Christians and alcohol
- Thread starter AV1611
- Start date
- Status
bwsmith,
I understand addiction better than you imagine. I also have much more exposure to the psychology texts than you would imagine.
The difference between you and me is not knowledge of such things. I recognize the "Counselor speak" in you immediately because I know the literature. I know the statistics. I've admitted people into treatment for alchohol abuse. I've ordered them into it and I've seen lives destroyed by it.
I've even been fully trained in all the shallow, proof-texting Neuthetic counselling stuff that passes for "Biblical counselling" in many PCA Churches.
The difference between us is our belief in the power of the Gospel. The difference between us is my conviction about the liberty in which we stand in Christ.
Your words expose a Pharasaical tendency - long on the quoting of what other authorities say but short on the ability to properly interpret the Words of Scripture themselves.
This is a Reformed board. We stand on principles found in the Word of God and not the wisdom of men. If you cannot properly exegete or echo the Word then I suggest you study more. You are certainly not in any position to be offering advice here.
I understand addiction better than you imagine. I also have much more exposure to the psychology texts than you would imagine.
The difference between you and me is not knowledge of such things. I recognize the "Counselor speak" in you immediately because I know the literature. I know the statistics. I've admitted people into treatment for alchohol abuse. I've ordered them into it and I've seen lives destroyed by it.
I've even been fully trained in all the shallow, proof-texting Neuthetic counselling stuff that passes for "Biblical counselling" in many PCA Churches.
The difference between us is our belief in the power of the Gospel. The difference between us is my conviction about the liberty in which we stand in Christ.
Your words expose a Pharasaical tendency - long on the quoting of what other authorities say but short on the ability to properly interpret the Words of Scripture themselves.
This is a Reformed board. We stand on principles found in the Word of God and not the wisdom of men. If you cannot properly exegete or echo the Word then I suggest you study more. You are certainly not in any position to be offering advice here.
Just as labor is vanity. Yet I don't think that we would make it very far if we did not go to work everyday. I also seem to remember a command that those who do not work, should not eat.
All of the pleasures of this world are vanity apart from God, yet he does give good gifts for us to enjoy IN him.
crhoades
Puritan Board Graduate
Applying the term wisdom to abstaining is a non-starter. Jesus who is Wisdom drank and was accused of being a winebibber by the Pharisees. He created it and it is lawful. There is always a danger in being overwise.
I'll ask again. I am going to have a beer tonight. Will I sin? If not, then the thread is moot if so provide the command in scripture or show by good and necessary consequence thereof.
I have all of CCEF's stuff and am teaching the How People Change curriculum during Sunday School since January. CCEF does aim at the heart but also the law of God and the situation. There is no command forbidding alcohol. My heart is in it to give thanks to God and I won't over indulge, and there is no causing a brother to stumble...
I'll ask again. I am going to have a beer tonight. Will I sin? If not, then the thread is moot if so provide the command in scripture or show by good and necessary consequence thereof.
I have all of CCEF's stuff and am teaching the How People Change curriculum during Sunday School since January. CCEF does aim at the heart but also the law of God and the situation. There is no command forbidding alcohol. My heart is in it to give thanks to God and I won't over indulge, and there is no causing a brother to stumble...
MrMerlin777
Puritan Board Post-Graduate
Whew! It's getting hot in here....
I think I'll go home, pick up the "Good Book", and pop the top on a good beer.
I think I'll go home, pick up the "Good Book", and pop the top on a good beer.
Yet again, you cannot even see in your words the very un-Biblical injunction you deny.
To be wise, defined by you, is to avoid something altogether. You cannot sustain that this is the Biblical definition of wisdom and yet you ascribe wisdom to it - making it normative.
The believer now has a rule to follow: It's not wise to enter here. Oh, sure, it doesn't say: NO TRESPASSING. It only says: only the unwise enter here. The foolish now claim wisdom because they did not do so.
