Alcohol and the Christian (once again); Was Peter masters

[ReformedWretch]

Originally posted by Scott Bushey
Rick,
I've heard the same story. The risk, is not worth the use. previously, I missed the most important point. I was focusing on making my heart glad in liu of considering my love for the brethren.

This is the answer R. Scott.

And Scott B., I sooo respect that approach!

 

[Scott Bushey]

Beth,
As mentioned, previously, I was leaning more towards the other extreme. The posts you remember were mine. I am not saying one should totally abstain, but be more considerate towards the harming or offending of our beloved brethren. I agree that smoking would as well fall into the same considerations.

1Co 8:13 Wherefore, if meat make my brother to offend, I will eat no flesh while the world standeth, lest I make my brother to offend.

 

[tcalbrecht]

Originally posted by bond-servant
Also, do you not think smoking is just as (if not more) addictive, and even in moderation has been proven to be damaging to our bodies which is the temple of God? (and wine in moderation has shown to be beneficial or neutral)

Do you have any studies that demonstrate moderate tobacco use is always harmful?

 

[bond-servant]

Scott: thanks for your answer. Funny this thread should come up now, since recently we have been re-examining our own stand of total abstinance.

So your own convictions are that both drinking and smoking are Biblically allowed in moderation?
--
Dr. Clark, I appreciate your summary. I have heard the argument for abstinance in the Southern Baptist church for almost 20 years. It leaves many unanswered questions. The "old wine" vs. "new wine" argument doesn't quite add up in my opinion.
We'd be interested in any other thoughts you had on the matter
----
Adam, I know where you're coming from on not making your brother stumble. It was on this verse as well as "abstain from all appearance of evil" that we have totally abstained from drinking. There are so many inncoent things though, that may make our brother stumble....
If we eat an all vegetable dinner or are a vegetarian will it make our brother think that meat is wrong, if we are an example in thier eyes?
If we charge something on a credit card, although we pay off our card every month and carry no debt, will it make a brother stumble and go into debt?

These are the issues we are wrestling with...
When taken to the extreme, it makes one feel

[Edited on 11-25-2005 by bond-servant]

 

[Scott Bushey]

Dr. Clark,
Can you understand my thinking in the matter?

 

[Arch2k]

Originally posted by houseparent

Originally posted by Scott Bushey
Rick,
I've heard the same story. The risk, is not worth the use. previously, I missed the most important point. I was focusing on making my heart glad in liu of considering my love for the brethren.

This is the answer R. Scott.

And Scott B., I sooo respect that approach!

Then Christ failed at keeping the law, not only by his miricle at Cana, but by instituting the Lord's supper.

I think this line of reasoning only proves too much.

 

[Pilgrim]

In his book "Now That's a Good Question" R.C. Sproul recounts the story of an Episcopal priest who was being hounded by a woman for his smoking. She told him that the body is the temple of God. He said that he supposed he was staining the temple but told the obviously overweight woman that she was stretching it.

 

[R. Scott Clark]

We should be careful about how use the "weaker brother" argument.

We should observe the context carefully. The context is cultic confusion. Paul's argument in 1 Cor 8 is that we are free to eat or not eat. What is remarkable is what, according to Paul, we are free to eat!

He conditions our freedom, however, by reminding us that there are circumstances in which we may not exercise our freedom, especially when by doing so we might cause someone to turn away from Christ by returning to pagan worship or confusing pagan worship with Christian worship.

Folk often use this passage to warn against offending or causing others to stumble in ways that imply that if someone else doesn't like my behavior that I must refrain.

This isn't what Paul is saying. There are times when some folk need to be offended. I have in mind the self-righteous who think they have the law under control and want to hold us in bondage to their opinions. In that case we are, according to the protestants in statu confessionis. I think I remember reading about one of the Hodges or perhaps Archibald Alexander having a drink of whiskey (or some such) on his porch when the temperance Methodists came to town. Not that he was devoted to scotch, but he was devoted to Christian liberty.

