# Was it a Sin to Drink Alcohol During the Prohibition?



## alwaysreforming (Mar 4, 2005)

A friend asked me this question the other day, and I wasn't sure really how to answer it.

Obviously, there is no inherent sin in the use of alcohol, since the Bible condones the use of wine, as "it makes a heart glad."

But during the Prohibition, it must have been a sin, since the laws of the land were violated, right? That being so, what would you do if (for some reason) a powerful enough group were to convince the govt. to prohibit alcohol again? Would you secretly partake? If so, do you think the "sin" would be offensive to God?

I won't add any more commentary, and just leave the question at that...


----------



## Scott Bushey (Mar 4, 2005)

Yes. We are to submit to the laws of the land, i.e. Those Cuban cigars I want to smoke and cannot.


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot (Mar 4, 2005)

Interesting question. 

First, I'd suggest looking at the text of the 18th Amendment here: 

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment18/

Note that the use of alcoholic beverages is not what is prohibited, it is the "manufacture, sale, or transportation of intoxicating liquors within, the importation thereof into, or the exportation thereof from the United States and all territory subject to the jurisdiction thereof for beverage purposes [that] is hereby prohibited."

Many stockpiled their bottles ahead of the effective date of the legislation for their own personal use. 

I'm not sure whether this amendment was used to prohibit churches from using sacramental wine in the Lord's Supper -- I'd be surprised if that was the case -- but if it had been, I'd feel comfortable practicing civil disobedience in that case because it's my conviction that the wine is mandated scripturally for the sacrament of the Lord's Supper. If necessary, I'd plead the 1st Amendment, which outranks the 18th.

[Edited on 3-5-2005 by VirginiaHuguenot]


----------



## Peter (Mar 4, 2005)

Wasn't a sin. Nor can a throne of iniquity make it sin.


----------



## Scott Bushey (Mar 4, 2005)

Is breaking the civil law sin?


----------



## tdowns (Mar 4, 2005)

*Something else to repent of...*



> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> Yes. We are to submit to the laws of the land, i.e. Those Cuban cigars I want to smoke and cannot.



A friend of mine gave me a cuban cigar when she came back from a trip to somewhere--I think Africa--that sold them...I smoked it, I'm not much into cigars actually, so wasted most of it....sorry Scott.


----------



## Michael (Mar 4, 2005)

Yep. I believe Spurgeon would have had a tough time with that as well. 

I heard he was once asked about his love indulging in cigars. He replied that it was not an issue with the Lord as long as he did not go overboard smoking. Naturally, he was asked what would be too much. "Why, two at the same time!", he answered!


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot (Mar 4, 2005)




----------



## Puritan Sailor (Mar 4, 2005)

I think I would have to agree with Andrew on this one. If the government mandated a ban on alcohol, then that would violate our practice of the Lord's Supper, therefore overstepping their God-given authority. It would also mess up much of our medicines too of which alcohol is often a primary ingredient.


----------



## Michael (Mar 4, 2005)

> _Originally posted by puritansailor_
> It would also mess up much of our medicines too of which alcohol is often a primary ingredient.



Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think prohibition involved a ban on medicines that contained alcohol. I think it strictly involved consumer beverages.


----------



## turmeric (Mar 4, 2005)

It was okay for medicinal purposes & communion wine, I think. BTW there was a Supreme Court case brought by members of the Native American Church, the result of which is - that it is legal for them, and only for them, to use peyote cactus in their religious services. This might be a precednet in case they ever made wine illegal again...


----------



## Puritan Sailor (Mar 4, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Ezekiel16_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by puritansailor_
> ...



You're probably right. But I'm sure they had to tighten up access to the medicines, before people started guzzling those down to get their fix.


----------



## LadyFlynt (Mar 4, 2005)

> _Originally posted by tdowns007_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> ...



I can see Scott like this....


