It would be interesting to know when the majority of church members began to preach against any use of alcohol. I wonder if the American Prohibition era had anything to do with it - or, perhaps the Puritans. For the majority of church history, it seems there was no teaching against it. Did Luther or Calvin even address drinking as an issue? Spurgeon? It would just be interesting to know.<br><br>While you’ve helped me change my thinking about other people who drink, I don’t feel you’ve presented evidence from the Bible that commands Christians to drink. I do not view drinking as sin and I, more than ever, think it is ridiculous to point to another person’s life and think “they must not be regenerate because they drink.” It is clear from Scripture that there is nothing wrong with drinking. However, as a simple decision as to what I think is best for myself and my family, I have made a no-alcohol policy with two possible exceptions: 1)for cooking and 2)after our children have left home and we are less responsible to be the main example in their lives. I don’t believe that it is absolutely necessary to use wine instead of grape juice to accurately administer Communion. Every church I’ve taken Communion at uses a different form of bread, so why would a church stand solidly on the beverage? Since Communion is the only instance the church is somewhat instructed to use wine, I would not have a problem with that. I just think that even that is a somewhat weak argument for a “command to partake.”
Alcohol and the Christian Part Deux
Now, I understand that, despite the weight of Scripture in the previous article about alcohol, some will still have objections. I intend to deal with some of these objections here.I must preface this by noting that this is mostly not of my creating. We have been discussing alcohol in Sunday School, and this list of objections, and many of the responses, came from that, although I’ve taken the liberty to phrase them as I wish.
The previous article also came out of this Sunday School series, although I took nothing from that except some of the structure. The research was done on my own. It repeated, in many points, what was mentioned in Sunday School, but I wanted to make sure I understood the weight of Scripture myself as opposed to how it was interpreted by another.
These, however, are more practical issues, so I’ll stick primarily with the outline from Sunday School.The first objection, one I have personally heard many times, is an attempt to say that, “yes, the Bible does talk about wine, but ancient wine had a much lower alcoholic content than wine today.” My first answer to this is that (in fewer places) the Bible still has good things to say about strong drink, which is undoubtedly highly alcoholic given the context and meaning of the words used.
My second answer is that there are many places in the Bible where the same alcohol that is commended is the same that made people drunk. In fact, the same words are used to commend alcohol as to condemn it. There is no difference.
From what I can find, although sometimes ancient wine was watered down (I can’t determine if it was in the time and place of the New Testament or not), this would put the alcohol content still somewhere between beer and modern wine, and quite possibly higher than modern wine when not watered down.Essentially, if there was a difference in the alcohol content of wine as it was consumed in Biblical times and the way it is now, it is a negligible difference, and may even at times go the other way.
The second objection to the use of alcohol is that some people have a genetic predisposition to alcoholism. The first response to this is that alcoholism is not a disease, it is a sin. The fact is that even if there is such a thing as a genetic reason that causes some people to become alcoholics quicker than others, the root problem is still spiritual. God never commands “don’t sin, unless you have a genetic predisposition to it, then it’s not your fault.”
Now even if there is a gene that predisposes someone to alcoholism, there would have been these same people in the time when Christ turned water to wine, drank wine himself, and used it for the Lord’s Supper. Likewise, when Paul was passing on Christ’s teaching of the Lord’s Supper, he continued the use of wine.
Throughout the Old and New Testaments, no indication is made of God ever making room for this kind of excuse.
Another objection is that Because wine is potentially destructive, it is best to leave it alone. While it is true that wine is potentially destructive, this is also true about food, money, sex, and any other good gift of God. Not only do the people who advocate total abstinence from wine for this reason never apply it to these other items, but the Bible also never commands this about anything. There is never a case in the Bible where we are told to avoid a good gift of God because it can be abused.
Wine is singled out as the scapegoat because it’s destructive effects are easier to see, whereas the effects of things like materialism can be just as spiritually damaging, in a less visible way.
This argument also ignores the praise of wine in the Bible. Would God praise wine if he wanted us to avoid it because of it’s potentially destructive nature?