Yet, all along, this is not a motivation based on liberty in Christ. The believer is not motivated by a conviction that flows out of His love for Christ. He is motivated now by your enjoinment: BE WISE! Any man that allows a Gospel motivation to be replaced by yours is, in fact, entering the path to folly.
Finally, to any onlookers, that think this is about wine or beer then you've missed the point. This is about the Gospel itself. This interaction illustrates precisely why Christ was a stone of stumbling for the Pharisees who had so many practical rules with centuries of practice that proved they worked.
Consider Calvin on Christian Liberty and how such a spirit MUST be withstood for the Gospel's sake:
Consider Calvin on Christian Liberty and how such a spirit MUST be withstood for the Gospel's sake:
Section One: Connection of this chapter with the previous one on Justification. A true knowledge of Christian liberty useful and necessary. 1. It purifies the conscience. 2. It checks licentiousness. 3. It maintains the merits of Christ, the truth of the Gospel, and the peace of the soul.
We are now to treat of Christian Liberty, the explanation of which certainly ought not to be omitted by any one proposing to give a compendious summary of Gospel doctrine. For it is a matter of primary necessity, one without the knowledge of which the conscience can scarcely attempt any thing without hesitation, in many must demur and fluctuate, and in all proceed with fickleness and trepidation. In particular, it forms a proper appendix to Justification, and is of no little service in understanding its force. Nay, those who seriously fear God will hence perceive the incomparable advantages of a doctrine which wicked scoffers are constantly assailing with their jibes; the intoxication of mind under which they labour leaving their petulance without restraint. This, therefore, seems the proper place for considering the subject. Moreover, though it has already been occasionally adverted to, there was an advantage in deferring the fuller consideration of it till now, for the moment any mention is made of Christian liberty lust begins to boil, or insane commotions arise, if a speedy restraint is not laid on those licentious spirits by whom the best things are perverted into the worst. For they either, under pretext of this liberty, shake off all obedience to God, and break out into unbridled licentiousness, or they feel indignant, thinking that all choice, order, and restraint, are abolished. What can we do when thus encompassed with straits? Are we to bid adieu to Christian liberty, in order that we may cut off all opportunity for such perilous consequences? But, as we have said, if the subject be not understood, neither Christ, nor the truth of the Gospel, nor the inward peace of the soul, is properly known. Our endeavor must rather be, while not suppressing this very necessary part of doctrine, to obviate the absurd objections to which it usually gives rise.
Section Four: The second part of Christian liberty, viz., that the conscience, freed from the yoke of the law, voluntarily obeys the will of God. This cannot be done so long as we are under the law. Reason.
Another point which depends on the former is, that consciences obey the law, not as if compelled by legal necessity; but being free from the yoke of the law itself, voluntarily obey the will of God. Being constantly in terror so long as they are under the dominion of the law, they are never disposed promptly to obey God, unless they have previously obtained this liberty. Our meaning shall be explained more briefly and clearly by an example. The command of the law is, "Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thine heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy might," (Deut. 6: 5.) To accomplish this, the soul must previously be divested of every other thought and feeling, the heart purified from all its desires, all its powers collected and united on this one object. Those who, in comparison of others, have made much progress in the way of the Lord, are still very far from this goal. For although they love God in their mind, and with a sincere affection of heart, yet both are still in a great measure occupied with the lusts of the flesh, by which they are retarded and prevented from proceeding with quickened pace towards God. They indeed make many efforts, but the flesh partly enfeebles their strength, and partly binds them to itself. What can they do while they thus feel that there is nothing of which they are less capable than to fulfill the law? They wish, aspire, endeavor; but do nothing with the requisite perfection. If they look to the law, they see that every work which they attempt or design is accursed. Nor can any one deceive himself by inferring that the work is not altogether bad, merely because it is imperfect, and, therefore, that any good which is in it is still accepted of God. For the law demanding perfect love condemns all imperfection, unless its rigor is mitigated. Let any man therefore consider his work which he wishes to be thought partly good, and he will find that it is a transgression of the law by the very circumstance of its being imperfect.
