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

[gwine]

Modern medicine has proved that alcohol in moderation is good for the heart.

Although read this latest article in the schizophrenic wars about alcohol and health, which I do not endorse. Merely a FYI.

Moderate drinking may not be good for you

 

[VictorBravo]

So Gerry, are you going to take your medical advice from a bunch of fallible doctors, or are you going to follow Paul's advice to Timothy? :bigsmile:

In light of the contually contradictory medical news that we keep hearing, I wondered what would have happend if I only followed medical news once each 10 years. So I did a little review of old magazines. It wouldn't have helped.

In the 20s, drinking was bad for you and smoking was good for you.

In the 40s, drinking was OK and smoking was still good for you.

In the 50s hi-balls were good for you and smoking was OK.

In the 60s sweet wine was good for you, smoking was looking bad, but marijuana was probably OK.

In the 70s, everything except smoking was OK.

In the 80s, drinking is a social ill, smoking is definately bad, marijuana is starting to be medicine.

In the 90s, wine is OK, but beer is bad.

In the early 00s, wine is good for you, beer is OK. But soft drinks are bad.

So, all I know is that I'll continue to eat homemade soup and pot roasts and try to keep trim through exercise. Oh, and for me and my house, we'll have a bit of wine.

Vic

 

[VirginiaHuguenot]

Excellent points, Beth and Vic!

Science must never bind our conscience. Because of the wisdom of J.G. Vos on this precise point I will again reiterate my commendation of his article.

Originally posted by VirginiaHuguenot
I would commend to everyone this article by J.G. Vos called The Bible Doctrine of the Separated Life.

 

[Me Died Blue]

Originally posted by VirginiaHuguenot
Science must never bind our conscience.

I was thinking about this basic principle recently, and was reminded of an objection I have heard from friends from my former church who are against smoking altogether: They raised the objection that if tobacco is lawful for the Christian in liberty since Scripture never forbids it, why would heroine and crack not be the same if they were legalized?

The seemingly obvious answer I gave was that it has been clearly shown that those substances can kill very quickly and are essentially inevitably harmful. But I then realized that upon making that argument, I have moved from the realm of objective biblical truth to subjective scientific reasoning, contra your statement above. That thought was further confirmed to me by the fact that their response to that comment of mine about heroine and crack was essentially, "Well, smoking has been shown to be quite harmful to health in most cases as well," at which point the discussion inevitably degenerates into a type of "Science has shown such-and-such with this much certainty," "No, only that much certainty," "Well this article said," "Yeah, but..."

So I must admit I'm a bit confused at this point on how we would answer such an objection, and to what extent "science" can or cannot be said to bind our consciences as a result of the implications of that answer. We would obviously say that drinking poison is not lawful under Christian liberty - but why do we say that? Because of the nature of the substance as science has shown us, and the risk percentage close to 100. But at that point, it all seems to become a question of what risk percentage is and isn't lawful under Christian liberty, rather than a principled issue of what is forbidden by Scripture.

Thoughts?

 

[VirginiaHuguenot]

Originally posted by Me Died Blue

Originally posted by VirginiaHuguenot
Science must never bind our conscience.

I was thinking about this basic principle recently, and was reminded of an objection I have heard from friends from my former church who are against smoking altogether: They raised the objection that if tobacco is lawful for the Christian in liberty since Scripture never forbids it, why would heroine and crack not be the same if they were legalized?

The seemingly obvious answer I gave was that it has been clearly shown that those substances can kill very quickly and are essentially inevitably harmful. But I then realized that upon making that argument, I have moved from the realm of objective biblical truth to subjective scientific reasoning, contra your statement above. That thought was further confirmed to me by the fact that their response to that comment of mine about heroine and crack was essentially, "Well, smoking has been shown to be quite harmful to health in most cases as well," at which point the discussion inevitably degenerates into a type of "Science has shown such-and-such with this much certainty," "No, only that much certainty," "Well this article said," "Yeah, but..."

So I must admit I'm a bit confused at this point on how we would answer such an objection, and to what extent "science" can or cannot be said to bind our consciences as a result of the implications of that answer. We would obviously say that drinking poison is not lawful under Christian liberty - but why do we say that? Because of the nature of the substance as science has shown us, and the risk percentage close to 100. But at that point, it all seems to become a question of what risk percentage is and isn't lawful under Christian liberty, rather than a principled issue of what is forbidden by Scripture.

