Dealing With Legalism

Matt, what is “legalistic” in your view? That quote doesn’t make me feel too keen either. There are times folks have accused me of legalism, yet I do not see myself as legalistic. I see myself as seeking to “imitate good” 3 John 11, “working out my salvation”, “setting” myself “apart”, “eagerly” pursuing and seeking “to acquire” the “love” described in 1 Corinthians 13, and “earnestly” desiring to “cultivate the spiritual endowments”. Is this legalism? I do not for a second think these things save me. I think they are part of “observing all things” which Christ showed us to do as He lived on earth. I strive earnestly because the Bible teaches us that obedience blesses us with a better life. To disobey leads to consequences that are not helpful and can lead others astray. As we love one another it expresses the love of Jesus. Abiding in Jesus bears the fruit of patience, goodness, kindness, mercy….and more. How are Christians under grace responsible for living? How are we to teach converts to live? selahV

selahVs last blog post..A SLIPPERY SLOPE

I will tell you what legalism is like and why it is so hateful. When my mother rededicated her life after my sister’s conversion who had been influenced by our grand father’s renewal, the church where she attended would not even let her work in the nursery, because she had been married three times. Twice was beyond the bounds in the fifties and three made one a scarlet letter person. Yet my mother contributed two babies to that nursery, and her son would be called to preach and hr daughter would marry a preacher. fter that her two grandsons would be called into the ministry and become preachers, too. Then, lo, I had a second marriage, due to factors beyond my control, and I, too, became a second class Christian. True, I pastored more years in my second marriage than in the first (24 to 4), but I have been turned down by literally hundreds of churches. They said I had two living wives. The law says I have one. Now for 12 yrs I have been without a church mainly due to the second marriage thing. During the lon struggle over scripture, I always voted forthe Bible ou of conviction that the book is verbally inspired, inerrant, and infallible. Alas! Many of the Conservative, Bible-believing Southern Baptists are died -in -the wool legalists, and they are just as apt to stick a knife in your back as not (I do not say this with hatred, but simply as a matter of experience). Also the will use your theology against you. Calvinism, being hated, is one view that enrages people, no matter how compassionate and evangelistic you might be. A friend knew of one young mn who surrendered to the ministry. He was a college graduate, wanted to go to seminary and be a minister to youth. The seminary said he could come, but he would have to pay for the whole thing and get no help from Southern Baptists as he had a second marriage. My friend’s brother, who was then the man’s pastor, was really disheartened by the whole affair. Interestingly enough the young man had applied to the very seminary I had attended back in the 70s, when I had a full scholarship. So I suppose I could not now get help from that same school where all who occupy the positions now do so due to the fact that I (often at my own expense went and voted for the Bible-believing side) along with many others worked to insure that the Bible as the word of God had a place in that seminary. I often wonder about what good, I really did now….even though I was no legalist then (I was before my divorce a it nearly led to a suicide). What are we to believe and do now in the light of such hateful situation?

Dr. James Willinghams last blog post..The Climax of the Reformation

I have to echo Matt here. Legalists never think they are. (however denying you are a legalist doesn’t mean you are one). When they come against things like alcohol, tobacco, gambling, cards, dancing, movies, voting for Democrats, etc. they all believe they are standing upon clear biblical principals and (and here’s what makes them legalists) that everyone else needs to follow their example. Legalism is personal conviction made Law.

Bill,

While I agree with you that legalism is personal convictions and preferences made law, I noticed that you tried to throw alcohol into that mix. Interesting. What I would say to you and Dr. Willingham is that things that are clearly taught in the Bible are not legalistic. That’s obedience. Whether you eat in restaurants that sell liquor, or you dont, that’s your own personal conviction. Whether you buy a big screen tv, or you think that it’s wrong to buy such luxories, is a matter of personal conviction. But, when the Bible clearly states things… then it’s not legalism to say that all should adhere to the clear teaching of Scripture. For example, it’s not legalistic to say that lying is sinful, and nobody should do it. That’s clearly taught in the Bible. But, to say that a man’s hair should not be over the collar, and if it is, then it’s sinful….that would be legalistic. No where in the Bible does it teach exactly how long a man’s hair should be.

So, when throwing out the legalism thing, we should be careful about what we call legalism.

David

David: I didn’t try to throw alcohol in there. I did throw alcohol in there. I believe it is legalism to demand alcohol abstinence. You believe abstinence is clearly taught in scripture. I do not. I have brethren who believe dress codes for women are clearly taught in scripture. I do not. I have brethren who believe that the wearing of jewelry is clearly prohibited by scripture. I do not.

I quite enjoy debates about alcohol consumption vs abstention but I doubt Matt wants this thread to go in that direction.

Bill,

I dont think it’s really fair to call those of us, who believe that alcohol drinking for pleasure is foolish according to Proverbs, and that it’s sinful to be high, or drunk, on alcohol is sin according to Ephesians, legalistic. We’re just trying to be true to the Bible.

David

Matt,
I have listened to and read Charles Swindoll for more years than most seminary students have had life. I recommend him, his radio broadcasts, his books.

I imagine if he and I sat down and conversed about his statement, we would end up agreeing on the legalists he is referring to. I think Dr. Swindoll would also disagree with many who label others legalists.

You are right that we all have a little legalism in us. However, I find it striking that we seem to have a cottage industry of those who feel called to call people names, in the name and love of Jesus, of course.

Another prophet has spoken to this issue. “A postmodern era of indulgence brands advocacy of abstinence from beverage alcohol as legalism worthy of the Pharisees, even as it gurgles its way to an ever-increasing embrace of the world…abstinence is not only wisdom but also a matter of obedience and holiness before God.” -Dr. Paige Patterson in “Alcohol Today: Abstinence in an Ages of Indulgence” by Peter Lumpkins; Hannibal Books.
David R. Brumbelow

David: So am I.

Legalism demands not only that the bible is true and infallible, but that my interpretation is also true and infallible. It judges that what is sin for me is sin for all. It refuses to deny itself alone but desires all others to deny themselves equally. It destroys grace and clouds the Gospel and it is precisely what Jesus came to set us free from.

David B: I too have listened to Chuck Swindoll longer than most seminary students. I have also read his books including the one he wrote on Grace and I would have to disagree with you. He would disagree with you.

Debbie Kaufmans last blog post..John MacArthur’s Response To Christians High Divorce Rate According To A Poll, His Response May Surprise You

Bill,

So, would you say that lying might be wrong for you, but it would be ok for me? Or, that adultery might be wrong for you, but it would be ok for me? Or, is lying a sin against God? Is adultery a sin against God?

Debbie,

I, too, have listened to Chuck Swindoll many, many, many times. I have read many of his books. I like them. I think that they’re great. Dont you find it just a little bit interesting that legalists like David B. and me would like what Chuck Swindoll has preached and written?

David

David: Please don’t be absurd. Does God not convict people individually about certain things that may have a hold over their life, things that others do not struggle with, things that are not a sin, in and of themselves? See Paul for details.

david: To be honest? Yes. But I also think that it would convict you at some point.

Debbie Kaufmans last blog post..John MacArthur’s Response To Christians High Divorce Rate According To A Poll, His Response May Surprise You

Bill,

I think that if you read what I’ve written, you will see that I do agree that some things are left to personal conviction…the things that the Bible does not clearly teach about. For example: should a Christian go to a Casino to eat at the restaurants, or to see a show? or, not? Nowhere does the Bible say that a Christian should not go to a Casino. But, many, many Christians would have a big problem going to one. They do not go. That’s fine. Some Christians dont see anything wrong with just going to eat at the restaurant, or to see Allison Kraus sing. That’s fine, too. It’s a matter of personal conviction, since the Bible does not deal with this.

