Christians and alcohol

Status
Not open for further replies.
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.

:ditto:

It's one thing to say that it is unwise for certain people to consume alcohol, namely those for whom it easily leads to debauchery. I have seen this very thing happen to someone in my own family, so I concur with the warnings for those who should not drink.

But it's quite another to say that it is wise for Christians to abstain from alcohol, the implication being that any Christian who takes a drink, even one who can genuinely drink in moderation and enjoy it as a gift from God that Scripture declares it is, is unwise. That is a biblically unwarranted statement.
 
She didn't say that it "may" be wise. She said that drinking alcohol is unwise and can be likened to Russian Roulette.
But she also said she was not laying down the law or saying that it was forbidden by Scripture.

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.
I agree with you here, which is also why I also disagree with bwsmith. And I think this is where the argument needs to be addressed - on the merits of the points being made. When people argue for the wisdom of abstinence from alcohol, they give a list of reason. We can look at those reasons and see if they have merit.

If one says the reasons against drinking warrant a law against it, then they fence the law. But it is only "fencing the law" because the new law is not warranted by Scripture. It is still a matter of liberty, and any law is a violation of liberty.

But look at the catechism answers to the meaning of the 10 commandments. There's a long list of what commandment X means, and what commandment Y means. This is not "fencing the law" because the "additional" laws are logically warranted by Scripture - and are not merely stricter laws to avoid breaking the commandments.

How do we determine the difference? By looking at the arguments for the proposed laws. If the law is fully warranted by the Scriptures, then it is not fencing the law, but merely working out the logical implications of Scripture. But if the proposed law is a matter of the application of law to particular situations, then we can not make it law, but leave it as a "rule of thumb" or a suggestion.

I believe when a church starts saying that all drinkers are apostate, or not welcome to fellowship, they fence the law. When they say you can not be an elder or a deacon if you smoke, they fence the law. But if a person gives the opinion that Christians would be wise to abstain from alcohol or smoking, then they are not necessarily making a law (or fencing the law) - and should not be accused of being Pharisaical. We seem to be equally quick to accuse someone of being legalistic when they express opinions regarding what they consider wise Christian behavior.
 
:ditto:
... But it's quite another to say that it is wise for Christians to abstain from alcohol, the implication being that any Christian who takes a drink, even one who can genuinely drink in moderation and enjoy it as a gift from God that Scripture declares it is, is unwise. That is a biblically unwarranted statement.

I don't think your implication is correct.

I agree that Scripture imply that wine is a gift from God and it is my opinion that Christians today can safely drink with moderation. And while the contrary (to the first) would be an biblically unwarranted statement - it is not implied by "it is wise for Christian's to abstain from alcohol".
 
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.

Ahh man!!!!!!!!!! I gotta give up billiards too?
 
Here is an article by Pastor David L. Brown that he calls, "Seven Good Reasons Christians Should Not Drink"

He uses the same arguments that bw has put forth including the Russian Roulette comparison. The bulk of the piece is tied to the premise that there is a prohibition of strong drink in the Bible. I'm not sure I see it. He repeatedly quotes Prov. 20:1, as did bw, "Wine is a mocker, strong drink is raging: and whosoever is deceived thereby is not wise." He claims this to be a prohibition.

This is a warning that an EXCESS of wine or strong drink is a danger because it brings about DRUNKENESS. I don't see a prohibition of strong drink in this proverb. Is there one?
 
I am not sure if your reply is to me or “anthony” – but I appreciate the time you took in drafting a response, and am instructed by both your content and tone.

I don’t recall labeling people as “immature” – nor do I remember robbing other Christians of their liberty to make choices, or brandishing a circumcision knife.

I do know that I said one in ten people become alcoholic – and that no one intended that as a goal. You may not see it as gambling with life, sanity and health – but some do.

Certainly many do abstain from fear, instead of faith that Christ has and is delivering them from al their afflictions and sins. Cautioning others that the bridge might be out on a course of conduct is not legalism – yet some may hear an inharmonious tone with the freedom that is our inheritance.
 
It is never wise to call what God calls a blessing, a curse. Statistics can not justify it, logic can not justify it, addiction theory can not justify it, clever sounding analogies to russian roulette, nothing.