Section Five: When freed from the rigorous exactions of the law, we can cheerfully and with much alacrity answer the call of God.
See how our works lie under the curse of the law if they are tested by the standard of the law. But how can unhappy souls set themselves with alacrity to a work from which they cannot hope to gain any thing in return but cursing? On the other hand, if freed from this severe exaction, or rather from the whole rigor of the law, they hear themselves invited by God with paternal levity, they will cheerfully and alertly obey the call, and follow his guidance. In one word, those who are bound by the yoke of the law are like servants who have certain tasks daily assigned them by their masters. Such servants think that nought has been done; and they dare not come into the presence of their masters until the exact amount of labour has been performed. But sons who are treated in a more candid and liberal manner by their parents, hesitate not to offer them works that are only begun or half finished, or even with something faulty in them, trusting that their obedience and readiness of mind will be accepted, although the performance be less exact than was wished. Such should be our feelings, as we certainly trust that our most indulgent Parent will approve our services, however small they may be, and however rude and imperfect. Thus He declares to us by the prophet, "I will spare them as a man spareth his own son that serveth him," (Gal. 3: 17
Section Eleven: Application of the doctrine of Christian liberty to the subject of offenses. These of two kinds. Offense given. Offense received. Of offense given, a subject comprehended by few. Of Pharisaical offense, or offense received.
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." 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," (Matth. 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.
Section Twelve: Who are to be regarded as weak and Pharisaical. Proved by examples and the doctrine of Paul. The just moderation of Christian liberty. necessity of vindicating it. No regard to be paid to hypocrites. Duty of edifying our weak neighbors.
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.
You mean your not laying down the law here? I thought all the heat was due to you telling people they were sinning if they drank wine as certainly as if they were taking a knife to their mother. Are you merely saying that believe abstinence is the better part of wisdom in this day? ... and getting blasted for it as if the gospel itself were at stake. Nice. So much for Christian liberty.
For somebody that prides himself on being logical, Anthony, that was a pretty pitiful display of reasoning. Read above if you want to know the connection between suggesting what wise conduct is and the Gospel as it relates to Christian liberty.
In other words:
P=what the issue is
~P=what you thought it was all about
Or even:
Q=the Gospel
~Q=defining wise conduct according to the wisdom of men as a means toward wise conduct.
In other words:
P=what the issue is
~P=what you thought it was all about
Or even:
Q=the Gospel
~Q=defining wise conduct according to the wisdom of men as a means toward wise conduct.
Sometimes it is wise to avoid something altogether. Wisdom is the knowing when and for whom this is wise. That doesn't make abstinence "nominative". And that's all bwsmith was saying from what I read:
bwsmith said:
Actually, I don't think bwsmith even went so far as say all Christian's would be wise to abstain from all alcohol. She's mainly been defending her warnings against the abuse of alcohol in some Protestant churches.
Calvin (in the quote supplies) gave the same warnings:
For they either, under pretext of this liberty, shake off all obedience to God, and break out into unbridled licentiousness, or they feel indignant, thinking that all choice, order, and restraint, are abolished. What can we do when thus encompassed with straits? Are we to bid adieu to Christian liberty, in order that we may cut off all opportunity for such perilous consequences? But, as we have said, if the subject be not understood, neither Christ, nor the truth of the Gospel, nor the inward peace of the soul, is properly known. Our endeavor must rather be, while not suppressing this very necessary part of doctrine, to obviate the absurd objections to which it usually gives rise.
...
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.
...
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.
Warning people about the abuse of alcohol is not equivalent to a denial of Christian Liberty. You seem to think that bwsmith "would have all mention of liberty buried" when from her posts it is clear she is saying that "if inexpedient for our neighbor, we are to abstain from it".
Read her as you so wish Civbert. She began by saying that she opposes alchohol as she opposes Russian roulette. When asked to clarify, she has not once admitted that even touching alchohol is anything but unwise.