The Bible does deal with drinking fermented wine. It does deal with things like lying and adultery.

David

David: I agree that the bible does deal with drinking fermented wine. I just don’t agree that it forbids it. I place drinking alcohol in the same category as eating at Casinos or listening to Allison Kraus. I do not place it on the same level as lying or adultery.

Mark,

I think that it’s absolutely foolish for anyone to drink alcohol for pleasure. And, if someone is drinking alcohol for pleasure, then they are foolish and playing with fire. Mark, I believe that abstinence is the best thing…the holy thing. But, if someone is drinking alcohol for medicine….like in NyQuil, then, of course it’s not sinful. So, yea, I agree with Dr. Patterson up to a point, but I guess he and I are a slight sliver apart in another way. I think to drink the fermented wine and strong drink of today is foolish, and I really dont see how someone can drink a couple of beers, or a couple of glasses of wine, or a shot of Jack Daniels without getting high on it….getting drunk on it. I used to drink. I was a big partier. I drank and smoke weed everytime I could get my hands on it as a teen. I can testify about what a couple of beers can do. You get high. Getting high is sin.

David

Better to be careful than sorry about matters of conduct. TheBible does command us to do so in so many words. While I think it is a serious problem that we have let the world set the agenda on the elements of communion at the same time, knowing the penchant of people to over-indulge, it would seem that caution is the better part of good sense. However, that does not countenance over-harsh judgments of those who are quite severe toward those who happen not to think as strictly as they do.

Dr. James Willinghams last blog post..The Climax of the Reformation

To Mark: It is extremely difficult to see our own short comings. However, the Lord does have a way of moving us to think outside of the box of our own narrow little perspective. Sooner or later the false outlook will collide with the wall of hard reality. Following the Lord is never easy in this world. In fact, it is so hard as to be down right impossible without Divine enablement. Our innate depravity continually confronts us. Still the main motive for the effort is simply gratitude. We must be grateful for the privilege of even trying, success being left to the Lord’s judgment – not ours (although we are to judge ourselves everyday).

Dr. James Willinghams last blog post..The Climax of the Reformation

Just because some have the penchant to overindulge, does not mean that we add on where scriptures do not.

Debbie Kaufmans last blog post..I’m Thinking, I’m Thinking

A beer is the same as a joint. They both make you high…artificially.

Eating two quarter pounders with cheese is not gluttony. Gluttony is sin. Eating until you are full is not sin. Gluttony is a person who lays around lazily…eating all the time…gorging themselves and drinking. That’s the sin of gluttony.

Do you know any gluttons in the SBC? Really?

David

It’s amazing to me how one can whittle down an exact amount of alcohol to qualify as drunkenness (like one beer), while continually suggesting that gluttony be this amorphous, ambiguous notion tucked safely away from all the overweight southern baptists running around. Gluttony is a sin, but no one seems to be committing it. It’s some lazy person no one knows that never leaves the couch and yet somehow has money to grow fat. Everyone knows overindulgence when they see it – whether it’s alcohol or twinkies. To suggest otherwise is just absurd. In the same way that some can suggest one beer is drunkenness, why can’t others suggest two quarterpounders is gluttony? Why so confident on the one and not the other? It’s a terrible inconsistency – terrible to suggest and terrible to defend. Maybe a repentance from legalistic camel-swallowing would solve the whole thing.

Darby Livingstons last blog post..A Scalpel or a Sword: Surgery or Slaughter?

Darby,

So, every overwieght person is a glutton? Really? And, overweight according to who’s scale? And, at exactly what weight is one overweight? And, exactly how much food is too much? One might think that you are a little bit legalistic.

Also, no one said that you are drunk on one beer. I said that a beer and a joint are just alike. You get artificially high on both of them. There’s no difference. Alcohol and weed are very similar. It always amuses me to hear someone boldly and arrogantly say, “Well, I might drink a beer or two every now and then, but I’ve never touched drugs.” What hypocrisy. You might as well take a xanax, or a qualude, or light up a joint, as to drink a couple of beers.

And, Darby, it’s not legalistic to follow the teachings of Scripture. That’s called holiness and obedience to the Lord.

David

“So, every overwieght person is a glutton? Really? And, overweight according to who’s scale? And, at exactly what weight is one overweight? And, exactly how much food is too much? One might think that you are a little bit legalistic.”

I never said that. I’m not the one who tries to codify these things. You are. I’m simply using your language and logic concerning drunkenness and applying it to gluttony. I personally challenge people to kill all the idols of their hearts with the gospel, not regulate their idolatry to a level that seems right to them – whether that be one beer or twenty or one quarter-pounder or five.

“Also, no one said that you are drunk on one beer. I said that a beer and a joint are just alike. You get artificially high on both of them. There’s no difference. Alcohol and weed are very similar. It always amuses me to hear someone boldly and arrogantly say, “Well, I might drink a beer or two every now and then, but I’ve never touched drugs.”

Are you denying that you’ve said that even one beer has an effect on a person? Using your logic, I know people that get artificially high on caffeine. Their whole demeanor changes when they drink it. Should we ban sweet tea now?

Holiness is gospel-centrality, not following the rules of men who use one set of language for something they want to attack, and another for something they want to defend.

BTW David, you talked around the entire point of my comment.

Darby Livingstons last blog post..A Scalpel or a Sword: Surgery or Slaughter?

Darby,

It’s not being legalistic to obey the Bible’s teachings out of love for Jesus, because you want to please your Lord. Are you antinomian?

David

I agree with you. It’s not legalistic to obey the Bible’s teachings out of love for Jesus. However, it’s legalistic to add to or take away from the Bible’s teachings, even if it’s for someone’s “own good.”

And no, I’m not antinomian. I just have new covenant theology sensibilities that some might equate with antinomianism. 🙂

Darby Livingstons last blog post..A Scalpel or a Sword: Surgery or Slaughter?

I thought this quote from an article about Laker’s star Lamar Odom brings out my point well. It must be Providence. This section is a quote from a physician concerning Odom’s sweet tooth:

“Odom freely confesses that he just can’t help himself when it comes to the sweet stuff and always keeps a stash on hand of Gummi Bears, Honey Buns, Lifesavers, Hershey’s white chocolate, Snickers bars, cookies and more. He eats the sugary snacks morning, noon and night, and even says he sometimes wakes up in the middle of the night, chows down on some treats, then falls back asleep.

This is bad news for the Lakers. I’ve been telling my patients for years that sugar acts like a drug in the brain. It causes blood sugar levels to spike and then crash, leaving you feeling tired, irritable, foggy and stupid. Eating too much sugar impairs cognitive function, which may explain why Odom doesn’t always make the smartest decisions on the court …”

News flash: SUGAR IS A DRUG LIKE ALCOHOL AND WEED – IMPAIRING COGNITIVE FUNCTION – THE VERY PART OF US THAT THINKS RIGHTLY ABOUT GOD. THEREFORE, IT IS UNBIBLICAL TO EAT ANY SUGAR SINCE NO ONE KNOWS HOW MUCH SUGAR WILL CAUSE POOR DECISION-MAKING.

Darby Livingstons last blog post..A Scalpel or a Sword: Surgery or Slaughter?