God says wine, beer, and strong drink are a blessing and are to be enjoyed. God says the purpose is to rest, celebrate, forget sorrows, make your hart glad, to worship Him. To willfully turn your back on the clear teaching of scripture can be called many things, but "wise" is not one of them.

Of course fasting is not only allowed but (I believe) commanded. Fasting by it's very nature is of a limited duration. Any person, who claims the name of Christ and also sets out a standard of behaviour that contradicts the scripture is engaged in the worship of some god, but Jesus Christ is not his name.

I realise that this may sound harsh. Yet if someone walked up to me and and introduced themselves as a fellow christian who happened to think that it was "wise" "in our time" to "abstain" from sex/marriage/having children/assembling ourselvers together/ or what ever. All of this because of "concern for potential" sins or because of their "witness". Then I would mark that person down as a crank (at best) or a heretic (at worst).

I would love to see a justification from scripture. However I think I will have to wait a long time.
 
Having been following this whole thread, I've been thinking mostly about a point that has started to come up in many people's posts in the last couple pages: the difference between calling something "a sin" and calling it "unwise." Some (such as Rich and David) have made the point that the two accusations can be identical. Others (such as Anthony) have responded that they are necessarily different.

I would argue that either one can be the case, completely depending on the context and heart of the person making the observations, particularly regarding how that person views and thinks of the people they are observing. Obviously there is a sense in which a Christian can suggest that something is often unwise without unbiblically forbidding it as sin (like Paul did, as mentioned earlier). But at the same time, it is very possible for me to call a practice unwise and ultimately be making the sin accusation at the heart of the matter.

It ultimately depends on the spirit in which I'm making the "unwise" observation, and how I view those people who partake in the supposedly unwise practice. It would be very easy for me to say, "No, I'm not saying it's a sin. I'm not even saying everyone would be unwise for doing it. I'm just making a general observation." But if I really look down on people for partaking in the practice, be it ever so subtle or vague, I might as well be calling it a sin, or universalizing the "unwise" accusation. And since so much of true meaning of the "unwise" observation can be revealed by observing how I view those who partake in the practice, and since it can be so subtle, non-explicit and vague, it can often be so easy to miss the condescending or sin-implying side of such an observation.

bwsmith, in reading this thread, I have to say I have honestly gotten the impression that your observations of the "unwise" nature of alcohol partaking have the disapproval element attached to them. If that is not the case, please say so and forgive me for misunderstanding you that way. But if you honestly look down on people who partake in that activity you view as unwise, regardless of how subtle it is, then there is more going on than an innocent, no-sin-accusations observation. I hate motorcycles. I think it is unwise to drive them because of the greatly increased risk of injury and fatality they give to the driver on the road. But I have to continually remind myself that even without directly calling it a sin, if I even do so much as look down on people for driving them (which I have done many times), then I am in fact sinning by going beyond God's Law in my own judgment of people, and I ultimately might as well be accusing them of sin.

When we were discussing the Reformed teachings on Christian liberty, a relative of mine once asked me if I would view him as unbiblically judging people if he had concern in his heart for them and their well-being after seeing a liquor cabinet in their house. I said, "Not at all. But I would view you as unbiblically judging them if you later found out that it did not in fact create a problem in their lives, yet you still looked down on them in any way for having it, or even implicitly had further notions of disapproval." So bwsmith, I would encourage you to examine your heart toward people who still choose to partake of alcohol in moderation, and honestly answer the question of whether or not you look down on them with disapproval in your heart. Because that will ultimately be the interpreter of what you mean by saying it is "unwise," and whether that observation is a healthy one in the spirit of Paul on marriage and sex, or an unhealthy one that has subtle elements of unbiblical sin accusation in it.

:2cents:
 
I don't think your implication is correct.

I agree that Scripture imply that wine is a gift from God and it is my opinion that Christians today can safely drink with moderation. And while the contrary (to the first) would be an biblically unwarranted statement - it is not implied by "it is wise for Christian's to abstain from alcohol".