Thoughts?

Chris,

This very objection is answered in the article by Vos that I cited.

Someone may object that opium and marihuana, for example, are not indifferent, but sinful in themselves. We have already shown that no material thing can be sinful in itself. Now if opium, marihuana or any other particular material substance is to be regarded as an exception to this principle, the problem is raised as to what authority is competent to decide which substances are exceptions to the principle that no material things can be sinful in itself. There is, no doubt, general agreement among Christian people that such substances as opium and marihuana, for example, are so dangerous and harmful that they should not be used at all. This general agreement is, however, no proper ground for church judicatories authoritatively pronouncing such substances sinful in themselves, or declaring their use to be sinful per se. The Word of God, not the so-called Christian consciousness, is our only infallible rule of faith and conduct. What authority is competent to determine the harmfulness and on this basis to infer the inherent sinfulness of the use of a particular material substance, withal making this inference binding on the consciences of the Lord´s people? Are church judicatories qualified to issue authoritative pronouncements on such matters? By what right does a synod or assembly composed of ministers and elders decide questions concerning the physiological action and toxic properties of various narcotic drugs? If we grant to ecclesiastical bodies the right to decide concerning opium and marihuana, do we not thereby concede the entire principle that the church may legitimately decide for its members concerning the use of things indifferent? And if so, could we consistently object, for reasons of principle, if a church judicatory were to enact a rule prohibiting the use of tea or coffee? We are far from holding that it is legitimate for Christians to use dangerous drugs. What we are contending for is not license to use poisonous drugs, but freedom under God to decide for ourselves what material substances we ought to leave alone. We would keep the consciences of Christian people free from what Dr. Machen called "œthe tyranny of the experts." We maintain that the individual Christian, and not the church, must pass judgment on the pronouncements of experts concerning such things, so far as questions of morality are concerned. We are far from holding that it is "œall right" to use opium, marihuana or a great many other material substances, but if the question as to the sinfulness of the use of these things is to be decided for us by a synod or pope, then our freedom of conscience is destroyed and our soul reduced to bondage to the commandments of men. If the thing is indifferent in itself, whatever it may be, then the individual Christian, not the church, has the God-given right to decide ethical questions concerning its use. We fully agree with the general opinion of Christian people that such substances as opium and marihuana should not be used at all, except possibly by a physician´s orders; but we claim the God-given right to make this decision ourselves, and not to have it made for us by an ecclesiastical judicatory. The conscience of each and every one of the Lord´s people is enlightened by the Holy Spirit; to require Christian people to accept ecclesiastical regulations on such matters is akin to the "œimplicit faith, and absolute and blind obedience" which is required by the Church of Rome.

 

[Me Died Blue]

Originally posted by VirginiaHuguenot
We are far from holding that it is "œall right" to use opium, marihuana or a great many other material substances, but if the question as to the sinfulness of the use of these things is to be decided for us by a synod or pope, then our freedom of conscience is destroyed and our soul reduced to bondage to the commandments of men. If the thing is indifferent in itself, whatever it may be, then the individual Christian, not the church, has the God-given right to decide ethical questions concerning its use.

Even in light of Vos' surrounding comments, I have trouble seeing how these statements are reconcilable. If the improper nature of the use of such substances can ultimately be decided by no one else than the individual believer (even granting that he should try and make responsible decisions), then his statement that it is not really "all right" for Christians to use poisonous substances would seem to ultimately a void statement at heart - which is further confirmed by the fact that he puts quotation around the phrase, because of its inherent vague and (ultimately) null nature. If a fellow believer drank a pint of mercury and instantly died from it, would any living believers then be able to consistently say anything beyond, "Well, I wouldn't have thought it wise if I were in his shoes, but hey, it was his decision to make and thus none of us have any right to judge what he did as wrong to any extent."

I'm not trying to tear Vos' position apart and simply show it invalid, I'm trying to honestly understand it in light of biblical principles, which I simply do not as of yet.

 

[VirginiaHuguenot]

Originally posted by Me Died Blue

Originally posted by VirginiaHuguenot
We are far from holding that it is "œall right" to use opium, marihuana or a great many other material substances, but if the question as to the sinfulness of the use of these things is to be decided for us by a synod or pope, then our freedom of conscience is destroyed and our soul reduced to bondage to the commandments of men. If the thing is indifferent in itself, whatever it may be, then the individual Christian, not the church, has the God-given right to decide ethical questions concerning its use.