Darby,
Comparing problems caused by alcohol to sugar does not even deserve a serious resonse.
David R. Brumbelow

Which is why you and not someone else has responded? 🙂

Darby Livingstons last blog post..A Scalpel or a Sword: Surgery or Slaughter?

Darby,
Good retort, and it may be true :-). But I still stand my my previous comment.
David R. Brumbelow

Well, at least I would still stand by my previous comment if I had spelled “response” correctly.
David R. Brumbelow

GF,

Wow! Do you wear a cape and have SS on your chest? SS for Super Saint?

How old are you, my friend?

And, instead of answering your questions to me, and instead of telling you that I have read and studied on the passages of weaker/stronger brothers for hundreds of hours in my lifetime, I would encourage you to read Peter Lumpkins new book about Alcohol. It’s absolutely the best thing that you could possibly read about this issue.

Now, I’m off to my secret lare to hide away until I can ensnare some other unsuspecting Christian, and ultimately get all Christians to stop drinking alcohol, and ultimately make the world put away booze…..hahahahahahahahahahaaaaaa…..

David

Hello Bro? McDowell, I was wondering how you can comfortably teach Psalm 104:15 and advise young people who have never had any alcoholic beverages that it is okay in moderation when no one can ascertain if they will end up like Volfan from the result of the first drink? That a woman who is pregnant could transfer the Fetal Alcohol Syndrome to her child? What is moderation? How little “gladdens the heart” and how much saddens it and breaks it? I appreciate you taking time to log on and answer. selahV

selahVs last blog post..ARE YOU VULNERABLE? Part 4….SAFEGUARD YOURSELF & OTHERS

Matt,

A woman can get FAS before she even knows that she’s pregnant. Do you think that God wants babies to have FAS? If not, how does your interpretation of wine in the Bible fit with the fact that FAS can occur before the woman even knows that she is pregnant. Also, I know of some people who turn into drunks after just one drink. How can you possibly say that the Bible teaches that it’s ok to drink in moderation if it leads to a person becoming an alcoholic?

I can also teach Psalm 104:15. I would say that it’s definitely not talking about becoming high on alcohol and making you feel “happy.” Goodness gracious! If all you had to drink was water, but when the grapes came in, or you were able to buy grapes, or grapejuice, as well as oil, as well as bread…dont you think that would make you glad??? I mean, when I pull into Sonic during Happy Hour(half price drinks), and I get a cherry coke…I’m glad. I’m happy.

Why do you fellas always have to equate being glad with being high on alcohol? This is concerning to me, and it really makes me question things about you.

David

GF,

My closing paragraph to you was nothing more than a joke…a joke that showed that you were thinking that someone like me was the big, bad, Lex Luther of Christendom, who was trying to make all Christians legalist and do away with booze in the world. That’s all. Dont read so much into a sarcastic joke.

Also, my brother, I do not believe that a person can go to Heaven by not drinking alcohol. Puleease. I also do not think that a person goes to Heaven by not committing adultery, by not lying, etc. Salvation is a gift of God…given to man by grace thru faith.

Also, how in the Tennessee hills do you make the jump from recommending Peter Lumpkins book on alcohol to equating it with the Scriptures leaves me scratching my head big time. Brother, of course the Bible is our authority. But, do you not read commentaries, and books, and listen to preachers to help you understand the Bible? I’d bet you the cottonmouth snake that we killed outside my Church last night that you do. So, why would you make the jump that you did? Peter’s book is an excellent book to read to help you understand the Bible’s teaching on fermented and unfermented wine as used in the Bible.

DAvid

Well, Hello Matt, you’re back addressing my comment.  Thanks.  Wish you’d go back to the first one I wrote and answer some of the questions I posed there.  You say,

“I can teach Psalm 104:15 because it is in the Bible.  We should comfortably teach all of Scripture.”

I agree with caveats.  Scripture should be taught with the balance of the rest of Scripture which is full of warnings.  When you “teach all of Scripture”, do you also warn that you do not have the ability to discern with any reasonable degree of certainty that the persons (teenagers, college students, husbands and wives) will be able to “gladden their hearts” and not be taking the first drink into oblivion and addiction?
You also write:

“…I personally, do not think Scripture prohibits drinking alcohol in moderation.”

You “do not think”?  You do not know?
You write:

“How much is “in moderation?”  The amount that doesn’t allow you to become drunk.  This might be different for some people, but one Amber Bock with my steak does not make me in any way “drunk.”  One Amber Bock does so little that if it is doing anything I can’t even notice.” 

I’d love to have a nickle for how many people I know who got in their cars after imbibing who “didn’t even notice” the effects it had upon them.  For that matter, I know of some who have simply had one drink and gotten into the vehicle with someone who “didn’t notice” the any difference in the driver and they are dead now.  Why?  Because they didn’t know what moderation was either. 
And since you’ve never had “5 shots of vodka” how do you know you would be “drunk” and thereby in “sin”?  As a person drinks, they begin to build a tolerance to alcohol…just as a person who is under medication for pain builds up a tolerance to pain medications.
You rationalize:

“I pregnant woman should never drink…  It does endanger the child.”

Matt, the majority of women do not know they are pregnant in the early months when the highest probability of one drink could cause the growing fetus to be harmed for life.
And the point is not “If a christian is afraid that he might be a person that could become a drunkard it is wise for him to never touch the stuff.”, then why is it not “wise” to teach a person that the “wine that gladdens the heart of man” is nothing more than grape juice that quenches his thirst?  If your “…one beer every few weeks with a big fat, medium rare New York Strip does [you] no harm…” are you sure it does not do another harm?  How does your congregation “know” if they pass you at the table that you have only had “one beer every few weeks with your big fat, medium rare New York Strip”?
“Therefore let anyone who thinks he stands, take heed lest he fall [into sin].” 1 Cor.10:12 
Well, Matt, it’s been good exchanging thoughts with you.  Hope you have a great day!  selahV
[rq=2944,0,blog][/rq]ARE YOU VULNERABLE? Part 4….SAFEGUARD YOURSELF & OTHERS

Volfan, I wasn’t saying that Matt was “dodging” the FAS question. I was referring to my very first comment in this stream regarding the post. For a refresher I’ll paste it here:
“Matt, what is “legalistic” in your view? That quote doesn’t make me feel too keen either. There are times folks have accused me of legalism, yet I do not see myself as legalistic. I see myself as seeking to “imitate good” 3 John 11, “working out my salvation”, “setting” myself “apart”, “eagerly” pursuing and seeking “to acquire” the “love” described in 1 Corinthians 13, and “earnestly” desiring to “cultivate the spiritual endowments”. Is this legalism? I do not for a second think these things save me. I think they are part of “observing all things” which Christ showed us to do as He lived on earth. I strive earnestly because the Bible teaches us that obedience blesses us with a better life. To disobey leads to consequences that are not helpful and can lead others astray. As we love one another it expresses the love of Jesus. Abiding in Jesus bears the fruit of patience, goodness, kindness, mercy….and more. How are Christians under grace responsible for living? How are we to teach converts to live?”
And Volfie, give Matt a little time. He may not be sitting at the computer waiting to answer our questions. selahV
[rq=2972,0,blog][/rq]ARE YOU VULNERABLE? Part 4….SAFEGUARD YOURSELF & OTHERS

Matt, for the record, I know you addressed my first question but not the others. Thanks. selahV
[rq=2981,0,blog][/rq]ARE YOU VULNERABLE? Part 4….SAFEGUARD YOURSELF & OTHERS

Dear Bro. McDowell,

I am sorry I am at such a disadvantage with you. You know the issues upon which we can hang our hats and I do not. Know, my gracious brother, that it saddens me too that we could not be in agreement with this one as well–especially since I see my Stetson with a bit paler shade of your two favorite colors. 😉

Although you have an advantage insofar as appreciation, I can still appreciate your views and more notably your tone in conversation. So yes, I am equally sorry we find ourselves on opposite sides of the fenceline, here.

