Al Mohler, SBTS & alcohol
- Thread starter john_Mark
- Start date
- Status
WrittenFromUtopia
Puritan Board Graduate
Originally posted by joshua
phew...*picking my MGD back up*
MGD??
WrittenFromUtopia
Puritan Board Graduate
Originally posted by Pilgrim
Originally posted by WrittenFromUtopia
Originally posted by joshua
MGD??
MGD=Miller Genuine Draft.
I am aware, hence my wall-head-banging. I'm a beer snob, sorry.
WrittenFromUtopia
Puritan Board Graduate
Never tried it. Sounds good though, any Beer that has too many consonants in a row in its name is good.
WrittenFromUtopia
Puritan Board Graduate
Try...
Tennent's Lager of Scotland
Harp
Bass
... and let me know.
heartoflesh
Puritan Board Junior
There you go guys again being showy, and downright immature!
Personally I prefer Budweiser, but I'm partial since my brother works at the brewery in St. Louis.
Personally I prefer Budweiser, but I'm partial since my brother works at the brewery in St. Louis.
WrittenFromUtopia
Puritan Board Graduate
List of immature people, according to THE Al R. Mohler:
- Me
- Joshua here
- Europeans
Oh yeah, I almost forgot!
- James P. Boyce, founder of SBTS and architect of the SBC
- Charles Hodge
- A.A. Hodge
- Martin Luther
- John Calvin
- Francis Turretin
- The Westminster Divines
- Augustine
- Timothy (cf. 1 Tim 5:23)
- Paul the apostle
and, finally...
- Jesus the Messiah
Well, Mohler, I'll gladly be immature along side those men and you can enjoy maturity while I enjoy a McEwan's.
I wonder if he realizes he would not approve the founder of SBTS to be on its faculty? Or, Calvin? Or Jesus Christ himself?
If that isn't legalism and SIN, then I certainly don't know what is.
- Me
- Joshua here
- Europeans
Oh yeah, I almost forgot!
- James P. Boyce, founder of SBTS and architect of the SBC
- Charles Hodge
- A.A. Hodge
- Martin Luther
- John Calvin
- Francis Turretin
- The Westminster Divines
- Augustine
- Timothy (cf. 1 Tim 5:23)
- Paul the apostle
and, finally...
- Jesus the Messiah
Well, Mohler, I'll gladly be immature along side those men and you can enjoy maturity while I enjoy a McEwan's.
I wonder if he realizes he would not approve the founder of SBTS to be on its faculty? Or, Calvin? Or Jesus Christ himself?
If that isn't legalism and SIN, then I certainly don't know what is.
doulosChristou
Puritan Board Freshman
Just a clarification. Drs. Mohler and Moore did not change school policy or say anything new. Their two central points were:
1) Those who affirm that drinking alcohol is a sin are wrong and are guilty of adding to Scripture.
2) Those who have an attitude that says "I am going to drink alcohol no matter what anyone says or thinks or feels because no one has a right to limit my Christian liberty" are wrong and are guilty of pride.
The school policy was only briefly commented upon. Students and faculty are required to submit to the policy that has been in place for countless decades, namely refraining from drinking alcoholic beverages during the time of their tenure or enrollment. This does not forbid communion wine, medicinal uses such as alcohol in cough medicine, or cooking with or eating dishes cooked with wine, just alcoholic beverages.
Is it a silly policy reflective of typical Southern Baptist culture?
Absolutely.
Am I and others at Southern obligated to submit to it?
Yes, and joyfully as unto the Lord.
1) Those who affirm that drinking alcohol is a sin are wrong and are guilty of adding to Scripture.
2) Those who have an attitude that says "I am going to drink alcohol no matter what anyone says or thinks or feels because no one has a right to limit my Christian liberty" are wrong and are guilty of pride.
The school policy was only briefly commented upon. Students and faculty are required to submit to the policy that has been in place for countless decades, namely refraining from drinking alcoholic beverages during the time of their tenure or enrollment. This does not forbid communion wine, medicinal uses such as alcohol in cough medicine, or cooking with or eating dishes cooked with wine, just alcoholic beverages.
