(David Worley, “Volfan007” is a frequent commenter here and sent me this today. I know this is a hot-button topic and David never shades his views on things! But this is new information about a new study, so here it is. I’m guessing this should be a lively discussion. It is absolutely important that we not ridicule David for his silly position – I’m talking about the support of the Tennessee Volunteers, of course.)
I don’t know if yall have heard the latest study about alcohol, or not; but it’s not very conducive to the moderationists position. Only the tee-totallers will rejoice in this research on drinking red-eye; hooch; the Devil’s brew; corn-squeezin’s; juice; or whatever else you like to call it. This latest research is very interesting for the friends of Bill Wilson, but not for the friends of Busch, Miller, and Colt 45 Malt Liquor. The lastest research is not a friend to Mogan David, Bordeaux, and Three Sisters. You can find the latest research in this hot link, here: http://www.businessweek.com/news/2011-11-02/breast-cancer-risk-rises-with-moderate-alcohol-use-study-finds.html
I first heard of this news on NBC’s Today Show on the morning of November 2, 2011. Ann Courie seemed almost exasperated as she moaned something like, “What can we do?” as if this was very bad news. I mean, how could women ever give up drinking alcohol? It has to be one of the four basic food groups; right? Why, if it increases the risks of getting breast cancer, then women won’t be able to get high on liquor, anymore. Oh no! egads! Drats! How can women survive without a glass of white wine to calm their nerves?
Even after all the studies done on FAS(Fetal Alcohol Syndrone), women still want to drink hooch. Even though a woman can give her baby FAS, and all the deformities and mentally handicapped problems that come with FAS, from just one drink! Before she even knows that she’s pregnant! And, after all the marriages, which alcohol has destroyed; women still want a little wine. Even after all the drunk driving injuries and death, some Moms are not MADD enough to quit drinking firewater.
Folks, when we see all the information, which we have on alcohol, and it’s harmful effects, we just have to see that the Bible is right about the foolishness of drinking rot-gut. We have to see that the Bible calls drinking fermented, undiluted wine “foolish.” To drink “strong drink” is certainly not the drink of champions, but the drink of the foolish. Proverbs 20:1 is pretty plain and clear about this. Proverbs 23:29-35 is painfully clear about drinking fermented, undiluted wine. It’s foolishness. And, of course, it’s just plain ole sin to be drunk on the fermented stuff, as we’re told in Ephesians 5:18. It’s sin. Sin against God.
So, why does a Pastor ever tell his people that it’s okay to drink something that’s foolish? To pop a top, and tell his people, whom God has given him to oversee, that it’s perfectly okay to put down a shot of whiskey? Why would any Pastor want to lead his people into potential destruction and ruin of their marriages, their families, and their very lives? Pastor, what will you say to the woman, who gives birth to the deformed, baby daughter, due to FAS? After you have been preaching that drinking in moderation is perfectly A-OK? What will you say to the parents of the dead 23 year old son, who died because drinking impaired his judgment? After you’ve preached that drinking alcohol is not foolish, as long as you don’t get drunk? And, of course, none of us really know that magical level where you become drunk. So, how could you ever expect a 23 year old to know? But, how will you look those parents in the eyes, and tell them how sorry you are about the death of their son? Or, will you be a yellow-bellied coward, and not even go to the funeral?
Well, I just wanted to give you some things to think about, concerning this hot topic in SBC life.
Since we are trusting science today, let me present some additional information from Johns Hopkins on the helpfulness of a drink or two a day on preventing a heart attack:
http://www.johnshopkinshealthalerts.com/reports/heart_health/265-1.html
You will notice that the article also teases out the breast cancer discussion a little further pointing out the difference between moderate alcohol consumption for men and for women. (So much for David’s article being “new information.” More like new to him.)
I love the lack of “bias” in David’s article. This is not the type of quality I’m used to in an SBC Voices article. I think David uses every crass word imaginable for something God calls a blessing in the Old Testament (Ps 104:14-15, Deut 14:26, Is 25:6) and that Jesus Himself consumes at the Last Supper (Passover consisted of 4 glasses of wine not Welches)
I think that hoping for a reasonable discussion here is pretty hopeless Dave since an incredibly unreasonable article is the beginning point.
Ryan,
God never calls alcohol a blessing. Scripture never says Jesus made alcohol. Scripture says Jesus made wine (oinos), a word that referred to both alcoholic, and non-alcoholic wine. In Matthew 9:17 Jesus called unfermented wine by the word “wine” (oinos).
David W., you are exactly right. God never put His blessing on a poison that, even in moderation, raises the risk of cancer; as well as raises the risk of doing foolish things. Preachers of the Gospel should wisely warn to stay away from drugs, including the drug of alcohol.
David R. Brumbelow
David B
You are blinded by your own biases. You choose to interpret scripture based on your preconceived notions and not on context. The same word for wine is used in describing getting drunk. Do you think the Corinthian church was getting drunk on grape juice?
If you do not want to drink by choice or conviction then do not, but STOP doing violence to scripture in defense of your pet hobby horse.
Why can’t you accept the fact that people who are believers can disagree on this issue? Is it pride or arrogance or tradition or indoctrination? It baffles me that you and Vol and others continue to beat the same dead horse with the same tired arguments that are not only unconvincing but are hermeneutically unsound.
This is a sad position for people who claim to hold to the inerrancy of scripture to be in, using the same linguistic gymnastics that those who twist scripture for their own ends use.
Ryan,
Why dont you buy David Brumbelow’s new book “Ancient Wine and the Bible” and see why we believe the Scriptures teach the foolishness of messing around with something that gets a hold on a persons mind and emotions, and causes them to do things that they normally would not do?
David
I have no reason to buy a book whose contents are spewed in every post on this subject by David B. Why don’t you and David B buy a copy of God Gave Wine and see what real Biblical scholarship looks like or even better why not just accept that your position cannot be intelligently defended from scripture and admit it is a personal cinviction and not a biblical doctrine.
Ryan,
I do have a copy of God Gave Wine and have spent much time reading it. I also have several other pro-drinking books. Unlike you, I have seriously studied both sides.
David R. Brumbelow
David B.
Why do you assume I have not made a thorough study of this issue? Because I do not agree with you?
Truth is, I held your position until about 11 years ago when I began a serious study of the issue in response to an insightful question from a student in my ministry.
I discovered I had been misled and was wrong. I am thankful to God for writing His Word clear enough to make it simple for even people like me to understand. I submitted to God’s Word rather than bending it to my own preferences. I would encourage you to do the same.
There is nothing wrong with being an abstentionist by personal conviction. There is a lot wrong with elevating your personal convictions to the level of inerrant scripture. That’s what you are doing and it’s why I continue to engage you and Vol. What you are doing is dangerous and ultimately damaging to the Gospel. It sows confusion and discord. It is not in line with the teaching of sound doctrine called for in the Bible. I implore you once again to STOP and to please differentiate between your own personal conviction and clear Biblical teaching. Abstentionism as a clear biblical doctrine does not exist- with the exception of the Nazirite vow. In fact, it is the presence of the Nazirite vow in in both the OT and NT that makes your 2 wine theory null and void.
I know there is no convincing you but I will not allow your unbiblical views to go unchallenged.
Dave,
How can you put down something so wonderful as the Vols! I mean, from the school colors, which are sooo beautiful….orange…the color of the flowers which grow in Knoxville. To the wonderful fans, who make Neyland Stadium the fourth largest city in the state of TN on the days when the Vols play. To the greatest stadium in our fair land, which many teologians have said that the souls of people have to fly over before going to Heaven. I mean, there’s just soo much good and pureness to the Vols.
Dave, if you want to ridicule me, or my family, or my church; then go ahead. But, I’ll be a frog’s wart before I’ll stand idly by while anyone ridicules the Vols!
Repent, Dave. Repent.
🙂
David
Orange, David. Isn’t that the color of Calvinism?
lol….you know, Dave, there’s a whole lot of Primitive Baptist up in the hills…
David
From the Primitive Baptist website:
Question: Why do Primitive Baptists use real wine and real unleavened bread in communion?
While scriptural descriptions of the original communion use the terms bread, the cup, and fruit of the vine, it may be conclusively inferred that the bread was unleavened and that the drink was fermented wine. This follows from:
The communion took place immediately after the Passover. This was a time in which leavened bread was prohibited, both by scriptural law and by Jewish tradition (Ex 12:3-8, Num 9:9-11, Deut 16:1-3, Mt 26:17, Mk 14:12, Lk 22:7).
Leaven is used in the scriptures as an emblem of sin (Lk 12:1, I Cor 5:6-8, Gal 5:7-9) and is therefore an unsuitable representative of the Lord’s body.