Another objection to the use of alcohol by the Christian is that we are to avoid all appearance of evil. Not only is this a misinterpretation of that verse (it means to avoid every instance of actual evil, not things that would look like evil), but it applies it assuming that the consumption of alcohol is a worldly practice. The application of the verse to tell us to avoid things that may appear to be evil is wrong, but were it correct, the consumption of alcohol does not even fit that interpretation.
Another objection is that, although alcohol may be acceptable in other cultures, it is unacceptable in ours.
While I have heard this argument, I’m not sure exactly what it is trying to convey. Perhaps that our culture abuses alcohol more than other cultures? This may be true, but if so, the response of the church (just like in sex and food) should be to show the proper use of alcohol, not abstain from it.
Is it trying to imply that our culture views it as wrong, so the testimony of the church would be damaged? If that’s the case, I’d have to say it’s wrong. When I was anti-alcohol, I met many unsaved people who respected my position, but couldn’t understand it. Some of them would even say that wine is all through the Bible, so it can’t be wrong. I just don’t see how this argument can hold water.
The last one we come to is that, “Wine may be okay for you, but you should abstain because of the weaker brother that may be offended.”
The point of Paul’s “weaker brother” discussion is twofold:
- While wine and meat are okay, we should avoid them in instances where it may cause a brother with a weaker conscience to partake and thereby violate his conscience (“cause them to offend”, not “offend them”). But we are not to make a new law for ourselves out of their weakness. It’s clear that he is speaking of specific instances in which our liberty should be set aside, not setting aside our liberty perpetually because of someone’s week conscience.
- The weaker brother needs to be learning liberty.Now in the cases where it is right to set aside your liberty, if you are unable to do so, than the alcohol has become your master, which is wrong.I obviously may have overlooked some objections, so please feel free to post your comments.
Comments
In regards to the point at which alcohol started to be condemned by most evangelicals in America, yes, it was an acquiescence to the temperance movement in the mid 19th century. In fact, Dr. Welch was a Methodist Communion Steward when he invented “Dr. Welch’s Un-Fermented Wine” specifically for the purpose of communion, and ended up starting the fruit juice industry. The name was later changed, of course, to Welch’s Grape Juice.<br><br>So, historically, alcohol was a non-issue until the temperance movement.<br><br>In regards to your personal standards at home, I respect anyone’s decision on what to do, as long as it doesn’t violate the Bible, and I can’t pretend to know what I would do if I ever have kids. However, is it not safer to teach your children the proper use of alcohol, rather than shield them from it completely?<br><br>I guess my point is that alcohol was such a normal part of life in the Bible, that wine was the normal beverage. You are correct that there is no command to partake, but there is also not the slightest indication that it is something to be avoided if you think necessary.<br><br>In my attempt to discover what the Bible says about this issue, I have come to the realization that the Bible doesn’t just indicate that wine is okay. This was my previous approach, after realizing that wine was not condemned in the Bible, but I decided I’d avoid it because of the dangers.<br><br>No, wine is praised, many times, as a beverage for celebration (which is part of where it ties into the Lord’s Supper), and not just because it is a tasty beverage, but *because* it is alcoholic. *Because* it cheers you up.<br><br>That was the final straw that pushed me to say there is *nothing* wrong with it.