If our behavior threatens to lead another believer toward apostasy, we should stop immediately (1 Cor 8:10) but if it is matter of placating pharisees, then we should dine with sinners and tax collectors.

rsc

 

[Arch2k]

 

[VirginiaHuguenot]

Originally posted by bond-servant
Curious: Where are the relplies from the "active" social drinkers on this site?

I suspect you will find them hanging out in the Puritan Pub with those who exercise their liberty in public like our Lord Jesus Christ did to drink wine and are therefore erroneously called "winebibbers" (Matt. 11.19).

 

[Scott Bushey]

Originally posted by Jeff_Bartel

Originally posted by houseparent

Originally posted by Scott Bushey
Rick,
I've heard the same story. The risk, is not worth the use. previously, I missed the most important point. I was focusing on making my heart glad in liu of considering my love for the brethren.

This is the answer R. Scott.

And Scott B., I sooo respect that approach!

Then Christ failed at keeping the law, not only by his miricle at Cana, but by instituting the Lord's supper.

I think this line of reasoning only proves too much.

Jeff,
The apostle Paul meant something when he said what he did.............

 

[Scott Bushey]

Originally posted by Pilgrim
In his book "Now That's a Good Question" R.C. Sproul recounts the story of an Episcopal priest who was being hounded by a woman for his smoking. She told him that the body is the temple of God. He said that he supposed he was staining the temple but told the obviously overweight woman that she was stretching it.

yuk yuk yuk

 

[bond-servant]

Originally posted by tcalbrecht

Do you have any studies that demonstrate moderate tobacco use is always harmful?

Tom, there is a ton of resources out there that show that even moderate smoking produces unwanted health problems: from dental to damaged cilia and decreased immune systems. But there are also just as many that argue that moderate smoking has no unwanted side effects.

I CAN tell you that we have a child (7yrs old) with Respitory Airway Disease - this in his particular case, it is a severe life threatening asthma that is only brought on by eternal triggers: usually virus or smoke. So, if he were to breath in the second hand smoke from a moderate smoker, it could kill him.. almost instantly.

 

[Scott Bushey]

If our behavior threatens to lead another believer toward apostasy, we should stop immediately (1 Cor 8:10) but if it is matter of placating pharisees, then we should dine with sinners and tax collectors.

rsc

My position exactly.

 

[Arch2k]

Originally posted by Scott Bushey

Originally posted by Jeff_Bartel

Originally posted by houseparent

Originally posted by Scott Bushey
Rick,
I've heard the same story. The risk, is not worth the use. previously, I missed the most important point. I was focusing on making my heart glad in liu of considering my love for the brethren.

This is the answer R. Scott.

And Scott B., I sooo respect that approach!

Then Christ failed at keeping the law, not only by his miricle at Cana, but by instituting the Lord's supper.

I think this line of reasoning only proves too much.

Jeff,
The apostle Paul meant something when he said what he did.............

I agree.

 

[ReformedWretch]

Christ did not come to 20th century America. The drunken wedding feasts (receptions) that happen every day in this Country I cannot see being condoned by the Lord.

 

[Arch2k]

Originally posted by houseparent
Christ did not come to 20th century America. The drunken wedding feasts (receptions) that happen every day in this Country I cannot see being condoned by the Lord.

I am not suggesting that Christ would condone drunkeness in any form. But I think that there is sufficient Biblical evidence to suggest that drunkeness is not new, and it was most likely just as much a problem back then, as it is now.

 

[tcalbrecht]

Originally posted by Scott Bushey
Rick,
I've heard the same story. The risk, is not worth the use. previously, I missed the most important point. I was focusing on making my heart glad in liu of considering my love for the brethren.

How does one determine whether or not one's behavior is truly a "stumbling block" (proskomma and skandalon) for the weaker brethren?

 

[VirginiaHuguenot]

Originally posted by houseparent
Christ did not come to 20th century America. The drunken wedding feasts (receptions) that happen every day in this Country I cannot see being condoned by the Lord.

