Alcohol and chrstians

Status
Not open for further replies.

bobtheman

Puritan Board Freshman
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?
 
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.
 
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 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.
 
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?
 
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?
 
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.
 
"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.
 
One man's SBC point of view by Pastor Adrian Rogers ;

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

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

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.
 
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?
 
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.
 
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.
 
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?
 
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 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!
 
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.
 
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?

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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.

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.
 
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.
 
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.

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.

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?
 
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.
 
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.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top