my aim."

But your point is well taken. I'm fortunate to be in a small community where gospel discussions come up in offices and court breaks. I'm surrounded by quasi-charismatic Roman Catholics and hard-core Mormons. Many approach me in sincerity and we have candid conversations.

One day I walked into the prosecutor's office and I heard the elected prosecutor (a professing Catholic) arguing with the chief deputy prosecutor (a professing evangelical) about the Council of Trent. As soon as the senior prosecutor saw me, he said, "Vic's here, he can settle the history of this!" Which I did, not exactly to his liking. But there are very few public offices I've been where you can freely go back and forth about free grace as opposed to merit and works in a serious but friendly environment.

Word also gets around about how mild-mannered Vic can get pretty serious when our Lord is mocked or blasphemed. Such occurrences have led to some interesting quiet conversations too.

But on alcohol, the main reason I don't go out is that I'm a home body introvert when I'm off duty.


----------



## Jack K (Nov 27, 2015)

Alan D. Strange said:


> I would suggest that one might alternatively decide, on occasion at least, to join the colleagues for drinks and take the opportunity in such an occasion of interface share the gospel with said colleagues. This can be an opportunity to testify to the fact that our righteousness does not lie in eating, drinking and the like but in Christ alone. If this sounds far-fetched to some, I assure you that friends of mine have done such (as well as have I) to good effect.



I agree. This is not far-fetched at all. I've found that many Americans appreciate a Christian who is willing to have a drink with them. It can be an effective way to show that faith in Christ is not about a "better-than-thou" approach to life, which is what they assume until shown otherwise. For this reason, I've had many drinks in situations where I didn't otherwise want one. (I'm a lightweight drinker; alcohol tends to give me headaches and mess with my sleep.)


----------



## PaulMc (Nov 27, 2015)

I agree with many of the comments and insights made. It should be a matter of personal liberty, although individual circumstances and different situations may require wisdom in applying this liberty. 
Sadly some do seek to bind one's conscience on this issue - members of the Free Presbyterian Church of Ulster, for example, are required to completely abstain from alcohol.


----------



## Edward (Nov 27, 2015)

MW said:


> I said, "Non Christians might have dissociated alcohol from Christianity to such a degree that they will not take your witness seriously if they know you drink alcohol." I did not use the simple condition you claim I used. It was a part of a complex possibility statement. I clarified in another post that your statement concerning education was undoubtedly correct in the long term; and it should have been fairly obvious that I used "save" in the sense it is used in 1 Cor. 9, which I had just quoted about being all things to all men. If all this still leads you to find fault, there is nothing I can say to help you to a better understanding; I will leave it there.



Thank you for doing your best to clarify your earlier statements. I rather side with Calvin on this - 'we must accommodate ourselves to the weak, not to the obstinate'.


----------



## bobtheman (Dec 2, 2015)

It appears that the majority of people here believe that consuming alcohol is not prohibited in the word, and is not sinful when kept in check/moderation/etc. 


I ask myself then: Why, for what reason, what purpose would any of us give to one another as to why we were to go home tonight and drink a beer, or mixed drink, or glass of wine? 


Maybe my assumptions of alcohol, being the result of living in the deep south, are tainted. Maybe me hearing lots of calls to abstain totally from its consumption - and hearing the promoted reasoning as to why we should do such - have tainted my reasoning on the matter. 

*My first thoughts are this*. Alcohol has a single purpose - The Ethanol, when consumed, travels to your stomach where around 15 percent is absorbed into your bloodstream. The other remaining portion is sent to your intestines. Once it's in your bloodstream, your brain slows down. The process is much more complicated than that but - what im attempting to state is: When you drink alcohol, any amount, you are impaired. 

Drunk: having the faculties impaired by alcohol. 

Different levels of intoxication? Sure. But the sole purpose of drinking alcohol is .. intoxication. Drunkenness. 

So, what purposes do the followers of Christ have to need to escape ones mental faculties, to desire impairedness? Is there a legitimate reason, or is my outlook on alcohol misconstrued from my past teachings?


