# Don't smoke,drink alcohol,see movies,listen to...



## blhowes

1Jo 2:15 Love not the world, neither the things that are in the world. If any man love the world, the love of the Father is not in him. 

Rom 12:2 And be not conformed to this world: but be ye transformed by the renewing of your mind, that ye may prove what is that good, and acceptable, and perfect, will of God. 

I was wondering if anybody had any thoughts about how we should apply these verses in our everyday lives. How can we discern if we love the world to the exclusion of the love of the Father? What does it mean to be conformed to the world? What doesn't it mean?

I come from a tradition that sees many things as being either black or white, with few gray areas, for better or for worse. Sometimes external behaviors are used by some as cues in determining the stability or authenticity of another person's walk with the Lord. They are used to determine if somebody is following the world or is following Jesus. Coming from that tradition, I have held these views at one time and have over time been able to filter out some (hopefully most) of these views. Some I'm sure still linger.

Don't take it the wrong way, but some of the practices of many of the people on this board would have &quot;raised a flag&quot; in my mind and in the minds of people like me about how serious you were about your walk with the Lord. Things like smoking cigars/cigarettes, drinking alcohol, going to movies, and listening to anything but &quot;Christian music&quot; just wouldn't cut it.

Well, praise the Lord God has used the people on this board to help me rethink those kinds of thoughts. He's even allowed me to loosen up a little ... PARTY !! ......(kidding).

I was just wondering how you guys/gals put these two verses into practice? We don't want to love the world in a negative sense nor do we want to be conformed to the world, but what does that mean to you - or should I say, how do other scriptures help us know where to draw the line? 

Any thoughts?

Well, I've gotta go now. My beer's getting cold and its time to get another cigar.

Bob

[Edited on 7-1-2004 by blhowes]


----------



## turmeric

Okay,but let's not use our liberty for license! But I do love a good cabernet!

The folks who abstain from alcohol &amp; tobacco as a matter of principle (read fundamentalists) still tend to conform to one &quot;Christian&quot; fad after another. It's a human tendency and a constant struggle not to conform, but to be transformed.


----------



## blhowes

[raised eyebrow]
a good cabernet???
[/raised eyebrow]

Meg,
Have you ever given this much thought? How do you get past what might be considered legalistic distinctions to determine what God is warning us about in these verses and what he wants us to stay away from or avoid? 
Any thoughts?
Bob


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot

Christian liberty is a precious thing. God alone is Lord of the conscience (see WCF XX), and His Word teaches us to stand fast in the liberty given to us by Christ (see Galatians 5:1). It also warns against those who would bind our consciences with carnal, legalistic commandments that miss the point of true holiness (see Colossians 2:16-23).

Wine is commanded for use in the Lord's Supper and was used by Christ at a wedding party, it gladdens the heart of man, and men through the ages (from Noah to the French Huguenots of South Africa) have made a lawful and good living making wine from the grapes of God's creation. God teaches us to enjoy His gifts and wine is certainly that. 

The same can be said for sex, tobacco and music, all of which must be handled with care. God condemns drunkeness, fornication and abuse of our bodies and minds, but nowhere does He condemn the lawful use of sins in themselves indifferent. That which is adiaphora may be used to the glory of God in the proper context.

We are, in fact, to eat, drink and be merry, or whatsoever we do -- to the glory of God! We all have different preferences and experiences and no one should be judged by other brethren for choosing to have a glass of wine with a meal or not. But as a principle, Christian liberty should be dear to us all.


----------



## blhowes

Andrew,
Thanks for your response.

How does a person guard against going too far with Christian liberty? The confessions also say:

III. They who upon pretence of Christian liberty do practice any sin, or cherish any sinful lust, as they do thereby pervert the main design of the grace of the gospel to their own destruction,[16] so they wholly destroy the end of Christian liberty, which is, that being delivered out of the hands of all our enemies, we might serve the Lord without fear, in holiness and righteousness before Him, all the days of our lives.[17]

16. Rom. 6:1-2
17. Gal. 5:13; II Peter 2:18, 21

So, its possible, that under the guise of Christian liberty, to do things that are sinful, and still think that you're justified in doing those things.

The obvious first step would be to check the scriptures to see if a practice is specifically condemned. If it is, then its clear that its expected that we refrain from doing something.

Its the second step and following that I wonder about. Every situation we come up against in life won't be specifically mentioned in the scriptures, so we need to use biblical principles to judge whether or not we should do something. I don't think we can say that any conduct not specifically mentioned in the scriptures is necessarily ok to do, as long as its in moderation. 

As I'm writing, I had another thought. Could it be that conforming to the world and not loving the world have nothing to do with our outward actions? Could it be not so much don't do what the world does, so much as thinking as the world thinks? Can/should the two be separated?

Thinking as I go,
Bob


----------



## panicbird

[quote:24e7683835][i:24e7683835]Originally posted by turmeric[/i:24e7683835]
The folks who abstain from alcohol &amp; tobacco as a matter of principle (read fundamentalists) still tend to conform to one &quot;Christian&quot; fad after another. [/quote:24e7683835]

I do not drink, but I am not a fundamentalist. I also abhor &quot;Christian&quot; fads.

One should not generalize so quickly.

Lon


----------



## Philip A

[quote:6066c7b24c][i:6066c7b24c]Originally posted by blhowes[/i:6066c7b24c]
Could it be that conforming to the world and not loving the world have nothing to do with our outward actions? Could it be not so much don't do what the world does, so much as thinking as the world thinks? Can/should the two be separated?[/quote:6066c7b24c]

Here's something along those same lines, to add some more biblical context to the discussion:

1 Corinthians 7:29-31
[quote:6066c7b24c]But this I say, brethren, the time is short, so that from now on even those who have wives should be as though they had none, those who weep as though they did not weep, those who rejoice as though they did not rejoice, [b:6066c7b24c]those who buy as though they did not possess, and those who use this world as not misusing it.[/b:6066c7b24c] For the form of this world is passing away.[/quote:6066c7b24c]

I realize that I am taking this verse out of the immediate Corinthian context, but there are general principles driving what Paul is saying about their particular situation, i.e. the parts that I have emphasized. Notice that Paul presupposes that Christians will buy in the world and use this world, and unless we would make the passage nonsensical we would have to agree that he (or rather, the Holy Spirit by him) is also presupposing that these activities are not sinful in themselves. What is sinful is the over attachment to the things that we buy, and the misuse of the world. To say that we can misuse the world presupposes that we can use it rightly.

[Edited on 7-1-2004 by Philip A]


----------



## blhowes

[b:9765c6fadb]Philip wrote:[/b:9765c6fadb]
I realize that I am taking this verse out of the immediate Corinthian context, but there are general principles driving what Paul is saying about their particular situation, i.e. the parts that I have emphasized. Notice that Paul presupposes that Christians will buy in the world and use this world, and unless we would make the passage nonsensical we would have to agree that he (or rather, the Holy Spirit by him) is also presupposing that these activities are not sinful in themselves. What is sinful is the over attachment to the things that we buy, and the misuse of the world. To say that we can misuse the world presupposes that we can use it rightly. 

Good thinking. Along the same lines, I was thinking about the two verses that follow 1 John 2:15, primarily verse 16:

1Jo 2:16 For all that is in the world, the lust of the flesh, and the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life, is not of the Father, but is of the world. 
1Jo 2:17 And the world passeth away, and the lust thereof: but he that doeth the will of God abideth for ever.

It would be easy to take this verse too far and misinterpret it. When it says &quot;all that is in the world&quot;, that's pretty all encompassing. My car is in the world. I'm not to love the car, but does that also mean that I'm not to use it? Perhaps the same could be said about other things like drinking, smoking, etc. I'm not sure though - still working through some fundamentalist thoughts.