Wine is symbolically consistent with unleavened bread in that neither contain leaven. On the other hand, unfermented grape juice would contradict all that is portended by the unleavened bread because grape juice typically does contain leaven. There are some who erroneously assert that the opposite is true – that wine contains leaven but grape juice does not. The reader is invited to consult any authority on wine chemistry to resolve the matter.
Wine was a traditional part of the Jewish Passover.
Without modern methods of refrigeration, grape juice could not be preserved for all times of the year. The Passover season was not conducive to grape juice since it was well between harvests.
The Corinthians obviously used a fermented substance in their communion service since they perverted it into a drunken festival (I Cor 11:20-30). Paul condemns them for their impiety and excesses, but not for the usage of wine in communion.
The importance of adhering to the scriptural example in this matter cannot be questioned since God punished the Corinthians with illness and death for departing from it (I Cor 11:29-30). The usage of a leavened substance, such as grape juice, to represent the Lord is, in our opinion, a severe negligence, and is at risk of being chargeable as failure to discern the body of the Lord (I Cor 11:29).
Jake,
You give the quote,
“Without modern methods of refrigeration, grape juice could not be preserved for all times of the year. The Passover season was not conducive to grape juice since it was well between harvests.”
That quote is historically and scientifically untrue. They easily had unfermented wine available at all times of the year.
David R. Brumbelow
Jake,
Are you Primitive Baptists? lol
David
Ya know Biff,
If you had 2 more IQ points you would be just about as smart as a clod of dirt.
Biff,
Let’s go a little further….want to? There are more studies out there that claim “fat intake” causes breast cancer and colon cancer in women AND colon cancer and prostate cancer in men. Had a colonoscopy and prostate exam lately? I mean with all the fatty food you brag of eating….I bet you got polyps in your colon and enlargement of your prostate gland. How bout them ribs boy? Want some more of that good fatty BBQ?
Jake,
I love ribs. I really enjoy BBQ. I thank God every time I eat them.
David
I thank God every time I drink a glass of wine.
Chris,
That’s a shame.
David
Chris,
I do too. Having a nice glass right now. St Genevieve Red to be exact from the Republic of Texas. I thank God everyday for red wine and Texas.
This is a little harsh.
It’s comments like this that really make me regret the loss of SBC Impact.
comments like what?
David
“If you had 2 more IQ points…” Personal invective is unbecoming of a so-called Christian list.
Medical “professionals” have said Coffee is good for you…Then others said it was bad for you…then they said it was good for you. Nearly every substance that we eat/drink/use can be harmful if used improperly or in excess. The same holds true for alcohol. To use one study as grounds for proof that it should be avoided is short sighted and yes, even biased when there have been dozens of studies that promote the positive benefits of moderate alcohol consumption.
Studies can be helpful. Obviously, our views should be formed by exegesis. But on this issue, neither seems decisive for Baptist Bloggers.
Even if you could back this argument up biblically, which you do not, even John Macarthur points out that these verses refer to drunkenness, and not consuming alcohol.
Have you scientifically looked up how this diluted grape juice was preserved? Even if you were to dilute it, as it is suggested, that grape juice is still going to go through the God created scientific process of fermentation. It is not like grapes were squeezed two or three at a time, and then water added. Which I would assume would be like a biblical Krystal Lite.
Put it this way, when the SBC gets the glaring obesity problem within its membership under control, then perhaps they can have a platform from with which they can speak of what we put in our bodies.
Austin,
Ancient people had multiple ways of preserving unfermented wine. It was actually easier for them to make and preserve unfermented wine, than fermented wine. Just because you don’t know how they preserved it, doesn’t mean they did not know how.
David R. Brumbelow
Ol’ professor Brumbelow….how’s those mental gymnastics doing at keeping your blood lipids at a safe level?
Professor,
You are full of hooey.
I remember once I helped my brother-in-law fill the cups with grape juice (Welch’s finest). When I opened the partially used bottle from the last communion service, it hissed just a bit. The “fruit of the vine” was a lot closer to the original that night than usual.
How did they preserve the juice so it would not ferment? Clearly this is a lost art.
Bennett,
They preserved unfermented wine on a regular basis in Bible times. They had common knowledge of methods almost unknown today. And since we don’t know, we often project out ignorance on them and assume they did not know.
They preserved unfermented (non-alcoholic) wine by boiling it down to a thick consistency that would not spoil or ferment. I have some of this wine, opened and kept at room temperature for over a year; it is just as sweet and good as the first day I opened it.
They also had the knowledge to keep certain grapes that were “good keepers” throughout the year. These could be squeezed into fresh wine or grape juice at any time (Genesis 40:11).
They often made raisin wine. They re-hydrated raisins, then pressed them into fresh, non-alcoholic wine.
They preserved non-alcoholic wine through salt and lactic fermentation. Lactic fermentation was very common until the discovery of Pasteurization in the 1860s.
Ancient writers often spoke of these methods.
Find more information in the following article:
http://gulfcoastpastor.blogspot.com/2010/10/preserving-unfermented-wine-in-bible.html
David R. Brumbelow
Hi Neighbor,
I read several articles on the topic. I don’t think that it is quite appropriate to call grape concentrate “wine” due to what our language calls wine. This lack of precision in the language contributes to some of the confusion that is apparent in the comments on David’s posting.
The standards for taste in biblical times were clearly not what our current standards are–even though the grape concentrate would likely be good on pita bread.
Is this the “wine” that David insists was diluted several fold with water? The addition of water would be reconstituting a “normal to thin” grape drink. Any reduction in volume through boiling of alcoholic wine would result in removal of the alcohol–another source of confusion.
I grew up in the same neighborhood that David pastors in and will testify that his opinion was one that was widely held in the Baptist churches I attended.
There’s nothing wrong with being fat.
Also, they would dilute their wine with anywhere from 3 parts to 10 parts of water. This was done to insure that they would not drink anything intoxicating, in case it did start to ferment. Also, the fermentation ability we have today, in our day and time, makes our liquor far more intoxicating than what it was back then.
David
Do you mean “distillation” rather than “fermentation?” The fermentation techniques have not changed much over the years.
Put it this way, when the SBC gets the glaring obesity problem within its membership under control
Ah, yes because only SB’s are obese. That is a uniquely Southern Baptist problem. Thank you for solving that mystery.
Why is this an issue in the SBC? Are some afraid we will become like the Episcopalians who have drinks with their priest at stuffy dinner parties?
David, buddy, you have claimed to have relatives in their 90’s who ate fried chicken with biscuits and gravy all their lives (or something to that effect). Why can’t people accept that there are Christians who drink wine moderately and no one gets hurt. Not even babies.
Wow, another “new study”. Wonder how they explain all those healthy children born during a time when all they drank was ale because water was not fit to drink?
There’s nothing wrong with eating fried chicken and bisquits. No where in the Bible does it say to not eat fried Chicken and bisquits. And, yes….I have had relatives to live into thier late 80’s and 90’s, who ate nothing but Southern cooking…..aint nothing wrong with eating Southern cooking….
And, Lydia, from what I understand…and according to Jake I dont have a very high IQ…but, a woman can give her child FAS before she even knows that she’s pregnant…from just one drink of alcohol! one drink. So, liquor can most certainly hurt babies.
David
The mother of my 3 children drank in moderation with the consent of her doctor while she was pregnant. The twins will be 40 in February and my son will be 34 in January and there was not any sign of FAS in any of them.
Biff,
How are your blood lipids? And your colon? And your prostate? Those problems are from food high in fats….and that is southern cooking ol’ buddy. I was raised on it, salt pork and beans and fried ‘taters. Had my first heart attack at 48….but thanks to good red wine and statins my lipids are lower than almost all of my docs patients.
Jake,
I’ll soon be 50….my blood pressure is fine…my blood sugar is excellent…my cholestrol level is amazingly good according to surprised doctors, who’ve checked it(I guess they were expecting to find some bad stuff).
Thanks for your concern.
David
Biff,
I’d like to see your lipid panel results before I believe the crock that you are putting out. When were the last tests? Do you have them regularly and no one ever said anything about blood pressure.
“And, Lydia, from what I understand…and according to Jake I dont have a very high IQ…”
Your IQ is just fine. We are Baptists, we disagree. it is what makes us interesting. :o)
David,
Thanks for the information. My mother drank a lot and did indeed develop breast cancer. I believe that the theory that alcohol increases the estrogen levels implicated in breast cancer is very significant. Whatever the biochemical explanation might be, the correlation really should be enough to raise some eyebrows, even among the most committed moderationists.