I will add, I am lead to believe that the bible does not teach a total refraining from alcohol - and I have ordered some of the referenced material to further research those arguments. But the question I posed above troubles me. And with that question, I can see the follow up questions for a newer generation (myself being a millennial) being something of the sort: 


Marijuana is safer, less toxic, and has more health benefits than alcohol. It's current illegality is the results of corporate lobbying to preserve status quo's and bad policy from such. Marijuana is used recreationally, just like alcohol, for the same effect. Intoxication. Are we saying, or would we be forced to accept, that both can be consumed for recreational use without it being sinful when it is used in moderation, when you are in control of it, and when it doesn't interfere with your relationship and commitments with Jesus Christ?

This is a question I have already heard in the church, and something I expect we will continue to hear as state after state continues to march towards some form of legalization, rather it be for recreational use or medicinal. The former being, in my opinion, what the majority of society truly desires.

Some people can consume marijuana (rather via inhalation of smoke, tablet form, food, vapor) and only become slightly impaired, just like alcohol. So their concern, considering the flood of legalization movements around the U.S., is if marijuana would be a safer alternative to alcohol. This is one of the large marketing aspect of such movements. I often wonder what line the church will draw when this becomes more prevalent.


----------



## Logan (Dec 2, 2015)

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

I guess one reason is because some people find a glass of wine or a dark beer after a long day quite pleasurable. I've never been able to figure out why, though I've certainly tried


----------



## KMK (Dec 2, 2015)

bobtheman said:


> So, what purposes do the followers of Christ have to need to escape ones mental faculties, to desire impairedness? Is there a legitimate reason, or is my outlook on alcohol misconstrued from my past teachings?



One legitimate reason would be the Lord's Supper. Other than that, I would encourage you to follow your convictions, but make sure your convictions are squared by what is taught in the Bible. The Bible teaches that there is a 'middle ground' between teetotalism and drunkenness. It may not be helpful for you, but it might be helpful for others. It is a gift from God after all. (Ps 104:15)


----------



## bobtheman (Dec 2, 2015)

KMK said:


> bobtheman said:
> 
> 
> > So, what purposes do the followers of Christ have to need to escape ones mental faculties, to desire impairedness? Is there a legitimate reason, or is my outlook on alcohol misconstrued from my past teachings?
> ...



Do you call it a gift from God because of Psalm 104:15 ?


----------



## Edm (Dec 2, 2015)

Well, I for one, enjoy the taste of beer. The hoppier,the better. I used to enjoy the taste of red wine..the acidity and I don't mix now however. I don't think I have ever heard anyone say " I'd like to smoke a joint, because I really enjoy the complex blend of favors". So I would not see it as an accurate comparison of alcohol and marajuana. If someone said I could either get high or drunk, that is a comparison. But that is an extreme end and no one that Ive seen here is saying either of those is ok.


----------



## Toasty (Dec 2, 2015)

If a particular person has problems with overcoming the temptation to get drunk, then it would be best for him to abstain from alcohol. However, this does not mean that no one should drink alcohol.


----------



## alexandermsmith (Dec 2, 2015)

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

I wonder how many men apply oil to their faces to make them shine, while drinking their wine and eating their bread?


----------



## bobtheman (Dec 2, 2015)

alexandermsmith said:


> "And wine that maketh glad the heart of man, and oil to make his face to shine, and bread which strengtheneth man's heart." Psalm 104:15
> 
> I wonder how many men apply oil to their faces to make them shine, while drinking their wine and eating their bread?



Hilarious


----------



## bobtheman (Dec 2, 2015)

Edm said:


> Well, I for one, enjoy the taste of beer. The hoppier,the better. I used to enjoy the taste of red wine..the acidity and I don't mix now however. I don't think I have ever heard anyone say " I'd like to smoke a joint, because I really enjoy the complex blend of favors". So I would not see it as an accurate comparison of alcohol and marajuana. If someone said I could either get high or drunk, that is a comparison. But that is an extreme end and no one that Ive seen here is saying either of those is ok.



I'm not sure how much weight this would add to the counterargument... but the establishments that are on the forefront of selling cannabis as a consumer recreational use product promote their products for the different distinctions each different strain carries. It's not all centered around the intoxicating effects. Flavor profiles, etc.