Like I said to Matt, I believe we can agree that Psalm 104:15 says “wine that gladdens the heart” is in the Bible. But how does it achieve that? And what kind of wine was it? Surrounding passages have it placed in a time of God’s abundance. And the fruit of the vine has often been considered the abundance of God’s grace, has it not? And with the abundance of gathered food, and other items described in verses preceding and following, one could easily interpret this “wine” to be wine that is freshly squashed grape juice, without fermentation. And of course that would be “good”, and most likely a delightful change from the water they drank the rest of the year or the vinegarette they had to water down to drink and make palatable as well as without drugging everyone in town.

I think of when I’ve been in the hospital and they withheld everything from me except a few ice chips, and water. When I was finally allowed to have the grape juice or apple juice, I tell you it truly “gladdened my heart.” On the otherhand, when I read Proverbs 20:1 and it says, “Wine is a mocker, strong drink is raging, and whosover is deceived thereby is not wise”, then I must make another conclusion. Why would God say wine gladdens the heart and also is a mocker. God doesn’t contradict Himself. So I see that as a fermented wine (which we drink today and society recognizes today is “wine”). When “wine is a mocker” and placed in the same context and sentence as “strong drink is raging”, it only makes sense that I’d be a dummy for partaking of it at all. Who wants to be “deceived”? I don’t. But I think our world is being deceived every day with the continual bombardment of it’s pleasures and sensual provocations.

As far as FAS, and the fact that they the jury is not polled, does not make it any the less dangerous to the 50 percent who need to totally avoid it. And, since alcohol destroys brain cells and God says it’s not wise to be deceived by it, why is it not equally or moreso in keeping with scripture to teach people that scripture comes down on the side of wisdom. And wisdom, when it splits the baby, will most likely go with the better side and less likely to harm side of an argument?

The Baptist Faith and Message may state we are to be free from the commandments of men, but not the wisdom of God, nor the guidance of the Holy Spirit. And with careful weighing of each side of the coin, we have far more in the scales that falls on the wisdom of abstaining rather than indulging. That’s how I see it. I do not expect you to be persuaded. But I may persuade another and I do not feel I will have persuaded wrongly since I do not see this as a salvation prerequisite. I see this as good old common sense with caveats of holiness and obedience to not harming “the temple of God”. I see it as the best position a Christian can hold to teach young people and adults. For the record, I agree that gluttony, and fornication, and lying do nothing to help bring glory to God either–nor does it “gladden” one’s heart to deal with the consequences.

This has indeed been a good time for me and definitely an honor to discuss this issue with you. Don’t be a stranger when you agree with me on things in the future. It makes me feel better if I know I’m not the only one riding on my side of the fencerail. I’m grateful you find some value of my presence in the blogosphere, too. Why don’t you have a blog? God’s blessings be upon you. selahV
[rq=3660,0,blog][/rq]ARE YOU VULNERABLE? Part 4….SAFEGUARD YOURSELF & OTHERS

GF,

When you said,”I don’t think it was unreasonable of me to think you were elevating Lumpkin’s book above the plain teachings of scripture.” That’s about the stupidest thing I’ve read in a long time. I’m sorry to be so blunt, but this is just plain idiotic. Of course, I wasnt elevating Lumpkins book above the plain teachings of Scripture. Good grief, Charlie Brown! I do think that you can see much Scriptural evidence in his book for abstinence…much Scriptural support. And, what Selah told you was excellent about Psalm 104.

BTW, I went to Logan’s Roadhouse in Paducah, KY tonite with my wife. I ate a 12 oz ribeye, and I drank water with lemon in it. My heart was glad….in fact, I believe that my stomach sang the hallelujah chorus.

I didnt need alcohol for my heart to be glad.

David

Matt,

You and GF’s interpretation of Scripture is not only wrong, but it could lead to many babies getting FAS. And, it could lead to a lot of people getting hooked on the drug of alcohol.

I seriously wish that you would both reconsider what you believe about this issue, and what you might teach to others.

David

Volfan, some folks get happy when they are with their lovely wives. Don’t count. 🙂 selahV
[rq=4065,0,blog][/rq]ARE YOU VULNERABLE? Part 4….SAFEGUARD YOURSELF & OTHERS

Selah,

🙂 It counts with her, though!

I’ve got a great wife, and we dont need alcohol to be “happy.” We have the Holy Spirit inside of us instead. Amen, Selah?

David

I’d rather be filled with the Holy Spirit than with alcohol.

David

Matt, I really understand why you do not have time to answer all the questions in the blogosphere, Matt.  But since I had a bit of time, I did a bit of research for you to answer your question on FAS in Europe.  Did you know that according to Katy Jo Fox in her research in 1999 of Fetal Alcohol Syndrome in Europe, that:

“Twelve and a half percent of the world’s population live in Europe, Europe being defined as the countries from the Atlantic to the Urals, within the continent of Europe. Those twelve and a half percent consume fifty percent of the world production of alcohol (Gefou-Madianou Introduction).”?

That 12 1/2 % of the world’s population live in Europe.  And that small percentage of people consumes 50% of the world production of alcohol.  To me that is staggering.  Katy further writes that:

“Fetal Alcohol Syndrome (FAS) is an irreversible birth defect caused by a mother drinking during pregnancy. There are three criteria for full-blown FAS. “(1) Pre- and/or postnatal growth deficiency; (2) a distinct pattern of specific malformations including characteristic facial features; and (3) central nervous system dysfunction, evidenced by developmental delay, hyperactivity, and intellectual deficits” (Streissguth; Challenge 3, 52). Diagnosticians vary in defining and diagnosing problems caused alcohol in utero. Traditionally, the other diagnosis given was Fetal Alcohol Effects (FAE), which is basically FAS without the facial features. Since most of the research presented in this report used the terms FAS/E, I will be using those terms to describe people damaged by alcohol. FAS/E is 100% preventable. The only way someone can have full-blown FAS is if their mother drank while they were pregnant. There have been studies to find out about the paternal involvement in FAS/E, but it is almost impossible to test, so I am only going to focus on the maternal involvement. It is not genetic. It is not something that can be “caught.” It is the number one known cause of mental retardation. FAS/E can be found wherever women of childbearing age drink; there are no exceptions.”

While that is a lot of info to digest let me at least point out this tidbit of Biblical information: 

“Even before the time of Christ, people have known that drinking during pregnancy is not good. An angel of God told Manoah’s wife that she should not drink wine or other fermented drinks while she was trying to conceive. Later on, she was blessed with Samson (Judges 13:7). In ancient Carthage and Sparta, laws prohibited newly married couples from drinking alcohol in order to prevent conception during intoxication (Tourmaa). One wonders why those laws were not adopted by other nations. It might have saved a lot of people from the pain of FAS/E. It has only been in the past few years that laws having to do with the prevention of FAS/FAE started being developed.”