I sometimes wonder if the differing perspectives on alcohol are not at least partly informed by the experiences of one’s own immediate family. I am willing to confess that I WANT the Bible to condemn alcohol use. Perhaps I am so easily persuaded by the abstentionist arguments because, if I were God, I would make abstaining from it the eleventh commandment.
Relax, everyone. I know that means I am biased and reading into the text based on my personal experience. I’m just being honest.
The alcohol my parents drank brought them and me a lot of harm and absolutely no good. So Ryan, forgive me if I find it easy to interpret the “blessing” you claim God mentions in Psalms, Deuteronomy and Isaiah as somehow referring to something else.
Psalm 104:15 says it makes a man’s heart glad, but it did not make my father glad, and it did not make my mother glad. They were more the Proverbs 23:29-35 type of drinkers. They were more like Noah, who planted the first vineyard, got all drunk and then embarrassed himself in front of his children.
It’s fair to say that I would use almost ANY argument to keep people away from alcohol — medical research, the Bible or even a little pity party on a blog. Look, this stuff is terrible. It ruins lives. It destroys homes. Why teach our people that they can play with fire if they just do it a little bit?
I just can’t believe Southern Baptists are getting soft on alcohol.
Southern Baptists have always been soft on alcohol…..at least in private. Hypocritical drunks…whoops I mean “drinkers”. That is why they call and want me to meet them at the backdoor with their order or they send in their adult children to buy it for them or they bring in a hokey prescription from their doctor.
Yes, I’ve heard all the jokes about Southern Baptists not recognizing each other in the liquor store. Problem is, I’ve been one for 29 years now, and I’ve never seen one of my ministers, deacons or teachers take a drink. I did go on one college mission trip and we stopped somewhere and a few people ordered an alcoholic beverage, resulting in a long and appropriate lecture to all of us. I think the jokes overstate the case. I believe many, many Southern Baptists abstain from alcohol.
When I say we’re getting soft on the issue, I guess what I really mean is our pulpits.
Rick, I totally understand. My husband’s father was an alcoholic and he won’t touch it because of that. But he also sees the danger of the teetotal position of piousness which is like dangling enticing carrots in front of teen age boys.
On the other hand, I was raised with the teetotal position of ‘you are going straight to hell with one drink’. There was no legalism at all in my childhood except for when it came to alcohol. And I could not wait to try my first forbidden beer. (YUCK)
But another position is that many people cannot take anti statin drugs and are being prescribed 4-6 oz red wine per day which has no side effects at that dosage. I know a few who order online because they would not be caught dead buying it retail. I think that is a shame, too. But on this issue I do not judge your position or the position of others. We should have charity and unity on this matter.
John MacArthur has been mentioned. Interestingly he said, “A man who is a drinker has no place in the ministry.” Quoted from his commentary on 1 Timothy.
David R. Brumbelow
David,
Dr. McArthur also talks about strong drink in the Bible being undiluted, fermented wine that was foolish to drink. I like Dr. McArthur’s commentary, and I’ve found him to be very strongly against the use of alcohol for recreational purposes.
David
I respect MacArther’s opinions and commentary. I also think its important to highlight his commentary on Proverbs 20:1… “While the use of these beverages [in reference to both ‘wine’ (grape juice mixed with water) and ‘strong drink’ (the unmixed version)] is not specifically condemend (Dt 14:26), being intoxicated always is (Is 28:7)….”
Acohol is not the problem – the OVER USE and/or abuse of that substance IS. Just like food, just like ANY thing – if you use it to the point that it has replaced your reliance on joy from the Spirit (and replaces or alters your mental being) then it has become a sin for you.
Now, I also say that I will not have a drink in many public settings – simply because I know there are many who would get caught up on that and therefore it be an issue to them or the others they may share it with. I choose that approach, not because I feel it is wrong – but because I do not want it to be a stumbling block. That said, I do enjoy the occassional (and occassional / rarely is the key) beer with a few slices of pizza (also an occassional treat…) especially in settings where it is appropriate.
I was raised baptist, and usually align with the SBC line of thought, but I really do question whether we as a convention do more harm than good, whether many of the larger denominations have that same issue….
We do a very good job “preaching” about the stuff we are against – but we don’t do so well sharing with the world what it is we are for – let’s focus on that – let’s share Jesus and spend our energy on that. And if we have any energy left after that’s finshed (it will never be finished 🙂 ), then we can figure out the rest of this detail. And, I’m not dismissing that there are important things to share on what we believe and offer that guidance, I’m just thinking this is one point where we’re mincing words like crazy to try to prove a point, when there’s really no value gained. Being drunk is a sin. Somewhere between no drink and to that point of “drunk” is a line we should not cross – and crossing that line causes much pain.
Just my $0.02 which I offer here for free.
Tim
Somehow this whole post brings back memories:
“Barney Fife: I’ll say it right to your face, Otis, you’ve got a pickled liver!
Otis Campbell: Well, it’s better than having a pickled puss!’
Barney Fife: Oh, yeah?
Otis Campbell: Yeah!
Andy Taylor: Boys, stop it!
Otis Campbell: Well, he started it!
Barney Fife: I did not start it, he started it! “
Good one!
Christiane,
I love the Andy Griffith Show. I’m not fighting with anyone, though. I’m simply presenting truth in the love of Jesus.
David
I know you are presenting what you believe in, DAVID.
I was just trying to relieve some of the tension that surrounds this topic.
What happens is that ‘the tension’ becomes pre-eminent and the ‘dialogue’ takes a back seat sometimes.
I adored (and still watch) the old Andy Griffith show.
Remember the one about the ‘flower-making machine’ and ‘papa’s elixir’ ? (only sold for special holidays, of course) 🙂
An idea for your next article – Fatty Foods Might Increase Breast Cancer Risk.
Mark,
Did I ever tell you about my chubby Grandma’s?
Also, the Bible absolutely does not teach against eating fatty foods. It does talk about the foolishness of drinking alcohol.
David
Defensive much? All I was doing was suggesting another topic for you.
Mark,
Where you? Seriously? That’s all you were doing with that comment?
David
Can you explain to me what kind of fatty foods were in the NT? I am thinking of refined carbs and sugar. Their diets were high in fiber, vegetables, fruit and protein. It is not like the feeding of the 5 thou was with high refined carb biscuits and fried fish.
Lydia,
Do you know of any verses in the Bible which teaches that its wrong to eat catfish? bisquits? pork chops? And, I’m talking about the NT.
Or, do you find that Peter was told that it was okay to eat all kinds of food? That it was okay to go down to the Ribshack and get a Jumbo BBQ sandwich? Yes, God told us in the NT that we could eat catfish and fried chicken……it’s okay… really.
David
“Do you know of any verses in the Bible which teaches that its wrong to eat catfish? bisquits? pork chops? And, I’m talking about the NT. ”
No. Not sure what that means. There are no verses saying I should not use styrofoam plates, either. But I am sure Jonathan Merritt can find something…. :o)
Lydia,
Read the sacrificial laws in the OT. Nearly all the prescribed portions of the sacrifices to be burned were the fattier portions of meat ie: fatty lobe of the liver, rump of the animal, the best cuts of meat were marbled with fat. God had a plan in the sacrifices, burn the best cuts and the leaner cuts were to be eaten in celebration.
Lydia,
Yep, that’s right. And, that’s what’s wrong with trying to make the Bible say something that it does not say. No where does the Bible teach us to not use styrofoam cups, to recycle, or to be a vegetarian. We should not seek to add rule and regulations that the Bible does not teach. And, we seem to have a lot of that going on in SB life right now…
I dont know about you, Lydia, but I have enough trouble trying to obey the commands and the clear teachings of the Bible….to live out the things that the Bible clearly teaches….without adding a whole lot of other things in there, which it does not clearly teach….
David
David, the study showed that one or two glasses of wine a week caused NO increased risk of breast cancer leading one to conclude that moderate drinking at that level is perfectly acceptable.
…suppose you just overlooked that. 😉
William,
Nope. Didnt overlook it, at all. I guess you overlooked where I said that 3 drinks per week and more increases the risk of breast cancer?
I also dont overlook the passages in Proverbs which teach about the foolishness of drinking strong drink…the absolute foolishness of drinking fermented, undiluted wine.
David
David, the biggest cause of breast cancer is one you will not hear about in the mainstream press. If you look at the stats, breast cancer has exploded in the last 30 years or so. The reason? Stronger and more powerful anti perspirants. Women shave and then slather it on….for years. (Men do not shave which is more protection… but even male breast cancer has increased)
To admit this would be disasterous for the health and beauty industry. It is not unlike the dental industry that will never admit that those amalgam fillings with mercury are a big cause of everything from MS to kidney failure. They are outlawed in many European country’s.
William,
So does that mean we should drink and take as much recreational drugs as we can possibly get away with?