Bob

[Edited on 7-1-2004 by blhowes]


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot

Bob,

You raise good questions. The WCF quote you cited says it very well. We must walk a fine line between embracing the liberty of Christ and using that liberty unlawfully. 

Self-examination is an important part of the Christian walk. And not just when we prepare for the Lord's Supper. We should always take a look at our motives for doing what we do (such as the words we choose to speak, our body language, what we eat as well as drink, etc.). The key question is, why am I doing this? To please myself or to please God. (Ultimately, our desires should conform to God's will, of course, and there need not be a contradiction, but we must not be blind to the desires of our sinful hearts.) I don't mean to suggest that we over-analyze things either, but our motive should always be to glorify God. 

We all have different body types and hence the effects of alcohol, for example, may differ from person to person. Each person should be self-aware enough to know what their limits are. If a person is drinking to escape, that's a warning sign. 

Every day we are confronted with temptations to knock God off His throne and install some idol in His place, whether it be money, work, sex, drugs, alcohol, or whatever. If we place ourselves in bondage to those things, we have sinned. If instead, we partake lawfully of the good things in God's creation in moderation and in the appropriate context, we do so to the glory of God. 

Sorry if this is rambling...I do hope my comments contribute in a helpful way to your thinking on this matter. 

~Andrew


----------



## blhowes

[b:d4d3ddf29e]Andrew wrote:[/b:d4d3ddf29e]
Sorry if this is rambling...I do hope my comments contribute in a helpful way to your thinking on this matter

Its not...they do...and I appreciate it.

Here's some more comments/questions that I thought I'd bring up while I'm still sober.

I really don't have any desire to drink alcohol, even if I'm convinced its ok. Nevertheless, we'll use me as the guinea pig.

There's a disagreement among the brethren whether the wine used by Jesus and spoken of elsewhere in the scriptures was actually fermented or whether it was just grape juice. Let's assume for the sake of argument that it was fermented (alcohol).

First, since the wine Jesus used was fermented, does that mean that I can drink wine also - or does it go beyond that to mean that I can drink any beverage that's alcoholic (though in moderation), no matter how potent it is?

Again, for the sake of argument, let's say that it does mean that I can drink any alcoholic beverage and it doesn't matter if its 100 proof, as long as I do it in moderation. I don't know much about alcohol, but I've heard in my college days that &quot;grain alcohol&quot; is pretty potent. There may be stronger types of alcohol, but let's assume that that the strongest there is.

Ok, so I study the scriptures and determine that its ok to drink the grain alcohol, but I have to drink it in moderation. What does moderation mean? Is it one sip? One cup? Two cups?

Its gonna vary from person to person, so that's something that I'm going to have to figure out for myself. Since I'm not a drinker now, I wouldn't have the faintest idea how much I can drink before I get drunk, which would be a sin. So, practically speaking, how would I determine what moderation is for me if I don't know what the limit is for me to get drunk? Seems like I'd have to sin at least once to get the upper limit, and then back off some next time to determine my &quot;moderation point&quot;. Once that's determined, its smooth sailing. Unfortunately, there doesn't seem to be any way to be sure ahead of time what my limit is, so I'd have to sin at least once, which is not recommended.

[b:d4d3ddf29e]Andrew wrote:[/b:d4d3ddf29e]
Sorry if this is rambling...

If you thought what you wrote was rambling, then I'd hate to think what you thought about what I wrote. If yours was rambling, then mine must have been...

Bob

[Edited on 7-1-2004 by blhowes]


----------



## turmeric

[quote:1957709f0d][i:1957709f0d]Originally posted by turmeric[/i:1957709f0d]
Okay,but let's not use our liberty for license! But I do love a good cabernet!

The folks who abstain from alcohol &amp; tobacco as a matter of principle (read fundamentalists) still tend to conform to one &quot;Christian&quot; fad after another. It's a human tendency and a constant struggle not to conform, but to be transformed. [/quote:1957709f0d]

Oops! Wrong message board, that one was for the Wesleyan board, this is the [b:1957709f0d]Puritan[/b:1957709f0d] board! Some of us are still reforming!

I apologize to all who felt generalized against, I meant those who abstain because they are convinced drinking any alcohol is a sin, not just for them but for everyone, i.e. Wesleyans and their theological relatives, some Baptists and independents, et al. I am not referring to former alcoholics and others who refrain for health reasons or reasons of preference.

I don't know how I make the distinctions, Bob, and doubt that I always do it correctly. Loving the world, though, seems to be a deeper problem than having or not having a drink. I think Paul addresses this type of thinking in Colossians 2, and suggests that we set our affections on higher things than what we, and especially our fellow-Christians are drinking or smoking, or even what day we worship on. (Oh, dear, another Sabbath debate, sorry!)


----------



## blhowes

[b:83f33f6498]Meg wrote:[/b:83f33f6498]
Loving the world, though, seems to be a deeper problem than having or not having a drink. 

I agree, though I'm still trying to separate the two in my mind. Drinking may be evidence of a love for the world. Drinking in moderation may just be a compromise. ( I can go just far enough so that I enjoy it, but not far enough so that its still called a sin.)

Bob


----------



## a mere housewife

I think legalism needs to be more carefully defined. The legalism dealt with in the NT is a legalism where people were imposing these standards as necessary for salvation, or for a right standing with God. I think sometimes we use this term out of Biblical context, and feel that people are legalistic because they believe it better for Christians to refrain from certain things.

I think that one very practical method at least of judging whether our motives are to glorify God, and whether we are practicing moderation, is our attitude toward those who do not feel they-- or even we-- have such freedoms. Do we deliberately flaunt our liberty around them? Are we careful not to offend them-- even by causing them to stumble in their thoughts of us? Do we despise them for their seeming weakness? Basically, are we so attached to our liberty that our love (for other Christians) goes by the wayside in that kind of situation? If so, I think we have passed over from liberty into a love of the world.

Liberty is a means to glorify God: I think, to more fully enjoy the things He has given us, and to be, with Paul, &quot;all things to all men.&quot; We have the freedom both to partake and to [i:a5b8869031]refrain[/i:a5b8869031] from partaking for these ends. If we are truly free, we can refrain as easily as we can partake: otherwise it's a freedom in one direction-- which we call &quot;bondage&quot; when it comes to the depraved will.

Just to be clear: I have no problem with drinking alcohol, though I never have up to this point, and don't really much care one way or the other if I ever do. I have more problem with smoking-- I guess more with the inconsideration with which it is often done: I know too many children with chronic respiratory problems. I don't know if cigarrettes are more of a culprit than cigars: they are certainly much uglier .

[Edited on 7-1-2004 by a mere housewife]


----------



## blhowes

[b:304eca22d1]Heidi wrote:[/b:304eca22d1]
I don't know if cigarrettes are more of a culprit than cigars: they are certainly much uglier . 

Which are uglier cigars or cigarettes? Careful how you answer, as this thread may be in danger of being closed. I didn't think the thread would deteriorate so quickly. 

Seriously, though, thanks for your response. Those are some excellent guidelines and something we should all keep in mind as we enjoy our liberties in Christ. Its neat how liberty and love go hand-in-hand.

Bob


----------



## BobVigneault

The White Horse Inn boys just finished a repeat of a great series on American Religion that speaks to these issues of legalism, adding to the gospel, the cult of abstinence. I believe the last four weeks have been on this theme. Take a listen.

http://www.oneplace.com/Ministries/The_White_Horse_Inn/Default.asp


----------



## blhowes

[b:24be3f6a95]Bob wrote:[/b:24be3f6a95]
The White Horse Inn boys just finished a repeat of a great series on American Religion that speaks to these issues of legalism, adding to the gospel, the cult of abstinence. I believe the last four weeks have been on this theme. Take a listen. 

