Here is an excellent article written by someone whose credentials I did not look up, but seems to at least take part in the SBC. He presents nearly the same argument about alcohol consumption that many people who have stopped to study the issue (I believe even Mohler) have come up with. As I understand it, Mohler does not allow his students to consume alcohol, but it has nothing to do with biblical condemnation of alcohol consumption (I believe that Josh can weigh in on Mohler's argument better than I could).
In summary of the article (the article is actually about Spurgeon drinking and smoking):
The author agrees that drinking alcohol (in moderation) is not condemned in scripture. Spurgeon later in life chose abstinence because at that period in England there were a lot of people falling into alcoholism and they chose to point to the fact the "Spurgeon drinks" and "Spurgeon smokes" to justify their addiction.
Everyone agrees that if you have a problem with drinking, meaning you cannot in your own mind morally justify it, then you shouldn't drink. If you cannot control your consumption, then you should not drink. I have heard the argument that drinking, like smoking, is bad for your body...that is far from the truth and I can provide you with tons of scientific articles proving that drinking, again strictly in moderation, is very beneficial to your health. Can you give me the same data for Coca-Cola?
People will also argue that preachers should not drink. It is my belief that preachers are men just like the rest of us, so are bound just like we are. If a preacher feels though that he is truly the cause of people in his congregation stumbling into sin (alcoholism) then he should analyze his actions. The Bible says that deacons shouldn't be given to "much wine" but does not say that a deacon should not consume it at all. If you feel that drinking will cause someone you know to become an alcoholic or drunkard, then do not drink with them and do not discuss with them your personal belief, it is your choice to make. They should also understand it is their own choice to make, that they are alone responsible for whatever may come of it.
The author's article points out that you should not condemn a brother for his choice to drink, just as a brother that chooses to drink should also not condemn another that chooses not to. So without further ado...here is the link to the article (don't worry, it's short and easy to read...you don't even have to think a lot as it does not present lots of scripture to analyze, it just provides his opinion about Charles Spurgeon).
http://trevinwax.com/2006/12/06/spurgeon-the-drinker-the-rest-of-the-story/
--David
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
22 comments:
Alcohol isn't explicitly prohibited in Scripture. I'm willing to consider texts. Until prohibition in the U.S., the church
had never used Welch's grape juice and crackers for the Lord's Supper.
To say it's wrong to consume alcohol at all is to say the church for
nearly 2,000 years has had sin its taking of communion.
--Josh
As long as we don't have "4.5 - 5 Calvinist" tattooed on our forehead or
the back of our right hand while drinking alcohol eating a goat boiled in
its mother's milk, I think we'll be okay.
: )
--Ralton
David, nice article. Ralton, funny comments.
I checked out the profile of the author of the blog and he's actually
attended Southern. I have basically the same reasons for not drinking
as the author. I abstain, not in order to be "righteous," but because I
know in Southern Baptist circles it will be easier for others to
receive counsel and instruction from me as a minister of the Gospel. As
someone once taught me, we follow the example of Christ in His giving
up of privileges He didn't have to for the sake of others. I give up my
Christian freedom in order to reach out to others in whatever way. It's
not so hard of a thing to do, but I do have objections with
institutions mandating it, even Southern.
Mohler's standard of total abstinence so that "no one can ever accuse
of him of drinking too much" is fine and practical personal conviction
and guideline. And I, like him, do think it's better that Southern
Baptist pastors and seminary students abstain from alcohol, at least
during this time and context of the SBC. However, I do have some
problems with making it a requirement, such as with Mohler. I
understand you want to set a model for students headed into the
ministry to follow, but I think it's better to be persuasive rather
than "legislative" in order to establish that model. It's like saying,
"You don't HAVE to give up alcohol. It's an issue of Christian
conscience and something you should give up for the sake of others if
necessary. But we're still going to make you give up alcohol, so in the
end, you still HAVE to." I see more merit in students and pastors
choosing to do so freely.
The issue should push toward honoring God with our entire diet, not
just in the nuances and no-no's of Southern religious custom. Instead
of just harping on certain substances such as alcohol and tobacco, we
should strive to eat and live as healthily as we can. That's something
convicting for all of us. Feaker made reference to Coca-Cola. No
argument could be made that it is good for your health.
I think what happens in people deeming certain foods "evil" (so to
speak) is that we divide activities as spiritual and non-spiritual.
It's spiritual to read your Bible, but not a good novel. It's spiritual
to pray, but not enjoy conversation with unbeliever about sports. It's
spiritual to do mission work, but not take out the trash. Those first
things are spiritual and are necessities to the Christian life, but
life for the believer was never meant to be divided like that. We're
called to "whether we eat or drink, do all things to the glory of God"
(1 Cor 10:31). That includes taking out the trash. If only we would
have such a God-centered view of life, we might truly begin to stand
out from the culture in the things that matter.
I couldn't remember if I mentioned in my previous e-mail, but I do plan
to give a synopsis of my take on the Multiple-Intentions view at some
point. I believe aspects of it not to be in conflict with five-point
Calvinism. I will explain at a later time. I'll be headed to Louisville
with Sara tomorrow to visit Southern's campus for a few days. Also, I
have to prepare a sermon since I'm due to fill the pulpit at Grace
Presbyterian in Cookeville on Sunday evening, March 16. So it may not
be till sometime next week, but I hope to give an extensive explanation
of where I stand on the atonement.