----------



## VictorBravo (Dec 2, 2015)

alexandermsmith said:


> "And wine that maketh glad the heart of man, and oil to make his face to shine, and bread which strengtheneth man's heart." Psalm 104:15
> 
> I wonder how many men apply oil to their faces to make them shine, while drinking their wine and eating their bread?



Hey, I eat my bread with olive oil and sometimes it gets on my face. When I wipe it away is seems to spread all over my face and make it shiny. It turns out to be a fine moisturizer and hides the wrinkles. Tastes good, too, especially with a robust homemade Cabernet or a sun-baked and earthy Pinot Noir.


----------



## johnny (Dec 3, 2015)

bobtheman said:


> Edm said:
> 
> 
> > Well, I for one, enjoy the taste of beer. The hoppier,the better. I used to enjoy the taste of red wine..the acidity and I don't mix now however. I don't think I have ever heard anyone say " I'd like to smoke a joint, because I really enjoy the complex blend of favors". So I would not see it as an accurate comparison of alcohol and marajuana. If someone said I could either get high or drunk, that is a comparison. But that is an extreme end and no one that Ive seen here is saying either of those is ok.
> ...



Cannabis has a different effect on the mind to wine.
There is already a flood of people using vaporizers including celeb's like Whoopy Goldberg ect..

http://www.today.com/health/whoopi-goldberg-touts-vape-pen-debut-column-marijuana-1D79549417

Steve (Jerusalem Blade) posits a good argument for the use of recreational drugs to be akin to sorcery.
I agree with Steve's position and think that this is a dangerous development, and that the use of these vaporizers
will eventually bring with them a rise in the rates of mental illness along with other harmful effects.

http://www.puritanboard.com/entry.php/763-Marijuana-allowed-in-the-church


----------



## LilyG (Dec 3, 2015)

bobtheman said:


> ...The sole purpose of drinking alcohol is .. intoxication. Drunkenness.



Sadly, for many it is. But to make a sweeping statement like that for all who partake, and condemn their consciences as impious where there is no biblical warrant to do so is, at best, unfair. 

You would need to deal with some passages, some of which have been already shared. Wine was enjoyed to "make the heart glad," to rejoice together before the Lord (Deut 14:22-26) and celebrate cheerfully in fellowship; wine was used in drink offerings and along with certain sacrifices (Num 28:7, Ex 29:40, 2 Chron 31:5), was seen as a blessing (Gen 27:28, Joel 2:24-26, Joel 3:18), was partaken of by our Lord, is a crucial element in the Lord's Supper, and will accompany the final Feast.





> So, what purposes do the followers of Christ have to need to escape ones mental faculties, to desire impairedness?



I don't think those who partake rightfully desire mental impairment so much as... well, to gladden the heart. A social lubricant, to "feel a livelier gratitude to God" (Calvin), and yes, taste! A good beer is delicious!  What else do we do to improve our mood? Should we also not pray? Go for a jog? Listen to good music? Cook a good meal?


----------



## Reformed Roman (Dec 3, 2015)

MW said:


> There is personal liberty in this matter but there should also be cautious advice to avoid the pitfalls of a drinking culture and to guard against "excess." Some of what passes for alcohol is nothing more than poison. The occasions for partaking can become far too regular. Social drinking is a danger. Alcohol can be a temptation to temporarily escape the pressures of life. The inexperienced must especially be wary. Those in places of responsibility over others are encouraged to be as clear-minded as possible, which may be an occasion for abstinence. As it is better to be in the house of mourning than the house of feasting one might choose to abstain from that which artificially makes the heart merry. Non Christians might have dissociated alcohol from Christianity to such a degree that they will not take your witness seriously if they know you drink alcohol. There are a whole range of factors which must be considered when choosing to exercise one's liberty in this matter.



I loved this post.