Is it a silly policy reflective of typical Southern Baptist culture?
Absolutely.
Am I and others at Southern obligated to submit to it?
Yes, and joyfully as unto the Lord.
doulosChristou
Puritan Board Freshman
No, you certainly do not know what is.
"You younger men, likewise, be subject to your elders; and all of you, clothe yourselves with humility toward one another, for GOD IS OPPOSED TO THE PROUD, BUT GIVES GRACE TO THE HUMBLE." - 1 Peter 5:5 (NASB)
SolaScriptura
Puritanboard Brimstone
Amen. I submit... for the duration!
ABondSlaveofChristJesus
Puritan Board Freshman
What if your church elders disagree? Out of curiosity does this apply to you on and off campus?
[Edited on 9-21-2005 by ABondSlaveofChristJesus]
Agreed. Those who continually use "legalism" in this false sense need to understand the Biblical doctrine.
What if church elders think 9 year olds should be able to drink alcoholic beverages? Does that permit you to reject the legitimate authority of the State?
Larry Hughes
Inactive User
Gabriel,
If your not under the SBC I'd not worry about it. In the bigger picture, yes, it is a weakness in that grasp of the faith. Both Luther and Calvin considered our freedom an appendage to our grasp of justification and not a mere ancillary issue as some would suppose. However, as the stronger brother use it wisely. I have wine and ale at home and if I so desired when out to eat.
I've personally had opportunities to actually share the Gospel over the issue of alcohol and NOT taking the stance of abstinence and they listened. My wife herself has also had a few times to share the faith under the very same circumstances. On that alone I'm against the abstinence stance as it does indeed end up obscuring Christ. That is the great tragedy when this sacred idol of abstinence is protected (and IT IS an Idol) - in its errection it hides Christ and the Gospel. And it is prominant here in Kentucky among southerners, I cannot speak for other states.
The one time, to my admitted shame, that I did have the opportunity to share the Gospel over drinking beer that I didn't was a most disgusting but eye opening event to me. I admit up front that I failed, but at the same time learned something. A lady at a wedding dinner which served beer who was herself not a believer asked the table, myself and about 4 other Christians if we minded if she drank a beer "since we were Christians". It appalled me that that is what the watching world saw as Christianity, eating and drinking (that too cuts both ways), she saw nothing that a Mormon or Tom Cruiz couldn't bear witness to AND THAT IS an outcome of the abstinance movement.
Basically I function this way:
When around those whose conscience is weak on this issue (a rare thing in reality today) or similar I don't throw it in their face, but do use it as an opportunity to teach about it. However, it cuts both ways according to Paul, the weaker brother is not to condemn the stronger brother in his freedom, many forget that part of the Scripture. AND it is key to remember that Paul argued from the stronger brother position and never intended for the church to become entangled into the weaker position. It is the greatest hatred to leave a weaker brother bound and not teach him/her of His freedom in Christ - that is to say growing in grace. Such is tantamount to stunting a child's growth and repugnant all the more because it is guised under "good" and "unity". When in fact the abstinant position IS the position that has caused disunity in the first place. It is like me making a wrong turn down a road then blaming you for pointing it out to me, absolutely ridiculous.
Both Calvin and CH Spurgeon did say that forms of legalistic thinking should be opposed because the process of such becomes increasingly restricting and the implication becomes "justification by works" not explicitly "justification by works". They did not mean gross legalism per se either, most catch that. It is indeed very crucial to realize that one can intellectually and with lip affirm "justification by faith alone" but be functionally "justification by grace + something else". Look to at the functionality rather than just a verbal affirmation of the faith. A strict definition of legalism will miss this. Most people today in the Christian church would say, "justified by grace alone", but in reality they function much different than that. Be very aware of those who bind you by pretending if you disagree with them your are binding yourself (this is a pietistic trick). Keep Christ, the Gospel and faith highest at all times. This is your shield and weapon.