One of the best overviews on Calvinism, Arminianism and the atonement
I've come across was the Mark Driscoll sermon titled "Unlimited Limited
Atonement." After hearing it, his view does not conflict that much, if
any, with traditional five-point Calvinism. I highly recommend everyone
hear it, if nothing else but to hear Driscoll's sense of humor at work.
It's rather lengthy at 71 minutes, but it's well worth the investment
of your time. The link is below.
http://www.marshillchurch.org
http://media.marshillchurch.org/ (look at Sermons, then Topical Series,
and click on Christ on the Cross)
http://www.marshillchurch.org/audio/Atonement8_Driscoll_112005_16k.mp3
--Josh
I would agree with your comments about legislating to a point. However,
much like each individual must understand their abstaining from alcohol
prevents others from "stumbling", on an institutional level I feel it
should be the same way. In our world today (sad as it is), someone would
say, "Well, Southern doesn't have a policy against alcohol. They're
advocating drinking. Let's all go get smashed!"
While I agree in a "perfect" world, it should be each individual's decision
for the glory of God; we live in a fallen world. Hence, the Bible
instructs us to, "Therefore let us not judge one another anymore, but
rather resolve this, not to put a stumbling block or a cause to fall in our
brother's way." (Romans 14:13 - emphasis added). So from an institutional
standpoint, Christians must consider these things as well.
My 2 cents,
Ralton
That is the standard argument against it, but I see major problems with using that verse for this specific thing, and that is only because it could be applied way to broadly. It sounds like you are agreeing that the Bible does not specifically condemn alcohol consumption, so it's good then that there is a basis for debate about how to approach the topic and come to a point where a person has the knowledge to morally make their own decision without fear of condemnation no matter which side that decision may fall upon.
What I mean:
To say that abstinence from alcohol keeps someone from stumbling is somewhat misleading. First of all, if you agree that it is not condemned, for someone to stumble means that they would have to consume alcohol in excess, right? How could someone saying, "I believe that the Bible does not forbid the consumption of alcohol in moderation, but strictly forbids over indulgence" lead someone to the point that "Well since they say drinking is okay it's time to party and get wasted"? I believe that the root of the problem is that the thought is so tightly engrained in southern thinking to be wrong that we automatically generate this scenario. Go farther North or west and you'll find a hard time meeting Christians that think moderated-drinking is a sin. Whose fault is it that it is looked upon so poorly? I believe that it is our own. What would be more detrimental: Us teaching that moderated drinking is not a sin and people in the south realize they don't have to hide their liberty to choose or an unbeliever picking up a bible and reading for himself that it is not a sin when he has been told countless times that it is? Then aren't we labeled liars and hypocrites?
Secondly, I believe that to use that scripture as a "catch-all" (which I'll admit I tend to do quite often) is very dangerous. For example: I am currently following a low-carb diet. I have committed this diet to God for his glory because I feel that my health is not as it should be (and my lab work from my physical tells the same story). Would it be a sin then for you to have a sandwich in front of me? Couldn't that cause me to stumble? Should I expect you to tear the bread off your sandwich and throw it away because it would offend me if you didn't? It may seem silly, but as Haze pointed out we do all things for the glory of God, including dieting.
Are these 2 things really the same? To me they are. Is it a sin to eat bread? No, obviously not. Is it a sin to drink alcohol? No. Are you allowed to eat pizza in my presence? Only if you like to watch me drool. The point is is that we can apply that verse to almost every scenario in life, and if we're going to use it for this one item (has anyone actually ever used that verse to argue anything besides drinking?) then we should also use it as an application to the rest of our lives (don't eat doughnuts around David because that may cause him to stumble)...then we should also all become democrats and vote for Hillary Clinton because that is what they advocate...never do anything that may offend someone else ;).
And I leave you with a joke....
Q: What is the difference between a catholic and a baptist?
A: A catholic will say "hi" to you when you see them in the liquor store
--David
Two things and a joke:
1. Never, ever, ever associate me with a Clinton (not even the city)
2. MacArthur gives a "Christian Wine List" which can help us determine our
actions on topics such as alcohol:
A. Will it be habit-forming? 1 Corinthians 6:12
B. Will it lead to dissipation? Ephesians 5:18
C. Will it offend a weaker brother? Romans 14:21
D. Will it harm my Christian testimony? Romans 14;16
E. Am I certain that it is right? Romans 14:23
"The Keys to Spiritual Growth", page 77.
Those questions can be broadened to other areas as Feaker suggests. We
must always be striving to bring glory to God in all that we do, think,
say, and advocate. That is what irritates me about some of the Christians
who take up political issues just to fight for that political issue. They
lose sight of the true meaning of standing for Christ. The topic
(homosexuality, abortion, etc.) becomes the central theme of the discussion
instead of Christ.
The joke: What do you get when you have 4 Baptist preachers together? A
5th... (Joke told at the Jack Daniels Distillery in Lynchburg, TN)
I shall now go to bed for the evening or at least until Cayden wakes me up
to eat.
Ralton
concerning alcohol--kindof but not really
I understand that alcohol and tobacco aren't the same deal, but my point is that people look down on using both of them. Spurgeon smoked a cigar a day (he claimed it helped his throat-he was the prince of preachers, so i'll take his word for it). Even back then, tobacco use was looked down upon, and yet Spurgeon said "I will smoke to the glory of God." There was one instance when Spurgeon was out smoking in front of his church and a woman walked by and saw him. "Sir!" she exclaimed, "don't you know that's the devil's weed?!" Spurgeon replied back "Ma'am! Don't you know that's why i'm burning it?!"