Headphones are on. Thanks.
Bob


----------



## a mere housewife

Bob said:
[quote:22dc46a295]
Which are uglier cigars or cigarettes? Careful how you answer, as this thread may be in danger of being closed. I didn't think the thread would deteriorate so quickly. 
[/quote:22dc46a295]

hmmm, well.... Let's just say, it begins with a &quot;c&quot; and ends with an &quot;s&quot;... 

Another thing that I find helpful to pegging down the idea behind &quot;moderation&quot; is to think of moderation in a different context-- for instance, in the context of dessert. If I had three pieces of cake, would I (or anyone) consider that I'd been moderate? Is my moderation going to be shown before all men if my attitude is to have as much as I can eat/drink before getting stuffed/drunk? Is God really glorified 3 x as much by three pieces of dessert, or is 1 piece not sufficient to enjoy His good gifts, and thank Him for them? I think that approach will also tie in with being good stewards of our health (long-term).


----------



## blhowes

[b:2cb51169c2]Heidi wrote:[/b:2cb51169c2]
hmmm, well.... Let's just say, it begins with a &quot;c&quot; and ends with an &quot;s&quot;... 

Glad you cleared that up.


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot

Yes, as was mentioned above, true liberty involves both the freedom to partake as well as the freedom to refrain as appropriate and either way to the glory of God.

To speak broadly, the primary danger in this area that I see outside the Church is the tendency abuse God's gifts by drunkeness, licentiousness, etc. The primary danger I see within the Church is the tendency to overreact to the excess of unbelievers and fear even a moderate use of God's gifts. To call smoking or drinking a sin per se (ie., without regards to the context), for example, is to condemn something that God has not condemned, but (at least in the case of drinking) has specifically approved/blessed in His Word. This is legalism -- ie., adding to God's commandments a requirement (temperance or abstention) that He is not the author of. We must be as careful not to condemn that which God allows as we must be to not abuse the gifts that He grants to us in His mercy and goodness.


----------



## a mere housewife

VirginiaHugenot said:
[quote:0b4b4870ec]
This is legalism -- ie., adding to God's commandments a requirement (temperance or abstention) that He is not the author of. 
[/quote:0b4b4870ec]

I absolutely agree that it is wrong to add to God's commandments, but I do think that legalism involves a &quot;legal&quot; standing with God. A person can believe that the Bible gives us no right to drink, and yet not believe that their Christian brother who drinks is any less saved, or any less legally righteous or favored before God. In this case, he is not a &quot;legalist&quot;. I believe this is supported by the NT's condemnation of those who wanted to impose certain commands, etc: they were teaching that we have to do this to earn God's favor-- to buttress our legal standing. The &quot;bondage&quot; we are not to return to is a bondage of thinking that these things earn us anything with God. If there are Scriptures to the contrary, please correct me.

Bob, I'm glad I was able to clear things up with those incisive words.


----------



## blhowes

Bob (Maxdetail),
I enjoyed the message. I thought it was funny what they said about Archibald Alexander. He didn't like the taste of fermented beverages, but when the Methodists came to town and said that abstinance from drinking alcohol was a mark of sanctification, he felt that it was his duty and obligation to drink a fermented beverage right in front of them.

Reformed folks sure are funny sometimes.

Bob


----------



## blhowes

[img:e7adbf5eee]http://www.cartoonstock.com/lowres/pwo0063l.jpg[/img:e7adbf5eee]

Couldn't resist...OK, I'm serious again...


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot

Heidi,

Legalism involves adding requirements for holiness that God does not command. The classic passage teaching this is Matthew 15:1-9. The language of Jesus is very clear that such teaching leads to hypocrisy, the Biblical definition of which is replacing God's holiness with one's own. 

If a person believes that drinking an alcoholic beverage is sinful and that abstinence is a mark of sanctification (such as the Methodist type referenced below), that is legalism because God does not teach in His Word that drinking an alcoholic beverage per se is sinful. Without addressing the many Scriptures which teach that wine is good, it should be also noted that Paul in many epistles warns against those who teach that holiness requires a certain kind of abstinence (see Col. 2:16-23 or I Tim. 4:3). Such errors lead us away from the precious truth that God alone is Lord of the conscience. If one falsely thinks they are pleasing God or demonstrating sanctification by obeying a law (ie., completely abstaining from alcohol) that He does not command, then I submit that this situation is a perfect modern example of the legalism. 

This does mean, of course, that everyone has to drink wine daily to honor God's gift. People are free to do as they like (to the glory of God). That's part of the essence of Christian liberty. I do believe that the regulative principle of worship, however, requires the use of wine, not grape juice, in the Lord's Supper. A person who disagrees and refuses to partake of the Lord's Supper using wine has become like a Pharisee of old, supplanting the commandment of God with his own misguided conscience. In this case, it is not merely the enjoyment of an alcoholic beverage that is at stake, but adherence to the sacrament instituted by the Lord Himself.

Legalism, the adding of men's commandments to what God has commanded, always has the effect of replacing or supplanting God's law. This is what Jesus warns against in Matthew 15. It is a warning as relevant today as it was back then.

~Andrew


----------



## panicbird

[quote:71da243dbe][i:71da243dbe]Originally posted by VirginiaHuguenot[/i:71da243dbe]
This does mean, of course, that everyone has to drink wine daily to honor God's gift. [/quote:71da243dbe]

I think you forgot a &quot;not&quot; in there (at least, I hope you did!). I do not mean to nitpick or anything. I just found it humorous that, in a discussion on legalism, you had such a slip of the keyboard.

:bs2::bs2::bs2::bs2:

Lon


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot

Oooops! Thanks for catching that! Yes, that's ironic...!


----------



## a mere housewife

Andrew, thank you for the references: I looked them up &amp; read them in context, and looked up the remarks on my husband's Calvin cd. The passages you quoted definitely do support the position that is wrong, unBiblical-- disobedient to the word and corrupting of the pure gosel- to teach that holiness lies in outward observances that Scripture has not imposed on us.

My problem comes in because I know many godly people who believe that Scripture itself has imposed the non-alcohol requirement on us. They are not setting themselves up as judges, or (purposefully) as teachers of a standard other than Scripture. 

I agree that a lot of people who hold that the Bible tells us not to drink alcohol do it in such a way that they make holiness to be outward, and they make themselves the judges of it. This is what the passages warn against: allowing ourselves to be judged or hoodwinked by such people. But I believe that there are many others, especially in the reformed community, who would feel that the Bible forbids alchohol, but avoid this error because their own holiness is genuine: they know it is a matter of the heart, not the hemline: they appropriate the pure gospel over their sins every day. I think we sometimes impose an inverted form of &quot;legalistic&quot; thinking toward these people, and feel that their holiness must be bound up in what they conscientiously forbid.

If we don't acknowledge that people will have differing interpretations of scripture without falling into the heresy of perverting the gospel in this area, then we have to call all those who believe in headcoverings legalists (if we disagree with them) because they believe Scripture commands this observance, and obviously if you think the Bible commands something, you think a neglect of it is sin. This would enter into the baptist/paedobaptist debate as well.

So I do still think that there is a legal aspect to legalism: it is a heresy that involves doctrine. But perhaps what I said originally wasn't wide enough-- the verses you quote would indicate that when we set ourselves up as judges, we are then dragging in the legal aspect: we are at least &quot;acting&quot; legalists, acting as if the person's legal standing was bound up in outward ordinances. We are not to submit ourselves to that kind of judgment (though submitting ourselves to be judged and submitting ourselves, in Christian charity, to refrain from some liberty or other are different things). 