Hi Anthony,

I understand what you're saying, and I'm sure you're correct in that that wasn't what was intentionally meant by saying that. I was speaking more in general terms as it is the unfortunate view of many in the Church today that a Christian shouldn't drink. Alcohol is condemned universally without qualification and without biblical basis. I should have been more clear on that. My apologies.

An in-law of mine is a pastor of a pentecostal church. At our wedding reception, my wife and I had one margarita a piece. His response? The entire reception he kept coming up to my wife whispering "sinner" in her ear.

We've had conversations with this individual about alcohol consumption since. Since he couldn't scripturally support his blanket condemnation of all drinking, he would resort to statements very similar to the one mentioned above.
 
It is never wise to call what God calls a blessing, a curse. Statistics can not justify it, logic can not justify it, addiction theory can not justify it, clever sounding analogies to russian roulette, nothing.

God says wine, beer, and strong drink are a blessing and are to be enjoyed. God says the purpose is to rest, celebrate, forget sorrows, make your hart glad, to worship Him. To willfully turn your back on the clear teaching of scripture can be called many things, but "wise" is not one of them.

Of course fasting is not only allowed but (I believe) commanded. Fasting by it's very nature is of a limited duration. Any person, who claims the name of Christ and also sets out a standard of behaviour that contradicts the scripture is engaged in the worship of some god, but Jesus Christ is not his name.

I realise that this may sound harsh. Yet if someone walked up to me and and introduced themselves as a fellow christian who happened to think that it was "wise" "in our time" to "abstain" from sex/marriage/having children/assembling ourselvers together/ or what ever. All of this because of "concern for potential" sins or because of their "witness". Then I would mark that person down as a crank (at best) or a heretic (at worst).

I would love to see a justification from scripture. However I think I will have to wait a long time.

Again, and with respect: I did not use the word “curse.” And with the blessing that the created substance wine and beer were, comes strong warnings, and woes.

If you rely on “teaching” from Ecclesiastes to enjoy life with wine, you must temper that with other passages – especially Prov 24; 31:4-7, comparable wisdom literature, and the warnings from prophets like Isaiah – as well as the instruction of use, and abuse by Paul – whose first century beverage of choice may have had the same name, buy not the same content.

Your imaginary encounter sounds troubling indeed – are you saying you compare my counsel to that?
 
Are these claims correct?

1. Both the main Hebrew word for wine and the Greek word for wine can mean either fermented grape juice or intoxicating wine. The English word wine originally had two meanings also - unfermented juice or alcoholic drink.

2. In the Bible, verses to show God approves of wine are speaking about unfermented juice. Verses that expose the evils of wine are speaking about intoxicating wine.

Could you, would you, elaborate on this distinction?
 
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"?

:ditto: From where I sit it looks like a distinction without a difference, which in my opinion is the reason this thread has unfolded the way it has.
 
...An in-law of mine is a pastor of a pentecostal church. At our wedding reception, my wife and I had one margarita a piece. His response? The entire reception he kept coming up to my wife whispering "sinner" in her ear. ...

Wow. Scary.

I imagine your wife responding with "And?..."

That kind of thing gives Christian's a bad rep.
 
Well said Chris...:up:

Having been following this whole thread, I've been thinking mostly about a point that has started to come up in many people's posts in the last couple pages: the difference between calling something "a sin" and calling it "unwise." Some (such as Rich and David) have made the point that the two accusations can be identical. Others (such as Anthony) have responded that they are necessarily different.

I would argue that either one can be the case, completely depending on the context and heart of the person making the observations, particularly regarding how that person views and thinks of the people they are observing. Obviously there is a sense in which a Christian can suggest that something is often unwise without unbiblically forbidding it as sin (like Paul did, as mentioned earlier). But at the same time, it is very possible for me to call a practice unwise and ultimately be making the sin accusation at the heart of the matter.