I have thought more about the issue since my first comment on your article.<br><br>That is interesting about Dr Welch. I was going to mention something about how Welch’s tends to be the brand of choice for Communion juice, but I forgot.<br><br>In regards to my children, it will be wise to teach them not that alcohol is wrong but that in our house, we don’t need it. I do not want them to be those who judge others for the use of alcohol, but I believe it is my duty to protect them from the abuse of alcohol until they reach an age of maturity. So, yes, I will shield them from using it, but I will also teach them the proper use of it.<br><br>It is interesting to note that about the only two drinks in the Bible were wine and water. There may have been the occasional glass of milk, if one owned their own goat or cow. However, the only celebratory drink would’ve been wine by default. Now, we have Coke, coffee, lemonade, hot chocolate, tea, seltzer water, juice, and something we like to call chocolate milk. My only practical issue would be: if wine can be abused, why not stick to some other drink which can also be considered celebratory and delicious? Not too many chocolate milk abusers out there, at least not ones that beat their wives or kill innocents on the interstate.<br><br>There is the occasional day once in a while when I’m a little down or even tired. Given that coffee is my drink of choice, I load up on it and sometimes even have two 8-cup pots. Yeah, I sure get the shakes. Imagine, however, if wine or other booze were my stress relief or “cheer me up” beverage. I would invariably become drunk and a danger to myself and others. Now I know that you will at least think to yourself “well, you should learn to control your coffee and wine intake.” That may be true, but there again: is coffee even a problem if it’s not used in moderation? No, not really. Wine most definitely is.<br><br>I did remember a third use of alcohol that I may be open to. I had a cappuccino at Olive Garden once that I believe was spiked. I believe this because it was simply one of the best espresso drinks I’ve ever had and they tend to add a little something to things like that at Olive Garden. As an enhancement to other foods and drinks, I don’t believe there’s much danger of abuse and would probably be fine for most people to enjoy.<br><br>There’s much more to say. I believe that you have written these two pieces with the proper mindset, but I will still pray that your reasoning is not one of justification for drinking. A certain amount of respect should be paid to alcoholic beverages, and I hope you understand that.<br><br>Sometimes, the proper use of alcohol is no alcohol.
I forgot another comment I was going to put out here. Your argument about alcohol being acceptable in our culture is a little flawed. Yes, there are a good many people that have no problem with its use and even abuse. However, your very admission about the temperance movement and Prohibition shows that our country has had a history of a negative reaction to alcohol. Also, why do most states and the federal government apply a ‘sin tax’ to alcohol and require purchasers to be 21 years old? Because they recognize a potential problem - the same kind of potential problem tobacco and gambling present. At least in Colorado and Wisconsin, you can’t even buy alcohol on Sundays. I recognize that this is not even your strongest argument, so I don’t expect my comments to be viewed as refutation of your whole piece.
In regards to the ‘sin tax’ and some areas not allowing alcohol to be sold on Sundays these are some of the results of the temperance movement. It’s much more common to not be able to purchase alcohol on Sundays in the ‘Bible Belt’.<br><br>If we are to decide to totally abstain from the good God-given things that are so often abused in society, I think that food is something that should be at the top of the abstinence list since food is very often abused. The abuse of food (gluttony) is costing everyone since the health problems associated with it are driving up the cost of health care.<br><br>Perhaps some day soon there will be a fat tax on food such as potato chips. Already schools are removing such junk food from the schools. Maybe the next step will be putting an age requirement to purchase junk food.
I don’t know when the last time I met someone who didn’t drink who wasn’t either a Muslim, Mormon, or Christian was. I also don’t think I’ve met an unsaved person who is confused by a Christian drinking.<br><br>Also, just because the temperance movement had such an impact on our society that the laws are still around, doesn’t mean that most people agree with those laws. They’re just too lazy to change them.<br><br>I did my best to approach this with the mindset of “what does the Bible say,” putting aside all previous baggage I brought to the table. I can’t say I was necessarily 100% successful, but I did my best.<br><br>About the spiked coffee, I’ve considered trying that. I even thought at one point that would probably the first alcohol I had, but alas, it wasn’t.
No, what I was saying is that society as a whole doesn’t see why some Christians/Muslims/Mormons don’t drink. Although society recognizes the dangers of alcohol, as do I (although you seem to ignore that part of what I have said), they can’t understand why moderate drinking would be unacceptable. I’m not saying that we accept things because our culture accepts them. I’m saying there is not a true cultural reason *not* to drink.<br><br>It seems to me that religion wasn’t the cause of the temperance movement, but was influenced by it. I think this shows a failure on the part of the church that was counteracted in the wrong way.<br><br>Also, any cultural arguments against alcohol could have been used in the Roman Empire where drunkenness and debauchery were rampant, but the Bible never uses that reasoning.<br><br>Not only is food something that is often abused by culture, but so is sex. Fornication can have much more disastrous results than drinking, but I think we would be agreed that sex is a good gift of God that is to be enjoyed in it’s proper place.<br><br>I apologize if I’ve been too aggressive. Perhaps *I’m* falling into my old fundamentalist thinking habits. I’m just concerned to see you taking what I feel is an unbiblical approach.