But would you say that A) a person who acts that way inconsistent with what he believes is guilty of being the same kind of heretic as a person who believes that way?

that B) a person who doesn't even act that way, but still believes that alcoholic beverages are forbidden by Scripture, is perverting the gospel, and is to be dealt with as a &quot;legalist.&quot;


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot

Heidi,

Thanks for your feedback and your questions. In my personal opinion, there are several ways to respond. 

Before I do so, however, I'll mention a personal aside. I too know many godly people that object to the use of alcohol on &quot;Scriptural&quot; grounds. In fact, I recently left a denomination that has many such folks, some who are very dear to me (the RPCNA). In that denomination, generally and Synodically speaking, wine in the Lord's Super is frowned upon. (I did not leave the RPCNA over this issue, I hasten to add, although it was personally problematic.) So I know the concern of having dear, Reformed brethren who honestly but mistakenly believe that the Bible prohibits alcoholic beverages.

I think that there misguided consciences are leading them to a sinful, legalistic position. It is an area that I pray for them about and would gladly discuss it in a way that I hope would be mutually edifying. It's hard for me to draw the distinction that you seem to have in mind with your question. I try not to make judgments about people who hold like I do to the Westminster Confession of Faith sincerely. In this case, such a person and I may differ about the application of the Christian liberty principle, but we agree that the principle exists. 

Likewise, I have encountered the headcovering issue that you mentioned as well, and I have had some dear friends who believed they should be worn by women perpetually (inside and outside of public worship) as well as those who would never wear headcovering at all (my view is that women should wear them in public worship). 

There are lots of issues upon which Reformed Christians may disagree, and we can't all be right. The erroneous view is a legalistic one, I think, regardless of the motives of the person who holds to it, just as there are well-intentioned antinomians on the other side of every debate. 

Nevertheless, my really big concern is not with the invidividual who holds to a stricter requirement than God commands, but with the Church that does so. In my experience, friendly debates and discussions over issues can be profitable; reformation in the Church (ie., correcting official doctrinal errors) is mandated. If a Church specifically condemns the use of alcohol per se, as many do, then I think legalism has taken hold and must be uprooted by reference to God's Word and the WCF XX. Does this make sense?

~Andrew


----------



## a mere housewife

Andrew, that does make sense: I guess I do find it necessary to separate people whose doctrine is legalistic from people who simply hold to a different interpretation of practice from Scripture than I do-- it is the difference between perverting the gospel and loving the gospel.

I was wondering how Acts 15 fits into all of this: the Jerusalem council was called because of people who were teaching legalism: that the gentiles had to be circumcised to be converted. The council ends up by deciding that this is not the gospel, but by decreeing that the Gentiles should practice abstinence in some areas:

&quot;Wherefore my sentence is, that we trouble not them, which from among the Gentiles are turned to God: 20 But that we write unto them, that they abstain from pollutions of idols, and from fornication, and from things strangled, and from blood.&quot; 

Fornication is obvious: I can see pollutions of idols... (though elsewhere weren't they give the liberty to eat such things, if they didn't inquire about them?) What about things strangled and blood? I think one of them refers back to the OT (though I can't remember which one) but at least one of them seems more-- arbitrary. As if they are imposing on the Gentiles an [i:2f7d1ea39a]application[/i:2f7d1ea39a] of some Biblical command (such as the law of charity), rather than the Biblical command itself.

I'm not sure about what I'm saying here, but I do think Acts 15 has to play into this-- though we are really off Bob's topic now, aren't we? I'm sorry, Bob. Maybe we should start another thread? (I don't have much more to contribute: I just want to understand from others how Acts 15 fits in.)

At the very least, the same apostles that warned against people forbidding meats in another context forbad meats themselves in this one... yet this is certainly not given to us as an example of ecclesiastical legalism. How does this reconcile?

[Edited on 7-1-2004 by a mere housewife]


----------



## blhowes

[b:c4c6a5e8da]Heidi wrote:[/b:c4c6a5e8da]
...though we are really off Bob's topic now, aren't we? I'm sorry, Bob

Not to worry. I'm the outdoors type of guy (not really), and I love rabbit trails. Its always interesting to see where they finally end up.

Bob


----------



## ReformedWretch

[quote:9cf47de50d]
I do believe that the regulative principle of worship, however, requires the use of wine, not grape juice, in the Lord's Supper. A person who disagrees and refuses to partake of the Lord's Supper using wine has become like a Pharisee of old, supplanting the commandment of God with his own misguided conscience. In this case, it is not merely the enjoyment of an alcoholic beverage that is at stake, but adherence to the sacrament instituted by the Lord Himself. 
[/quote:9cf47de50d]

What about an alcoholic who is now sober? He then could not take the Lord's supper?


----------



## py3ak

Some wise words by Charles Hodge on a relevant passage from I Corinthians:


[quote:8478fe41c8]
29, 30. Conscience, I say, not thine own, but of the other: for why is my liberty judged of another (man's) conscience? For it I by grace be a partaker, why am I evil spoken of for that for which I give thanks?

As in the preceding vs. 25, 27 the word conscience refers to one's own conscience, to prevent its being so understood in v. 28, Paul adds the explanation, 'Conscience, I say, not thine own, but of the other's.' That is, 'I do not mean your conscience, but the conscience of the man who warned you not to eat.' For why is my liberty judged of another man's conscience? These and the words following admit of three interpretations.

1. If connected with the preceding clause, they must give the reason why Paul meant "the conscience of the other."'Conscience I say, not one's own, but of the other; for why is my liberty (or conscience) to be judged by another man's conscience? if I eat with thanksgiving (and with a good conscience, why am I blamed?') The obvious objection to this interpretation is, that it exalts a subordinate clause into the principal matter. It was plain enough that Paul did not mean the man's own conscience, and therefore it is unnecessary to take up two verses to prove that he did not. Besides, this interpretation makes the apostle change sides. He has from the beginning been speaking in behalf of the weak. This interpretation makes him here speak almost in terms of indignation in behalf of the strong, who certainly need no advocate. They did not require to be told that their liberty was not to be restricted by the scruples of the weak.

2. A much better sense is obtained by connecting this passage with the 28th verse. 'Do not eat out of regard to the conscience of your brother; for why should my (your) liberty be judged (i.e. condemned) by another conscience; why should I be blamed for what I receive with thanksgiving?' That is, why should I make such a use of my liberty as to give offense? This brings the passage into harmony with the whole context, and connects it with the main idea of the preceding verse, and not with an intermediate and subordinate clause. The very thing the apostle has in view is to induce the strong to respect the scruples of the weak. They might eat of sacrificial meat at private tables with freedom, so far as they themselves were concerned; but why, he asks, should they do it so as to give offense, and cause the weak to condemn and speak evil of them.

3. This passage is by some commentators regarded as the language of an objector, and not as that of the apostle. The strong, when told not to eat on account of the conscience of a weak brother, might ask, 'Why is my liberty judged by another's conscience - why should I be blamed for what I receive with thanksgiving?' (The 'gar', according to this view, is not for, but intensive, why then.) This gives a very good sense, but it is not consistent with the following verse (which is connected with v. 30 by 'ouv', and not by 'de'). 