The portion of the text you cite from Calvin is actually least relevant to this discussion and displays that you do not understand the argument that Calvin is making with respect to Gospel, Liberty, and obedience. He addresses directly the spirit of "...it would be wise not to touch this..." directly, which you seem to miss. He also addresses how we are to withstand a spirit of Pharisaism.
If, for one second, bw mentioned our liberty in Christ or the Gospel motivation for such things I might go easier. Indeed, when I highlighted such concerns, it was met with more of the same "fencing of the Law". Liberty of conscience begins and ends with Gospel belief and Calvin, like Paul, does not consider such a spirit to be one of a weaker view of liberty but Pharasaism. Paul withstands that spirit to its face.
I'm content to let Calvin speak for himself. My charge stands.
Finally, I challenged bw to back up whether or not abstinence from alchohol would be "...wise..." from Scripture as a general rule. She repeatedly refused to do so by properly exegeting passages to sustain all the ways in which she claimed it would be wise to abstain altogether. Her comments even reify alcholism making it some sort of force that compels otherwise innocent men and women to fall under its power. I'm surprised to see you defending her "opinions" since, not once, did she provide any basis for a justified true belief on this subject according to your epistemology. Do you know what she is saying is wise Anthony based on her proper exegesis of the Word?
It's not that I disagree that, for some, it would be wiser to abstain from alchohol. It is the way I would go about motivating them toward that end. It's the difference between Law and Gospel.
The portion of the text you cite from Calvin is actually least relevant to this discussion and displays that you do not understand the argument that Calvin is making with respect to Gospel, Liberty, and obedience. He addresses directly the spirit of "...it would be wise not to touch this..." directly, which you seem to miss. He also addresses how we are to withstand a spirit of Pharisaism.
If, for one second, bw mentioned our liberty in Christ or the Gospel motivation for such things I might go easier. Indeed, when I highlighted such concerns, it was met with more of the same "fencing of the Law". Liberty of conscience begins and ends with Gospel belief and Calvin, like Paul, does not consider such a spirit to be one of a weaker view of liberty but Pharasaism. Paul withstands that spirit to its face.
I'm content to let Calvin speak for himself. My charge stands.
Finally, I challenged bw to back up whether or not abstinence from alchohol would be "...wise..." from Scripture as a general rule. She repeatedly refused to do so by properly exegeting passages to sustain all the ways in which she claimed it would be wise to abstain altogether. Her comments even reify alcholism making it some sort of force that compels otherwise innocent men and women to fall under its power. I'm surprised to see you defending her "opinions" since, not once, did she provide any basis for a justified true belief on this subject according to your epistemology. Do you know what she is saying is wise Anthony based on her proper exegesis of the Word?
It's not that I disagree that, for some, it would be wiser to abstain from alchohol. It is the way I would go about motivating them toward that end. It's the difference between Law and Gospel.
I think maybe you could be a little more charitable in your reading of bwsmith.
Cease fire. That's a friendly you're blasting brother. Maybe taking the gun-site down will help clear your vision a little.You are confusing knowledge and opinion. If bwsmith were saying that all drinking was a certain sin - a justified true belief - then yes, she needs to justify that belief from Scripture. But she repeatedly said that she was not making such a blanket statement. She was giving her opinion on what she considers may be a wise position in certain situations.
"Wisdom" does not equal knowledge. Wisdom is the reasonable application of knowledge to the situation. It can be the development of reasonable opinions. An "opinion" is not equal to a "justified true belief". But opinions can be very valuable. You even agree with her opinion to some extent.
I do like to pass on what I have learned from books and life – and from Scripture.
However passing along deeply held convictions based on experience and learning is not adding to Scripture.
turmeric
Megerator
I think this is the sort of statement being objected to so strenuously. I think it's wrong to insist that it's unwise to insist on liberty in an area that God has given liberty in. No one is saying it's wise to get "disabled" or to insist on the right to do so.
Let's stop arguing about whether or not it's okay to drink alcohol - it is, if you exercise self-control. I'm more curious as to what the Gospel motivation for self-control would be like - not the legal ones, like it makes you look bad and lose your job, but Gospel ones. How would one's love for Christ affect the desire to get drunk?