The alcohol issue today is not strict legalism as in "if I do this, then I'm justified". It is more like a subtle form of pietism which says "No of course drinking beer is not a sin. But (there always will be a "but") the more spiritual person (there will always be a higher class of spiritual person) Christian will be concerned with greater things." The sum total of the implication (note it is implication rather then explicit, the later being more toward strict legalism and the former the insideousness of pietism) is "blessed are those who 'do this thing' (fill in the blank)".
Drink your wine, beer and ale with sound descretion and be joyful and thankful to the Lord for His gift and especially His gift of freedom in Christ. The Kingdom of heaven is more than eating or drinking BOTH ways. The pietist hears that as abstinance. But the one free in Christ hears its real truth: those who make alcohol an issue of necessary abstinance do MAKE the Kingdom of heaven about eating and drinking. You never can satisfy them, either you have a demon or are a drunkard and a glutton.
I use to be a raw pagan and typical of any college student I drank unto the fallen kingdom all the time denying God and Christ so viscious was I as an atheist/agnostic. Now, by sheer grace, free in Christ I can glorify Him by enjoying His blood bought freedom by drinking (not drunkeness) wine or beer to His glory. It goes without saying, the one forgiven more knows true freedom when he has been given it.
Blessings In Christ Alone,
Ldh
[Edited on 9-21-2005 by Larry Hughes]
If your not under the SBC I'd not worry about it. In the bigger picture, yes, it is a weakness in that grasp of the faith. Both Luther and Calvin considered our freedom an appendage to our grasp of justification and not a mere ancillary issue as some would suppose. However, as the stronger brother use it wisely. I have wine and ale at home and if I so desired when out to eat.
I've personally had opportunities to actually share the Gospel over the issue of alcohol and NOT taking the stance of abstinence and they listened. My wife herself has also had a few times to share the faith under the very same circumstances. On that alone I'm against the abstinence stance as it does indeed end up obscuring Christ. That is the great tragedy when this sacred idol of abstinence is protected (and IT IS an Idol) - in its errection it hides Christ and the Gospel. And it is prominant here in Kentucky among southerners, I cannot speak for other states.
The one time, to my admitted shame, that I did have the opportunity to share the Gospel over drinking beer that I didn't was a most disgusting but eye opening event to me. I admit up front that I failed, but at the same time learned something. A lady at a wedding dinner which served beer who was herself not a believer asked the table, myself and about 4 other Christians if we minded if she drank a beer "since we were Christians". It appalled me that that is what the watching world saw as Christianity, eating and drinking (that too cuts both ways), she saw nothing that a Mormon or Tom Cruiz couldn't bear witness to AND THAT IS an outcome of the abstinance movement.
Basically I function this way:
When around those whose conscience is weak on this issue (a rare thing in reality today) or similar I don't throw it in their face, but do use it as an opportunity to teach about it. However, it cuts both ways according to Paul, the weaker brother is not to condemn the stronger brother in his freedom, many forget that part of the Scripture. AND it is key to remember that Paul argued from the stronger brother position and never intended for the church to become entangled into the weaker position. It is the greatest hatred to leave a weaker brother bound and not teach him/her of His freedom in Christ - that is to say growing in grace. Such is tantamount to stunting a child's growth and repugnant all the more because it is guised under "good" and "unity". When in fact the abstinant position IS the position that has caused disunity in the first place. It is like me making a wrong turn down a road then blaming you for pointing it out to me, absolutely ridiculous.
Both Calvin and CH Spurgeon did say that forms of legalistic thinking should be opposed because the process of such becomes increasingly restricting and the implication becomes "justification by works" not explicitly "justification by works". They did not mean gross legalism per se either, most catch that. It is indeed very crucial to realize that one can intellectually and with lip affirm "justification by faith alone" but be functionally "justification by grace + something else". Look to at the functionality rather than just a verbal affirmation of the faith. A strict definition of legalism will miss this. Most people today in the Christian church would say, "justified by grace alone", but in reality they function much different than that. Be very aware of those who bind you by pretending if you disagree with them your are binding yourself (this is a pietistic trick). Keep Christ, the Gospel and faith highest at all times. This is your shield and weapon.