Paul does not go on to answer that objection, but considers the whole matter settled. The second interpretation is the only one consistent alike with what precedes and with what follows. 'Do not eat when cautioned not to do so; for why should you so use your liberty as to incur censure? Whether therefore you eat or drink, do all for the glory of God.' Why is my liberty judged, i.e. judged unfavorably or condemned. If I by grace am a partaker; literally, if I partake with thanksgiving. The word, grace, is here used in the sense of gratia, thanks, as in the common phrase to say grace. See Luke 6:32, 1 Timothy 1:12, etc.
[/quote:8478fe41c8]


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot

Regarding the question of an &quot;alcoholic&quot; who wishes to partake of the Lord's Supper where wine is used, that man should seek counsel from the Session, but yes, he should keep the Lord's commandment and I am sure that he would be blessed for it. The amount of alcohol used in the Lord's Supper is so small anyway, I don't think it is a reasonable concern. I think the question presupposes a false idea that an &quot;alcoholic&quot; is someone who can never be cured of the inordinate desire for alcohol. This is a modern, secular understanding of what the Bible refers to as a &quot;drunkard,&quot; and does not consider the work of the Holy Spirit in freeing a man from that sin. And that's what it is -- ie., sin, not a disease.

In much the same way, a man who is prone to break the Seventh Commandment should not be discouraged from marriage, but rather encouraged (with counsel). Marriage is a help. Likewise, keeping God's commandment with respect to the use of wine in the Lord's Supper results in a sacramental means of grace that may be a great blessing to the man who has been in bondage to alcohol.


----------



## Contra_Mundum




----------



## fredtgreco

[quote:85dcf2432a][i:85dcf2432a]Originally posted by a mere housewife[/i:85dcf2432a]
Andrew, that does make sense: I guess I do find it necessary to separate people whose doctrine is legalistic from people who simply hold to a different interpretation of practice from Scripture than I do-- it is the difference between perverting the gospel and loving the gospel.

I was wondering how Acts 15 fits into all of this: the Jerusalem council was called because of people who were teaching legalism: that the gentiles had to be circumcised to be converted. The council ends up by deciding that this is not the gospel, but by decreeing that the Gentiles should practice abstinence in some areas:

&quot;Wherefore my sentence is, that we trouble not them, which from among the Gentiles are turned to God: 20 But that we write unto them, that they abstain from pollutions of idols, and from fornication, and from things strangled, and from blood.&quot; 

Fornication is obvious: I can see pollutions of idols... (though elsewhere weren't they give the liberty to eat such things, if they didn't inquire about them?) What about things strangled and blood? I think one of them refers back to the OT (though I can't remember which one) but at least one of them seems more-- arbitrary. As if they are imposing on the Gentiles an [i:85dcf2432a]application[/i:85dcf2432a] of some Biblical command (such as the law of charity), rather than the Biblical command itself.

I'm not sure about what I'm saying here, but I do think Acts 15 has to play into this-- though we are really off Bob's topic now, aren't we? I'm sorry, Bob. Maybe we should start another thread? (I don't have much more to contribute: I just want to understand from others how Acts 15 fits in.)

At the very least, the same apostles that warned against people forbidding meats in another context forbad meats themselves in this one... yet this is certainly not given to us as an example of ecclesiastical legalism. How does this reconcile?

[Edited on 7-1-2004 by a mere housewife] [/quote:85dcf2432a]

An important quick point though, is that &quot;legalism&quot; is perhaps the most misunderstood theological term today. It does not mean, as I think Andrew implies, a stricter interpretation of Scriptural commands or laws than another person's. It means that one believes that one is [i:85dcf2432a]justified[/i:85dcf2432a] by the keeping of commands. 

This is a critical distinction - since if one advocates complete abstinence and yet at the same time does not say that abistinence is required foir salvation, then one can be unbiblical and unwise, but not a legalist.

That is why we have Paul acting in a &quot;contrary&quot; fashion in Acts 16:3, where he circumcises Timothy and Gal. 2:3, where he does not circumcise Titus. Where it is simply a matter of opening doors (and minds) to the gospel by pulling down artificial barriers, Paul will oblige. Where it is insisted upon as a requirement of justification, Paul would rather die than submit.

I think this is instructive in how we view Acts 15 (remember that part of Acts 15 talks about circumcision, and one of the first things Paul does is circumcise his assistant!)


----------



## blhowes

[b:c881b9a54d]Fred wrote:[/b:c881b9a54d]
This is a critical distinction - since if one advocates complete abstinence and yet at the same time does not say that abistinence is required foir salvation, then one can be unbiblical and unwise, but not a legalist. 

Good point. 

Sometimes its difficult to make that distinction. On the one hand, some people [b:c881b9a54d]say[/b:c881b9a54d] that they believe that a person is saved by grace and that abstaining from drinking, smoking, seeing movies, etc., is just evidence of the sanctification process. On the other hand, they also look at those same individuals and wonder if they're really saved - if they really got saved, would they be doing x, y, and z? 

Bob


----------



## Ianterrell

Bob,

Some friends and I have a WCF study we're doing. Afterwards we go to the pub for beer and burgers.


----------



## blhowes

[b:a91596a6c3]Ian wrote:[/b:a91596a6c3]
Some friends and I have a WCF study we're doing. Afterwards we go to the pub for beer and burgers. 

 Ian, I'm shocked!!! Hasn't anybody ever told you that burgers aren't good for you! They're way to greasy and they're bad for your cholestorol!

Please reconsider what you're doing to yourself. 

Bob

[Edited on 7-2-2004 by blhowes]


----------



## Ianterrell

They were pretty greasy actually, and medium rare too.


----------



## blhowes

[b:b6a17d5d9b]Ian wrote:[/b:b6a17d5d9b]
They were pretty greasy actually, and medium rare too. 

Ian, Ian, Ian!

Maybe if you drank more of the beers you wouldn't be hungry for those awful grease burgers. Just a suggestion. Hope it helps.
Bob

[Edited on 7-2-2004 by blhowes]


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot

Fred,

Thanks for your input. I'm afraid I don't know how to clip quotes but I'll refer readers to your earlier post. 

I appreciate the distinction you are making. If it holds, that's fine with me. However, permit me to explore it further. If a person is convinced that to drink is sin and sees another believer enjoying their liberty to drink alcohol, will they not see that brother as going on in impenitent sin? And if so, will they not have reason to question that person's salvation? And does this not equate to legalism?

Also, Matthew 15, which I take to be the classic passage on legalism, makes no reference to justification. It does speak to the danger of supplanting God's commandments with the traditions of men which bind consciences in error. 

You're right, of course, that the definition of legalism is crucial. If I have misunderstood it, I stand corrected. But the definition that I am operating under is that it involves adding man's requirements to the holiness of God, whether for purposes of justification or sanctification.

~Andrew


----------



## a mere housewife

Mr. Greco's post clarified things for me, too-- it seems that we ought to read the other passages in the light of salvation, as elsewhere the apostles themselves required abstinence/circumcision in non-salvific controversies.

Andrew, I understand your dilemma: I've often struggled with that kind of dilemma myself. But I think it helps to realise that the definition of impenitence is willfully persisting in known sin. We all &quot;persist&quot; in unknown sins daily-- I've understood David's prayer &quot;cleanse thou me from secret sins&quot; to be a confession of and a repentance for these things. I think this is the attitude of those who understand the gospel: that God would forgive us not only our known sins for Christ's sake, but our unknown ones as well, because from head to foot, there is no soundness in us. We all continue sinning in ignorance (and I am ashamed to say that I even often continue sinning not in ignorance); but we are not unrepentant. I think it is the principle of charity that we assume the other person to be broken over their corruption as a whole before God.

I'm not sure of what I'm about to say because I'm not an exegete, and I would really like to know what others think of the Matthew passage: but when I read the Matthew passage yesterday, my thoughts were that it didn't speak to the issue of erring believers so much as the other passages you quoted, because the people Jesus was addressing had no understanding of His person, or of His teaching. They had added to God's laws for salvation itself. They were teaching that God required these things for moral perfection, and moral perfection was all they had to stand on: they didn't acknowledge the Saviour, though He was physically speaking to them.