David R. Brumbelow
Professor,
Get real….there is a happy medium where we can benefit from alcoholic beverages and not have the negative side effects. You can’t seem to get it through your thick skull that a person can be moderationist. You think that one sip and you go off on a bender.
I know of a whole lot of drunks, who started out as “social drinkers” and “moderationists.” In fact, just about every drunk, or alcoholic that I know about, started off just being a “moderationists.” There’s just something about alcohol that’s addictive….makes you want more. Reminds you of herioine, meth, and cocaine; doesnt it?
David
I merely point out if one read the title of this article, “Latest Research Backs up Bible about Booze” and then the conclusion of the research which showed that one or two glasses of wine per week was perfectly fine with no increased risk, one could easily conclude that David was providing support for a biblical position of moderate drinking.
William,
Not if you read my OP.
🙂
David
The Bible doesn’t speak against fatty foods… But it does speak against gluttony.
The real problem? We’re bickering about detail and not getting off of our high horses and out amongst the people and sharing Jesus.
Tim,
Yes, it does speak against gluttony. I try to not commit gluttony, as well as not drink white lightnin’.
And, most of the Pastors and people I know are not just preaching about sin, but also preach the Gospel. In fact, if a lost person doesnt see thier sinfulness, then they’ll never see their need for a Savior. So, Tim, I know a lot of Pastors, who believe the Bible’s teaching about the foolishness of drinking alcohol, and these same men are winning people to Jesus.
So, no one’s on a high horse, Bro. We’re just trying to be faithful servants of the Lord Jesus. I also preach against the sin of adultery….does that mean I’m on a high horse and not concerned about lost souls? I really thing you’re presenting a false arguement here.
David
What false argument am I presenting?
David,
Thanks for your many “crass” words 🙂
Ephesians 5:18 — “And be not drunk with wine, wherein is excess; but be filled with the Spirit;”
The main reason that I do not drink as a Christian and most certainly as a Pastor is that I only want to be controlled by the Holy Spirit.
I was given my first drink (whiskey with a coke chaser) as a 12 year old boy. My uncle was a drunkard and gave it to me.
My father and most of the males in my family were drinkers and most died young (and alone).
I was part-owner and manager of a 700 seat night club before I became a follower of Jesus Christ. I know what it is like to be filled with the “spirits” …. and now I know what it is like to be filled with the Spirit. There is no comparison and the two … do not mix.
I’m now drinking the Living Water and I’ll never thirst again for the cheap stuff!
Amen, Ron. I also used to be filled with “spirits.” Now, I also prefer to be filled with THE SPIRIT. And, I also like to drink the Living Water.
David
wait a minute . . .
if you all buy into this research, guys will have to forswear ‘the sauce’, too, ’cause men CAN get breast cancer . . . seriously
I don’t drink. I used to be an abstentionist. I know people who have harmed themselves and others through alcohol abuse. I want the bible to teach abstentionism. But it doesn’t. The Israelites were not teetotalers. The NT Christians were not teetotalers. The Israelites were not commanded to be teetotalers, except during the duration of a Nazarite vow. I understand the emotional impetus behind the abstentionist movement, but you can’t make the bible say what it doesn’t.
I find it ironic that scientists are good when they are down on alcohol but godless conspiratorial compromisers when it comes to geology.
Bill Mac,
I agree with you on this. I don’t drink. I came from a family absolutely devestated by alcohol, but I can’t make the Bible say what it doesn’t say.
Bill Mac and John,
Read the passages in Proverbs mentioned in the OP.
David
If you’ll do a little study, you’ll find the same studies that say wine is good for the heart, will tell you that grape juice offer the sme benefits for the heart.
So I guess next week, we’ll have someone else trot out something which does nothing more than make everyone retreat to their corner.
Has even one person here at SBCVoices even changed their mind about this topic?
But hey, I’m learning Christian ways and techniques to insult people so I guess this isn’t all bad…
Bill,
You know the old saying, “When you throw a rock into the pig pen, the pig that gets hit squeals the loudest.” And, unfortunately, some people squeal with insults and harsh words when the “rock” hits them. But, the prophets of the OT, and the Apostles of the NT, and even Jesus endured the insults and ridicule of the crowd….so, how can we expect any less?
David
Biff,
You saying that you and ol’ perfesser Brumbelow are prophets?
Jake,
No.
David
This is terrible…completely unbiblical and thoroughly humanistic. We’ve been through this a thousand times so let’s finally lay it to rest. It’s not worth people’s time.
Sal,
God’s Word, and living a holy life before God, is completely Biblical and worth our time. When the Bible teaches that it’s sinful to commit fornication and adultery, then it’s relevant. When the Bible teaches that we should give to our Church, and be generous givers, that’s important and relevant…..because it has to do with being holy. When the Bible teaches that we shouldnt lie, cheat, or steal; then it’s relevant and worth our time….because it’s God’s will for our lives.
So, everything in the Bible is worth our time and relevant…because it’s important to God. It’s so important to God that He chose to put it into His Word. And, He tells us to love His Word….obey His Word…..cherish His Word….value His Word more than a precious jewel….and live out His Word….
So, how could anyone say that it’s not important, nor worth our time, to seek to know the Word of God, and live out what He teaches us?
David
I will no longer discuss alcohol on this or any other blog.
People of good will have come to differing conclusions about alchohol consumption for a long time. It is clear that the Bible has strong warning about the consequences of drunkenness, in much the same way that it warns about the consequences of debt.
However, perjorative language does not further anyone’s point of view. Being attacked for over the top rhetoric is hardly proof of being aligned with the prophets and apostles. It might be the opposite.
So you think Solomon is saying it is a good idea not to drink undiluted wine? Despite the fact that the majority of Christians don’t interpret the verse in that manner, I will offer this:
The apostle Paul said it was a good idea not to get married.
Bill Mac,
Finish that thought….finish the passage about Paul and marriage…..dont stop short. Paul also said that if you do marry, then it’s not a sin….that its better to marry than to burn with desire.
So, Paul also said that there’s nothing wrong with marriage….but, it’d be better if you could remain single. I’m not geared that way. So, I’m married.
I teach a Saturday morning Bible Study to men in a treatment facility for alcohol and other drugs. I see a new group every 28 days. Most of the men are in their 20’s and 30’s. In this program, I’ve seen preachers, pastor’s kids, church kids, pagans, atheists, skin heads, etc.
They all have one common trait – Alcohol was the gateway drug to other drugs and destructive decisions.
All of us are a product of all the decisions that we’ve made in our lives. Alcohol distorts and depraves our thinking and feeling process. It glorifies the flesh, not God!
What do winebibbing holy men say at funerals when a car load of teens were killed due to drunk driving? It must be nice to have a belief system that implies that these tragic consequences were all predetermined.
Indeed it is. Praise God.
http://godshammer.wordpress.com/2011/05/18/the-immeasurable-and-comforting-power-of-predestination/
Chase,
Really? You really think that God pre ordained for a bunch of teens to get drunk, and then to crash into some innocent victim?
Wow.
David
All actions have been ordained by God. Surely you know better than to call anyone “innocent,” brother.
Chase,
I’m not talking about innocent in the sense that they’ve never committed sin. Of course, we all stand guilty before God. We’re all lost in our sins, until we’re saved.
I’m talking about innocent in the sense of them not being drunk, and being hit by someone, who has been drinking. The non drinking driver, who’s been injured or killed, is innocent of that sin….the sin of the one drunk, who killed someone who was not.
Also, Brother, I think you need to seriously reconsider your thinking that God ordains everything. I believe in the sovereignty of God as much as anyone, but God does not ordain pedophiles to molest children….I seriously doubted that God chose for Hitler to murder Jews and Christians. I seriously doubted that it was in the plans of God for Jim Jones to lead hundreds to their death with a false faith, a cult.
Now, does God allow these things to happen? Most certainly. I dont doubt for one minute that God can do whatever He wants to do, when He wants to do it. He is God. But, to say that God ordained a woman to commit adultery, and then leave her husband for another man, would be a false statement to make. God doesnt ordain such sin.
David
You are correct. But God may justly smite any of us from existence at his whim, by any means he deems appropriate.
God predestines sinful men to follow their own desires. God does not put a gun to a man’s head and force him to unwillingly commit atrocities. Men are evil, vile, and corrupt, and sin willingly (cf. Ro. 1:24ff), as God has ordained.
Chase,
You prove my point. One’s theology is very important. And, wrong theology can lead to wrong actions.
When one abuses their God given “free will” and they choose to drink and drive and it results in death … the sinner and his sin is to blame … not God.
RON,
I agree.
God could never be the ‘author’ of evil.
Absolutely correct. But the actions of a drunk driver are sinful regardless of whether moderate consumption of alcohol is permissible.