The alcohol issue today is not strict legalism as in "if I do this, then I'm justified". It is more like a subtle form of pietism which says "No of course drinking beer is not a sin. But (there always will be a "but") the more spiritual person (there will always be a higher class of spiritual person) Christian will be concerned with greater things." The sum total of the implication (note it is implication rather then explicit, the later being more toward strict legalism and the former the insideousness of pietism) is "blessed are those who 'do this thing' (fill in the blank)".
Drink your wine, beer and ale with sound descretion and be joyful and thankful to the Lord for His gift and especially His gift of freedom in Christ. The Kingdom of heaven is more than eating or drinking BOTH ways. The pietist hears that as abstinance. But the one free in Christ hears its real truth: those who make alcohol an issue of necessary abstinance do MAKE the Kingdom of heaven about eating and drinking. You never can satisfy them, either you have a demon or are a drunkard and a glutton.
I use to be a raw pagan and typical of any college student I drank unto the fallen kingdom all the time denying God and Christ so viscious was I as an atheist/agnostic. Now, by sheer grace, free in Christ I can glorify Him by enjoying His blood bought freedom by drinking (not drunkeness) wine or beer to His glory. It goes without saying, the one forgiven more knows true freedom when he has been given it.
Blessings In Christ Alone,
Ldh
[Edited on 9-21-2005 by Larry Hughes]
"Those who begin by forbidding what the Bible allows will end up allowing what the Bible forbids." J Gresham Machen
Principles:
1) I will submit to lawful authority. Particularly if I knew what the rules were when I signed up, and made any exceptions known, and allowed the powers to approve or reject them, and then made my decision whether I could abide by their dictates in good conscience.
2) I will bear with weaker brethren, and not offend (cause to sin) a brother or cause him to stumble, and avoid giving cause for sin in either one of us.
3) I will drink alcohol right in front of a true legalist, and let him know I'm a minister to boot, and he is anathematized by the apostle Paul. The "I'm offended at that!" attitude over a matter that is not sin is properly met with a stony, "And...?"
Paul circumcised Timothy (Acts 16:3) when the circumstances warranted, but he could not be compelled to circumcise Titus (Gal. 2:3).
You do need to be careful to distinguish between that for which a person will condemn you or themself (legalism), and that which they simply scruple about. And if they want to make "house rules" regarding certain things, you have to respect that if you want "in the house." This is still a free country--you still get to pick who you walk with. If you choose to walk with a group that already has a conversation, you bear the guilt (not they) if you disrupt it, or flout your foreign tongue trying to force a new norm upon them.
The line is crossed when men deliberately add to God's Word, to law or gospel, and judge accordingly.
Principles:
1) I will submit to lawful authority. Particularly if I knew what the rules were when I signed up, and made any exceptions known, and allowed the powers to approve or reject them, and then made my decision whether I could abide by their dictates in good conscience.
2) I will bear with weaker brethren, and not offend (cause to sin) a brother or cause him to stumble, and avoid giving cause for sin in either one of us.
3) I will drink alcohol right in front of a true legalist, and let him know I'm a minister to boot, and he is anathematized by the apostle Paul. The "I'm offended at that!" attitude over a matter that is not sin is properly met with a stony, "And...?"
Paul circumcised Timothy (Acts 16:3) when the circumstances warranted, but he could not be compelled to circumcise Titus (Gal. 2:3).
You do need to be careful to distinguish between that for which a person will condemn you or themself (legalism), and that which they simply scruple about. And if they want to make "house rules" regarding certain things, you have to respect that if you want "in the house." This is still a free country--you still get to pick who you walk with. If you choose to walk with a group that already has a conversation, you bear the guilt (not they) if you disrupt it, or flout your foreign tongue trying to force a new norm upon them.
The line is crossed when men deliberately add to God's Word, to law or gospel, and judge accordingly.
Larry Hughes
Inactive User
Well said Bruce!