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia

> _Originally posted by Ianterrell_
> They were pretty greasy actually, and medium rare too.



He's eating strangled blood!!! Get him!! :bigsmile:


----------



## Ivan

The title of this thread reminds me of a little ditty we use to kid ourselves about as Baptist youth:

I don't smoke,
And I don't chew,
And I don't go 
With girls that do!


----------



## Peter

The irony about Fundamentalist legalism (admittedly we are being loose with the word) is that its an antinominian relativistic legalism. They believe in discontinuity between the OT and NT so they deny the perpetuity of the Mosaic Law yet in its absense they impose rigid yet unwarrented culturally relative standards. Which actually fits well with their concept of a fickle God who changes from dispensation to dispensation. See "House Divided."

On the other hand, Greg mentions Acts 15. The council of Jerusalem temporarily suspended some of our liberties under the Gospel for the sake of those Christian Jews who were offended by the most repugnantly anti-Jewish practices of the converts. In some situations perhaps it would also be fiting for us to conform to the "legalists" for the sake of unity. For example, some ministers in the RPCNA remain steadfastly pro-temperance. Dont you think it would've been wise to keep the anti-alcohol prohibition until they die?

[Edited on 16-1-2005 by Peter]


----------



## RamistThomist

Whenever you deny the law of God you posit cultural mores as the absolute standard for right and wrong.


----------



## daveb

> _Originally posted by Ivan_
> The title of this thread reminds me of a little ditty we use to kid ourselves about as Baptist youth:
> 
> I don't smoke,
> And I don't chew,
> And I don't go
> With girls that do!



Another variation of that diddy is:

Don't smoke, drink, dance or chew
And stay away from girls who do!


----------



## street preacher

Legalism is when we do things to gain favor from the Lord. Obedience is when we do things because the Lord says to and not because we are trying to gain favor with the Lord, and because we already have salvation. We also need to avoid the appearance of evil. I have a drink every once in a while. But we need to be careful.


----------



## ReformedWretch

> _Originally posted by Draught Horse_
> Whenever you deny the law of God you posit cultural mores as the absolute standard for right and wrong.



Excellent answer!!


----------



## Me Died Blue

> _Originally posted by blhowes_
> Well, I've gotta go now. My beer's getting cold and its time to get another cigar.



Bob, _surely_ you're not implying that you like your beer lukewarm!


----------



## Peter

In my experience, Americans are the only people who actually drink beer cold.


----------



## gwine

I rather like beer closer to room temperature. Of course, it needs to be better than the swill that my sister's boyfriend drinks. Robert the Bruce from 3 Floyds is a good choice.


----------



## gwine

Or Moose Drool from Big Sky.


----------



## blhowes

> _Originally posted by Me Died Blue_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by blhowes_
> Well, I've gotta go now. My beer's getting cold and its time to get another cigar.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bob, _surely_ you're not implying that you like your beer lukewarm!
Click to expand...


[laughing at myself]
 Oops! I guess that didn't come out exactly as intended. Good catch! 
[/laughing at myself]

[Edited on 1-16-2005 by blhowes]


----------



## blhowes

While I'm thinking of it, I was wondering if anybody had any incites into the meaning of Psalm 104:15. 

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

I don't know if there's anybody still on the board who reads 'wine' in the scriptures as being essentially non-alcoholic grape juice, but I'd be interested in hearing your thoughts especially...and those who think wine means wines too.

I was reading Psalm 104 in my daily Bible reading last week, picturing in my mind all the things mentioned that God created, just marveling at God's hand in His creation. When I read verse 15 it seemed interesting that wine would be included along with the rest of the things mentioned. I thought that if the wine is essentially grape juice, I couldn't see how it would make my heart glad (I like grape juice, but it doesn't really do anything for me-any more than a ham sandwich would). If it was alcoholic wine, I was wondering if making the heart glad had anything at all to do with the effects of alcohol (catching a buzz) or if it meant something else. 

What are your thoughts about that verse?


----------



## Ivan

> _Originally posted by blhowes_
> 
> Psa 104:15 And wine that maketh glad the heart of man, and oil to make his face to shine, and bread which strengtheneth man's heart.
> 
> If it was alcoholic wine, I was wondering if making the heart glad had anything at all to do with the effects of alcohol (catching a buzz) or if it meant something else.
> 
> What are your thoughts about that verse?



I wonder what Calvin had to say about this verse...I'm sure much. Andrew? 

Wine has medicinal qualities to it, including helping the heart function better. Maybe it has something to do with that. Paul told Timothy to have a little wine for his stomach's sake. Obviously, people in the past used wine for only purposes than just the pleasure of drinking.

God does want us to enjoy life too. If wine brings you pleasure, in a God-honoring way, then we certainly are glad. I'd be a bit careful with the "buzz". Please, only in the confides of your home or with a designated driver.

BTW, wine and beer both gave me a headache, wine more so than beer. Maybe I'm not drinking the right kind of wine, eh? I don't think I've had a glass of wine for over half a year and only a couple of beer within that period.

I guess I'll have to find my gladness elsewhere.


----------



## gwine

> I guess I'll have to find my gladness elsewhere.



Psalm 37:4 (ESV)

Delight yourself in the LORD,
and he will give you the desires of your heart.

Psalm 100:2 (ESV)

Serve the LORD with gladness!
Come into his presence with singing!

and the list goes on and on

Where else can we find true happiness?


----------



## Ivan

> _Originally posted by gwine_
> 
> 
> 
> I guess I'll have to find my gladness elsewhere.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Psalm 37:4 (ESV)
> 
> Delight yourself in the LORD,
> and he will give you the desires of your heart.
> 
> Psalm 100:2 (ESV)
> 
> Serve the LORD with gladness!
> Come into his presence with singing!
> 
> and the list goes on and on
> 
> Where else can we find true happiness?
Click to expand...


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot

> _Originally posted by Ivan_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by blhowes_
> 
> Psa 104:15 And wine that maketh glad the heart of man, and oil to make his face to shine, and bread which strengtheneth man's heart.
> 
> If it was alcoholic wine, I was wondering if making the heart glad had anything at all to do with the effects of alcohol (catching a buzz) or if it meant something else.
> 
> What are your thoughts about that verse?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I wonder what Calvin had to say about this verse...I'm sure much. Andrew?
Click to expand...


Calvin had an excellent perspective on the use of wine. His salary in Geneva included 250 gallons of wine annually. Calvin wrote in the Institutes: "We are nowhere forbidden to laugh, or to be satisfied with food...or to be delighted with music, or to drink wine." Calvin says that the miracle at the wedding feast in Cana by our Lord resulted in the "most excellent wine." And "Calvin would spend his private moments on Lake Geneva and read scripture while drinking red wine" (see: 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Calvin)



> Calvin laid down two basic conditions for drinking. First, it must be moderate, "lest men forget themselves, drown their senses, and destroy their strength." His second consideration may surprise the ignorant and even shock the pietist; he argued that "in making merry," those who enjoy wine "feel a livelier gratitude to God." Calvin certainly was no spoilsport. As historian Will Durant noted in _The Reformation_, "He bade his followers be cheerful, play harmless games like bowling or quoits, and enjoy wine in moderation."
> 
> Source: _Drinking With Calvin and Luther_, Jim West, p. 53



Here's Calvin's take on this verse:



> 15. And wine that cheereth the heart of man. In these words we are taught, that God not only provides for men's necessity, and bestows upon them as much as is sufficient for the ordinary purposes of life, but that in his goodness he deals still more bountifully with them by cheering their hearts with wine and oil. Nature would certainly be satisfied with water to drink; and therefore the addition of wine is owing to God's superabundant liberality. The expression, and oil to make his face to shine, has been explained in different ways. As sadness spreads a gloom over the countenance, some give this exposition, That when men enjoy the commodities of wine and oil, their faces shine with gladness. Some with more refinement of interpretation, but without foundation, refer this to lamps. Others, considering the letter m, mem to be the sign of the comparative degree, take the meaning to be, that wine makes men's faces shine more than if they were anointed with oil. But the prophet, I have no doubt, speaks of unguents, intimating that God not only bestows upon men what is sufficient for their moderate use, but that he goes beyond this, giving them even their delicacies.
> 
> The words in the last clause, and bread that sustains man's heart, I interpret thus: Bread would be sufficient to support the life of man, but God over and above, to use a common expression, bestows upon them wine and oil. The repetition then of the purpose which bread serves is not superfluous: it is employed to commend to us the goodness of God in his tenderly and abundantly nourishing men as a kind-hearted father does his children. For this reason, it is here stated again, that as God shows himself a foster-father sufficiently bountiful in providing bread, his liberality appears still more conspicuous in giving us dainties.
> 
> But as there is nothing to which we are more prone, than to abuse God's benefits by giving way to excess, the more bountiful he is towards men, the more ought they to take care not to pollute, by their intemperance, the abundance which is presented before them. Paul had therefore good reason for giving that prohibition, (Romans 13:14)
> 
> "Make not provision for the flesh, to fulfill the lusts thereof;"
> 
> for if we give full scope to the desires of the flesh, there will be no bounds. As God bountifully provides for us, so he has appointed a law of temperance, that each may voluntarily restrain himself in his abundance. He sends out oxen and asses into pastures, and they content themselves with a sufficiency; but while furnishing us with more than we need, he enjoins upon us an observance of the rules of moderation, that we may not voraciously devour his benefits; and in lavishing upon us a more abundant supply of good things than our necessities require, he puts our moderation to the test. The proper rule with respect to the use of bodily sustenance, is to partake of it that it may sustain, but not oppress us. The mutual communication of the things needful for the support of the body, which God has enjoined upon us, is a very good check to intemperance; for the condition upon which the rich are favored with their abundance is, that they should relieve the wants of their brethren. As the prophet in this account of the divine goodness in providence makes no reference to the excesses of men, we gather from his words that it is lawful to use wine not only in cases of necessity, but also thereby to make us merry. This mirth must however be tempered with sobriety, first, that men may not forget themselves, drown their senses, and destroy their strength, but rejoice before their God, according to the injunction of Moses, (Leviticus 23:40; ) and, secondly, that they may exhilarate their minds under a sense of gratitude, so as to be rendered more active in the service of God. He who rejoices in this way will also be always prepared to endure sadness, whenever God is pleased to send it. That rule of Paul ought to be kept in mind, (Philippians 4:12,)
> 
> "I have learned to abound, -- I have learned to suffer want."
> 
> If some token of the divine anger is manifest, even he who has an overflowing abundance of all kinds of dainty food, will restrict himself in his diet knowing that he is called to put on sackcloth, and to sit among ashes. Much more ought he whom poverty compels to be temperate and sober, to abstain from such delicacies. In short, if one man is constrained to abstain from wine by sickness, if another has only vapid wine, and a third nothing but water, let each be content with his own lot, and willingly and submissively wean himself from those gratifications which God denies him.
> 
> The same remarks apply to oil. We see from this passage that ointments were much in use among the Jews, as well as among the other eastern nations. At the present day, it is different with us, who rather keep ointments for medicinal purposes, than use them as articles of luxury. The prophet, however, says, that oil also is given to men, that they may anoint themselves therewith. But as men are too prone to pleasure, it is to be observed, that the law of temperance ought not to be separated from the beneficence of God, lest they abuse their liberty by indulging in luxurious excess. This exception must always be added, that no person may take encouragement from this doctrine to licentiousness.
> 
> Moreover, when men have been carefully taught to bridle their lust, it is important for them to know, that God permits them to enjoy pleasures in moderation, where there is the ability to provide them; else they will never partake even of bread and wine with a tranquil conscience; yea, they will begin to scruple about the tasting of water, at least they will never come to the table but in fearfulness. Meanwhile, the greater part of the world will wallow in pleasures without discrimination, because they do not consider what God permits them; for his fatherly kindness should be to us the best mistress to teach us moderation.


----------



## turmeric

I have a question - it has been addressed before but it seemed the answers were not based on actual experience. I have friends I would like to invite to my homegroup but some of the members have just discovered that it's okay to drink beer, so they do it alot, and the people I want to invite have not yet learned to deal with their intemperance. I don't want to tempt a weaker brother or sister to sin.

BTW; I have the same problem with food that these people do with alcohol.


----------



## Ivan

> Calvin laid down two basic conditions for drinking. First, it must be moderate, "lest men forget themselves, drown their senses, and destroy their strength." His second consideration may surprise the ignorant and even shock the pietist; he argued that "in making merry," those who enjoy wine "feel a livelier gratitude to God." Calvin certainly was no spoilsport. As historian Will Durant noted in _The Reformation_, "He bade his followers be cheerful, play harmless games like bowling or quoits, and enjoy wine in moderation."



So Calvin was a fun guy!! 



> The words in the last clause, and bread that sustains man's heart, I interpret thus: Bread would be sufficient to support the life of man, but God over and above, to use a common expression, bestows upon them wine and oil. The repetition then of the purpose which bread serves is not superfluous: it is employed to commend to us the goodness of God in his tenderly and abundantly nourishing men as a kind-hearted father does his children. For this reason, it is here stated again, that as God shows himself a foster-father sufficiently bountiful in providing bread, his liberality appears still more conspicuous in giving us dainties.




What a beautiful thought. The bounty of the Lord is for us to enjoy. He is a "kind-hearted father". Indeed. Though father and mother forsake us, the LORD will sustain us!




> In short, if one man is constrained to abstain from wine by sickness, if another has only vapid wine, and a third nothing but water, let each be content with his own lot, and willingly and submissively wean himself from those gratifications which God denies him.



Yes, we are to be contend with our lot in life. What we have is what the LORD has given us....blessed be the Name of the LORD!




> Meanwhile, the greater part of the world will wallow in pleasures without discrimination, because they do not consider what God permits them; for his fatherly kindness should be to us the best mistress to teach us moderation.



Therefore, we are to be an example to the world. All things in moderation!


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot




----------



## blhowes

> _Originally posted by Ivan_
> Wine has medicinal qualities to it, including helping the heart function better. Maybe it has something to do with that. Paul told Timothy to have a little wine for his stomach's sake. Obviously, people in the past used wine for only purposes than just the pleasure of drinking.


I've heard the same is also true about regular grape juice. Is that true?

Andrew,
Thanks for the quotes and information about Calvin on this topic. 250 gallons/year? Its amazing that you can drink that much wine and still be drinking in moderation. That's like 2/3 of a gallon per day.


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot

> _Originally posted by blhowes_
> Andrew,
> Thanks for the quotes and information about Calvin on this topic. 250 gallons/year? Its amazing that you can drink that much wine and still be drinking in moderation. That's like 2/3 of a gallon per day.



Well, from our earlier discussion about how much beer the average 16th-17th century Englishman consumed (a gallon a day) and how much beer the Pilgrims brought with them on the Mayflower (they brought 42 tuns of beer [tun = 252 gallons], 10,000 gallons of wine, a minimum of 7,560 gallons of malt for brewing, and 14 tuns of fresh water -- not counting private supplies of the same -- and ran out of the beer before the water) I would not be surprised if Calvin personally drank every drop of wine that the Geneva Council paid him. However, it is also most likely that he entertained guests frequently and served wine upon such occasions. He was also married for a time, don't forget!