David W. has already pointed out the passages in Proverbs that prohibit alcohol.
Several Scriptures in the New Testament also command us to be sober (1 Peter 5:8; 1 Timothy 3:2; 1 Thessalonians 5:6-8; etc.). The word for sober (nepho) literally means “wine-less.” By the way, John MacArthur, among others, brings this out. So yes, the Bible multiple times both teaches and tells us to be sober, to abstain from alcohol.
There is no doubt the Bible calls nonalcoholic wine by the name wine (Proverbs 3:10; Isaiah 16:10; Matthew 9:17; etc.); as well as calling wine that which is alcoholic.
The Bible clearly describes alcoholic wine and says not to even look at it (Proverbs 23). The Bible never describes alcoholic wine and says drink it, not even in moderation.
David Worley,
Great article and comments on alcohol.
Rick, Ron – very good comments as well.
David R. Brumbelow
Thanks, David B.
Solomon was an Old Covenant Jew. Despite being God’s chosen king, he did not have the authority to change the Law, so whatever he was talking about in Proverbs, it was not a change to the Law. Since the Law does not forbid alcohol, Solomon also could not.
Unless you can show me from the Law where alcohol was forbidden. I ask this same question every time the topic comes up. No abstentionist has ever even tried to show me where this prohibition is in the Law, and let’s face it, the Law is not shy about prohibiting things. The Jews were not a teetotaling race, nor were they ever commanded to be.
Bill Mac,
Can you show a place in the Law where alcohol was commended?
David R. Brumbelow
Certainly, but I know that you interpret “strong drink” as fruit juice, so it won’t get us anywhere. The fact is that I don’t have to find commendations. There are scads of things that the bible does not specifically commend that are not prohibited (cheese?).
Since the bible specifically forbids alcohol during the nazarite vow, and during the carrying out of priestly duties, then it is clear that it was not forbidden at other times.
Bill Mac,
You say, “Since the Law does not forbid alcohol, Solomon also could not.”
Can you give any Scriptural evidence for that? Do you believe all Scripture after the Law can only restate the Law?
Proverbs 20:1; 23; 1 Thessalonians 5:6-8 are just as inspired as the Law.
David R. Brumbelow
So you think Solomon could have lifted the prohibition on eating pork, or changed the Sabbath Laws? Is that how inspiration works?
Speaking of cancer…I think I saw some research somewhere that said Calvinism causes cancer…
But onto a serious note – I grew up in a family with two alcoholic uncles. My grandfather was a recovered alcoholic. His sons never managed to kick it and it eventually killed both of them. One was an extremely violent drunk and the other was a terribly depressed drunk. One never had a family and the other destroyed his family.
I wish I could find a verse that specifically said “Thou shalt not drink alcohol,” but I find the Scriptures lacking in that area. I have no problem telling my friends, family or congregation that I am opposed to drinking at any level. I will tell them my personal experiences with alcohol, and my family’s and the various stories I have heard in jail ministry. It is a truly destructive force.
I believe in the USA that alcohol is a killer: it kills people, it kills families and it kills testimonies. We like to think we are so civilized and have no “idols” or “false gods” in our civilized culture, but America’s fascination and addiction to alcohol rivals anything seen in the worship of Dionysus and Bacchus. When I look for the ultimate reason to abstain, that is the primary reason: idolatry.
Idolatry in regards to alcohol is the greatest danger for a Christian. That idolatry is particularly evident in those that argue vociferously for its acceptance in Christian culture.
Having said that, respectuflly Vol, I found your article distasteful because of its tone and language. We agree on abstaining from alcohol, but your presentation is not likely to bring anybody to your point of view. It just leads to yet another polarizing and non-edifying debate.
Randy
Randy: Is it your view that the bible forbids alcohol?
I believe the Bible clearly condemns behavior associated with drinking. Take my two uncles for example. The violent drunk was a calm, laid back, fun guy when he was sober. However, drinking led him into violently sinful behavior – he got half his ear cut off in a bar room brawl one time. The depressed drunk was a loving, nurturing, talented man when sober, but when drunk he failed totally to live up to any of his responsibilites as a father and husband.
I believe the Bible clearly condems the idolatry that comes with alcoholism. Beer/wine/whiskey/etc become surrogate gods to people. They seek relaxation in it, they seek escape in it, they seek answers in it and they seek companionship in it. They spend large sums of money on alcohol, making an “offering” to their god. They gather together in bars and clubs, “worshipping” in the “temple” of their false god. This is the greatest condemnation to me of alcohol consumption.
Can I point out a verse that definitively says “Thou shalt not drink?” Nope. Can I argue from the Bible about the detriments of alcohol and how it does not glorify God? You betcha. Will I preach that from the pulpit? You betcha. Will I tell people they are going to hell if they have a drink every now and then? Nope. I will say due to the destruction I have witnessed that alcohol is best left alone because it is an open door to sinful and idolatrous behavior.
Randy
Former,
I’m sorry that you found it distasteful. I’m not really sure why you found it distasteful, but I’ll try to do better next time.
BTW, my views on alcohol are based on the Bible. If the Bible didnt not call it foolish to drink recreationally, and a sin to be drunk; then I’d still be drinking today. I used to party a lot before drinking of the Living Water and being filled with THE SPIRIT.
David
Vol,
I think we are fairly in agreement. Check out my response to Bill Mac above. I just see it from a different way in Scripture. I guess all the sorta crazy references to alcohol rubbed me the wrong way. I enjoy your input here, it just seemed you took an approach that lended itself more to divisive argumentation instead of appealing to logic and reason. It certainly inspired a lively debate!
Randy
Randy: I see your viewpoint. I think the problem with alcohol in America is the same as nearly everything else in America. Americans are massively overconsumptive, in everything that can be consumed. Yes, alcohol can be and has become an idol. I resent the fact that “where two or three are gathered” the assumption is that alcohol must be involved. I resent the fact that everyone thinks that alcohol is necessary to have a good time.
But America is only a blip in eternity, and whatever may be going on culturally, in America, it has no bearing on how we interpret the bible. If the bible forbids alcohol, it forbids it. Cultural factors are irrelevant. If the bible does not, it does not, and a billion alcoholics can’t change our interpretation. So while we all have stories about the impact of alcohol in our lives and families (good or bad) those are not relevant to scripture. Nor are studies with the purported health benefits or detriments. They don’t matter.
The bible does not teach abstentionism (and if you push Volfan to the wall, he will agree). David B. is an abstentionist, I believe, so while they seem to be allies, the Davids are not in the same theological camp. David Miller, if he exists, is a moderationist I believe. Perhaps we should just have a virtual David cage match.
Bill I respectfully disagree with you, sir. Culture is relevant. I think we can see that from numerous instances in the life of the Apostle Paul. Just for one:
Therefore, if food makes my brother stumble, I will never again eat meat, lest I make my brother stumble. (1 Corinthians 8:13 NKJV)
Paul basically goes through chapter 8 and the issue of meat being offered to idols. While scripture does not call us to be vegetarians, Paul says if his eating meat from the market in Corinth is going to cause fellow believers to stumble, he’ll give it up. Why did Paul have Timothy circumcised? It had to do with the relevance of Jewish culture with his mixed heritage. The Apostle passionately preached against the necessity of circumcision then had one of his closest associates circumcised…for cultural reasons.
Maybe a better way of saying “culture is relevant” is saying that Scripture is relevant to every culture. In American culture where alcohol has caused all the issues you stated then does not the relevance of the Scriptures in our culture support abstinence?
Our personal stories as well are relevant to Scripture because our testimonies, whether good or bad, point to the truths of those same Scriptures. Those that choose the gross indulgences of the world provide living testimonies of the truths of God’s word concerning sin. Again, it is more accurate to say Scripture is relevant to our personal stories because we find the application of its truths in our lives whether we live for Christ or not.
RANDY
Randy: I thought the context implied this, but I’ll try again specifically. Culture is not relevant to the question: “Does the bible forbid alcohol?” The 4th century Algerian and the 21st century American should be able to give the same answer. If the truths of scripture are relative to culture, we are in big trouble.
Culture and context may well be relevant to the question: Should I drink alcohol? But not to the greater question.
Former,
Also, I’m just a simple man….I’m not really sophisticated and polished like a lot of Pastors. I’m just an old hillbilly, whom God saved and gave me the grace I needed to get an education. So, I just write from my heart. I try to not put on a lot of airs, and act like I’m some intellectual genius, or some suave, sophisticated, polished, professional Pastor. That’s just not me. So, I guess my writing may come across kind of raw and rough, sometimes. But, I write what I do out of love for God and love for the truth of God and love for people.