So, what you’re saying is that our society would be better off without the influence of religion. Every culture is influenced heavily by the predominant religions that exist there. I’m not talking theoretically or “if there had been no temperance movement.” I’m talking real-life, the here and now. Yes, society does view drinking as something that should have restrictions, at the very least. If society as a whole - having merely the outside influence of religion - recognizes the potential danger of unregulated drinking (i.e., underage, felon, etc), I don’t believe the church should take a looser approach. Does not holiness and separation require us to impose on ourselves some restrictions for the cause of promoting the gospel?<br><br>I am trying not to slip into my old fundamentalist thinking habits. I do believe, however, that some things they believe should be universally held by believers. I’m sure that there were such debates and instructions in the New Testament church about the eating of meat offered to idols. Yes, it could be proven that nothing was wrong with it from Scripture, but it was obvious that it was not always the best thing to flaunt. Those that judged others for partaking were chastised, but also those that caused others to offend because of their own liberty were chastised. I guess I’m just not comfortable with the general “have to partake” and “it’s ridiculous to have any issues with drinking” tone of your pieces. The material is good, but I think the second one especially mocks some real life concerns unnecessarily. Again, I’m not talking about the stated points, but rather the tone and the tone of your follow-up comments. It seems like you’re trying to take a very offensive position on the subject. I hope this is not to ease a problem that your own conscience has with this issue?<br><br>Adina, as far as the “abstaining from good gifts” reasoning goes, I did slightly address that in my last couple comments (i.e. “chocolate milk"). Yes, gluttony is a sin and I’d love to see a Scriptural article on the subject on here. We would agree, though, that both food and wine are gifts to be enjoyed. There is no argument here. However, from a practical standpoint brought on largely by being a parent, we can all also agree that the abuse of food has little or no negative affect on other people. No reasonable person can say the same about alcohol. Again, that is not license to abuse food, but a common sense consideration of the physical consequences of abusing one over the other.<br><br>To “sin tax”: if Wisconsin is part of the Bible Belt, then California is too. I didn’t say that religion has had no play in creating the societal perception of drinking (see first paragraph of this comment). In a country where 95% of the people claim Christianity, though, do you think it is a better testimony to take the “lower ground” on the issue?<br><br>Basically, I think this is an issue that may be addressed in an article like your first one, but is ultimately a private family matter. As these comments have progressed, you seem to be trying to convince me to drink and I’ve become more adament about not doing it. These comments could then be viewed as a perfect example of what not to do with Christian liberty. State your case (as you have done very well), but do not presume to impose your standard on others. My negative reactions are for my family only. As far as you guys are concerned, I wish you the best. Remember the ending of the meat to idols discussion, though: I Corinthians 8:13.