You and our readers can get a really good idea of what is happening in Europe as a result of alcohol if you want to click on the link above and spend a bit of time with it.  It was a real eye-opener for me.  Glad you suggested I answer your question.  But don’t worry about my other questions, though.  It doesn’t matter.  I think I know where you come down on the issue.  I just thought we were all just having a friendly dialogue here.  Sorry.  For the record, I didn’t think you were “dodging” anything, really.  I apologize if my words appeared as though I were.  selahV
 
[rq=4156,0,blog][/rq]ARE YOU VULNERABLE? Part 4….SAFEGUARD YOURSELF & OTHERS

Matt, No argument here. I’m just stating my thoughts and thinking you wanted to respond to mine as I responded to yours. But I didn’t know it would be so time consuming. Again, I’m sorry.

Mark, great to hear your view. I’ll think about giving it up. Only thing is, I find I’m a light in the darkness here. Salt, ya know? And since I am advocating in all my walk as much as possible, I do try to bring glory to Jesus when I log on. I just can’t see much glory in agreeing to a glass of wine at Olive Garden. Sorry. Just a different perspective.

And my thoughts went far beyond the one argument of abstaining because of the consequences of drinking socially. I was trying to dialog about the reasoning in the scriptures. I had my husband’s permission. I really did. 🙂 selahV
[rq=4162,0,blog][/rq]ARE YOU VULNERABLE? Part 4….SAFEGUARD YOURSELF & OTHERS

Mark, I am so sorry to hear of your beloved grandmother’s situation.  That must hurt so much to think she is living with that kind of burden.  Enslaved to a “religion” rather than freed to the abundant grace of God’s merciful love and forgiveness.  My heart goes out to you and to her.  Her because of her struggle; and you because of your love for her and desire to see her know the Christ of the Bible whose attoning work on the cross of Calvary releases her from such bondage.  My prayers will include you and your grandmother as you deal with this sad situation.
In answer to some of your thoughts offered in your last comment to me, I truly apologize to you and the readers if they think by the position I take on alcohol that in some way I am positioning alcohol consumption is the end all in their lives as a barometer to salvation or freedom in Christ.  I am not advocating such, no more than when I offer my thoughts on alcohol that I condemn any one single person on this earth who drinks alcohol.  With my views I no more offer condemnation of Matt, a brother-in-Christ who has an occasional beer with his steak, than the loved ones and friends I have who struggle with pornography, promiscuous living, arrogance, pride or self-control in relation to their anger with others who disagree with them.  I love them.  I love “them”.  What they do or do not do, does not negate one ounce of the love I have for them.  And they know that.  I think my editor and friend, Matt, knows I would never hold him in contempt just because he holds a different view than I hold.  Nor would I condemn or hold in contempt a fellow Christian, brother or sister, who chooses to worship Jesus in their Methodist, Presbyterian, Assembly of God fellowships.  But I do disagree with some of their doctrine and would readily explain what the difference is between us if we began to discuss a particular issue in their doctrine, etc.
However, if I felt that we reach an impasse in which I recognize that my views would hurt our relationship as friends, I would just as readily refrain from discussing things with them which may cause divides that are unnecessary to discuss.  I may be wrong here, Mark, but I do not think you and I have ever engaged one another in conversation about anything on the internet.  I’m sorry that our first encounter has somehow snapped the entirely wrong picture of myself, my views, and my heart for Christ.
And as far as letting all the men indulge and the women abstain from alcoholic beverages to pacify my position, I know you meant that as a tongue-and-cheek giggle.  By no means is my view limited in scope to deny the ladies and allow the men to drink themselves into oblivion.  That’s part of the whole reason the Prohibition was so well received prompting the 18th Amendment to our Constitution, and accomplished so much.  Women were the grassroots (being fed up with drunken husbands), who engaged the system and indeed helped stem the tide of many many lives so long ago.
But then that’s another subject altogether.  As far as alcohol goes, I am not the one who brought this up in the thread.  I broached the “legalist” issue and what it meant in its entirety.  I wanted to know what sins should be excluded in discussions as we preach, teach and disciple new converts.  Where we drew the line in eliminating particular passages which may be deemed “legalistic” to teach.  So, I’d gladly change the subject from alcohol, if it has been exhausted with you.  I believe scripture speaks for itself on that issue anyway.  And wisdom guides one’s understanding of the issue of abstinence.  I do hope this helps you add a bit more light to the underexposed snapshot you’ve seen of me thus far.  If not, I truly invite you to buzz by my blogsite and read through the multiple posts I have on the issue of guarding every word we say, the attitudes in which we say them, and the actions upon which we take when we live our lives for Jesus as regenerated souls on this fallen earth.
Now, I need to answer my friend Matt, even though he hasn’t engaged my responses on Scriptures because he does not have the time to; he likes to give me questions so I do all the research and he doesn’t have to.  ha.  Just kidding, Matt.  🙂   selahV
P.S.  I will remember you and your grandmother in prayer, I promise.
[rq=5759,0,blog][/rq]ARE YOU VULNERABLE? Part 4….SAFEGUARD YOURSELF & OTHERS

Matt,

Drinking alcohol for recreational purposes…to just get high on alcohol…would be what the Bible calls “foolish” in Proverbs. Drinking alcohol for medicinal purposes would be fine…just like taking any other drug that the Dr. might prescribe. If the Dr. prescribes the drug of alcohol for you to take for some reason, then fine. But, to just drink alcohol to get high would be foolish, according to the Scriptures. And, of course, to get drunk on fermented wine is sin against a holy God, according to Ephesians.

I just want to say, along with Selah, that I dont condemn Matt, nor hate Matt, for drinking alcohol. I think he’s wrong, and he’s being very foolish to play around with something like alcohol. But, I dont hate him. I dont consider him to be lost. I just think that he’s a brother in Christ, who is in error about this.

Mark, I also think that God expects us to be holy….dont you? I dont think that just because we’re under grace, that that frees us to lie, cheat, commit adultery, get drunk, nor anything else that God has told us is wrong and sinful. I also believe that God wants us to be wise, and not foolish. And, Mark, I get really concerned as I read things said in the blog world..especially by young, Dortian Calvinists…that sound very antinomian. I’m really beginning to think that holiness and purity and wisdom is beginning to be a thing of the past for some people who want to believe that it’s ok to cuss and tell dirty jokes and drink booze and whatever else.

DAvid

Brother Mark, I love that! Sister SelahV…that’s sweet. Okay, let’s go back to the drawing board. I no more condemn Matt for drinking a beer with his steak than I condemn anyone for anything that I do not agree with. How’s that? Ya see, I wasn’t trying to draw the inference toward the action of a particular sin other than the sin of “condemnation”, judgement. I had someone in the blogosphere who never comes to my site, EVER, and judge me for a question I asked. It was quite sad, even silly. I am the chief of sinners and I do know my own heart as I allow God to examine me and yield to His Spirit to convict me wherein I fail. So, that said, let me ask you when we conversed about Calvinism? That must have been years ago. I haven’t had any dialogue about Calvinism in a very very long time. Was it on Dr. Ascol’s site at Founders? Was I mean? Was I hateful? Just wondering…selahV
.-= selahV´s last blog ..ACCUSATIONS OF LEGALISM ARE LIKE THIS: =-.

Good afternoon, Matt! I don’t “exactly do” anything with Paul’s words. 🙂 But I would no more disagree with his position on drinking for medicinal purposes than I would with his words “It is good neither to eat flesh, nor to drink wine, nor anything whereby thy brother stumbleth, or is offended, or is made weak.” Romans 14:21

If by my abstaining and saying I am abstaining and explaining why I am abstaining causes a brother to stumble, or offends him, or he is made weak by my position, then I will readily beg forgiveness. I pray I have not offended you. selahV
.-= selahV´s last blog ..ACCUSATIONS OF LEGALISM ARE LIKE THIS: =-.