I don't know much about his drinking, but info on his smoking can be found at http://www.spurgeon.org/misc/cigars.htm
i guess my point is that we (well, probably just I) tend to isolate things historically/culturally and say "well, Spurgeon could get away with it because smoking was a cultural thing" or "well, that guy can get away with it because drinking is a cultural thing." the bottom line is that there were still people that thought Spurgeon was compromising his ministry by grossly sinning the sin of tobacco use, even in his culture (there's a nasty letter written against him on that webpage) and there are still people who think preachers ruin their ministry by drinking moderately. the question is: at what point do we give things up to reach them, and when do we stand our ground saying that their accusations are unjustified (as Spurgeon often did)
required joke:
Why do you always take two baptists fishing with you?
Because if you only invite one, he'll drink all your beer, but if you invite two, you'll have it all to yourself.
--Elijah
That's pretty funny Ralton.
Okay then...you can be an Obama girl ;)
I believe that the list you gave is good and points out everything that we have stated about the people who definitely should not drink.
A. Anyone that cannot limit should not partake at all
B. Always agreed...beyond moderation is universally considered a sin
C. Only if that weaker brother has been given misinformation. I believe it would be our duty to prepare them to answer this same question and be able to morally make their own decision. Like I said in an earlier post, if it offends a brother, then you should probably not do it in their presence (but brings me full circle to my own argument with the bread...so I'm not so sure about justifying this as being an important thing to answer). You should however make your belief known and make sure that it is well understood.
D. I believe it would hurt your testimony if you preach that drinking is wrong then go out and drink yourself. I believe that your testimony would be strengthened if you can make a presentation as to why you believe it is not wrong and be ready to answer the question, "Then why does everyone else say that it is?"
E. A very good point. Haze has brought this up often in other conversations. If you are not convinced in your own heart that something is right, yet you do it anyway, then you are sinning.
Greetings,
Let me start by saying that I must make clear that what is said in no way comes across as mean spirited or as an attack on anyone. Everyone knows how sometimes emails can seem harsh just because of the wording but that is not what the righter was conveying at all.
So that being said I want to make sure that all of you know that I love each and every one of you as Brothers in Christ and that I would not want to hurt any of you. Of course to Jeremy’s dislike I must love my son-in-law a little more than others. =;-)
Just because we may disagree on something does not mean we dislike each other.
Hypothetically speaking-
Just because Jeremy drinks when he goes to Brent’s concerts does not mean I do not like him or that I think he does not love the Lord.
Just because Zai has 6 tattoos does not mean I think any less of him or that I think he loves the Lord less than I do.
Since these emails may be a little long I will probably post one on Alcohol and one on tattoos.
Let me deal a little with Josh’s wanting everyone to follow his lead and boil goats. =;-)
In God’s Word, which includes the O.T., there are principles to be applied in our lives as we walk submissively in Christ. When we apply those principles they allow us to walk by faith and not by sight. When we don’t apply those principles we realize that it is impossible to please God. And whatever is not of faith is sin.
We must realize that God’s Word is the source of our faith. And if we don’t practice our faith according to God’s Word we are living in practical sin.
Take gambling for example. God’s Word does not say- thou shalt not gamble, but gambling transgresses at least 4 Biblical principles and therefore is a sin.
I just realized I probably opened up another can of worms.
2 Chron 7:14 is a very specific promise to the people of the elect nation of Israel.
That does not mean I cannot apply it to my life just because it is in the Old Testament.
So goes many other teachings in the Old Testament. Elijah Hixson in his sermon last year made somewhat of a reference that many believe we do not need to read or apply the Old Testament to our lives today.
And I must agree with him that is “ridiculous”. I am not saying here that Josh necessarily conveyed that.
Every Biblical doctrine of theology is either directly or indirectly founded in the Old Testament. And much of God’s moral law is only revealed in the Old Testament.
Besides, it is God’s Word and many of the things that happened in the O.T. I believe were put there for us to learn from.
Another example is:
Lev 18:23
Neither shalt thou lie with any beast to defile thyself therewith: neither shall any woman stand before a beast to lie down thereto: it is confusion.
Here God gives us his moral law regarding bestiality. There is no concept of avoidance of bestiality declared in the New Testament. I would submit to you that Lev 18:23 is enough.
Yet Another:
Lev 19:29
Do not prostitute thy daughter, to cause her to be a whore; lest the land fall to whoredom, and the land become full of wickedness.
This is also not repeated in the New Testament. Is there anybody who wants to argue that since it is not repeated in the New Testament we should not listen to it in the Old Testament? Of course not.
Now that the water is clearly muddy, let us begin.
Why Christians should abstain from drinking alcohol.
Alcohol is the #1 killer between the ages of 17-24.
Every 10th person that drinks will become hooked.
30% of college failure is related to alcohol.
43% of 7th graders have had a drink
65% of 8th graders
8% got drunk.
There are 13 different Hebrew and Greek words for wine in the Bible. And some of them have the meaning of an alcoholic drink, and were used for a disinfectant etc.. as David could attest to.
Such as:
Luke 10:34
And went to him, and bound up his wounds, pouring in oil and wine,
1 Tim 5:23
Drink no longer water, but use a little wine for thy stomach's sake and thine often infirmities.