Really? This vein started off as why I have a no drinking policy in my household. I’ve already stated that there is nothing inherrantly wrong with drinking. What I’m addressing is the common sense side of total abstinence. It has nothing to do with spiritual problems or enlightenment. It has to do with my personal “why."<br><br>Consider that many non-Christians also take a no-drinking position for a variety of reasons. Health nuts believe it’s not best for their health. Former alcoholics believe it’s not best for obvious reasons. Pregnant women know it is definitely not good for their baby. Law enforcement officers don’t drink on the job because their bosses (read: taxpayers) know that the slightest bit can impair judgment. Hospitals don’t even offer wine or booze to their patients (again, most of the world would say the reasons are obvious). As I’ve stated before, children and young adults are not even able to legally purchase the stuff.<br><br>If for no biblical reason at all, my family rule is simply based on the common sense that you seem to be denying. Alcohol simply is not the best option for drinking. Some people feel the same way about coffee or soda. I do not, although it will be a long time before my children have either.<br><br>When you become a parent, first you should name your child(ren) after me. Secondly, you should consider even now what your house rules will be. Will they be based specifically on biblical truth or will biblical truth merely be the underlying foundation of more practical, common sense rules? There’s no passage supporting not allowing your children to play in the street (there I go again with the non sequiturs), but you don’t allow them to just because it makes sense. I think it makes sense for them not to partake of alcohol until at least the law says they can. As an example to them, Jennifer and I will do the same.<br><br>Perhaps I overstated some things in previous comments, even more than what I personally believe. This comment is the most concise of why we just don’t do it, at least for now.<br><br>One more thing: as you know, my children like to eat everything in the house. Just today, they polished off my chocolate covered raspberries. They’ve drunk small amounts of coffee and soda - which they’re not allowed to have - by taking a chug when we weren’t looking. As another practical example, do I really want them getting drunk because I left the wine cupboard unlocked? Why not just leave it out of the house? Really, why not?<br><br>PS - My apologies to the readers of this blog for putting my last comment in a blockquote. I forgot to close the tag. Whoops.
You are probably right about me pushing to hard for you to partake, but I have one last comment.<br><br>I don’ think this is something that should be approached from a “why should I” perspective. You are still approaching it from the idea that something is inherently wrong with alcohol, and if that is your conviction, hold to it.<br><br>There is no reason for me to approach it this way, although I do understand your arguments as they come from the same perspective I’ve held for years.<br><br>One thing I hope this has helped you with (I know it has helped me) is to think more about abusing God’s good gifts, and look at the other areas of my life where I have a tendency to do this, and correct those. Because, while it may be not as visible, it is still wrong to be a glutton; to over-indulge in coffee, candy, etc.; to watch TV in excess, and so on.
I’ll boil all this down into what my real problem is. Your very last sentence says it.<br><br><blockquote cite="I’m just concerned to see you taking what I feel is an unbiblical approach."><br><br>The whole tone of your second article and your comments has changed from one of “there’s nothing wrong with alcohol” to one of “you’re unbiblical if you don’t partake of alcohol.” You show me where God commands the use of strong drink for Christians, and I’ll stop by the liquor store today. Yes, perhaps God has given wine to be enjoyed. Perhaps He wants His children to enjoy life and wine can help accomplish that. But does He command the use of something that He also warns against abusing? I have yet to see you prove that.<br><br>The food and now sex arguments are ridiculous, and I think you know that. There are restrictions on how they are properly used, and that’s where the similarity ends. I’ve stated most of my case on food. I forgot to address the “health care costs go up when people abuse food.” You’re right. Car insurance rates go up when people abuse alcohol. However, total abstinence from food would be an irresponsible abuse in the other direction, whereas total abstinence from alcohol simply leaves a person with more available brain cells.<br><br>As far as sex goes, the abuse of it is not related to the quantity of it. In the bounds of marriage, one may partake as often as one likes, and is bound only by one’s own beliefs about birth control and cost of multiple college educations. Basically, comparing the abuses of alcohol and sex is a classic apples-oranges argument. You abuse alcohol by having too much (Biblically, not consequentially) and you abuse sex by having it outside the bond of marriage. Within marriage, you can’t have too much sex. Similarly, there is no location or station in life that is particularly appropriate for the use of alcohol. Your arguments remind of some of the non sequitur comparisons I’ve heard in sermons growing up. Stick to the Bible. Also, I don’t think you should be approaching this so much from a “Why shouldn’t I?” angle as much as from a “Why should I?” or “Why do I need to?” angle.<br><br>I think that’s about all I’m going to say on this issue. Hopefully.</blockquote>
Abuse is abuse. It boils down to the same spiritual problem whether it’s quantity or otherwise.