David
LOL man that’s cool. I’m just a city boy that grew up over the hill from the ‘hood and became an angry, arrogant atheist. I’m always amused and encouraged how God takes diverse guys like you and me then blesses us to be gospel ambassadors. It takes all kinds to reach all kinds. I think we both have a passion for people not to waste their time, money and lives on alcohol.
Randy
Former,
Amen, Bro.
David
I propose that not many outside the church question our church-ness on the basis that a few members have a beer now and then. What seems much more problematic is the acceptance of more obviously sinful behavior, such as divorce and non-attendance.
Our association passed a resolution that the local university not sell alcohol at sporting events, but the churches in that association do nothing when people calling themselves Christians divorce or simply don’t show up for services. When tee-totalers treat obviously sinful behavior with as much vigor as they treat the use of alcohol, it would appear much more that they are concerned with holiness rather then merely their own hobby-horse.
I have preached against divorce, except in the case of adultery, from my pulpit many times. I have preached about the lack of attendance of our “absentee members.” In fact, my last Church newletter dealt with this very thing. Also, I’ve visited in the home of every member of my Church, or at least tried to….with some I had to leave a note on thier door. I have tried to visit all 410 members of my Church in the past 5 years. I have already started to go back to the ones, who are not attending. I go back the 2nd with a little stronger message than the first visit.
So, Rob, we can do all of it…..preach the Gospel, reach out to the lost, deal with divorce and remarriage, and deal with absentee members…AND preach about the foolishness of drinking fermented, intoxicating wine. We can all of it. It doesnt have to be one, or the other…it can be both and all…and it should be both and all.
David
It does not seem that David is guilty of this, but I feel that it must be noted that scientific research is irrelevant regarding the interpretation of scripture. Science is not absolute truth; all that it attempts to offer us, or is capable of offering us, is a provisional, empirical understanding of phenomena that is only valid until new research replaces it. Such shifting sands hold no authority over the absolute, unchanging truth of God’s word; indeed, it is the opposite which is true: if a finding of science is contrary to the Bible, then the findings of science are false.
God understands the universe better than our fallen perception will ever be capable, and as regards scripture, the Holy Spirit has preserved the penmen’s hands from error in all circumstances. Scripture must be interpreted by scripture, and not the vain musings and observations of men. Such an approach has been largely abandoned, unfortunately, in the modern attempts to distort and explain away portions of scripture such as the creation account and Joshua 10:12-13.
Chase,
Amen, Bro. I like everything you just said.
David
Disclaimer:
I just want to say to all of you drinkers commenting in here that I dont hate you. I’m not angry about your drinking. God is your Judge. I have nothing but the love of Jesus in my heart.
This is to the Chase talking to me about God ordaining sinful men to be sinful???? Is that what you’re saying? That God ordained that sinful men do sinful things?
Dude, God does not ordain people to do sinful things. It really sounds like you’re making God the author of sin….that God wants people to sin.
You said…in your comment…”God predestines sinful men to follow their own desires. God does not put a gun to a man’s head and force him to unwillingly commit atrocities. Men are evil, vile, and corrupt, and sin willingly (cf. Ro. 1:24ff), as God has ordained.”
God has ordained that men sin willingly? Brother, I just cant disagree with you more.
David
Sorry for taking so long to reply; I was away from the computer for a few hours.
Acts 4:26-28 The kings of the earth stood up, and the rulers were gathered together against the Lord, and against his Christ. For of a truth against thy holy child Jesus, whom thou hast anointed, both Herod, and Pontius Pilate, with the Gentiles, and the people of Israel, were gathered together, for to do whatsoever thy hand and thy counsel determined before to be done.
Was the crucifixion of Christ not a sinful act for the men responsible? Could these men have chosen not to crucify Christ, thus thwarting God’s will for salvation?
Excuse me for quoting a presbyterian confession, but I believe WCF 3.1 and 5.2 offers a concise explanation of why this is not so.
3.1: God from all eternity did by the most wise and holy counsel of his own will, freely and unchangeably ordain whatsoever comes to pass; yet so as thereby neither is God the author of sin; nor is violence offered to the will of the creatures, nor is the liberty or contingency of second causes taken away, but rather established.
5.2: Although, in relation to the foreknowledge and decree of God, the first Cause, all things come to pass immutably, and infallibly; yet, by the same providence, He ordereth them to fall out, according to the nature of second causes, either necessarily, freely, or contingently.
Man, the second cause, commits the sin, and is thus the author of it. God has committed no sin.
Yes. This is a necessary consequence of the Fall and original sin.
My natural bias is to be totally against alcohol. Alcohol abuse caused a great deal of sadness in my family.
I was a T-totaler from 14 to 28 or so. Since then, I will have a glass of wine (red) about 2 to 3 times per year.
My view of what the Bible taught on this subject was influenced in my early years by my family experience.
I had a double major in college – ancient history and biblical studies, at a very conservative school. More conservative than any Southern Baptist colleges.
In the classes that I took, I came to believe that the Bible did not actually teach total abstinence. The school had an abstinence position, but they admitted that was through the application of biblical principles, and not be direct command. The direct commands, they said, were against drunkenness.
It is very important to be careful about alcohol consumption. But it is also very careful to be faithful to what the Bible says directly about alcohol consumption, and to keep personal application of biblical principles separate from what the Bible says about alcohol consumption.
I appreciate and respect my abstinent brothers and sisters in Christ very much and understand their position even though I may not agree on all points.
The thing that bothers me is the extent to which the discussion of drinking is so prevalent in the SBC. I am hoping that will grow less and less over the years. I haven’t heard a sermon on it in my church (I don’t think) in 18 years. I can go another 18 years without hearing a sermon about it. If the text mentions it, that is covered, but again, the direct teaching is against drunkeness, so it doesn’t take long to cover that.
There is no question that the SBC has a long history related to alcohol use. There have been more resolutions passed on this topic (I think) at annual meetings than any topic. And that goes back to the early 1900s.
The history of prohibition in the U.S. has a big impact on all of this. I enjoyed Ken Burns’ recent documentary on that topic on PBS. If you did not catch it, it is worth watching. I was surprised to see that the T-total position was not the original position of prohibitionists, but developed later.
At any rate, I think that the history of the U.S. has made this a bigger issue for Christians in the states than for Christians in some other country.
I hope that the SBC will stop talking about this so much and making it a test of true spiriuality. I am not trying to change folks minds with respect to their position, but I am hoping for some proportionality that would be more in keeping with what we see in the New Testament.
It would be better if the teaching and emphasis of the SBC and her churches looked more like the NT churches than the product of a moral/political movement of a bygone era.
Louis,
You have a good natural bias :-).
I believe the Bible both directly, and through biblical principles, speaks against alcohol. But my view is that if you reject the first contention, the second should also keep us from drinking.
I agree with Judge Paul Pressler on alcohol,
“If we use it ourselves, we recommend its use to others. A Christian should not exercise his freedom to put himself and others at such a risk.”
One reason we speak as much as we do about alcohol is because the long held SBC view on alcohol is under attack. We speak more to issues that are contested.
Second, I think we often speak against it, and have an annual Drug Abuse Prevention Sunday in March, because so many lives are devastated by alcohol and other drugs. Those devastated lives seem to always begin with moderate drinking.
David R. Brumbelow
David:
I do not disagree with much of what you say, and when you quote Judge Pressler, you are quoting one of my heroes. His brilliance is seen in that quote – strong, succinct and correct.
But, I have to note, again, that is an application of biblical principal, rather than the Bible itself. And any time we move from direct commands to conduct choices based on broader principles, we have to admit that there are other choices and that one course is not mandatory. We may think it best, but we cannot claim it is the only way to approach something.
The SBC does not have a particular view on alcohol. The BFM is completely devoid of any reference, I think, especially t-totalism.
There have been countless resolutions passed. But those are by majority vote of those attending a particular convention. And they have no binding force on any church. I believe those resolutions are correct in expressing majority Southern Baptist practice and belief, however.
I don’t see that the dominant historical account on alcohol is under attack in the SBC. People are just moving away from it. I was not attacked. I changed my views in one of the most conservative places in the U.S. and was under no attack.
I do not disagree that abuse starts with moderate drinking.
But that is true of many things and is but one of many factors to consider. It does not amount to a ban – otherwise Jesus, the apostles and the church would have adopted and pronounced one.
I believe that the NT Church had much to say about sin. The NT says a whole lot about sinful conduct. So, for us to preach about sin, as well as preach the Gospel and teach the Scriptures, is to be like the Early Church. In fact, if you teach the NT verse by verse, you’ll end up preaching a lot about sin. I know, because that’s the way I preach….verse by verse, thru books.