It ultimately depends on the spirit in which I'm making the "unwise" observation, and how I view those people who partake in the supposedly unwise practice. It would be very easy for me to say, "No, I'm not saying it's a sin. I'm not even saying everyone would be unwise for doing it. I'm just making a general observation." But if I really look down on people for partaking in the practice, be it ever so subtle or vague, I might as well be calling it a sin, or universalizing the "unwise" accusation. And since so much of true meaning of the "unwise" observation can be revealed by observing how I view those who partake in the practice, and since it can be so subtle, non-explicit and vague, it can often be so easy to miss the condescending or sin-implying side of such an observation.

bwsmith, in reading this thread, I have to say I have honestly gotten the impression that your observations of the "unwise" nature of alcohol partaking have the disapproval element attached to them. If that is not the case, please say so and forgive me for misunderstanding you that way. But if you honestly look down on people who partake in that activity you view as unwise, regardless of how subtle it is, then there is more going on than an innocent, no-sin-accusations observation. I hate motorcycles. I think it is unwise to drive them because of the greatly increased risk of injury and fatality they give to the driver on the road. But I have to continually remind myself that even without directly calling it a sin, if I even do so much as look down on people for driving them (which I have done many times), then I am in fact sinning by going beyond God's Law in my own judgment of people, and I ultimately might as well be accusing them of sin.

When we were discussing the Reformed teachings on Christian liberty, a relative of mine once asked me if I would view him as unbiblically judging people if he had concern in his heart for them and their well-being after seeing a liquor cabinet in their house. I said, "Not at all. But I would view you as unbiblically judging them if you later found out that it did not in fact create a problem in their lives, yet you still looked down on them in any way for having it, or even implicitly had further notions of disapproval." So bwsmith, I would encourage you to examine your heart toward people who still choose to partake of alcohol in moderation, and honestly answer the question of whether or not you look down on them with disapproval in your heart. Because that will ultimately be the interpreter of what you mean by saying it is "unwise," and whether that observation is a healthy one in the spirit of Paul on marriage and sex, or an unhealthy one that has subtle elements of unbiblical sin accusation in it.

:2cents:
 
I do know that I said one in ten people become alcoholic – and that no one intended that as a goal.

That means that nine in ten people do not, and can reasonably enjoy God's blessed creation without fear.

Also, it is claimed that one in ten people is a homosexual. Does that mean we all should avoid any sort of relationship with members of the same sex? Is such a relationship "unwise"?

You can't use statistics in a meaningful way in these types of arguments.

There is no wisdom in statistics.
 
... Also, it is claimed that one in ten people is a homosexual. Does that mean we all should avoid any sort of relationship with members of the same sex? Is such a relationship "unwise"?.

Yes, I would recommend abstaining from sexual relationships with the same sex.

Oh... That's not what you meant? :doh:

My bad. :coffee:
 
That means that nine in ten people do not, and can reasonably enjoy God's blessed creation without fear.

Also, it is claimed that one in ten people is a homosexual. Does that mean we all should avoid any sort of relationship with members of the same sex? Is such a relationship "unwise"?

You can't use statistics in a meaningful way in these types of arguments.

There is no wisdom in statistics.

:up::agree:
 
That means that nine in ten people do not, and can reasonably enjoy God's blessed creation without fear.

Also, it is claimed that one in ten people is a homosexual. Does that mean we all should avoid any sort of relationship with members of the same sex? Is such a relationship "unwise"?

You can't use statistics in a meaningful way in these types of arguments.

There is no wisdom in statistics.

I was owning up to what I did say in an accounting that included assumptions about what I said.

And I agree statistics can often be manipulated – they can describe behavior. Since the warnings so clearly describe what may come from use – I believe a healthy fear is wise.

I believe it is a sin to engage in relations with the same sex.

And there is great wisdom in understanding the times, which are sometimes described by statistics. (1 Chronicles 12:32)
 
Again, and with respect: I did not use the word “curse.” And with the blessing that the created substance wine and beer were, comes strong warnings, and woes.

If you rely on “teaching” from Ecclesiastes to enjoy life with wine, you must temper that with other passages – especially Prov 24; 31:4-7, comparable wisdom literature, and the warnings from prophets like Isaiah – as well as the instruction of use, and abuse by Paul – whose first century beverage of choice may have had the same name, buy not the same content.

Your imaginary encounter sounds troubling indeed – are you saying you compare my counsel to that?

Granted you may not have used the word "curse", but it sounded like you were describing one.