----------



## gwine

I think the value is in the skin.

The deep, beautiful purple-red color of red wine is produced by a substance called anthocyanin, which is found in the skin of the grape. Anthocyanin is one of the four main groups of chemicals that together are called flavonoids. Flavonoids are found in many plants and especially in deeply colored fruits and vegetables.

However, Dr. Ceriello also believes that the antioxidant power of flavonoid-rich foods such as red wine, apples, onions, green tea, and other deeply colored foods may protect against the causes of oxidative damage when they are consumed daily as part of a healthy lifestyle. Only future research will settle this matter for good.

You can read the article at

http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0817/is_6_57/ai_n6019757


----------



## Puritanhead

Actually, I kind of gotten where I don't watch most TV shows... I don't chalk up to my being ultra-sanctified with a halo over my head. I consider most stuff on the idiot box rather unprofitable and utterly stupid. I used to watch Comedy Central on occasion with friends and reflected how unedifying and foolish the bulk of the humor is on there.

Cigarette smoking to me is repugnant, and yeah our body is the temple of the Holy Spirit. I have on occasion smoked a good cigar with a buddy, and won't goad someone for it, but very rarely. I kind of pity the sad state of people that have to go run and get drunk every weekend to feel that their week is somehow redeemed... the so called weekend warriors. I don't regret that I spend many nights reading rather than consuming large quantities of alcohol and killing brain cells with so called friends. I don't like the company one finds themself in-- typically when alcohol is consumed. However, I dislike seeing believers scold someone for drinking a measily beer.

Frankly, I do think the fundamentalist legalism is a bit asinine, but from my vantage point, libertinism and professed Christians who take the world into a gentle embrace is much more of a problem. Christian liberty is not a license to sin. It's a personal race, and I can only vouch for myself... I've done my share of stupid things.

_Be Holy for I Am Holy_

[Edited on 2-20-2005 by Puritanhead]


----------



## Puritanhead

Recalling an incident with Spurgeon-- there was a pastor that was well esteemed in London community that Spurgeon would swap pulpits with and embraced as a good friend... one day he saw his pastor friend (name?) coming out of the theater and he scolded him, and eventually the scandal hit the press... when confronted about his penchant for cigar-smoking, he kind of "so-whatted" the whole affair and inquiries of his hypocrisy... only later was Spurgeon profoundly broken over the incident for his holding his brother in contempt.

[Edited on 2-21-2005 by Puritanhead]


----------



## Larry Hughes

I've actually had, and my wife, opportunities to witness because of the issue of beer and wine. They were actually kind of shocked to find out from me that the kingdom of heaven wasn't about eating or drinking as espoused by the “abstinence” and the “protect my witness” crowds who make it about eating and drinking.

When I was an unbeliever the thing that NEVER bore witness to Christ to me was professing Christians who abstained to “be a witness” to unbelievers. I’m not talking about drunkenness here. All it bore witness to ‘their religion’ was that they abstained from food or drink, but then again so did the Muslims and Mormons.

lh


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia

I love McEwan's Scotch Ale.


----------



## RamistThomist

Andrew,



> Calvin had an excellent perspective on the use of wine. His salary in Geneva included 250 gallons of wine annually. Calvin wrote in the Institutes: "We are nowhere forbidden to laugh, or to be satisfied with food...or to be delighted with music, or to drink wine." Calvin says that the miracle at the wedding feast in Cana by our Lord resulted in the "most excellent wine." And "*Calvin would spend his private moments on Lake Geneva and read scripture while drinking red wine*"



Is that not paradise on earth?


----------



## Puritanhead

> _Originally posted by joshua_
> Can you give me a source on that, please?



Sorry, if this is about Spurgeon incident, I heard it as a second-hand account from a pastor in the pulpit... I even tried looking it up on the Internet-- no luck...


----------



## Larry Hughes

Gab,

There's just something about a good Ale!

l


----------



## Puritanhead

> _Originally posted by Draught Horse_
> And "*Calvin would spend his private moments on Lake Geneva and read scripture while drinking red wine*"



Is that not paradise on earth? [/quote]

Ugghhh... NO, I'm allergic to the sulfates in a lot of red wines, and they cause my throat to swell... if I drunk that kind of red wine continiously, I imagine I would die of asphyxiation as my windpipe closed... if I spent my days like Calvin than sooner or later they would find me in my boat with my hand grasping my throat and some fatalistic look of terror on my discolored, cold face in a puddle of red wine. So, no that is not my paradise idea.
:bigsmile:


----------



## gwine

> Ugghhh... NO, I'm allergic to the sulfates in a lot of red wines, and they cause my throat to swell... if I drunk that kind of red wine continiously, I imagine I would die of asphyxiation as my windpipe closed... if I spent my days like Calvin than sooner or later they would find me in my boat with my hand grasping my throat and some fatalistic look of terror on my discolored, cold face in a puddle of red wine. So, no that is not my paradise idea.



My wife also has a (mild, compared to yours) reaction to the sulfites in red wine and she has found that it helps a bit to open the bottle and let it 'air' out a while before pouring in into a glass and drinking it. Since we drink it a room temp so this is no problem. This probably wouldn't help you, though.

Also there are red wines with no added sulfites, but you will find that they still have some natural sulfites in them.

That said, not drinking it is ok, too.


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot

> _Originally posted by Draught Horse_
> Andrew,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Calvin had an excellent perspective on the use of wine. His salary in Geneva included 250 gallons of wine annually. Calvin wrote in the Institutes: "We are nowhere forbidden to laugh, or to be satisfied with food...or to be delighted with music, or to drink wine." Calvin says that the miracle at the wedding feast in Cana by our Lord resulted in the "most excellent wine." And "*Calvin would spend his private moments on Lake Geneva and read scripture while drinking red wine*"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Is that not paradise on earth?
Click to expand...


Yes!


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot

> _Originally posted by VirginiaHuguenot_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by Draught Horse_
> Andrew,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Calvin had an excellent perspective on the use of wine. His salary in Geneva included 250 gallons of wine annually. Calvin wrote in the Institutes: "We are nowhere forbidden to laugh, or to be satisfied with food...or to be delighted with music, or to drink wine." Calvin says that the miracle at the wedding feast in Cana by our Lord resulted in the "most excellent wine." And "*Calvin would spend his private moments on Lake Geneva and read scripture while drinking red wine*"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Is that not paradise on earth?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes!
Click to expand...


Wondering what Calvin's favorite wine was...


----------



## fredtgreco

Cabernet Sauvignon of course!


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot

> _Originally posted by fredtgreco_
> Cabernet Sauvignon of course!



But of course!  Sante!


----------



## BrianBowman

> _Originally posted by VirginiaHuguenot_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by fredtgreco_
> Cabernet Sauvignon of course!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But of course!  Sante!
Click to expand...


... and AMEN . A nice Cab with some roast duck, now that will "fatten up the countenance!"


----------



## RamistThomist

> _Originally posted by VirginiaHuguenot_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by VirginiaHuguenot_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by Draught Horse_
> Andrew,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Calvin had an excellent perspective on the use of wine. His salary in Geneva included 250 gallons of wine annually. Calvin wrote in the Institutes: "We are nowhere forbidden to laugh, or to be satisfied with food...or to be delighted with music, or to drink wine." Calvin says that the miracle at the wedding feast in Cana by our Lord resulted in the "most excellent wine." And "*Calvin would spend his private moments on Lake Geneva and read scripture while drinking red wine*"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Is that not paradise on earth?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wondering what Calvin's favorite wine was...
Click to expand...


Mogen-David or Boone's Farm


----------