"Drink is in itself a good creature of God, and to be received with thankfulness, but the abuse of drink is from Satan; the wine is from God, but the Drunkard is from the Devil." -- Increase Mather

 

[tcalbrecht]

Originally posted by bond-servant

Tom, there is a ton of resources out there that show that even moderate smoking produces unwanted health problems: from dental to damaged cilia and decreased immune systems. But there are also just as many that argue that moderate smoking has no unwanted side effects.

Hmmm ... couldn't one make the same argument for, say, eating red meat or drinking soft drinks? Some studies for and some against?

I would say that if your children are allergic to smoke, wheat flour, or peanuts, then you should not have them in your home for the love or your children. But a blanket regulation does not seem fitting in all cases.

I'm not convinced that the idea that moderate smoking is always harmful is objectively supported by research. Thus my question.

 

[ReformedWretch]

I feel this will just always be something I disagree with most of you about. Unless of course the rampant abuse of alcohol, and the glorification of that abuse stops.

99% of the people I know see alcohol as an unchristian thing to partake of. That concerns me, but I don't think going to the local bar and partaking without getting drunk is going to change anyone's mind.

 

[Formerly At Enmity]

I think the Mather quote sums this up quite well......We often find situations where there is a thin line , but that thin line does not make one particular side (let's call it the "wise" side) less wise simply because of the Proximity to the "unwise" side....This is not to say that we should not be aware of the lion (Satan) that prowls.....As with all things, go into it w prayer......

In response to the question regarding public drinking, don't fan the flames! I will be going downtown w friends tonight to watch the University of Memphis beat up on Duke and will have a couple of beers.....Some may find this a bit silly, but when your waiter or waitress brings your beer or grub or whatever, simply tell them that you are about to bless the meal and would be glad to pray for anything that may be troubling them (this usually means a bad day at work). Liberty is much like the situation we find in scripture......Do we come BOLDLY before the throne or do we approach God HUMBLY? Well, it seems to be the humility leads to boldness. Don't know if you get my drift on that or not....Trying to get the point across that we should be thankful for beer, accept it humbly and show wisdom in how we handle it....

 

[Scott Bushey]

Originally posted by tcalbrecht

Originally posted by Scott Bushey
Rick,
I've heard the same story. The risk, is not worth the use. previously, I missed the most important point. I was focusing on making my heart glad in liu of considering my love for the brethren.

How does one determine whether or not one's behavior is truly a "stumbling block" (proskomma and skandalon) for the weaker brethren?

Tom,
The issue is whether or not the possibility is present:

1Co 8:9 But take heed lest by any means this liberty of yours become a stumblingblock to them that are weak.
1Co 8:10 For if any man see thee which hast knowledge sit at meat in the idol's temple, shall not the conscience of him which is weak be emboldened to eat those things which are offered to idols;
1Co 8:11 And through thy knowledge shall the weak brother perish, for whom Christ died?
1Co 8:12 But when ye sin so against the brethren, and wound their weak conscience, ye sin against Christ.
1Co 8:13 Wherefore, if meat make my brother to offend, I will eat no flesh while the world standeth, lest I make my brother to offend.

"Take heed"
"...while the world standeth"

I am not for total abstinence. I am all for being conscious of the effect my liberty might impose on the weaker brethren.

[Edited on 11-25-2005 by Scott Bushey]

 

[tcalbrecht]

Originally posted by Scott Bushey

Originally posted by tcalbrecht

How does one determine whether or not one's behavior is truly a "stumbling block" (proskomma and skandalon) for the weaker brethren?

Tom,
The issue is whether or not the possibility is present:

1Co 8:9 But take heed lest by any means this liberty of yours become a stumblingblock to them that are weak.
1Co 8:10 For if any man see thee which hast knowledge sit at meat in the idol's temple, shall not the conscience of him which is weak be emboldened to eat those things which are offered to idols;
1Co 8:11 And through thy knowledge shall the weak brother perish, for whom Christ died?
1Co 8:12 But when ye sin so against the brethren, and wound their weak conscience, ye sin against Christ.
1Co 8:13 Wherefore, if meat make my brother to offend, I will eat no flesh while the world standeth, lest I make my brother to offend.