So, I’m just having a hard time understanding all of the statements in here which seem to be implying….well, not even implying, but just out and out saying it, at times….that preaching against foolish behavior and sinful conduct should be a thing of the past? That if we’re preaching about the dangers of alcohol, or about any other sin; that somehow we’re neglecting the preaching of the Gospel?
God is holy. He wants us to be holy. Also, we’re commanded to know the whole counsel of God, and to preach and teach the whole counsel of God. So, I’m not getting the whole thing about preaching against the foolishness of drinking alcohol, or preaching against the sin of adultery, etc. is somehow neglecting preaching the Gospel, or that we’re not really doing what we’re supposed to be doing as Pastors, or ?????
David
First of all, the OP is nothing but rhetoric and name calling. Doing it in the name of God, which could be sin. Calling people names is more of a pleasure than a necessity is seems, that’s not going to transform anyone but maybe into anger. 2. Moral preaching does not change anyone, preaching Christ is what transforms. Even those who are born again need this kind of preaching. Romans and Hebrews are just two of the Books in scripture that point this out. 3. Christ’s harshest words were for the Pharisees. David, I am not downing you in saying this, but your eating habits and your weight could be considered sin as well, going the road you are going down with this harsh and unnecessary inflammatory preaching. Yet you offer excuse after excuse as to why your girth is OK but moderate(which you refuse to recognize but go into drunkenness which we all agree is sin, but moderate drinking is spoken of in the Bible as OK.) That is hypocritical plain and simple.
Morality preaching does not change, just look around you David. It doesn’t change a thing. Christ does.
Debbie,
I disagree with nearly everything you said, and I wonder where in the world you’re even coming from…..
It’s as if you didnt even read what I wrote, and you change everything I said, twisting around, to fit some preconceived notion you have in your mind about me.
I dont even know how to answer this.
David
David: I read what you wrote. Twice. I’m still angry. If you speak to your congregation like that it is wrong and using the Hillbilly excuse is no excuse. I come from a long line of Hillbilly’s who are the sweetest, kindest, gentlest people I know. They are my aunts and uncles, mother, who are terrific people and Baptist to boot.
You prohibitionists are nothing but taliban, taliban I tell you. Go back to your sandy lands and establish your own theocracy but leave us peacefull drinkers alone. Go away….!!
You have been anything but peaceful on this discussion, Jake. You’ve been insulting and demeaning.
Dave,
Thank you, I tried hard to succeed. To be real plain Dave, I’ve tried to discuss this subject before on several blogs with the same 2 and sometimes Peter Lunkhead and all we get is the same ole same ole. You are the one that allowed the initial post, knowing full well that on an SB blog that “alcohol” cannot be discussed without rancor and name calling. So just blame yourself for getting it started.
Jake, let’s assume you are right and David is a total jerk with unbiblical views and an obnoxious attitude. Why not respond with grace and reason and exegesis? WWJD?
Return good for evil?
Love your enemies?
Bless those who persecute (annoy?) you?
Did all those verses suddenly disappear?
If the other side is wrong on an issue, I am still required to be filled with Christ’s grace in my response, to affirm them as brethren and sistern, to demonstrate love and mercy.
None of that changes when someone else is a jerk on a blog, does it?
And before David gets offended, I’m speaking in the hypothetical here – assuming all of Jake’s complaints are correct.
Dave,
Frankly, I thought the whole post was for fun and games. I really didn’t think you let Biff post it for “real” discussion. I enjoyed being able to be sarcastic, knowing that Biff and The Professor have hides like rhinos.
I couldn’t tell sometimes if you were being insulting or just teasing. The tone often doesn’t come across on a blog.
Jake,
Before I say what I want to say to you here, let me tell you that I disagree with the thrust of Dave’s article. However, your comments to him have been completely out of line. You have insulted he and David Brumbelow brutally. Now you want to say that you are joking. I think that Solomon had some appropriate words in this topic when he said, “Like a madman who throws firebrands, arrows, and death is the man who deceives his neighbor and says, “I am only joking!” Brother, you need to spend a lot more time meditating on grace and how it should inform the way that we speak to brothers with whom we disagree.
Out of curiosity, does anybody here actually have access to the original JAMA article? I’ve read the abstract, and it seems like this is merely a correlation study, as opposed to a causation study.
Vol,
I’m a child of an alcoholic. I’m a sister of an alcoholic. I’ve seen alcoholic DT’s, and even alcohol psychosis. It’s truly destructive and has probably in many ways formed some of my own unhealthy issues from observing this from a very young age… and then watching these family members eventually die from it.
Alchohol has caused havoc and destruction in my family and it surely grieves me.
Even so, you’ll never convince me that scripture teaches that we should not drink alcoholic beverages. It teaches about the sin of drunkeness.
I personally almost never use alcohol. But it’s not because I think it’s sinful, it’s because I believe there is a genetic link that predisposes SOME people to physical addictions.
I will not stand in judgment of people who can moderately use alcohol responsibly. How come we never hear about them? I can’t find anything in scripture that calls this use of alcohol a sin. It’s not there David. It’s not. You can tell us about tragedy, violence, innocent victims, disease, etc. However, this is a result of drunkeness, not drinking alcohol.
I’ve no doubt your motives are pure. I am not criticizing you. I’m simply sharing from my owned very biased view, that I believe you are wrong.
In essentials unity, on secondary issues… liberty.
God Bless,
Chief Katie
Hi CHIEF KATIE,
I think that it may not be the alcohol that ’causes’ all the trouble, unless there is a genetic pre-disposition to addiction to alcohol, which I know happens frequently among generations,
particularly father to son dependency.
I think the real problem is the PAIN that people are trying to drown out.
Life is hard on folks, and it can overwhelm at times. If people seek to ‘dull’ the pain instead of dealing with its cause, addictions can form.
Alcoholism and drug dependency are ‘presenting’ problems. What is troubling the person is something much deeper and more serious in many cases. I don’t judge people who suffer anymore, I just want deeply for them to live and be well.
The Church can help. Christian people can help. But I’m sure that pointing the finger being judgmental will NEVER substitute for ‘telling the old, old Story of Jesus and His love’.
Well said, Katie.
Chief, we are together in both experience and belief on this one.
Well stated.
I am constantly amazed at the inability of redeemed people to discuss this subject in an reasoned, yes godly way. I also know that pretty much everyone who reads this will say, “Yeah, those people on the other side are really bad, aren’t they?”
David wrote a strongly worded piece. He spoke his mind. I don’t have to agree with him. But he is not the devil. Neither are those who disagree with him alcoholics and antichrists.
Good grief, Baptists.
Amen. Volfan and David B. are great guys. I would probably go enjoy their churches and they mine!
My philosophy here at SBC Voices is to let (within reason) all SBC Voices be heard. David is a Southern Baptist pastor who feels strongly about the evils of alcohol. His voice should be heard.
Those who disagree, their voices should be heard.
I think the side that stops calling names, sticks to scriptures and maintains a reasoned and cordial attitude of discourse will score lots of points.
Rubbish. Pure. Simple. Rubbish.
I cannot believe this is still an issue in the convention. It makes me ashamed to be a Southern Baptist.
Unsubscribed.
That’s probably just as well. If you only want to read blogs that reinforce what you already believe, then a multi-viewpoint blog like SBC Voices may not be your cup of tea.
Dave,
Great news your blog is back in first place on google searches. Search southern baptists alcohol & blogs….SBC Voices comes up #1. We did it for ya coach….anytime the blog ratings go down just let Biff or Professor write on booze and we will have you back at the top in no time at all.
Jake, this is not a POV blog. I happen to not agree with David’s take on this issue. But he advocated a position – and did so strongly. We publish Calvinists and non-Calvinists. We publish abstentionists and moderationists. Traditionalists and cultural innovationists.
If David’s post bothers you so much, don’t read it. But you need to calm down and stop posting personal insults.
There’s an excellent post by Jeremy Park that just went up – about the life of a missionary. Check that out.
But calm down and exhibit some grace – even to those who disagree with you.
Dave,
I dont believe Jake was just kidding. He has made insulting, demeaning remarks towards me for a long, long time. And, this comment thread is no difference.
Debbie,
I just stand amazed that you would be so angry about this post, and about my comments.
David
Debbie, beyond calling the hypothetical Pastor, who’s church member died in a car wreck, a yellow bellied coward; just where have I called anyone a name? I mean, real people, not hypothetical people?
On the other hand, you’ve insinuated that I’m fat, mean, obnoxious, rude, and a few other things. Also, others in this comment thread have called me everything but a Believer. I’ve been called a jerk, stupid, and a host of really other not so great things. Who’s really doing the name calling in here?