Wine in Bible times was only about 7% alcohol. Not like the wines of today which is about 14%. With sherry and ports at about 18% and then hard liquor- the sky is the limit.
A beer today contains 3 times more alcohol than an 8 oz cup of wine in bible times.
As the custom then was to dilute their wine, some reports are at least 2 parts and some as much as 20 parts. Wine was used in the drinking water to kill the bacteria etc…
In Bible times only a barbarian would drink undiluted wine.
Which we see the diluting in verses like:
Prov 9:5
Come, eat of my bread, and drink of the wine which I have mingled.
Today’s wine is by definition ‘strong drink’.
“Many wine drinking Christians today mistakenly assume that what the New Testament meant by wine is identical to wine used today. This however is false. In fact today’s wine is by Biblical definition strong drink and hence forbidden by the Bible. What the Christians ought not to drink is wine, beer or other alcoholic beverages that are actually strong drink and forbidden in Scripture. Even ancient pagans did not drink what some Christians drink today.”
Norman Geisler, Former Dean of the Liberty Center of Christian Scholarship, Liberty University
The Bible has much to say about drinking.
Eph 5:18
And be not drunk with wine, wherein is excess; but be filled with the Spirit;
Of course David is the soon to be the Doctor but I believe I have stashed away evidence that even a small amount of alcohol is damaging to the brain. After all, alcohol is an intoxicant.
Hos 4:11
Whoredom and wine and new wine take away the heart.
Prov 23:31
Look not thou upon the wine when it is red, when it giveth his colour in the cup, when it moveth itself aright.
Here God is saying that it is not even a good idea to look at wine as it may tempt one to drink. Has that ever happened to any of you when seeing someone drink wine or a beer maybe on a TV commercial or at a restaurant?
Prov 23:20
Be not among winebibbers;
Prov 20:1
Wine is a mocker, strong drink is raging: and whosoever is deceived thereby is not wise.
With just this verse alone it is difficult to justify so-called social drinking by Christian believers with such a clear warning.
We are commanded in Matt. to be wise as serpents, and harmless as doves.
1 Cor 6:19
What? know ye not that your body is the temple of the Holy Ghost which is in you, which ye have of God, and ye are not your own?
We know that alcohol is a very additive substance. Must we take the chance that we might become an alcoholic, thus damaging our temple.
And that we even might cause our Brother to stumble.
Rom 14:21
It is good neither to eat flesh, nor to drink wine, nor any thing whereby thy brother stumbleth, or is offended, or is made weak.
Of course my view is maybe more from a youth leader stand point. What do you think the youth in our church would think if they knew some of our Sunday school teachers, future pastors, doctors, youth leaders, deacons, etc.. drank alcohol. They look up to people like this and it could cause them to doubt and possibly stumble in their faith.
If you are still not convinced then we should do as Jesus when he said:
Luke 22:18
For I say unto you, I will not drink of the fruit of the vine, until the kingdom of God shall come.
In the Creators Service,
Kent
I also want to make it clear that i in no way want to be mean spirited or attacking. As Kent said, just because we disagree, it doesn't mean that we don't like each other. After hearing a lecture on "process theology" and "open theism," i was praising the Lord for my Arminian brothers.
I have no intention of replying to all, because, quite frankly, on some of them, you got me. However, i do feel led to comment on a few things.
This is not to say that i endorse either drinking or abstaining, just a few comments.
Concerning the statistics. Just because so many people use alcohol who shouldn't, or abuse it when they should (bear with me with the term "should" here) only use it, doesn't make it right or wrong. C.S. Lewis, in The Screwtape Letters makes the point that all vices are originally good pleasures that God gave us to enjoy; it is only when they are corrupted and twisted unnaturally that they become evil. Ex. "Because that guy loved sex so much that he went to prostitutes, sex is bad; therefore i', not going to have sex with my wife." Nobody follows that logic.
Now, I will grant you that the statistics do definately prove that alcohol is very easily abused, and perhaps we would be wise (in one sense) to abstain, but i'm not dealing with "is it a good idea?" here, but "is it biblically mandated?"
Concerning 1 Tim 5:23 Drink no longer water, but use a little wine for thy stomach's sake and thine often infirmities. Even if wine in the Bible is diluted, it doesn't change the fact that it was still a form of ethanol (chemical name for the particular alcohol that people drink, as opposed to rubbing alcohol, etc.). Therefore, even diluted Bible-times wine would get you drunk, if you drank enough of it. If getting drunk were not a problem, we wouldn't see so many Scriptural prohibitions against it.
Concerning Eph 5:18 And be not drunk with wine, wherein is excess; but be filled with the Spirit; Yay! Greek word studies! (my favorite!) I want to compare two passages here. The first is this verse and the second is John 2: 9-10 When the ruler of the feast had tasted the water that was made wine, and knew not whence it was: (but the servants which drew the water knew) the governor of the feast called the bridegroom, And saith unto him, Every man at the beginning doth set forth good wine; and when men have well drunk, then that which is worse: but thou hast kept the good wine until now. The word to focus on here is "drunk." The same word (methusko, for the curious) is used in both verses. I checked this in both the critical Greek text on which modern translations are based and the Majority Text. In both texts, the same word is used in the Greek. In the definitive Greek-English Dictionary, the word means "cause to become intoxicated," which, in the passive voice used in both verses, means "to be intoxicated." Now, we do not debate that the Ephesians passage speaks of getting drunk. Clearly, it does. My point is that the wine Jesus made at the wedding in Cana had the same effect on the drinkers. Let me paraphrase the ruler: "Normally, people serve the good wine first, so that when people have gone through it all, they're too drunk to know (or at least too drunk to care) that they're getting cheap wine later, but you've saved the best stuff for last!" The Ephesians text is a bit of a double-edges sword. It clearly prohibits intoxication, but at the same time, is a link to the wine, the abuse of which it prohibits, to the wine that Jesus made from water, through the same word being used to describe both.