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot (Mar 5, 2005)

> _Originally posted by turmeric_
> It was okay for medicinal purposes & communion wine, I think. BTW there was a Supreme Court case brought by members of the Native American Church, the result of which is - that it is legal for them, and only for them, to use peyote cactus in their religious services. This might be a precednet in case they ever made wine illegal again...



That's correct. The peyote case is a precedent to bear in mind. This article addresses the question of sacramental wine during the Prohibition era in the context of considering the implications of peyote use in Indian religious ceremonies:



> Wine was once illegal in the U.S., just as peyote is now. But the National Prohibition Act, passed after ratification of the 18th Amendment, exempted wine "for sacramental purposes, or like religious rites." State prohibition laws, some of which survived into the 1960s, either had similar exemptions or at least were not enforced against religious users. (Contemporary local prohibition laws rarely require exemptions; they generally restrict the sale of alcohol, but permit private consumption of alcohol purchased elsewhere.)



http://www.religion-online.org/showarticle.asp?title=886


----------



## Scott Bushey (Mar 5, 2005)

An interesting vista:

~Note to patrick; They mention the consumption of alcohol based medicines.

http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-157.html


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot (Mar 5, 2005)

I'm glad I didn't live in the Prohibition era. Montesquieu's adage comes to mind: "Useless laws weaken the necessary laws."


----------



## lwadkins (Mar 5, 2005)

If the law of man violates God's dictates then of course we are to be violaters of man's law. In the case of alcohol in a general sense, as far as I am aware the only use of wine dictated is in the Lord's supper. So if casual use of alcohol is prohibited it would seem we would be required to submit to that law.


----------



## Michael (Mar 5, 2005)

> _Originally posted by VirginiaHuguenot_
> I'm glad I didn't live in the Prohibition era. Montesquieu's adage comes to mind: "Useless laws weaken the necessary laws."



I agree. Then again, we have a rediculous amount of useless laws today as well.


----------



## alwaysreforming (Mar 5, 2005)

I'm thinking that perhaps I don't take sin as seriously as I should. As we're talking about "useless laws" it brings to light my own apathy towards violating what I see as useless laws.

If I want to/or need to speed, I don't care what the speed limit says. If I need to take a U-turn, I do it if it can be done safely. And there are probably many other examples.
I guess something is wrong with my conscience, as I really don't care what the external constraints put on me by the govt are, as long as I am acting fairly and safely towards my fellow man.

If the govt banned alcohol, I would just buy it underground and continue with my life.

Pretty bad, huh? (I'm feeling very rebellious; I think I've got too much stress right now...)


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot (Mar 5, 2005)

See this thread link for more information on the history of Prohibition in America: 

http://www.puritanboard.com/forum/viewthread.php?tid=6819


----------



## Puritan Sailor (Mar 5, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> An interesting vista:
> 
> ~Note to patrick; They mention the consumption of alcohol based medicines.
> ...



Interesting.


----------



## alwaysreforming (Mar 5, 2005)

> _Originally posted by VirginiaHuguenot_
> See this thread link for more information on the history of Prohibition in America:
> 
> http://www.puritanboard.com/forum/viewthread.php?tid=6819



Here's what happened when I clicked on that link:

Error 
*Sorry, you are not permitted to view this forum * 

The Puritanboard 


How ironic!


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot (Mar 5, 2005)

> _Originally posted by alwaysreforming_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by VirginiaHuguenot_
> ...





Indeed! Prohibition of a different sort, eh?

If you are interested, you should ask the admins for authorization to view the Puritan Pub.


----------



## alwaysreforming (Mar 5, 2005)

I should? A Pub?

Well I doubt if anything GOOD could be going on in there! What do you guys do? A bunch of card-playin, beer-drinkin, ceegar-smoking shannanigans... No, Sir! I've been warned to stay FAR away of such places!


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot (Mar 5, 2005)

Well, friend, consider the invitation open anyways...