I thought gaining wisdom was the point of studying Scripture – (Proverbs 4:7; 14:8) Finding wisdom is finding life. Proverbs 8
The warnings – woes – for example that Isaiah makes in chapter five what do you do with them? Is it unwise to test one’s appetite, conduct, habits with these woes?
And sometimes abstaining from something is altogether wise – the whole of Proverbs 4.
No, I am not laying down the law -- and I believe that in this day and time abstinence is (often) wise --
As I noted earlier, this is your board, and I apologize for offending you.
Thank you very much for this clarification. On one level I am very sorry for upsetting some posters, esp. the host.
On another level, I hope the discussion helped.
When I engaged this yesterday, Anthony, it was after repeated attempts by others to get the simple acknowledgement from some that abstinence cannot be sustained as a "rule of thumb". I even highlighted the fact that we're focusing on tasting alchohol and not even drunkenness. When confronted with the liberty of moderation, the repeated refrain was: "You immature people. Don't you realize that 1 out of 10 people who touch the stuff will become alchoholics" or "this is Russian roulette" or even the post that Meg just highlighted.I think maybe you could be a little more charitable in your reading of bwsmith.
I ratcheted up because I responded with "...let's keep this in light of the Gospel..." passages that point out the extreme importance HOW we view the things we ought to do. Whatever is not done in faith is sin - including abstinence. What was the response? More of the same "fencing of the Law." You see, I expected a person wise enough to be giving counsel to Christians to be able to resonate with the motivations that Paul enjoins Christians with in Romans 5, 6, 7, and 8 after listing a multitude of sins (including drunkenness). His "prescription" to these things is not to re-publish the Jewish Talmud that he grew up with that was supposedly designed to help him avoid those very sins. Instead, he revealed the Gospel which transforms hearts and minds. I expect men and women on this board to be like pitch forks that tune in when the supremacy of Gospel proclamation is emphasized against the practice of "fencing the Law" (which is precisely what "...this would be wise..." is). When the Gospel tone was struck, there were those that did not hear the note and that concerns me gravely. That you seem to still be missing it concerns me greatly.
If you have not read Calvin on Liberty of Conscience then read the whole thing and not just the parts I quoted. You'll understand more fully the vast difference between giving people maxims "...for this day and age..." and Gospel motivation. The point for Christian Liberty is that, unless God has forbid it, you are permitted to be over-scrupulous about something in your own conscience but woe to any man (or woman) who turns his or her scruples into "...this would be a wise thing for all Christians to do." It sounds pious but it robs liberty by setting a standard God has not set.
If bwsmith wants to say: "It's not wise for me to drink alcohol because I'm afraid I can't control myself..." then that's one thing. To then announce to all Christians: "Alcohol is like playing Russian roulette", "you would be wise to abstain from it", "nobody is as wise as they think they are", "you don't understand how harmful this is", or "nobody ever thinks they will have a problem" is a far cry from personal introspection. That is mollycoddling. That is telling other Christians what is wise, what is harmful, and what is prudent: Where God's Word cannot sustain such a proclamation.
That is precisely what Paul condemns and precisely what Calvin condemns.
I will back off when Christians stop using this board to rob other Christians of their liberty.
Incidentally, I guarantee you if this thread was about prohibiting the sale or consumption of junk food that this thread would have died in 3 posts. I could make a stronger case, in fact, that Christians who do not floss are "unwise" based on mortality rates before and after modern dentistry. I have even stronger statistics.
But certain sins have bumper sticker appeal and lack of flossing ain't one of them.
It's not my board. I told the Mods and Admins right as I was taking out the heavy artillery so there wouldn't be any surprises. My fire for effect, believe it or not, is done out of love. I am gravely concerned that you do not really understand the nature of the Gospel vis a vis the Law and its twin sister of Liberty. I pray that I'm wrong but I implore you to investigate it more seriously.This is your board, sir -- so how you insist people to write is your right.