Yes i know, the word was used to describe cheap wine in the John passage and was never used to describe Jesus' wine, but the ruler's point was that Jesus's was even better that what people normally saw as good wine.
My Question: why would Jesus make wine for people, knowing that it was a sin for them to drink it?
Romans 14:21 Is Paul advocating vegetarianism?
What about Proverbs 31:6 Give strong drink unto him that is ready to perish, and wine unto those that be of heavy hearts. This almost sounds as if we should give alcohol to someone who is already depressed and going though a rough time, which is exactly the LAST thing common sense tells us to do. However, both John Gill and Matthew Henry think that this is exactly what this verse teaches.
A lot of the Scriptures that speak against alcohol are really speaking against drunkenness, which I wholeheartedly agree is a sin.
Prov 23:31 Look not thou upon the wine when it is red, when it giveth his colour in the cup, when it moveth itself aright. You got me here. I'm not sure how to respond to this one right now.
I am not disagreeing with the point that there are times when it is ministerially best to abstain from drinking, i only ask whether or not abstinence from alcohol is a biblical mandate from the Scriptures.
Just a few questions and comments,
--Elijah
I have said my peace about most things, and I believe everyone knows where I stand on the issue. I personally feel that the way that we should approach the youth is with with straight-forward answers. Obviously that is a hard thing to do because there are convincing arguments on both sides. Here's another can of worms for ya: How do you present to youth end-times theology when there are so many competing theories with very strong merit? I think you research them all, present all of the arguments, then let them decide for themselves. I believe that the issue on alcohol should be approached in the same way. The reason it might negatively effect the youth in a church such as ours is because abstinence from alcohol has been preached as a biblical mandate their entire lives, so I ask also the same questions Elijah asked (good thing he knew the verses, they would have taken me a while to find): is it a biblical mandate, and should it be taught as such? Everyone may have just gotten that Huuuuu (deep breath sound) thinking..."We could never teach our youth that...they'd all become alcoholics and turn away from the Lord!!" PCA Presbyterians usually have very sound theology (just ask Haze, he almost became one ;) ). I don't know for certain, but I would almost bet their youth are taught exactly what I mentioned above...and according to Haze, it is their preacher that teaches them about sex!!!
WHAT???!!! Talking about the S word in church...No Way!! I'm being a little silly, but that is exactly the reaction we would most likely see in our church. All I know is that there are not millions of Ex-PCA kids running around like drunken animals ;)
A quick comment on the science:
Beer, wine, and liquor are almost all made the same way. ETOH (CH3Ch2OH...take that Elijah) is produced as a by product of respiration (the conversion of glucose to energy) in yeast. The way that the products are distilled is what produces the amount of alcohol. Brandy, which is a strong liquor, is distilled wine. I believe that beer is actually in most cases only 3-5% alcohol by volume (the only thing stronger are the cheap "redneck" types). That is actually less alcohol percentage then Old Testament times, right? (I didn't want to scroll through 2 emails to find the stat Kent provided, but I believe it was 7%). I have also heard that old testament wine was watered down, but I've never seen a reference...anyone know where that is recorded?
Medicine:
Here is the conclusion to a study about alcohol consumption and brain shrinkage. You can read the full synopsis if you follow the link:
CONCLUSIONThe brain tends to shrink physiologically with age. Heavy alcohol consumption seems to exaggerate this shrinkage in social drinkers. Moderate alcohol consumption does not seem to affect brain volume.
http://jnnp.bmj.com/cgi/content/abstract/71/1/104
Here is an article that says the exact opposite (possibly the one Kent was talking about):
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2003/12/031205052952.htm
If you like to read that sort of stuff anyway...but if you click the link above you will find on the right side links to related stories...all of which talk about the positive effects of moderate alcohol (specifically wine) consumption...and one of the articles is about only heavy drinking effecting the brain (it is the newest study). I have many more examples. As Kent knows, I am an avid Men's Health reader so I've read study after study about the good effects specifically for men.
I do believe that in the end whatever someone's opinion is on this issue probably will not change. I believe the thing that should be sought is an understanding and respect for both views, and not the search to bind one's conscience to the other. There are lots of other things we put into our bodies that are accepted whole-heartedly by Christians that should be scrutinized the same as alcohol. Alcohol is just the red-headed step child.
I think it is a great thing that we all respect disagreements and reserve the right to disagree. Like I said, it leads to debate and study of the word...that is never a bad thing.
--David
I appreciate Kent's willingness to seek out the vast amount of verses in each e-mail. It shows a true commitment and reliance upon God's Word as the supreme authority in life. Although we seem to be coming different poles on a couple of the issues discussed as late, I commend him for at least taking a position because he's convinced the Bible teaches it.
On a quick note, in determining what OT passages, such as those named from Leviticus, apply to the church today, let me say I do believe God's Word is inspired the same throughout, from Genesis to Revelation. Some passages may be easier to grasp, more insightful, but each and every word, in the original autographs mind you, are the very words of God and in God's kind and wise providence the original text (not manuscripts) have been preserved for us through today. It's only by looking to the Scripture and referring to other portions of Scripture that we can determine context and meaning in how they apply.