I knew at some point you’d bring up the “don’t abuse anything” argument. I think I already addressed that. SINCE THERE IS NOTHING WRONG WITH DRINKING ALCOHOL (as I keep saying and you keep assuming that I don’t really believe it), my standard is merely one of personal consideration and decision. I’ve tried to argue these points, since your ‘part deux’ apparently address the more practical side. I simply think you approached it from your pre-conceived notion that drinking is completely fine for everyone as long as they don’t abuse. That is simply not the case. It is a personaly decision that the Bible leave up to the individual, as far as I can see. A similar issue that the Bible states some appropriate uses of but remains silent on others is music. I am looking soon to post an article on personal music standards and use on Celestial Online. Feel free to disagree with whatever I say.
From this and our offline discussion, I think that we are not connecting no some key things, so I will forgo continuation of this discussion.<br><br>The key issue for me here is that drunkenness and alcoholism are spiritual problems, and although it’s not necessarily wrong to set up physical boundaries to prevent this, that does not mean that you have solved the spiritual problem that would cause drunkenness.<br><br>Whether those physical boundaries be limiting yourself to a specific number of drinks, or drinking at specific times, or totally abstaining, I do not believe that is really the issue here. The issue is what spiritual problem would cause the drunkenness? The spiritual problem will exist, whether you drink or not.<br><br>That’s really the core issue that all my poorly expressed and reactionary comments above were trying to convey.
Apparently you now have found Biblical “proof” for a taboo that you once held, howbeit “forced upon you.” Using the argument that you have been using, then there are many other things that are given in Scripture that you may want to consider doing. The woman caught in adultery wasn’t condemned by Jesus either - just told to go and sin no more, so using some of your reasoning, is it okay to commit adultery since Jesus didn’t condemn her, and therefore won’t condemn us? Do we go around washing feet, because foot washing isn’t condemned in Scripture? Over and over in Scripture, many items are given that aren’t condemned in Scripture, but are still unwise to participate in today. A lot of what I’m getting from what I read on your blogs is that about the only things you can have convictions about are the basic fundamentals of the Scripture (of course you don’t want to call yourself a “fundamentalist” so maybe that isn’t the case anymore, either). While I applaud you for trying to form your convictions (or preferences) from your personal study of the Scriptures, don’t try to make something that is at best “borderline” with the way you are interpreting Scripture, Scriptural mandates to participate in. For you to say (or at least hint) that those of us who chose not to participate in alcohol are doing so unbiblically, is to judge our motives and actions soley on outward appearances, and isn’t that something that is frowned upon in Scripture? Apparently you have found something that you and your wife now are involved in (from one of your earlier comments that the spiked coffee was not your first alcoholic drink), and are now trying to justify it by Scripture. You talked like this “trying of alcohol” was in the past, but you are not just studying this out in Scripture. Or do I have that backwards? Has your study of Scripture now given you freedom to do that which you once held as a sin? Then I dare to say that you are studying Scripture in the wrong vein. I have heard ALL of the arguments that you have put forth many times before. We started an addictions program here at our church, and I would love for the many “former” alcholics who have been saved, and now are gaining victory over this addiction to confront you and tell you that they started just the same way that you did - casual drinkers, able to control it. But then a situation came upon them, not unlike the ones Nathan talked about where he drinks coffee, and since their beverage of choice was alcohol, their lives ended in the gutter. I think it is a sad day when Christians try to justify (even with Scripture) those things which practically are wrong, let alone Biblically. I agree with Nathan, that if he was one who is were you apparently are now, that when those times of “depression” came upon him, he would have become drunk. Matthew, I love you dearly, but I am having a hard time with your new ways of thinking. I have heard (and know) of countless numbers of people who started where you did, by justifying to themselves and to others by using Scriptural “proof” texts for what they wanted to practice, or were practicing. They left the churches they were attending to find a church that “agreed” with them on certain issues, and now are nowhere to be found in church, because other things came up that they disagreed with and wanted to be a part of, and finally progressed to the point where they couldn’t find a church that allowed them to do everything they wanted to do. Matthew, I think you are smarter than that, but that doesn’t stop me from being concerned when I hear the exact same arguments coming from you that I have heard from them. I know that you might take offense since I haven’t loaded my comments with Scripture, but many things that we do or don’t do as Christians don’t necessarily have Biblical “proof texts,” but are based upon the doctrines of Scripture, which in term form convictions, and then preferences. Don’t boil everything down to just “doctrines” or else it isn’t important. I am NOT saying that that is what you are doing, just giving a caution.On another note, whatever happened to studying Scripture to find out what we can about God, since that is what Scripture is all about - to know God better? I am hearing very little on your blogs about the new things that you have learned from your personal devotions and study of the Scripture about what God has taught you about himself. Your study about alcohol is about how that affects you, not about what the study of alcohol tells you about God and his character. It is not about us, it is about Him. Study Him, and “the things of this world will grow strangely dim in the light of His glory and grace.” Is that phrase acceptable?Love, Dad