As this is not an epistemology section, I won't correct your faulty view of wisdom here. Suffice to say, I addressed the concern about opinions. Nobody was tying the Galatians down to circumcise them. All the Judaizers were doing was pressuring them with their opinions. Our opinions can very destructive.
It is when those experiences and convictions are dissonant to the Word of God.I do like to pass on what I have learned from books and life – and from Scripture.
Biblical wisdom is contained in the Scriptures. The wisdom you have sought to impart is not Biblical. Yes there are some things that even non-Christians observe that are correct as far as they go. When those "insights" undermine Gospel truthg then they are not insights that correspond to Biblical wisdom.
Kind of like not playing Russian roulette is (often) wise? If we're going to be honest and forthright here bwsmith then let's not try to pretend like this was all about saying that "...it is sometimes wise...." Call me a tenacious bulldog for not letting this go but this point has got to be hammered home. If you are going to repeatedly affirm the immaturity and folly of people repeatedly in a thread, not give a Biblical basis for it, repeatedly refuse to back off the verbiage, nay re-iterate it and make it stronger by appealing to statistics, then please at least have the integrity to say: "I overspoke." Have the integrity to say: I didn't heed all of your repeated injunctions to change the way I was referring to this thing that I have a personal conviction concerning.
I'm not upset believe it or not. I wrote everything above with a resting heart rate and low blood pressure. While I'm worried that you might not have gotten my enjoinments into your bloodstream, I am very happy to have the opportunity to underline the Reformed position about the place of the Gospel in making men alive to the Law and then having them embrace its third use as that which they do with new natures. I hope that this thread is read by many more for there are countless millions enslaved by a form of anti-nomianism that obscures the real weight of the Law regarding their sin by Churches that regularly preach the list of do's and dont's.
CalvinandHodges
Puritan Board Junior
Greetings:
How can Grape Juice "Make glad the heart of man?" Ps. 104:15.
Blessings,
-CH
How can Grape Juice "Make glad the heart of man?" Ps. 104:15.
Blessings,
-CH
Davidius
Puritan Board Post-Graduate
What's the difference between forbidding something and saying that any contact with it is "unwise"? I don't want to be unwise...I'm sure God doesn't want me to be unwise, either. Wisdom is to be sought after; it begins with the fear of the Lord. Hence, if any consumption of alcohol is "unwise," would it not follow that such a broad declaration would be equal to forbidding it to those who wish to be "wise"?
caddy
Puritan Board Senior
I'm not sure, but one things is for sure: I'm ratching up my flossing regimen!
Calvibaptist
Dallas Cowboys' #1 Fan
Rich, I just want to say that this is one of the most profound posts I have read on this board (not just in response to this point). I wish more of our people understood the power of the Gospel over sin (defined biblically) that Paul lauds in Romans. I wish I always understood it!
If the SBC understood this, they wouldn't have Resolution #5 that requires total abstinence from all its leaders. If people at many Baptist camps in the South understood this, the teens I took to camp 15 years ago wouldn't have gotten blasted for playing a game of Spades before registration the first day. We try so hard to be holy that, instead of depending on the cross of Christ and the power of the Holy Spirit to produce it, we "fence the law" with our own rules.
caddy
Puritan Board Senior
Amen!
As an Ex-SBCer, abstinence was somehow equated with wisdom, prudence and holiness. Mishandled references to Samson and other passages were interpreted to create a vow before God that set you apart by not partaking.
Not until I began to read some of the posts a year or so ago ( and some of the literature out there on this subject ) did my views on this subject change drastically. This is truly one of the many areas where I perceive iron has sharpened iron with the many enlightening posts that have helped me on this difficult subject.
As an Ex-SBCer, abstinence was somehow equated with wisdom, prudence and holiness. Mishandled references to Samson and other passages were interpreted to create a vow before God that set you apart by not partaking.
Not until I began to read some of the posts a year or so ago ( and some of the literature out there on this subject ) did my views on this subject change drastically. This is truly one of the many areas where I perceive iron has sharpened iron with the many enlightening posts that have helped me on this difficult subject.