Since I'm currently in my hotel room at Southern, I'm not going to give a detailed synopsis of how OT law applies to the New Testament church, but give a brief overview of the principle followed throughout church history, particularly by the Reformers. The OT law can be divided into three parts: civil, ceremonial, and moral. The moral law is given in summation in the Ten Commandments. All men are bound by it in essence as God's law is written on the hearts of men, even the Gentiles as Paul notes in Romans 2. Nevertheless, it was grace for God to reveal His morality in such tangible fashion to Israel and did so in showing them favor after bringing them out of bondage from Egypt. As Christians bought by the blood of Jesus from the bondage of sin, we should understand that God's law serves as medicine for us and as a means for freedom from sin, not bondage and burden.
Civil law pertains to those commands given to Israel as a theocratic nation to carry out, such as the stoning of diviners, prostitutes, unruly children, etc. That is why we do not carry out those penalties in today's church, nor as a nation for that matter. These were given to Israel as God's ethnic covenant people. However, in the Christian church, we can apply the truths and principles implied in those laws, which was that sin leads to death and in some cases, such sins can lead to the downfall of a society if allowed to become normative. And no, despite what the dispensationalists might tell you, the reason we don't stone criminals for such crimes is not because we're in the dispensation of grace (Hoss and Elijah will appreciate that one).
As for ceremonial law, like the rest of the OT, it points to Jesus. The moral law definitely drives us to Christ (Gal 3:24) because we realized we've failed it. The civil law does as well because we realize we deserve death in breaking laws consistent with God's character, but in the case of how the OT laws apply to the church, ceremonial law reveals our need for a mediator between us and God. The people of Israel had to offer their sacrifices through priests since they were consecrated and set apart to do so, showing they were cleansed and purified in a ceremonial sense. Well, Christ as the "anointed one" has been set apart, to offer Himself and our spiritual offerings (good works) to God because He is pure (in actuality, not just ceremonially) and we're not. Our good works are contaminated filth if not offered to God through Christ. And He can only offer a propitiatory atonement in Himself rather than a bull or goat, which could not take away sin (Hebrews 10:4). In other words, Jesus is the only sacrifice that could truthfully take away our sins and satisfy God's holy wrath toward us. He was beyond the symbols and ceremonies that communicated these truths. All in all, the Scriptures testify of Him (John 5:39) and it's through the sacrificial system and ceremonial laws in the OT that Israel was taught substitutionary need for atonement, something innocent to die in the place of the guilty. If this were to just be taken as moral law, why not still offer sacrifices? Why not keep the various festivals Israel was instructed to keep? In short, they all testified to Christ. He is the fulfillment, just as He is of the rest of the OT. Every line of Scripture speaks about Jesus Christ of Nazareth.
I say all that to ask, how else would you apply the ceremonial law to the church? The same goes for boiling a goat in its mother's milk. Sorry to beat the horse, but it's not dead yet. How do you apply that to the NT church if the entire OT is intended as moral law? Not to say Kent said that, but I want some clarification on how to consistently apply God's Word when it speaks to such. Again, I think context is the key to understanding how OT mandates and principles apply to the church.
I can't add much more on top of what Elijah said. Proverbs 31:6 is where I would go to not only show that the Bible not only does not prohibit wine but promotes the use of it. The John 2 passage is another excellent passage to demonstrate the drinking of wine, and as Elijah pointed out, it must mean that it was possible to become drunk (i.e. "well drunk" or intoxicated) through the consuming enough regardless of how diluted it was. The issue is not in the amount of alcohol, but whether or not beverages containing any alcohol whatsoever are prohibited by Scripture, as Elijah also pointed out.
As for Proverbs 23:31, "Look not thou upon the wine when it is red, when it giveth his colour in the cup, when it moveth itself aright" (KJV, not because I wanted to use it but because I copied and pasted from Elijah's e-mail), I've always been settled on the interpretation that the point is a warning not to consider drinking wine when it appears most tempting, times when you're more vulnerable to not show restraint and moderation and thus more likely to become intoxicated. In other words, to "not be given to much wine."
I look to write more on the alcohol issue later. Keep thinking and discussing, guys.
~Soli Deo Gloria~
Josh
Well David, if you're going to get THAT specific, couldn't it be H3C-CH2-OH ? (With the H's BEFORE the first C)
--Elijah
Well sure it could. I might also specifically show the attachment of the ethane to the hydroxide as below:
H H
| | ..
H-C-C-O-H
| | ..
H H
But I would have a little trouble showing the modified angles caused by the lone pairs on the oxygens. Partial charges will also be ignored for this drawing ;)
Oops, I just saw when I commit this that my hydrogens get messed up because the leading spaces are removed...:(
True, but would it not be an ethyl group as opposed to an ethane group, for lack of the final hydrogen on the first carbon?
Remind me again what my organic chemistry has to do with whether or not it is biblically mandated to abstain from alcohol?
--Elijah
Yes, you are correct :(
And it does not have a thing to do with it...just a fun exercise in memory recall ;)
Thank you Josh for commending me for using much scripture in my replies. But the reason I do that is because it does not matter what your opinion is or my opinion is but only what God says. Him and Him only is our guide in all things, period.