If you honestly are trying to say that the laws of fermentation have changed in the last 2000 years, then yes, you are wandering off the reservation into crank territory. This theory has been around now for a few years and is on the same level as a flat earth theory.

Citing warnings against drunkeness and then saying "see wouldn"t it be nice to treat Gods blessing as a curse to be avoided?" is not wisdom.
 
bwsmith,

Would you admit that God's word labels certain alcoholic beverages as a blessing from God as well as something which must be handled with care? This is one part of the other side's arguments to which I don't think I've seen you respond.
 
Tom, are you sure that's true with all statistics? Or is that just an inductive observation based on the many bad misuses of statistics that occurred in most of the times you've seen them used? ;)

Wisdom comes from God's Word by the power of the Holy Spirit. There is no wisdom in statistics because there are no brute facts.
 
I was owning up to what I did say in an accounting that included assumptions about what I said.

And I agree statistics can often be manipulated – they can describe behavior. Since the warnings so clearly describe what may come from use – I believe a healthy fear is wise.

Fear of the Lord, not the fear of things, is the beginning of wisdom.


I believe it is a sin to engage in relations with the same sex.

Any relation or just overt sexual relations? You may have missed my point about the fear of A leading to B, and that the way to not get involved in B (sin) is not necessarily to abstain from A.

And there is great wisdom in understanding the times, which are sometimes described by statistics. (1 Chronicles 12:32)

Truth is not found in statistics. And we have no fear of statistics nor of the "implications" that some folks generate from statistics.

Statistics are a relative thing, and in a few years they will all have changed to reflect the views of the next group of accountants.
 
I believe when a church starts saying that all drinkers are apostate, or not welcome to fellowship, they fence the law. When they say you can not be an elder or a deacon if you smoke, they fence the law. But if a person gives the opinion that Christians would be wise to abstain from alcohol or smoking, then they are not necessarily making a law (or fencing the law) - and should not be accused of being Pharisaical. We seem to be equally quick to accuse someone of being legalistic when they express opinions regarding what they consider wise Christian behavior.

:up::up:

I think that the anathema statement, though made by a layman outside of a Church-setting, was out of line.

See Romans 14. bwsmith may be classified as a weaker sister in consideration of her stance, but by no means is she proclaiming a false gospel by what I have read.

Now had she said that all those that consume alcohol are sinners and don't love the Lord etc. then that would be a different matter and one where she should be dealt with. But she didn't say that. She simply gave her opinion that drinking is unwise and she compared it to Russian Roulette in reference to taking a gamble on becoming an alcoholic if you start drinking.

The problem with this discussion seems to be the forum it is in (The Law of God). Once bwsmith was allowed to state an opinion that she couldn't warrant from Scripture then the thread should have been moved out of The Law of God forum. But it seems that it was easier (or perhaps more enjoyable) to pile on her opinion instead of moving the thread.

Does the law of God condemn drinking alcohol? Absolutely not. End of discussion. That should have been the standard for how far the discussion would be allowed to carry on since it was in The Law of God forum.

:2cents:
 
Wisdom comes from God's Word by the power of the Holy Spirit. There is no wisdom in statistics because there are no brute facts.

Fully agreed, brother. My previous one-liner was just a couldn't-resist attempt at making a corny joke around the reference to statistics. :)
 
:up::up:

I think that the anathema statement, though made by a layman outside of a Church-setting, was out of line.
I assume you are speaking of me. Would you like to point to where I anathematized anyone?

See Romans 14. bwsmith may be classified as a weaker sister in consideration of her stance, but by no means is she proclaiming a false gospel by what I have read.
No, she cannot be classified as a weaker sister by the proper interpretation of Romans 14. The weaker brother is never warranted in prescribing rules apart from God's Law.

Now had she said that all those that consume alcohol are sinners and don't love the Lord etc. then that would be a different matter and one where she should be dealt with. But she didn't say that. She simply gave her opinion that drinking is unwise and she compared it to Russian Roulette in reference to taking a gamble on becoming an alcoholic if you start drinking.
I think that reading is naive and ignores the context in which she was repeatedly challenged to back up her assertions. A "...you guys don't know how destructive this is for the Church..." and "...nobody ever thinks this will happen to them..." tone was repeated and affirmed.