Brother Mark, I just cracked up! That is funny! “no meaner then than” I am” today”. That is funny. Gosh, I’m laughing so hard I can hardly type. hee hee hee. Oh my.

Ya know…I was thinking about talking to Volfie about some of his commenting. Funny you should mention it. I was gonna have to go look up that big word, “antinomin–whatever”. That’s one of those mult-syllable words I was talking about in my post on SBC Blogging. Gotta go look it up and study it awhile, then come back and see how it fits in a current conversation thread. But I tell ya I am always suspicious of words that start with “ANTI”-anything being anything nice. So Volfie, you start being nice, now. You can get your point across without boxing ears and bringin’ up stuff that hasn’t been brought up in the comment stream. Let’s just fish this hole for awhile before we go lookin’ for swordfish in a river running with salmon. Okay?

How’s that, Brother Mark? feel better?

Now, Calvinism…that’s a subject I could talk about with absolutely no solid position at all. 🙂 I like Calvinists as much as I like non-Calvies. Some of my good friends are reformed formed folks. And I am now designating you as one of my new-formed friends. Okay? selahV
.-= selahV´s last blog ..ACCUSATIONS OF LEGALISM ARE LIKE THIS: =-.

Brother Mark, have you noticed that you haven’t called me “Sister” since you admonished me for my faux pas in phrasing my position on not condemning Matt for his beer and steak? hee hee. I have.

As for your “but” regarding Volfie. I know how you feel. Folks sometimes call me ungodly, sarcastic, biting and a legalist, Fundamentalist, Arminian, unregenerated de-formed soul when they read my comments and views on the blogosphere. And really, they don’t have any reason to do that. But it doesn’t stop them from doing it. And I’ve seen where folks call Volfie (and those like him) all kinds of stuff–ignorant, hillbilly, redneck, Landmarkist, uneducated, backwoods wacko, man-centered, Arminian,–among other things that I think is very very unkind. And just because he has a different view from theirs. Go figure.

We could all do with a little less labeling and little more grace. I truly agree. Mark that down, Mark. You and I are agreeing on something. 🙂 selahV
.-= selahV´s last blog ..ACCUSATIONS OF LEGALISM ARE LIKE THIS: =-.

Mark,

I was not talking about Calvinists. I was talking about “young,” “Dortian,” Calvinists. I’m concerned that antinomianism is starting to creep into this crowd, and into the emerging crowd, in our SBC.

David

Volf…I do understand what you mean. I think there is evidence on all sides that some folks think being saved gives them the ticket to live as they want. It’s so silly when the scripture clearly says otherwise. We are to deny ourselves, our desires, anything that comes between us and God…and yet, there are those who whitewash sin and rationalize sin and explain away sin as if it is the proverbial word-twisting of Satan in the Garden of Eden…and then not only are they taking a bite, but turning around and offering it to their “Adams” as tasty little morsels to delight oneself in because they want it, or it makes them feel good, or it makes sense to them. Abstinence is a moral issue as well as indulgence in that which may seem okay to do. (I’m talking about all things…not simply alcohol preferences).

Peter Lumpkins writes in a portion of his arguments in Alcohol Today that: “…”the yardstick by which moral behavior is always measured–appears to us in the absolute, not the relative; that is, in abstinence, not moderation, holiness not hedonism.”

It really makes a lot of sense…do you recall that part of his book in Chapter 9? selahV
.-= selahV´s last blog ..ARE YOU VULNERABLE? Part…5, FAMILY FOCUSING =-.

Paul was a fan of moderation. The idea that moderation (as a concept) is incompatible with morality is incorrect.

David: By your definition, is what you call a Dortian Calvinist what everyone else calls a 5 point Calvinist (or just Calvinist)?

The moderationist position is not antinomian unless there is a law against drinking alcohol. Even David admits that there is not.

Bill, The Apostle Paul wrote, “For me to live is Christ, to die is gain.” There is nothing moderate about that statement. Living for Christ demands our entire heart, soul, mind, strength…it demands our setting aside our own whims and desires to love our neighbors as ourselves. Jesus Himself said to deny ourselves, if one asks us to walk one mile, then we are to walk two. Nothing moderate about that. Paul tells us to “Pray without ceasing.” What is moderate about that? We are told to do all things without grumbling or complaining? Does the Scripture tell us we can love a little bit when we feel like it? Does it tell us we can love just the lovely or those whom we find appealing to our personalities? No…there is nothing lukewarm about the Scriptures of God.

You know something, Bill, the older I get the more I recognize how little in this life is necessary to claim, to cling to, to rely upon for anything of worth in the eternal heavens. And the blessings of life are not found in temporal needs being met. “Take no thought for what you will wear, eat…” These things are “things”. What is the “good” thing we should choose? Wisdom. And only through the wisdom of God do we make the choices we should…do we always use the wisdom we own from God to make the best choices? No…Solomon was the perfect example of a wise man who acted foolishly. God does not contradict Himself in His Word. And harmony is found in seeing that though we are saved by grace, we must also live by grace. And grace is sufficient to meet all our needs. To say that wine in its poisonous adulterated state of intoxication is good in moderation, is to say that bread which is molded and filled with decay should be eaten and with the same delight and joy as a freshly baked loaf from Pepperidge Farms. It’s ludicrous.

Bill, what is your scripture and evidence that Paul was such a fan of moderation? You say , “The idea that moderation (as a concept) is incompatible with morality is incorrect.” How so? Is it moral to steal a little bit? lie a tad? murder occasionally? lose our tempers when we’re tired? lose control once in a while? selahV
.-= selahV´s last blog ..ARE YOU VULNERABLE? Part…5, FAMILY FOCUSING =-.

Phillipians 4:5

Question: Do you sit down to that delicious loaf of Pepperidge Farms bread and eat the whole thing in one sitting? Do you watch television around the clock? Do you spend all your free time on the internet? Do you drink a gallon of tea all at once? If not, then perhaps you are a fan of moderation as well. Do you consider yourself a moral person (not perfect)? Then perhaps moderation and morality are not incompatible.

I assume you disagree with David that drinking alcohol is not, in itself, sinful?

Sirs: You folks fight with the gloves off. Not a good idea. What I would like to know is how they got drunk at what was suppose to have been Communion in I Cors.11, if they were not using wine? A friend who was raised an orthodox Jew told me that the cups which were used in the Passover were wine not grape juice. Now in so noting I am not insisting on unrestrained drinking, etc. But I have seen too much hypocrisy practiced by those abstainers to have much confidence in that view. You ought to have had the grief I had over that in one church I served over 40 yrs. ago. And then to find that the churches had members who remembered the individual whose responsiblity it was to secure the wine for communion and how they really had church discipline in those days and would church a person for drunkenness makes me seriouly question and doubt the abstainers approach…especially as I know how one family got rich off of grape juice. This again is not to advocate an anything goes approach to alcohol. Knowing of cases of drunkenness and how devestating that can be, I do suggest great care about this issue. How about an even tenor on this issue instead of a harsh, bash each others’ head? Verses can be lined up for either position, but love and care suggests a more considerate approach.
.-= Dr. James Willingham´s last blog ..The Climax of the Reformation =-.

Dr. Willingham, I agree. Some men do fight with the gloves off. 🙂
And some women must use their nails to protect themselves.