"Take heed"
"...while the world standeth"

I am not for total abstinence. I am all for being conscious of the effect my liberty might impose on the weaker brethren.

[Edited on 11-25-2005 by Scott Bushey]

I guess my question is, practically speaking, how do we apply that verse. In theory everything we do that is adiaphora has the possibility to cause another to stumble, from eating red meat to drinking coffee. Alcoholic beverages is just one visible potential stumbling block. Unless we are going to drop all such practices, how to we respond practically to the verses at issue?

Do we need to identify a real "weaker brethren" that is in true danger of sin because of our behavior? It seems to me it must involve more than just saying I'm going to stop because I might offend some unknown someone, otherwise, as I said, you would need to apply that same standard across the board to all sorts of activities.

 

[Scott Bushey]

Tom,
This is the million dollar question. Paul doesn't specify.

 

[bond-servant]

Originally posted by tcalbrecht

I guess my question is, practically speaking, how do we apply that verse. In theory everything we do that is adiaphora has the possibility to cause another to stumble, from eating red meat to drinking coffee. Alcoholic beverages is just one visible potential stumbling block. Unless we are going to drop all such practices, how to we respond practically to the verses at issue?

Do we need to identify a real "weaker brethren" that is in true danger of sin because of our behavior? It seems to me it must involve more than just saying I'm going to stop because I might offend some unknown someone, otherwise, as I said, you would need to apply that same standard across the board to all sorts of activities.

I agree. I had the same questions Tom...

Originally posted by bond-servant
There are so many inncoent things though, that may make our brother stumble....
If we eat an all vegetable dinner or are a vegetarian will it make our brother think that meat is wrong, if we are an example in thier eyes?
If we charge something on a credit card, although we pay off our card every month and carry no debt, will it make a brother stumble and go into debt?

These are questions I've wrestled with too: but am out of my league on this one - Can anyone address this?

 

[ChristianTrader]

In line with Dr. Clark's comments, how many people are actually going to go apostate if they see another Christian drinking some alcohol? I think very very few, while the vast majority of people will just be offended because you are going against their tradition of how a Christian should act.

Next, of the few people that would apostacize, what would they be leaving the faith over? They have it in their head that alcohol is evil and if Christianity is okay with it in moderation, then it must be wrong; therefore the gospel must be false?

How is that really any different than leaving over the Bible's view of homosexuality, the view on the six literal days of creation etc? They all hold in common a rejection of Biblical authority on the issue.

CT

[Edited on 11-25-2005 by ChristianTrader]

 

[historyb]

 

[gwine]

Originally posted by tcalbrecht

Originally posted by bond-servant

Tom, there is a ton of resources out there that show that even moderate smoking produces unwanted health problems: from dental to damaged cilia and decreased immune systems. But there are also just as many that argue that moderate smoking has no unwanted side effects.

Hmmm ... couldn't one make the same argument for, say, eating red meat or drinking soft drinks? Some studies for and some against?

I would say that if your children are allergic to smoke, wheat flour, or peanuts, then you should not have them in your home for the love or your children. But a blanket regulation does not seem fitting in all cases.

I'm not convinced that the idea that moderate smoking is always harmful is objectively supported by research. Thus my question.

Maybe the reason you are not convinced that moderate smoking around others is not harmful is because you have not seen the results of it, as I have. Meat and soft drinks do no harm to others, unless you are a nursing mother. Second-hand smoke does.

 

[heartoflesh]

Originally posted by houseparent
I feel this will just always be something I disagree with most of you about. Unless of course the rampant abuse of alcohol, and the glorification of that abuse stops.

I very much respect this viewpoint, and it is enough to make me refrain from alcoholic consumption altogether. However, sex is abused even more by our society, and yet we are all prudent enough to realize that it is not sex itself, but the abuse of it that is wrong.

In trying to come up with any parallels to drunkeness, as far as sins that are subjective by degree, I thought of gluttony. Certainly eating is not wrong, but eating too much is. This is true for everything.

Excess=bad.