Even in light of Vos' surrounding comments, I have trouble seeing how these statements are reconcilable. If the improper nature of the use of such substances can ultimately be decided by no one else than the individual believer (even granting that he should try and make responsible decisions), then his statement that it is not really "all right" for Christians to use poisonous substances would seem to ultimately a void statement at heart - which is further confirmed by the fact that he puts quotation around the phrase, because of its inherent vague and (ultimately) null nature. If a fellow believer drank a pint of mercury and instantly died from it, would any living believers then be able to consistently say anything beyond, "Well, I wouldn't have thought it wise if I were in his shoes, but hey, it was his decision to make and thus none of us have any right to judge what he did as wrong to any extent."

I'm not trying to tear Vos' position apart and simply show it invalid, I'm trying to honestly understand it in light of biblical principles, which I simply do not as of yet.

Vos is not saying that we shouldn't utilize the knowledge gained from science to make choices about what substances are wise or unwise for us to partake. Nor is he saying that we can't form judgments about the external conduct of others. I would encourage you to read his Commentary on the Westminster Larger Catechism where he remarks on the Sixth Commandment duty to employ "a sober use of meat, drink, physic [which Vos defines to mean primarily drugs, as in medicine], sleep, labor, and recreations." Thus, the Catechism was wise to refrain from saying "mercury is sinful" but rather "whatsoever else tends to the destruction of the life of any."

What he is arguing against is a concept articulated so well by Dr. Machen and alluded to previously in this thread -- the "tyranny of experts." Frankly neither theologians nor scientists are competent to judge the moral implications of all substances. Common sense has its place -- but common sense can be wrong too. The collective understanding of common sense is often gnostic in its approach to substances, thereby making things adiaphora (such as alcohol) evil per se.

When a church starts legislating against substances rather than conduct (such as saying that more than two glasses of wine is always sinful rather than saying that drunken behavior is always sinful) then the church is guilty of binding the conscience of men without warrant from the word of God.

[Edited on 12-10-2005 by VirginiaHuguenot]

 

[VirginiaHuguenot]

I found this excerpt from Fighting the Good Fight: A Brief History of the Orthodox Presbyterian Church by D. G. Hart and John Muether to be interesting:

Disputes about dispensationalism revealed two distinct camps within the leadership of the OPC"”one side Old School Presbyterian in outlook, the other fundamentalist. The Old School party, led by Machen, consisted of the majority of Westminster´s faculty, many of whom came from non-American Reformed traditions such as Scottish Presbyterianism (John Murray), and Dutch Calvinism (Cornelius Van Til, Ned B. Stonehouse, and R. B. Kuiper). This group was characterized by a high regard for the Westminster Confession, Presbyterian polity, and Reformed piety (e.g., liberty in various matters such as beverage alcohol and tobacco, where Scripture is silent). The fundamentalist party was led by Carl McIntire, J. Oliver Buswell, and Allan MacRae, professor of Old Testament at Westminster. Though Buswell and MacRae disavowed the dispensationalist label, this group was premillennialist and defended the liberty of OP congregations to use the Scofield Reference Bible. They also were less rigorous in their application of Presbyterian polity and promoted a form of piety that featured abstinence from liquor, tobacco, movies, dancing, and cards.
...
The last issue that split the OPC concerned Christian teaching on personal morality. Specifically, the church was divided over total abstinence from alcoholic beverages. While this issue might seem foreign to Christians living at the end of the twentieth century, most American Protestants had supported vigorously the Eighteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, an act which prohibited the production and sale of beverage alcohol and which was not reversed until 1933. So whether Christians could drink in good conscience was still a hotly contested matter when the OPC was founded.

Debates about total abstinence came to a head at the 1937 General Assembly, though the issue had been lurking in the background for some time. Fundamentalists such as Buswell and McIntire were displeased by the Westminster Seminary faculty´s unwillingness to condemn liquor. The faculty held that to advocate total abstinence was to reject the example of Christ, who at the wedding of Cana (John 2) changed the water into wine. Nevertheless, rumors circulated throughout the church that seminary students drank in their rooms with the approval of the faculty. It did not help matters that several of Westminster´s faculty also smoked tobacco. While debates about the consumption of alcohol and tobacco concerned the significant matter of the Bible´s teaching on Christian liberty, the breach within the OPC also reflected cultural differences. A majority of Westminster´s faculty came from non-American backgrounds where drinking and smoking in moderation were acceptable. What is more, Machen had been a vigorous opponent of prohibition and was known to bring cigars to faculty meetings even though he did not smoke them himself.