Again…I go back to Scripture. The man most noted as wise in the Bible says “Wine is a mocker, strong drink is raging; and whosoever is deceived thereby is not wise.” Prov. 20:1. Wine here is the same word as the wine that gladdens the heart, only one passage in context is surrounded with the blessing of God in its natural state of harvest and life provision…the other in its state of adulterated poisonous mockery. Three verses above the passage describing wine as a mocker, we have “Cease, my son, to hear instruction only to ignore it and stray from the words of knowledge.” Prov. 19:27. So which is it? Wine is good or wine is bad? Do we ignore it or do we imbibe and be deceived? Are we wise or are we foolish? I contend that he who ignores that which deceives is likened to Eve. selahV
.-= selahV´s last blog ..ARE YOU VULNERABLE? Part…5, FAMILY FOCUSING =-.

Dr. Willingham, I’ve actually heard people argue that the Corinthians were getting drunk at home before coming to church, which hermeneutically holds about as much water as saying that all the favorable references to wine are unfermented, and all the unfavorable references are fermented wine. To paraphrase Dr. Mohler, If you can prove that Jesus turned water into unfermented grape juice, then I can prove he turned it into Diet Coke.

Once again, if you will read Peter Lumpkins new book….he will answer all of your questions and statements a lot better than I can. And, answer them with Scripture and historical context, he does. Now, of course, I seriously doubt that some of you will be open to believing what he says….your minds are already made up. Some of you wont even read it, because you dont want to know something that disagrees with what you have learned from someone. Soooo…

And, Todd, the evidence that it’s the Dortian Calvinists who are leading this moderation drinking view charge is so prevalent… where do I begin? Here in the blogs? at the SBC meetings…like in Greeneville? I mean, most of the time when I’m talking to someone in the blogs about alcohol, and they are arguing for moderation, they are usually Dortian Calvinists, or else they’re young, emerging fellas, or they’re both. Do you honestly not see this?

David

David: I’m sure many of us on the moderation side are happy that Peter has had a book published. It is a lot of work and a great accomplishment. But Peter’s book is not the end of the alcohol debate, and I doubt he expects it to be. We on the moderation side, instead of presenting the scriptural support for our argument, could simply say “If you would just read God Gave Wine, by Ken Gentry, all your questions would be answered”. In the end we just end up throwing books at each other.

I don’t want to pester, but could you define Dortian Calvinist? Who, in your view, are the good Calvinists?

Bill, G F, Todd and all….I hate to bow out of this conversation, but I’m on my way to Texas to pick-up my precious granddaughters and will be unavailable for deep conversations till Wednesday. I look forward to rejoining the stream following their visit. Just didn’t want you to think I was knocked out. 🙂

David B. …nice to see you join us. Like your thought on “sober”.
selahV
.-= selahV´s last blog ..ARE YOU VULNERABLE? Part…5, FAMILY FOCUSING =-.

1. Proverbs 3:9-10 says, “Honor the Lord with your wealth
and with the firstfruits of all your produce; then your barns will be filled with plenty, and your vats will be bursting with wine.” The smartest man in the world, King Solomon, said God will bless with abundance of wine those who put him first with their finances. NOTE: Of course, some will claim the insight to differentiate between various types of wine and say the type mentioned here is non-alcoholic pre-incarnate Welch’s.

2. Psalm 104:14-15 says, “You cause the grass to grow for the livestock and plants for man to cultivate, that he may bring forth food from the earth and wine to gladden the heart of man, oil to make his face shine and bread to strengthen man’s heart.” Notice that wine is actually cultivated by man as a gift from God to gladden his heart. NOTE: See the note on point one.

3. Several times the Bible tells us to be “sober,” (1 Thessalonians 5:6; 1 Peter 5:8; etc.). You can’t both be sober and eat Reese’s Cups. Eat Reese’s Cups moderately and you will be moderately sober.
God tells us to be sober, not half sober.

4. The Bible teaches us to love God will all our minds (Matthew 22:37). Our minds are altered and damaged by Reese’s Cups. The first thing Reese’s Cups does is to affect our mind and our judgment.

5. Your body is the temple of the Holy Spirit (1 Corinthians 3:16; 6:19-20). Reese’s Cups destroys that body.

These are just a few of the reasons Baptists should wisely oppose the manufacture, sale, and consumption of Reese’s Cups.
.-= Darby Livingston´s last blog ..A Scalpel or a Sword: Surgery or Slaughter? =-.

Deut: 14:26

?And thou shalt bestow that money for whatsoever thy soul lusteth after, for oxen, or for sheep, or for wine, or for strong drink, or for whatsoever thy soul desireth?, and thou shalt eat there before the LORD thy God, and thou shalt rejoice, thou, and thine household,

Stephen,
You said of the word “sober,”
“refers to a state of mind, being mentally and spiritually in control, having self-control”

I may be missing something, but that seems to perfectly make my point. The first thing alcohol does is affect your mind, your judgment. That first drink clouds your God given mind, judgment, conscience. Alcohol causes you to do things you would never do in your right mind. That first drink ends your sobriety. That first drink adversely affects your “state of mind, being mentally and spiritually in control, having self-control.”

I’m not saying “sober” (1 Thessalonians 5:6-8; 1 Peter 1:13; 5:8) only speaks to not drinking alcohol. But it certainly includes it.

Adrian Rogers said, “Moderate drinking is not the cure for alcoholism, it is the cause of alcoholism.”
David R. Brumbelow
.-= David R. Brumbelow´s last blog ..O. S. Hawkins on Alcohol Today =-.

David,

You are still reading your own personal preferences into the word. Take a look at the lexical entry for the word I mentioned – it talks about emotions, attitudes, desires – things that can get out of control apart from alcohol. If the point was to be in control of one’s drinking, why didn’t the writer just say so? Why write a whole ‘nother verse to say so later?

Look at the entire context of your quoted passages – it’s about being serious minded and watchful, not partying til Jesus comes to get us. And there is a major, major difference between the guy who has alcohol addiction and the guy who has a beer with his steak every once in a while. If you can’t admit that then there’s no reason for such a discussion to continue.
.-= Stephen Newell´s last blog ..He Loves Me Anyway! =-.

I have to challenge the idea that people only drink for the drug effect. You cannot prove that because it simply isn’t true. Some people have a drink because they like the taste. The “drug effect” of one drink for someone having a meal at home is practically negligible (it varies with people). Should we ban turkey because it makes people sleepy, or cola because it makes people jumpy? Do we want sleepy or jumpy people driving cars? Should we ban tobacco because the nicotine is highly addictive?

Our bodies are a seething mass of chemical reactions, that respond, in part, to external stimuli such as food and drink. Everything sets off chemical reactions within us, some more noticeable than others. Everything that we eat or drink can “hurt” the temple if used in a certain way, even water.

Stephen,
You continue to prove my point. Alcohol affects you physically, emotionally, spiritually, mentally. It affects your attitudes and desires. Alcohol causes you to lose control. Yes, those things can get out of control apart from alcohol; I guarantee they easily get out of control with alcohol.

A man having a beer and a steak – that beer will adversely affect his being “serious minded and watchful.” The first drink affects your judgment, reaction time, etc. Have you noticed that all America is for prohibition when it comes to on-duty airline pilots?

As I previously said, “sober” does not just refer to not drinking, but it certainly would include not drinking.

By the way, 1 Thessalonians 5:6-8 even contrasts “sober” and those who are “drunk.”

You seem to be making a distinction between getting drunk and moderate drinking and so we may to some extent be talking past each other. But my point is that both are wrong and unbiblical. God’s command to be sober would exclude them both.
David R. Brumbelow
.-= David R. Brumbelow´s last blog ..O. S. Hawkins on Alcohol Today =-.