First off, your assumption that I am trying to find biblical proof for something that I was already doing is unfounded. Granted, I partook of alcohol once before I wrote the blog entries, but that was not before I studdied the issue to some extent. I have since only had alcohol once since the blog entries (champagne for a wedding toast), so this is definetely not something that I have been doing for a long time.<br><br>It seems to me that you are referring to this one blog entry, which admitedly has it’s holes, and the comments I have made, which you may notice I boiled down later, and somewhat agree that I approached it too harshly by trying to push others too hard to make the decision that I have made in this area.<br><br>It seems to me that you have not read my first blog on the subject. Alcohol is nothing like adultery in Scripture. You can read my first post for some of the Biblical examples where alcohol is recommended and praised. If you do read it, you will see that the Bible doesn’t treat alcohol anything like adultery (which is always condemned). Alcohol is never condemned in Scripture, but drunkenness is. This is my point, and the most Biblical position to take. Nowhere is anyone told to avoid God’s good gifts because some abuse them.<br><br>I believe you have missed my point. Abuse of alcohol, as well as abuse of anything else, is a spiritual problem that sometimes has physical effects. The spiritual problem has nothing to do with the alcohol in itself. It is a spiritual problem when you allow yourself to be controlled by anything other than the Holy Spirit, whether that be alcohol, food, sex, reading too many books, using the computer too much, watching too much tv, etc.<br><br>I do apologize that in my zealousness on this particular topic, I have been overzealous in trying to push others into my belief. Consumption of alcohol is not commanded in Scripture, so I will try to be more accepting of the standards that you have.
Whew! After reading the fundamentalist non sequitur arguments, I find myself swinging back toward Matthew. Before I begin, let me preface this with “I am not arguing personal choice here - I am arguing biblical truth.” That makes this different than my previous comments.<br><br>Yes, people become addicted to any number of things. An addictions class is a great idea, but everyone in the church would need to be in it. We’re all addicted to certain things that take precedence sometimes over our love for God. Even our spiritual leaders become addicted to things like power (definitely not going to open that can of worms here). As Matthew has stated, an over-indulgence or subservience to anything is wrong. The reason for not partaking in alcohol, therefore, should not be because the Bible teaches against it specifically. PLEASE read Matthew’s first article on the subject. There is no way of arguing that drinking alcoholic beverages is a sin. Partaking or not partaking is not the biblical issue. Telling others that they should not because it’s a sin is. Or, telling people that they should partake because the Bible allows or even suggests it is.<br><br>Arguments like the “ask an alcoholic” one are not founded on the Bible and cannot be used to call drinking a sin, as I believe was done above. Such arguments may be relegated to the “personal choice” debate, but in the end it is each individual’s decision to make based on their honesty with themselves and with God. We cannot judge others one way or another in this matter, especially given the weight of Scripture. CHRIST HIMSELF DRANK ALCOHOLIC WINE. There is no denying this from a very simple study of the Last Supper and the correlation that the Corinthians had problems with drunkenness. Plus, given that Christ created alcoholic wine at the wedding of Canaan and that it was the only drink being served (i.e., when they ran out, they had nothing to serve the guests), Christ most likely drank then, also. You might say that He is the Son of God and therefore had more control over His level of participation. Why then did He create wine that was more alcoholic ("old") for all the guests and why did He pass the cup to all the disciples and instruct them to continue the tradition?<br><br>Yes, I think I speak for Matthew and myself when I say we are no longer willing to call ourselves fundamentalists, simply because of the association. We are unwilling to call things “sin” that God Himself clearly does not and we are unwilling to judge other people or their motives. A friendly, purely practical discussion on the subject is one thing, but a condescending, judgmental attitude is another.<br><br>It would be nice to see more things from other people about their devotional lives, but blogs tend toward more general topics that the majority of the readers might find interesting. Do you really judge Matthew for the very topics he chooses to write about?<br><br>I’m sorry, Matthew, for phrases in a couple of my own comments that questioned motive. That was some old tendency that I will continue to keep out of my thinking. God help us all when Christian love is foreign to Christians.