Kent
What a great discussion so far! I'm glad we can have these conversations without stepping on anyone's toes, because we know that all of us have the same goal; to find the truth.
I am going to give a few thoughts on the subject that are my personal reasons for abstaining from alcohol. First I would like to clear up a common misconception. 1 Thes. 5:22 has been quoted previously, which says, " 22Abstain from all appearance of evil." (KJV) I do want to make the point that the word "appearance" is not the correct translation of the word used there. The NAS translates it correctly when it says "abstain from every form of evil" So, the idea that you cannot hang out with people that drink based solely on this verse is incorrect.
Think about it, if we can not hang around sinners when they are sinning, then when in the world are we supposed to preach the Gospel to them? Christ did not say "Go into all of the world, except the bars." 50 years ago, it would have "appeared" evil to go into a store that sold alcohol beacuse that was the mindset. However, if you will not go into a store that sells alcohol now, you will starve!
I was of the mindset for most of my life that you could not be around people that were drinking because it would hurt my testimony. But I was challenged by my friends on many verses, especially the ones that seemed to point to the fact that those were mainly the kind of people that Jesus kept company with, the lowest of the low.
Also, when the Bible says (Romans 14, 1 Cor. 8) that we should not let our Christian liberties cause others to stumble Paul does not simply mean "stumble" in the context of them watching us do something and then fall into sin. Rather, what he is talking about is a more mature believer knowing that they have perfect liberty in Christ to eat meat sacrificed to idols, but a younger, less mature brother may have come out of idolatry. What would be sin is telling him "Oh come on. An idol is nothing and eating this meat is perfectly fine." If he were to eat that meat and do so against his conscious, that is causing him to stumble. The context of Romans 14 makes this clear as both verses I have referred to are in the same chapter.
However, I am an abstainer. I do not drink alcohol for the following reasons:
1. This one does not apply to me anymore, but I think we would all agree that we are to obey ALL laws of the land as long as they do not conflict with Scripture (including the speed limit) no matter how ridiculous. The law in this great country of our is that you can not drink alcohol unless you are 21 years of age. If you do drink, you would be breaking the law of the land, and thus sinning. I do not think anyone will disagree with me on this one.
2. I am VERY succeptable to temptation. I war with every sin that I have in my life. It is extremely hard for me to break addictions to my pet sins. So, while I do not believe that drinking alcohol is a sin, I will not do so for the fear of getting addicted to it and causing just one more thing that I have to fight with Satan about. It will be easier on me spiritually to just not touch the stuff.
3. Beer smells like horse urine.
4. Romans 14:23 "whatever is not from faith is sin." If I do not believe with my whole heart that drinking is not a sin and I do so anyway, I am sinning. Growing up in a Southern Baptist church it has been engrained into my mind that drinking is a sin. Though I know cognitively that there is nothing wrong with it, there is still about a 3% of my mind that still holds to that that I have not broken yet and thus drinking would also be wrong in that scenario.
5. I HATE conflict. I can not stand it. Now, I do enjoy a good argument/discussion, but I simply don't like conflict at all. I plan on being a Southern Baptist pastor. If I were to drink, that would cause some pretty major problems in my church. To me, it would not be worth drinking to hear the whining of the people. Being a pastor's son, I know that there are plenty of other things that they will complain about so why add to that?
Grace and peace,
Jeremy
Good points not to drink alcohol.
However, we need to be careful in not having our reasons Biblically based. As goes the world and the ‘law of the land’ so may go our reasons.
Personally, I would like to know how Jeremy knows what horse urine smells like. Well, maybe not!
1 Thess 5:22
Abstain from all appearance of evil.
Jeremy is mistaken when he says the King James translation is incorrect.
Not to belabor the point but the word can also be translated “appearance” as in the KJB as it has been for the past 400 years.
“First, translation of many words is somewhat fluid and not necessary fixed. Words convey concepts which often can be reflected in several ways. The word "eidos" in I Thess. 5:22 has the thought of 1) the external or outward appearance, form figure, shape; or 2) form, kind. That word is derived from "eido" which has the sense 1a) to perceive with the eyes, 1b) to perceive by any of the senses, 1c) to perceive, notice, discern, discover, 1d) to see, or to know. When collating this all together, both the words "appearance" or "form" might be used.” Dr. David Sorenson
So, I Thess 5:22 is certainly a valid point in making a case against tattoos. It is a form, perception, or appearance of the world.
It is pretty easy to see where the confusion comes from if you look at other translations.
1 Thess 5:22- Abstain from every form of wickedness. (NWT)
1 Thess 5:22- Avoid every kind of evil. (NIV)
1 Thess 5:22- abstain from every form of evil. (NASU)
1 Thess 5:22- and stay away from everything that is evil. (NCV)
1 Thess 5:22- and don’t have anything to do with evil. (CEV)
Even if the act or action is not evil in and of itself, one must abstain from the act or action if it even appears to be wrong. God says to abstain from that which even appears evil. Many things look evil or have a potential for evil, but are not evil in of themselves.
Brother Paul has stated on several occasions that he will not be in the same room alone with a female. We all should realize that we should not be alone with a member of the opposite sex to whom we are not married. The reason to abstain from this situation is not because it is evil, but because it has the appearance of evil.
For Instance, a boy inviting a girl to his home without any parental supervision is not evil in and of itself. Yet, it certainly has the potential to destroy the reputation of each.
I know of several stories and similar situations where this has happened and I am sure many of you may also.