The problem with this discussion seems to be the forum it is in (The Law of God). Once bwsmith was allowed to state an opinion that she couldn't warrant from Scripture then the thread should have been moved out of The Law of God forum. But it seems that it was easier (or perhaps more enjoyable) to pile on her opinion instead of moving the thread.
Well, what is apparent if you read through the thread is that, from the beginning, she was challenged to use Scripture and use it properly. She has still failed to do so even in her injunctions about it being (now sometimes before she opposed it) unwise. She was rebuked, and rightfully so, because she continued (continues) she was highly prescriptive without Scirptural warrant to do so.

Does the law of God condemn drinking alcohol? Absolutely not. End of discussion. That should have been the standard for how far the discussion would be allowed to carry on since it was in The Law of God forum.

:2cents:
And as I said, this is why her feet were held to the fire for this. People may think that it's OK to offer opinion about what is unwise by appealing to statistics and humanistic psychology to add to the Word of God about what is "unwise" based on a personal scruple. I'm not one of them. You're of the opinion that her opinions on this ought not to be rebuked when she's given ample opportunity to change her tone but refuses to do so or to provide Biblical warrant. Again, I'm not one of them. I am very comfortable with my challenge and rebuke to bwsmith. I did not anathematize her (nor do I have that authority) but I am going to prevent her from running roughshod on this board.
 
I've only had time to scan a few pages of this debate, but I must drop in for a second and say that the reactionary attitudes against alchohol that are found in many churches today really need to be rebuked. Just this past week, I've had discussions with three people (none of whom are alchoholics, and one who doesn't even drink) who have been chastised by church members or pastors for engaging in behavior that was in no way sinful.

One woman was verbally rebuked by her minister in front of the congregation, because she plays piano at a local high-end diner, which of course sells alchoholic drinks. She is a musician who is doing a good job at her vocation, and who does not drink, yet because some fundamentalist baptist minister wanted to make a point out of her before the church (so the rest would cower in fear), she recieved his condemnation. I told her to ask him if he ever takes his wife out to a nice meal on their anniversary, because unless he takes her to McDonalds, they are most likely eating at a venue that serves alchohol of some sort (whoops...). Hence, we see the hypocrisy of the Pharisee come into the church yet once again, and that being propagated by her own ministers.

I used to be indifferent to this issue, but more and more have come to have little patience with the binding of a believer's conscience on these matters. Christian liberty is just as precious a thing to protect, as is our witness before the world, because a witness of legalism is not a witness to the power of the Gospel.
 
In this discussion there seems to be an underlying presumption in favour of a minimalist view of pastoral oversight. The message seems to be, If it's not forbidden in the Word of God the church cannot exhort to abstinence. The opposite is found in the early church, where eating food sacrificed to idols was a thing indifferent in itself but forbidden in certain contexts. I wouldn't suggest the church should ban the use of alcohol, but it should wise-up and stop the uncharitable flouting of its liberties.

There is a complete biblical picture as to the use of alcoholic beverages. Men are commended for abstinence. Wine is not for princes. Often wine is associated with social festivity -- is that the appropriate demeanour to be displaying in our homes every day? Spirits were the concoctions of false religion. And so on and so forth. Those who advocate the legitimate use of the fruit of the vine are obliged to give attention to ALL that the Bible says on the subject.

Our socieites ban the sale of alcohol to minors. If the bare fact that the Bible extols wine as a gift of God is sufficient to establish its unrestricted use, why do parents keep this divine gift from the lips of their children? Because they know the dangers of it, and their love for their children leads them to make a protective stance. It may even be over-protective. Love has a way of doing that to people. The sad irony here is, that people are being blamed because they are over-protective, that is, they are showing too much love to the brethren.
 
I assume you are speaking of me. Would you like to point to where I anathematized anyone?

Scripture bw. No more mollycoddling, no more fencing the law. No more appeal to dubious statistics.

No more "talking points" and "shock talk" (disables, Russian roulette).

Do you want to know what is really scary? The anathema for those that try to add to the Gospel.

I never said you anathematized her. I said the anathema comment was out of line. I'm not sure what you were trying to imply by using it.