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Mar 8, 2005)

Andrew, Is the poor lad under 21? Aye? Now don'tcha be tempten the lad!


----------



## RamistThomist (May 31, 2005)

I was reading from the Dark Lord Wilson the other day--yes, yes dangerous stuff, I know--and he dealt with Christian liberty and government interference. Granted, not much of what he says will be taken seriously, so let's pretend that John Knox or Richard Cameron said this. Agreed?



> When unbelieving civil authorities legislate against the mere use of wine, for example, they are doing so contrary to the teaching of the Bible. If the magistrate prohibits the use of wine at a sabbath dinner of believers, he is clearly overreaching himself. This does not mean that he must be disregarded--that civil disobedience is necessarily required--but it does mean tht the magistraet has set himself against the clear teaching of the bible. That segment of Christianity which happens to agree with this kind of prohibitionism (and statism--ed. JBA) is a very provincial portion of the church--American Christianity over the last century or so. (taken from _Future Men_, p. 173)



Moonshinin' here we come. Bootleggin, here we come!
This is the vindication of the Dukes of Hazzard.


----------



## RamistThomist (May 31, 2005)

*bump


----------



## Abd_Yesua_alMasih (Jun 1, 2005)

I may have got the wrong idea here but,

Is the question similar and follows the same lines as "Is it a sin for someone considered 'underage' to drink?". It has the same components really. The main problem is simply rebelion against the government. This then comes down to your view on Godly resistance against the government. I have always believed that we should obey the government right up to and until they pass laws that would force us into impiety. Only then, when we must go either against the law or sin against God, can we be justified in disobeying the government. Simply not liking laws is not reason to break them whether they are 'unjust' or not.


----------



## RamistThomist (Jun 1, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Abd_Yesua_alMasih_
> I may have got the wrong idea here but,
> 
> Is the question similar and follows the same lines as "Is it a sin for someone considered 'underage' to drink?". It has the same components really. The main problem is simply rebelion against the government. This then comes down to your view on Godly resistance against the government. I have always believed that we should obey the government right up to and until they pass laws that would force us into impiety. Only then, when we must go either against the law or sin against God, can we be justified in disobeying the government. Simply not liking laws is not reason to break them whether they are 'unjust' or not.



I was making a political joke and wondering how we can do the applications thereof.


----------



## Abd_Yesua_alMasih (Jun 1, 2005)

I saw that but I was refering to the whole topic in general which was started by "alwaysreforming"


----------



## Robin (Jun 1, 2005)

Hey Chris....

For what it's worth, I think Welch had a "conflict of interest"...he's one of the prohibitionists that got the church to make the switch...here's a couple of history blurbs on the subject:

Among Protestants, the move to grape juice was strongly influenced by the temperance movement in England and the United States in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. During the Civil War, the General Conference of the Methodist Episcopal Church recommended "pure juice of the grape" for Holy Communion. In 1916 grape juice became mandatory for their church communion "” a stance made easier because a Methodist dentist from New Jersey began making pasteurized grape juice.

Dr. Thomas Bramwell Welch, who was also a communion steward in his church, wanted a non-alcoholic sacramental drink for his fellow parishioners. His grape juice, now known simply as Welch's, soon became a staple in other Protestant communion services.

Grape Juice Introduced 

A Methodist dentist, Dr. Thomas Welch, objected to his church's use of fermented wine in the communion service. Experimenting at night in his kitchen he came up with a nonalcoholic grape beverage, which he named "Dr. Welch's Unfermented Wine". 
He approached church officials to persuade them to substitute his beverage for the traditional wine. The elders regarded his suggestion as being an unacceptable innovation. 
A son, Charles, who was also a dentist, changed the name to Welch's Grape Juice. He set up a production facility in a barn behind the family home. Response was so overwhelming that he gave up dentistry and devoted full time to making and distributing grape juice. 




Robin


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot (Jun 1, 2005)

Another historical question of interest: was the Whiskey Rebellion justified?


----------