You cannot save anyone by works. But if you serve a Muslim bacon for dinner that doesn't eat pork, you won't even have an opportunity to share the gospel. Things we do, and taking advantage of liberties we have can hinder opportunities we would have had to share the gospel and can hinder many other things. Whether you eat or drink do all things for the glory of God


----------



## nicksully24 (Dec 3, 2015)

If your consumption of alcohol might cause a brother to sin, you should abstain. Not because the alcohol consumption is sinful, but because causing a fellow Christian to sin or harming their conscious is sinful 

Sent from my XT1080 using Tapatalk


----------



## Andrew P.C. (Dec 3, 2015)

Unless one can make an argument that alcohol (used in a normal, not trying to get drunk, way) leads one to idolatry or sin, we should not forbid what scripture calls good. "Wine which makes man’s heart glad" is not to be used as a weapon toward the believer. If a Christian is using something that God said is good, then who is man to tell him otherwise? 

If you base your Christian life as displayed among the pagans by one or two drinks, then you have a gross view of the Christian life. One is not saved by what you do (which is heresy) but by the power of God alone. To think otherwise is anti-Christ. 

Let scripture be your guide, not man.

"He causes the grass to grow for the cattle,
And vegetation for the labor of man,
So that he may bring forth food from the earth,
And wine which makes man’s heart glad,
So that he may make his face glisten with oil,
And food which sustains man’s heart."

Psalm 104


----------



## VictorBravo (Dec 4, 2015)

Andrew P.C. said:


> If you base your Christian life as displayed among the pagans by one or two drinks, then you have a gross view of the Christian life. One is not saved by what you do (which is heresy) but by the power of God alone. To think otherwise is anti-Christ.



I'm trying to sort this out. 

I can't think that you mean that a Christian who, for reasons of prudence (for example), decides not to drink one or two drinks among pagans is basing his life on works-righteousness.

I agree that what you do doesn't save you, I don't think anyone here as said otherwise. Maybe you are saying that a Christian who refuses to drink among pagans is presenting a bad testimony?

Or alternatively, does it mean that a Christian who doesn't drink among pagans because of fear of what people think of him is sinning, or at least in error?

Maybe I'm dense right now, but I don't follow.


----------



## bobtheman (Dec 4, 2015)

Andrew P.C. said:


> Unless one can make an argument that alcohol (used in a normal, not trying to get drunk, way) leads one to idolatry or sin, we should not forbid what scripture calls good. "Wine which makes man’s heart glad" is not to be used as a weapon toward the believer. If a Christian is using something that God said is good, then who is man to tell him otherwise?
> 
> If you base your Christian life as displayed among the pagans by one or two drinks, then you have a gross view of the Christian life. One is not saved by what you do (which is heresy) but by the power of God alone. To think otherwise is anti-Christ.
> 
> ...




My prior statement was to the effect of ... Any amount of alcohol consumption provides a level of intoxication that effects one judgment. I found the following definition of "drunk": having the faculties impaired by alcohol. 

If any level of consumption is also a level of intoxication, and any level of impairedness is drunkenness ... 



And then I get to verses like the one you just quoted.


----------



## johnny (Dec 4, 2015)

bobtheman said:


> Andrew P.C. said:
> 
> 
> > Unless one can make an argument that alcohol (used in a normal, not trying to get drunk, way) leads one to idolatry or sin, we should not forbid what scripture calls good. "Wine which makes man’s heart glad" is not to be used as a weapon toward the believer. If a Christian is using something that God said is good, then who is man to tell him otherwise?
> ...



I think that's a bit of an overstatement,
Proverbs describes drunkeness in obvious terms,

Proverbs 23:29-35 
Who hath woe? who hath sorrow? who hath contentions? who hath babbling? who hath wounds without cause? who hath redness of eyes? They that tarry long at the wine; they that go to seek mixed wine. Look not thou upon the wine when it is red, when it giveth his colour in the cup, when it moveth itself aright. At the last it biteth like a serpent, and stingeth like an adder. Thine eyes shall behold strange women, and thine heart shall utter perverse things. Yea, thou shalt be as he that lieth down in the midst of the sea, or as he that lieth upon the top of a mast. They have stricken me, shalt thou say, and I was not sick; they have beaten me, and I felt it not: when shall I awake? I will seek it yet again. 