That's a good question.
The difference is that to forbid it requires it to be a sin in itself - a clear violation of the mandates of Scripture. On the other hand, saying it is unwise is saying that in this cases it may be a sin. It may be a sin to drink if alcohol abuse is common in your family, or if you tend to overindulge. But simply saying (even as a general "rule of thumb" that something is unwise, is not the same as forbidding it. Rather, it is giving someone what one considers to be less than a strict law - like when Paul said he advised sexual abstinence, and he made it clear that this was not a matter of law, but an issue of liberty. Paul was still imparting wisdom, but not a matter of law.
bwsmith made her case that Christians today would be wise to abstain from drinking alcohol. She gave scripture and she gave the circumstances she believes warrant this "rule of thumb". The circumstances include the culture of today, the tendency towards excessive drinking, even the boosting of alcohol content in most alcoholic beverages.
Personally, I disagree with her. But I support her right to express her opinion. It still remains a matter of Christian liberty. We shouldn't confuse her making her case for the wisdom of abstinence from drink, with her mandating that all Christians must abstain from drink because it is forbidden by Scripture. She is saying that it may be wise for Christians today to avoid alcohol because of current circumstances. If she said that is was a matter of law, then she would have to say that any Christians supports some alcohol consumption are apostate.
All things are allowable, but not all things are profitable. Bwsmith was mere expressing the opinion that "as a rule of thumb", drinking is not profitable. Much of what she said has warrant, even if I disagree with her conclusion.
But we need to remember while we are not to set up laws in areas where we have been given liberty, equally so are we to be aware that in liberty there are opportunities to sin (by offense or by abuse of those liberty). There are circumstance where taking advantage of our liberties can be sinful. We are not antinomian.
So we must try to be wise in deciding when those circumstance occur. bwsmith believes that we are living under those circumstance. I disagree with her. But I might be wrong. And that's why we should discuss this and avoid personal attacks and accusations.
Davidius
Puritan Board Post-Graduate
She didn't say that it "may" be wise. She said that drinking alcohol is unwise and can be likened to Russian Roulette.
Furthermore, concerning the "things are just so bad in our culture that we should abstain" argument, when has the culture not been like it is today? Obviously alcohol has been an object of abuse since the time of the writing of scripture. The warnings of its misuse were written contemporaneously with the other passages of scripture which extol it as a wonderful gift from God. If bwsmith's "warnings" apply today then they should have applied throughout all of history and the praise for wine in scripture was misplaced as well as Jesus' miracle at Cana. We often act as if we live in some terrible phase of history, the likes of which the world has never seen, but a shallow survey of world history makes me think that it is not so. There is nothing new under the sun.
BobVigneault
Bawberator
Oh, the present times are much worse.
"Professor" Harold Hill says so:
Of course you'll want to replace a pool table with alcohol and 'River City' with your community, but there's trouble my friend - with a capital 'T" and that rhymes with 'B' and stands for booze. Oh we got trouble.
"Professor" Harold Hill says so:
Of course you'll want to replace a pool table with alcohol and 'River City' with your community, but there's trouble my friend - with a capital 'T" and that rhymes with 'B' and stands for booze. Oh we got trouble.
caddy
Puritan Board Senior
Trouble, Trouble....sing it Ray
[video=youtube;KrZkaj37kA0]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Oh, the present times are much worse.
\"Professor\" Harold Hill says so:
Of course you'll want to replace a pool table with alcohol and 'River City' with your community, but there's trouble my friend - with a capital 'T\" and that rhymes with 'B' and stands for booze. Oh we got trouble.[/quote]
[video=youtube;KrZkaj37kA0]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Oh, the present times are much worse.
\"Professor\" Harold Hill says so:
Of course you'll want to replace a pool table with alcohol and 'River City' with your community, but there's trouble my friend - with a capital 'T\" and that rhymes with 'B' and stands for booze. Oh we got trouble.[/quote]
- Status
Similar threads