Nevertheless, despite these cultural differences, an important aspect of Christian practice was at stake. At the Third General Assembly, Buswell threatened withdrawal if the denomination did not renounce drinking. Two overtures came before the assembly"”one urging total abstinence came from Buswell´s Presbytery of Chicago; the second argued that simple adherence to the Westminster Standards was as far as the church could go. Each side appealed to Scripture, to precedents in American Presbyterianism, and to Machen´s own practice and convictions. In the end, Buswell´s overture lost by a large margin. The OPC based this decision on the principle that Christians should be free to follow the dictates of their own consciences in "œmatters where the Bible has not pronounced judgment." Immediately following the assembly in May 1937, fourteen ministers and three elders, led by Buswell and McIntire, withdrew from the OPC and in 1938 formed the Bible Presbyterian Synod.

 

[gwine]

Originally posted by victorbravo
So Gerry, are you going to take your medical advice from a bunch of fallible doctors, or are you going to follow Paul's advice to Timothy? :bigsmile:

In light of the contually contradictory medical news that we keep hearing, I wondered what would have happend if I only followed medical news once each 10 years. So I did a little review of old magazines. It wouldn't have helped.

In the 20s, drinking was bad for you and smoking was good for you.

In the 40s, drinking was OK and smoking was still good for you.

In the 50s hi-balls were good for you and smoking was OK.

In the 60s sweet wine was good for you, smoking was looking bad, but marijuana was probably OK.

In the 70s, everything except smoking was OK.

In the 80s, drinking is a social ill, smoking is definately bad, marijuana is starting to be medicine.

In the 90s, wine is OK, but beer is bad.

In the early 00s, wine is good for you, beer is OK. But soft drinks are bad.

So, all I know is that I'll continue to eat homemade soup and pot roasts and try to keep trim through exercise. Oh, and for me and my house, we'll have a bit of wine.

Vic

Actually the reference cited was tongue-and-cheek directed at my good friend Bob Vigneault (maxdetail here on the PB) because he had posted earlier a reference that beer was good for you. That's why I referred to the article as being part of the schizophrenic wars. And For what it's worth, Bob and I are on the same side of the page. Beer is good for you.

I never have figured out how to respond to what medical science has to say about various nutritional needs of the body, although I do have a stronger opinion on smoking, as you will note from reading my earlier posts. But I digress.

And since I don't have a weak stomach, I probably won't follow Paul's advice, but I will be drinking either a Robert the Bruce (3 Floyds Brewery - Scottish Ale 9.1%) or Powder Hound Winter Ale (Big Sky Brewery - English Ale a measly 6.2%) real soon now, maybe after work tonight.

And my advice, since I'm not a medical professional, is to include home-made bread and sprouts in your diet.

 

[gwine]

Originally posted by VirginiaHuguenot

Science must never bind our conscience.

If it has already been addressed, please forgive me, but is there any room for the fact that there are laws against the use of certain substances that would make the use of same a sin?

I know we have travelled down this road with the speeding laws so maybe I should just re-read those threads.

 

[VirginiaHuguenot]

Originally posted by gwine

Originally posted by VirginiaHuguenot

Science must never bind our conscience.

If it has already been addressed, please forgive me, but is there any room for the fact that there are laws against the use of certain substances that would make the use of same a sin?

I know we have travelled down this road with the speeding laws so maybe I should just re-read those threads.

Yes, from a Fifth Commandment perspective as to substances which the civil magistrate has declared to be unlawful to possess or use, the Christian has a duty to obey insofar as such obedience does not conflict with God's law (Prohibition made an exception for wine at the Lord's Supper, but if it hadn't, then disobedience would have been called for, in my opinion). There are threads that have addressed Prohibition, Cuban cigars and the Christian's obligations to the civil magistrate previously.

This thread has focused, I think, more on Christian liberty (which does touch on the Fifth Commandment in an ecclesiastical context) and the Sixth Commandment as they relate to the use of substances.


[Edited on 12-12-2005 by VirginiaHuguenot]

 

[gwine]

Thank you, Andrew.