Thanks for all your work hashing out this issue, Fitzy. Your views on the subject are, I am convinced, biblically-based. Your first article was patently sufficient to substantiate the scriptural soundness of your approach. Your zeal to make practically relevant what you have been biblically convinced of is also commendable. If the bible gives clear evidence of the use of wine as an occasion to praise its Maker and Giver, then any view of wine which villifies the substance itself must result in an insufficient view of God. First, if we see alcohol as per se immoral, we necessarily lose an occasion to praise the Lord for his good works. And second, if we see alcohol as per se immoral, we are, in effect, suggesting that something reproachable inheres in God who, not only made it to enjoyed, but commended its use in such psalms as 115, and such explicit passages as Deuteronomy 14. If you prefer not to drink, because you more enjoy coffee, milk, etc., fine. Praise God as you enjoy other beverages. If you prefer not to drink because you view alcohol as essentially immoral, that is a whole different story. What God has called good, do not call evil. And by the way, all of your arguments by way of comparison are really not so incompatible. The points of comparison are quite sufficient to warrant the analogy: with wine, food, and sex, we see three things that are essentially good; that may be turned to evil by using them in ways forbidden by God; that may be turned to meaninglessness by using them in a “proper” way with respect to themselves alone and not in gratitude to the God who made them; and that can be used in morally positive ways, as we glorifiy the Maker of all things good. If you don’t drink alcohol, that’s fine. But I hope the reason is that you enjoy some other good substance created by God more than you enjoy alcohol, and that you are therefore enabled more fervently to glorify the Maker of all things good as you enjoy something else. One more note: in addition to bringing up the Romans 14 and I Corinthians 12-14 “Christian Liberty” passages, one more passage that may fittingly be applied to certain approaches to the topic of alcohol is I Timothy 4:1-5. The essential factor in determining the aptitude of comparison to one passage or the other is not the thing being examined, which in either case is good and created by God to be received with thanksgiving. Rather it is the state of the heart of those who approach these things, seeing them as evil inherently, or else as evil because they are perceived to be connected with something that actually is evil (e.g. demons).
Let me clarify a couple of things. I am not saying that a christian should necessarily drink alcohol any more than he necessarily should not. There are a variety of legitimate reasons not to drink - pregnancy, legal requirements, history of addiction etc. In regards to this last, Christ’s comment on cutting off our hand in order to enter into the kingdom is instructive. No drunkard will enter the kingdom, and it is better not to drink at all if you fear that drinking even moderately will tempt you to fall back into dependency on alcohol, which is sinful. What I am saying is that viewing alcohol as essentially evil is never a legitimate reason to choose not to drink. Woe to me if I despise a brother who chooses not to drink alcoholic beverages. But woe to him if he judges his brother who drinks wine to the glory of God. In other words, let each of us feel free to pursue sanctification (treasuring Christ above all else) by avoiding anything which, though good in and of itself, tends to tempt us to value it more highly than Christ. But let us never pass an essential judgment on something which is different from how God has clearly judged it in his word.
Thanks, Pitch, for both of those. I must say that I was tending to fall into the second error that you mentioned, and I appreciate, as always, your insight.