Bill,
What David 007 said.
If people stopped drinking alcohol for the drug effect, the brewers would have to get an honest job.
David R. Brumbelow
.-= David R. Brumbelow´s last blog ..O. S. Hawkins on Alcohol Today =-.

Did you know that soy sauce is fermented? Did you know that buttermilk and yogurt are fermented? Sour cream, sauerkraut, all vinegars are fermented. Many types of pickles are fermented. Some people like the taste of fermented foods and drinks. Fermentation is not an evil or unholy process, neither are its results.

David B: Are brewers not honest? What is meant by an honest living?

Personally, I am not bothered by drinking. I got drunk once in life and heaved up my socks. That was soo many yrs. ago. Drinking has never held an attraction for me. It does not make me feel good, and I have no need to do it. On the other hand, I know my history, Greek, and some Hebrew. Southern Baptists in all of the churches first founded in America used wine in the communion. Grape juice was unheard of. They also exercised church discipline. Brutal use of biblical quotes is never wise. Head bashing is not advisable, and there are those who have trouble with drinking. Even so, who authorized the change in the elements of communion? Having been heavily in to Landmarkism, ecclesiology, the ordinances, etc., I do think it wise to be careful not be so mean and hateful as to do body slams with others for their views. It is surprising how the rug can be yanked out from under one in the heat of battle. One can be right and lose one’s soul by applying the truth in a hateful manner. Speaking the truth in love is desirable, indeed, advisable in the words of Holy Scripture. The aim of Christian teachings is to make one balanced, flexible, creative, and magnetic. This is probably my last remarks on this issue. Be gentle.
.-= Dr. James Willingham´s last blog ..The Climax of the Reformation =-.

I just find it humorous that in order to be an “official” church planter with the SBC at the national level…

1. You can’t have had anything to drink within the past year, and you have to be able to assure the assessers that you will stand strongly against alcohol.

2. If you have ever spoken in tongues you won’t receive funds.

Obviously, everything can be abused. Shoot, sex is abused, but we don’t ban that. Maybe we should? I just think that if Jesus (wine) and Paul (tongues) couldn’t be a church planter in your denomination then you’ve got some re:thinking to do.
.-= Mike Little´s last blog ..predestination v. freewill – a smokin debate =-.

Matt: Was speaking in tongues never done (or instructed to be done) privately?

I can’t quite agree. 1 Cor. 14 makes clear that tongues is man speaking to God (that’s prayer) and that we have the choice of doing it publicly or not, depending upon the presence of an interpreter. It is, as the text says, used as a sign to unbelievers, if public. But it also says it is for personal edification.

I don’t think it is a slam dunk either way, and therefore not an issue to disqualify much needed missionaries.

I could be wrong, but I very much doubt that a missionary candidate with a history of public tongues speaking in the church but without a PPL would be sent to the SBC mission field.

selahV
I’m sorry that our first encounter has somehow snapped the entirely wrong picture of myself, my views, and my heart for Christ.
You cannot give a clear picture to someone whose mind is clouded with alcohol
Darby Livingston
These are just a few of the reasons Baptists should wisely oppose the manufacture, sale, and consumption of Reese’s Cups.
Now we have this poor fellow offering an argument for the benefit of christians having a cold beer. I am amazed.
.-= Jerry´s last blog ..There is a way that SEEMETH right to men. =-.

Matt: If they are in their room then it would be private wouldn’t it. We have no business being in anyone’s prayer closet, and how they choose to pray is not our business. Period.
.-= Debbie Kaufman´s last blog ..The Gospel =-.

Matt: This is where you and I would disagree. I believe it does. I believe the outer gifts are still for today. God can give them to whoever He wants. It is not for you or I to say. And it is a prayer closet which is private.
.-= Debbie Kaufman´s last blog ..Why I Am For The Hate Crime Bill =-.

One of the problems our modern eaters and drinkers have that before the twentieth century people did not have is what is called subliminal seduction along with foods designed to destroy the body.
Subliminal seduction techniques such as an empy whiskey glass with some ice cubes in it was one of the best selling ads one whiskey company ever had. What was in the ice cubes had to be seen under a microscope practically, the floating wild figures that man sees in his dts.(delirium tremens). Many of the ads that sell fast foods have subliminal sexual things in them, which the unconscious mind sees and wants as the reason for the food. And then the foods have high fructose corn syrup in them (see the ingredients on cereal boxes, if the syrup is one of the first three ingredients listed, then that food is fattening. There is also the death wish to be found in ads for products like tobacco along with the cancer causing chemicals used in the tobacco products. But there we also have chemical cancer causing agents in our water, air we breathe, etc. I remember hearing one fellow railing about gluttony, when the ones responsible for him being where he was, did not know all of the factors behind their overweight conditions.(the subliminal seduction techniquues, etc., by etc., am think of the tremendous stress such people were under such as preachers endure, stress that must be equivalent to many situations productive to PSTD.). Such things must be addressed, if we are going to deal in a meaningful way with the problems facing our people in the churches. And then there is the fact that we are facing the almost certain collapse of our economy and society due to unemployment as there will be no jobs in sufficient numbers to sustain a return to prosperity, except for a miraculous intervention. Nafta exported the jobs that were available and automation, robotics, and computerization did away with the reason for the rest. We are facing almost certain ruin, short of a miraculous intervention. There is more, but I desist. Go help us all.
.-= Dr. James Willingham´s last blog ..The Climax of the Reformation =-.

This topic was dealing with legalism. I have been in two churches where both pastors were really shallow in their faith. Each Sunday I left church feeling that no matter how hard I tried, I never measured up. No matter how sincere I was in the word, sharing my faith, giving, attending and so on, it was never enough. It was like there was an invisible bar that was raised. You never knew where the mark was, just that you never made it. The pastor could never tell you how to grow in the faith, just that you never measured up. That is legalism. Before it was over both churches were barely able to pay the light bill. None of the new believers stayed. More mature believers left until there was barely enough to hold Sunday School.

As the SBC sometimes we preach salvation by grace, but demand it by works. I’m sorry, but I’ve never been able to earn my salvation. I won’t get in by the “skin of my teeth” but by the blood of Jesus. I now understand Grace and that it means God isn’t mad at me if I make a mistake. I confess my sin, He forgives me and I go on. I now realize that it’s about my relationship with Jesus, not just the rules. I don’t obey the rules in order to earn my relationship with Christ, I obey the rules BECAUSE OF my relationship with Christ. And I don’t feel in bondage anymore, instead I am free.

The Two best reasons for doing any thing in Christan living are; 1) A desire to glorify the Lord Jesus christ. 2) Gratitude. That idea of gratitude was what God used to reach our son and call him to the ministry of the word. Just an ordinary, run-of-the-mill (If there is any such thing as a run-of-the-mill sermon)Sunday morning sermon on Gratitude, text, I Th.5:18, in Aug., 1994 reached his heart and the rest, as they say, is history. As to legalism, it can be as destructive as antinomianism. Arminians can be just as ungodly as antinomians. I know of fundamentalists who are as bad as any licentious devil that ever walked. The Christian way is one of carefulness, of balance, of a desire to please God. Some people who have a problem with drinking should not drink, and those who have freedom on the matter ought to be careful lest they leave a bad example. I think we should return to the true elments of communion, but we must also be sure to discourage that type of indulgence which leads to more and more ungodliness. Gratitude to God and the desire to glorify Him are the reasons that should control our conduct – not the opinions or the rules of others.