You have missed the point.
Yes, Jesus was around sinners, but when He was, He was witnessing to them. Not hanging out with them in bars every week. (just an example, not a personal attack on Jeremy or anybody)
Are you sending your lost friends home with Bible verses or are they sending you home smelling like smoke. The bad will influence the good, not the other way around.
Hopes this helps.
Kent
Though i'm not a Greek scholar, I try to be, and hope someday to be. The issue: 1 Thess. 5:22. I hope I can be of some help. Literal, wooden word order: (this would be the EST (Elijah's Standard Translation))
"From all [eidos]'s of evil, ya'll be abstaining."
eidos is plural, the verb is apecho, it is in the present imperative, (contant action, and yet a command) and in the 2nd person plural (you, plural, could be translated "all ya'll") the verb, apecho, like eidos, also has a wide range of meanings. Only one of about 5 meanings means “abstain,” or “keep away from.”
I completely agree with Dr. Sorenson that translation is not fixed. Word meaning change over time. Moreover, he gave a good span of the various meanings of eidos. However, I do not agree with his reasoning for choosing “appearance” as the correct translation, based on the root-word of eidos, eido.
D.A. Carson, in his book, Exegetical Fallacies, lists what he calls the “Root Fallacy.” He argues that is it often incorrect to give a meaning to a certain word based on its roots. (can opened, worms EVERYWHERE, sorry) He gives the English examples of “butterfly” and “pineapple” of why it does not work. I have, in my opinion, a better one.
Jeremy, the last time I heard you sing, it was absolutely awful!
Was that a compliment or biting criticism? Well, the word awful comes from the root word “awe” in combination with “full,” so in essence, it means “full of awe.” When it was first written it carried the connotation of “fear and dread.” Jeremy’s singing is such that I fear him. Such a great voice can only belong to such a great man who can surely beat me up, therefore, it is awful. However, in the 16th century, awful meant “full of awe” in a sense of sublime majesty. Jeremy’s voice so overcomes me with majesty and awe. That is hardly criticism. Now, we would NEVER associate the word awful with the notion of being “sublimely majestic,” and I would be a hateful person and poor friend to say someone who sings as good as Jeremy to sing awful.
In Hebrew, the words for “bread” and “war” are etymologically related (in English, they have the same root word), but we do not make this connection when it comes to the meaning of the words.
All this to say that the root of the word eidos in 1 Thess 5:22 does not necessitate that we translate it “appearance.”
This is a MAJOR issue, just as Kent said. If we take it one way, then tattoos are definitely wrong, as they are an appearance of the world. Kent your logic flows wonderfully. That is a perfect example of an implication of the word “appearance.” On the other hand, if we take “form” or “kind” as the translation, tattoos are not expressly forbidden.
I heard a respectable preacher preach on the “woman” (prostitute) who anointed Jesus with her perfume while he was eating, and he made an example of her faith in Luke 7. John Gill describes that a historical use of such perfume was to give each prostitute her own particular smell, so that the men who frequent her would know which prostitute she was, even is she was veiled. Jesus forgave this woman, and walked away bearing her sins, in a literal sense. How ironic that the Anointed One was here anointed by the oil of harlotry, and after he had been teaching and forgiving, the Holy Son of God walked away from that house smelling like he had been to a prostitute.
Sometimes I think that leaving a bar smelling like smoke isn’t always a bad thing.
--Elijah
i just realized that was wasn't clear.
When referring to Hebrew, i said "In English, they have the same root word"
I meant that "etymologically related" is theologicaleese, and in street talk, it just means that they have the same root word
(Elijah, thanks for your very insightful post, as usual. This is not an attack on you but just general information.)
Elijah brought up a very good point, it “is a MAJOR issue”. Can we change the word? If we do we CHANGE THE MEANING! When do we come to the point where we can change the word?
How much Greek do we need to know in order to change God’s Word? Do we go to our Greek Lexicon, which is only one mans opinion anyway?
As all of us can see when a multitude of versions are used it does not take long for confusion to arise.
Truthfully, we do not need to know Greek or Hebrew to understand the Bible. We just need to let the Holy Spirit teach us. (1 Cor 2:13) (Now, not to say we cannot go to the Greek or Hebrew to get a better understanding of the word.)
But we need to let the Bible interpret the Bible.
Our Greek lexicon and computer software is not 100% correct.
We must be careful, in that we do not become as gods deciding for ourselves which rendering is good and which is evil. Then instead of the Word correcting and judging us, we sit and judge it.
As a matter of information I would suspect that there are not any,(or very, very few) Greek scholars today that can actually speak Greek. There is a big difference in knowing a language and knowing about a language.
There is a special reason why God “…primarily chose Hebrew and Koine Greek languages to be used for the originals of the Old and New Testaments. Both of these languages became “dead languages” within several hundred years after each respective canon was established. The words actually became “frozen in time.” Thus, the words and their meanings could not change.” Douglas D. Stauffer, PH. D.
Our English language changes all the time, thus English being a living language. The fourth edition of The American Heritage Dictionary, released in the year 2000, advertises its product with the following quote: “This edition has nearly 10,000 new words and senses that reflect the rapid pace of change in the English language today.”
We all know on this blog how words change constantly along with their meanings. Some words change meaning like ‘replenish’, and some used today are not in the Bible like Bling, Bling, etc… or Feaker’s favorite “What’s uuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuup”
Kent
Post a Comment