Ldh
Ldh
RamistThomist
Puritanboard Assessor
Michael Horton brilliantly illustrated the issue. He said on "White Horse Inn," "If you are eating out with a bunch of abstainers (read "weaker brethren--whatever that means) and the waitress asks, 'Can I get yall some drinks (alcoholic)?" and the teetotalers respond, "No, we don't drink. We are Christian."
Horton powerfully concludes,
"You must for the gospel's sake, order a beer!"
I agree. I respect the "weaker brethren," but there is no logical barrier to what is off-limits, given the nature of the case.
Horton powerfully concludes,
"You must for the gospel's sake, order a beer!"
I agree. I respect the "weaker brethren," but there is no logical barrier to what is off-limits, given the nature of the case.
BrianBowman
Posting Priviledges Revoked
For those who think that Baptists in general don't look upon drinking as a sin, I would ask how much experience you have had with Baptists of the "Independent/Fundamental" (e.g. IFCA) types? They _definitely_ view drinking alcohol as SIN. Even my former "free grace Dispensational sect" (GGWO), which has the same classical-Dispensational foundation that most of the IFCA folk have, taught that drinking defiled the temple of God (i.e. our bodies) and that the wine of Jesus Christ's time was the so-called "fruit-of-the-vine" was not fermented. At some point in its history, GGWO had the celebrated Dr. Arnold Fruchtenbaum (an Dispensational of Jewish descent) in to teach on the "unleaved" nature of wine in the O.T. They basically bought "hook, line, and sinker" and it was taught as "THE AUTHORITY" on drinking thereafter. As a Pastoral candidate in GGWO for 2 years, I could of been censured or even removed from the Ordination process if I had drank (I did not out of conscience and respect to the organization) and been found out.
With moderation, I now enjoy a good micro-brew and/or wine several times per month. My love for the Scriptures, confidence to present the Gospel/defend the faith, and prayer life have *never* been better. Christian liberty is indeed good!
[Edited on 9-21-2005 by BrianBowman]
With moderation, I now enjoy a good micro-brew and/or wine several times per month. My love for the Scriptures, confidence to present the Gospel/defend the faith, and prayer life have *never* been better. Christian liberty is indeed good!
[Edited on 9-21-2005 by BrianBowman]
ABondSlaveofChristJesus
Puritan Board Freshman
WrittenFromUtopia
Puritan Board Graduate
I personally have seen people (read: pagans, unbelievers) desire to start going to church and getting plugged in with a community of believers as a result of the fact that I wasn't "legalistic" like the Christians they knew growing up. They know I drink, but I don't get drunk. They know why I drink, b/c I tell them and simultaneously share the true gospel of God's grace with them.
Here are some ... interesting ... points of Mohler's talk that bothered me to say the least:
Here are some ... interesting ... points of Mohler's talk that bothered me to say the least:
Larry Hughes
Inactive User
Jacob,
Great Horton quote, he has a way of summing it up nicely.
Just a side note: In Kentucky the origins of the huge KY Burbon industry, baptist pastors of old by in large started it as a legitimate business income. My my how far we have come.
Larry
Great Horton quote, he has a way of summing it up nicely.
Just a side note: In Kentucky the origins of the huge KY Burbon industry, baptist pastors of old by in large started it as a legitimate business income. My my how far we have come.
Larry
ABondSlaveofChristJesus
Puritan Board Freshman
Can you help me understand this? What does he mean by "the gospels" sake?
Larry Hughes
Inactive User
"for the Gospel's sake..."
Tim,
Maybe this will help. He describes a situation in which say "you" are with some other Christians. You all are in a restaurant eating out that serves drinks, a nicer restaurant that is one in which this question would not be odd. A waiter or waitress comes up to you and asks, "Would you like some drinks", usually meaning while you wait would you like a good beer, wine, etc... The server is likely an unbeliever, the one that will receive the "witness" being now made. It is inescapable at this point!