Paul also qualifies his statement in Ephesians with excess.
Ephesians 5:18 And be not drunk with wine, wherein is excess; but be filled with the Spirit;


----------



## Andrew P.C. (Dec 4, 2015)

VictorBravo said:


> Andrew P.C. said:
> 
> 
> > If you base your Christian life as displayed among the pagans by one or two drinks, then you have a gross view of the Christian life. One is not saved by what you do (which is heresy) but by the power of God alone. To think otherwise is anti-Christ.
> ...



What I am saying is this: one who lets the pagan culture rule his actions is in sin. To say alcohol is bad because "a pagan said so" is contra scriptura. 

Earlier Edward had a good point: educate the person. This can do two things: 1) let the person know that God is gracious and kind to His creatures by giving us such a wonderful thing to enjoy and 2) led into a conversation about the pagan's sinful state and his need for Christ. 

If someone is suggesting that they should let a pagan rule his actions, then you refuse to believe what the scriptures teach. Are we not to have scripture be the bind of our conscience? Again, if anyone suggests that alcohol leads one to idolatry then abstain (1 Cor. 9). However, I do not think 1 Cor. 9 is being used accurately when one uses it as the fundamentalists of the early 1900s use it. We aren't legalistic. 

Finally, I am also saying that our Christian testimony is not based upon a drink of beer (quite absurd and to think so IS legalistic). The gospel isn't hindered by having a beer, know why? Because you cannot do anything to change the heart. Likewise (just so we are clear), there is a biblical command NOT to get drunk as well. I believe Larger Catechism 130 does it well, in which drunkenness is a violation of the 5th commandment: "The sins of superiors are.... or any way dishonouring themselves, or lessening their authority, by an unjust, indiscreet, rigorous, or remiss behaviour" (Referencing Gen. 9:21).


----------



## VictorBravo (Dec 4, 2015)

bobtheman said:


> Andrew P.C. said:
> 
> 
> > Unless one can make an argument that alcohol (used in a normal, not trying to get drunk, way) leads one to idolatry or sin, we should not forbid what scripture calls good. "Wine which makes man’s heart glad" is not to be used as a weapon toward the believer. If a Christian is using something that God said is good, then who is man to tell him otherwise?
> ...



Richard, I think the problem here is the non-scriptural view of "impairedness."

If I can rephrase it, the argument sounds like:

being drunk is bad (God says so)

consuming alcohol causes one to become intoxicated (science says so, you can measure it!)

being intoxicated, even a little bit, is being drunk (introduced judgment call from a teetotaler)

therefore, consuming any amount of alcohol is bad. (non sequitur).

We have two sides of the issue: God calls drunkeness a sin, yet God clearly sets out times when drinking alcohol is good.

The conclusion must be that the judgment that "drinking is bad" is overly simplistic. 

The other conclusion is confirmed by practice: having a glass of wine or glass of beer does not "impair" a normal person in a way that clouds his judgment so that he loses control. That is negative projection.

We see every day folks who have a drink and then go on with other tasks. The very fact that they can limit their drinks indicates their judgment is not impaired. That kind of consumption is even commended in some cases, as noted in your quote.


----------



## OPC'n (Dec 4, 2015)

A nice single malt scotch neat is very non-sinful.


----------



## soulwinner3000 (Dec 11, 2015)

Communal taboos over the consumption of alchohol and other such things tend to blunten consciences rather than sharpen them-i think J.I. Packer said something along those lines. 
I believe that luther had a good understanding of christian liberty, i think a good grasp of Justification by Faith is conducive to that, a healthy understanding of christian liberty needs to be revived i think.
I really enjoy fine ales in moderation, gifts of God are often better enjoyed that way


----------



## Toasty (Dec 11, 2015)

alexandermsmith said:


> Philip said:
> 
> 
> > bobtheman said:
> ...



What do you think about drinking it because one likes the taste? Many times people eat and drink things, not for their nutritional value, but because they like the taste.


----------



## Philip (Dec 11, 2015)

When we draw hard lines where God does not, we inevitably end up focusing on our boundaries rather than on what God has said. Not only that, but when others see this, they too lose respect for God's law. The categorical teetotaller and the drunkard are two sides of the same coin.


----------



## LilyG (Dec 12, 2015)

Philip said:


> When we draw hard lines where God does not, we inevitably end up focusing on our boundaries rather than on what God has said.



This!


----------