No, she cannot be classified as a weaker sister by the proper interpretation of Romans 14. The weaker brother is never warranted in prescribing rules apart from God's Law.

I think you're wrong, Rich. She CAN be classified as a weaker sister because she was never arguing for abstinence as a rule of God's law. Stop putting words in her mouth. All I have read from her are warnings. Granted she has been firm in her warnings, but who cares? What's wrong with that coming from a grandmother who has experience in life? She's not making her opinions and warnings the law of God, and if she is then you're spot on by rebuking her. I just didn't read it that way.


And as I said, this is why her feet were held to the fire for this. People may think that it's OK to offer opinion about what is unwise by appealing to statistics and humanistic psychology to add to the Word of God about what is "unwise" based on a personal scruple. I'm not one of them. You're of the opinion that her opinions on this ought not to be rebuked when she's given ample opportunity to change her tone but refuses to do so or to provide Biblical warrant. Again, I'm not one of them. I am very comfortable with my challenge and rebuke to bwsmith. I did not anathematize her (nor do I have that authority) but I am going to prevent her from running roughshod on this board.

And that's your right and authority as admin of this board. I had a problem with the anathema comment.

This is nothing personal against either Rich or bwsmith. I made my feelings clear in my initial post that both parties seem to be a little off base throughout the course of this thread. If bwsmith claims her opinion is a rule of God's law then I retract what I have said and she is wrong. If not, then I think some have gone too far in their comments. I probably wouldn't have even commented if not for the anathema statement.

I'm not interested in arguing my view on this thread any further.
 
In this discussion there seems to be an underlying presumption in favour of a minimalist view of pastoral oversight. The message seems to be, If it's not forbidden in the Word of God the church cannot exhort to abstinence. The opposite is found in the early church, where eating food sacrificed to idols was a thing indifferent in itself but forbidden in certain contexts. I wouldn't suggest the church should ban the use of alcohol, but it should wise-up and stop the uncharitable flouting of its liberties.
I think if you carefully examine what I have been critical of on this long thread, you will note that I have, not once, claimed that oversight is prohibited. I have come to the defense of others when charges of legalism have been levied in other places. There is a subtle, but profound, difference between warnings about flouting liberty (as in Romans 6) on the basis of our union with Christ on the one hand and prescribing abstinence on the basis of statistics and arguments that are not bolstered by Scripture. Even injunctions to obey clear portions of the Law can be approached in such a way that they deny the Gospel-empowering motivation that is supposed to drive the Believer.

If this thread had taken a turn that liberties were being flouted, I would be attacking this thread from a completely different angle. As it is, the argument for abstinence has not been built or sustained from a Gospel-motivation but on the basis of personal conviction.

Finally, I would argue, that abstinence might be encouraged but it can never be prescribed as "wisdom" outright. At the very least, it's opposite can never be Scripturally compared with the folly of holding a gun to your head.

There is a complete biblical picture as to the use of alcoholic beverages. Men are commended for abstinence. Wine is not for princes. Often wine is associated with social festivity -- is that the appropriate demeanour to be displaying in our homes every day? Spirits were the concoctions of false religion. And so on and so forth. Those who advocate the legitimate use of the fruit of the vine are obliged to give attention to ALL that the Bible says on the subject.

Our socieites ban the sale of alcohol to minors. If the bare fact that the Bible extols wine as a gift of God is sufficient to establish its unrestricted use, why do parents keep this divine gift from the lips of their children? Because they know the dangers of it, and their love for their children leads them to make a protective stance. It may even be over-protective. Love has a way of doing that to people. The sad irony here is, that people are being blamed because they are over-protective, that is, they are showing too much love to the brethren.
I disagree as much as I respect you and consider you a good friend. The over-protectiveness here is condemnable because it is not being couched in light of a Gospel motivation. Certainly you would agree that the reasons the Mormons warn their children not to drink is not to be considered blameless just because the goal of abstinence is achieved.

Within the context of a Church, I would rather have a few confused about the bounds of their liberty than those that never feel like they are given warrant to exercise liberty at all because all the fencelines have been drawn beforehand and the only explanation for them given is "to cross this line is like playing Russian roulette".
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top