Then your Christian friends or one of them says, "No thanks we are Christians." The immediate implication being we don't drink alcohol because we are Christians. The secondary implication being TO THE RECEIVER OF THIS KIND OF "WITNESS", "They don't drink because they are Christians, because alcohol is evil (this is blaspheme toward God's creation), drinking AT ALL is a sin and by extension one must not drink to be a believer, go to heaven, be a Christian that is to say be Christ's, IN SHORT TO MAKE IT TO HEAVEN I MUST BE GOOD OR WORKS." That is how much blaspheme there is in that one seemingly innocent "witness to the world" via abstinence.
Hence, Michael Horton says that NOW you are obligated to order a beer, wine or other as a true Christian witness to the Gospel. And it need necessarily counter and be at complete odds with the former devil's witness calling itself falsely a "christian witness".
In short you must then for the sake of the TRUE Gospel bear witness that it is not about works but free grace and that this none sinful activity is free to the believer. You must bear witness to the freedom Christ's precious blood has purchased. And believe me they, the observer, will think about THAT and not the false witness which they as unbelievers would scoff at any way.
Legalism no matter how small it appears to be causes atheism and sustains it. It is foul to the nth degree and mocks Christ.
Hope that helps,
Larry
Tim,
Maybe this will help. He describes a situation in which say "you" are with some other Christians. You all are in a restaurant eating out that serves drinks, a nicer restaurant that is one in which this question would not be odd. A waiter or waitress comes up to you and asks, "Would you like some drinks", usually meaning while you wait would you like a good beer, wine, etc... The server is likely an unbeliever, the one that will receive the "witness" being now made. It is inescapable at this point!
Then your Christian friends or one of them says, "No thanks we are Christians." The immediate implication being we don't drink alcohol because we are Christians. The secondary implication being TO THE RECEIVER OF THIS KIND OF "WITNESS", "They don't drink because they are Christians, because alcohol is evil (this is blaspheme toward God's creation), drinking AT ALL is a sin and by extension one must not drink to be a believer, go to heaven, be a Christian that is to say be Christ's, IN SHORT TO MAKE IT TO HEAVEN I MUST BE GOOD OR WORKS." That is how much blaspheme there is in that one seemingly innocent "witness to the world" via abstinence.
Hence, Michael Horton says that NOW you are obligated to order a beer, wine or other as a true Christian witness to the Gospel. And it need necessarily counter and be at complete odds with the former devil's witness calling itself falsely a "christian witness".
In short you must then for the sake of the TRUE Gospel bear witness that it is not about works but free grace and that this none sinful activity is free to the believer. You must bear witness to the freedom Christ's precious blood has purchased. And believe me they, the observer, will think about THAT and not the false witness which they as unbelievers would scoff at any way.
Legalism no matter how small it appears to be causes atheism and sustains it. It is foul to the nth degree and mocks Christ.
Hope that helps,
Larry
LadyFlynt
Inactive User
I personally think it's in err to not order or to order alcohol "because" of being a Christian. Both are in a ditch. You either order it or don't. I'm not obligated either way. Sometimes I am obligated based on circumstances (ie, my hubby avoids going to the bar with the work crew because there is ALOT more to do with their attendance there than just having a beer).
Michael Butterfield
Puritan Board Freshman
Me Died Blue
Puritan Board Post-Graduate
I think we all agree that there is ultimately no obligation to order or not order alcohol in general because of being a Christian or not, because as believers we are not prohibited from drinking, and we are certainly not commanded to, either (other than in the Supper, but that is another issue). In light of that, I think Horton's point (on which Larry did a good job elaborating) relates to the obligation issue in the same sense in which you spoke of possible "circumstance obligation" - namely that if it is already a given that your surrounding peers already told the waitress they are abstaining because they are Christians, right then the Gospel will be misunderstood by her.
So at that point, even if one does not order a drink in response, I would say the person would at least be obligated to counter the impression given to the waitress, remarking that your Christianity is not the reason you are not ordering a drink; the actual ordering of one at that point could simply be one possible way of driving that point home with emphasis.
- Status
Similar threads