David
Biff,
You, yourself have made the comment that you are large ie: fat. And you have, by your own posts provided evidence that you are “mean” (your own words) & “obnoxious” (your own words) by the tone of your posts. When you quit acting (hypothetically) as dumb as a box of rocks, everybody will quit treating you like you are (hypothetically) as dumb as a box of rocks.
David: You yourself have mentioned your size, and I have seen pictures, as for the rest of the nouns you have used, I don’t disagree with them. You seem to pride yourself on those descriptions as well with the smiley faces you leave behind. I did not call you a name, I pointed out where your use of words were wrong. I also pointed out that using the same measuring stick you are using for those who choose to drink moderately, you too are in sin. Using the stick that I measure with which is the New Covenant I would not have called you on it but accepted you as a brother in Christ. Period. No sermons on the morals of overeating or being overweight.
I chose the one weakness you have to make a point David. Nothing more or less. You see when you use the measuring stick that you use, and I believe with no Biblical backup which is why you only tell the drunkeness stories, it’s all you have to go with to try and make your case, I too can use the Law out of context to go after the one thing that I can call sin. I could make a week’s worth of sermons on the sin of gluttony and being overweight. You can tell me that you eat moderately, and I would be able to easily make the case that you don’t. I can even take the scriptures and twist them to make a Biblical case that you are indeed in deep sin. See the lesson in all of this?
Debbie,
I tried to have a discussion with you, in spite of my commitment to not discuss anything else with you. I gave in and tried again. I wont make the same mistake again.
God bless you, Debbie. I hope you have a nice life.
David
Biff,
I never said I was kidding. The quote is below:
“Frankly, I thought the whole post was for fun and games. I really didn’t think you let Biff post it for “real” discussion. I enjoyed being able to be sarcastic, knowing that Biff and The Professor have hides like rhinos.”
Jake,
God bless you. I meant every word of the OP.
David
Biff,
I know you did. And I meant every word of my replies. Have a great evening (sincerely typed).
Have a nice life, Jake. I’m moving on in my life. I tried to sincerely, honestly answer you and Debbie, and this is what it resulted in, once again.
God bless.
David
Did anyone on the comment thread change their mind as the result of the discussion? Is anyone willing to raise their hand and say they see the other side more clearly and charitably as a result of the last 150 or so comments?
Just curious.
Not likely, Peaches.
Although, in fairness to those who have tried hard to make their points without being ugly, I can’t say as I’ve met anyone who changed their mind on anything based on a blog comment stream, so this one isn’t much different than the rest.
“Did anyone on the comment thread change their mind as the result of the discussion? Is anyone willing to raise their hand and say they see the other side more clearly and charitably as a result of the last 150 or so comments”
(Slowly raising hand) Me.
I was never around an alcoholic until I was an adult and that was outside my family. Even my father in law was out of town so it did not affect me directly at all. But hearing from those here who grew up with it and the devasatation it caused, I certainly hope that I am more charitable with opposing views on this issue. I have a lot more empathy for and openess to their position.
Lydia,
Let me give you another testimony. My Uncle started out social drinking…drinking in moderation. He became an alcoholic. When he was sober, he was one of the nicest, friendliest men you’d ever want to be around. But, when he got drunk, he became mean and violent.
Well, to make a long story short, his wife left him. She couldnt take the violence and all that goes with drunkeness anymore. He also lost his farm. I cant tell you how many trucks he wrecked. One day, he was drunk. And, he was standing out on the lawn of his brother…holding a shotgun. He threatened to kill his own brother.
My family sent him to dry out tanks and rehab centers. But, he’d just head back to the booze when he got out. But, one time, a retired missionary led him to the Lord at one of these rehab places. He came out a changed man. He eventualy remarried his wife; got his farm back; was very active in the church; and he’s a wonderful, Christian man right now. Praise the Lord!
God saved his soul, and he delivered him from the curse of alcohol.
David
BTW, Lydia, I was going the same direction with my life, until the Lord Jesus saved me one night….gloriously saved me. That night I was drunk on Jack Daniels. I’d been under strong conviction for a while. My Momma loves the Lord, and she had taught us the Bible from a child. My Mom and Dad took us to church….and, as a teen, I went to Bellevue Baptist Church in Memphis and sat under the preaching of Dr. Adrian Rogers.
But, the night I got saved, I had fallen flat on my face in a parking lot of a Diner in Bolivar, TN. I was so drunk that I couldnt stand up any longer. But, that night, I cried out in faith to Jesus to save me. I surrendered my life to the Lord Jesus that night. I was never more sober in all my life after that. I puked my guts out the rest of the night, but I had such a peace in my heart. I was finally at peace with God. And, the Lord changed my life that night…changed me forever.
I’d rather drink from the Living Water, than from the wells of the world. I’d rather be filled with the Holy Spirit, than to be filled with the spirits of this world.
David
One drink does not a drunk make.
Vol,
What’s the moral of the story? Is your testimony the gospel? Was it the alcohol’s fault that you were not saved?
I’m trying to understand if and how your testimony is supposed to persuade someone to be a teetotaler.
Mark,
The moral of the story is that alcohol can get a hold on people, and it often does. But, thru the power of the Lord, my Uncle and I were set free.
That’s the moral of the story……alcohol is addictive….very addictive. It can lead to ruin in a person’s life. It did and does lead to ruin in a person’s life.
But, God…..
David
We could have productive discussions if the prohibitionists would allow those of us on the other side to present our information. With that being said: I have an understanding of their side of the discussion. My mothers brother was a drunkard from the time he was 12 till he died at 70ish. He destroyed his life and that of his family. He squandered any money he made and destroyed his health in the process. His story is one of aberation, not of the normative. Alcohol does not have to be destructive in the majority of the human population. Alcohol has and continues to be used in a manner that as Scripture says “makes the heart glad”. The medicinal uses of alcohol are many as are the social uses. It has been a part of every civilization that has ever lived on the face of this earth. God created the microbe that causes sugars to become co2 and alcohol, God created the grain, grapes, berries and fruits that give the sugars that the yeasts convert. He said it is good. Any bad sides to this equation come from our fallen nature and our inability to exercise good judgement.
What we all initially missed is that one does not need to go further than the title and the first sentence to defeat the assertions in this article. Indeed, one need not read this pastor’s invectives contained in the rest of the first paragraph.
First, the title.
As David W. told me in the comments, “Bible absolutely does not teach against eating fatty foods.” Agreed, there is nothing explicit in the Bible that forbids eating fatty foods. Since the research referenced in the article is about alcohol consumption contributing to cancer risks I’ll simply point out that the Bible absolutely does not teach about cancer nor what causes or contributes to it.
Therefore, the title asserts a false premise.
Now, the first sentence.
I’m unaware of any moderationist arguing for moderate alcohol consumption based on what may or may not contribute to cancer. Therefore, this research is neither conducive nor adverse to the moderationist position.
And we wasted all of this time and text.
Mark,
A waste of time? Well, I guess that’s your opinion.
And, I guess you missed the whole point of the OP.
David
The internet has destroyed marriages.
Texting has caused motor vehicle accidents resulting in death.
Cameras have been used to take embarrassing photographs.
Bloggers have been bullies and it has lead to young people killing themselves.
That’s it, lets get rid of technology all together.
Or wait, maybe it’s the abuse of the gift of technology that is the real problem.
btw, this study is post hoc ergo propter hoc
they have to establish with actually evidence that alcohol consumption actually causes cancer. I wonder how many of the women were blonde that they studied. Perhaps blonde hair is the real problem, or their height.
Anyway, 1 in 8 women get breast cancer. That is the constant statistic. The supposed increase in cancer risk means that they have a greater chance of being that 1 in 8. Non-drinkers are part of the 8.
again, post hoc ergo propter hoc
oh wait
“Findings showed 7,690 women developed invasive breast cancer. Of those, 1,669 women didn’t drink, 3,143 drank less than three glasses a week and 1,063 drank the equivalent of three to six glasses of wine a week.”
1669+3143 is greater than 1063.
so wouldn’t the greater risk be having less than 3 glasses of wine per week?
Okay, serious question: In the NT, if oinos can be used to describe either alcoholic or non-alcoholic wine, how do you know which is which? Context? How do you know, for example, that in 1 Timothy 5:23 Paul is referring to the medicinal use of non-alcoholic wine as opposed to alcoholic wine?
Second serious question–any plans for Dave B. to put his book out in Kindle format?
I know I’m jumping into this discussion late, but I just wanted to add that I’ve been a member of SBC churches my whole life and I’m not sure where all these pastors who “tell folks its perfectly okay to put down a shot of whiskey” are. Never met one. Now, I do know quite a few that agree the Bible does not say it’s a sin to drink. My husband would hold to that view, as do I. But every time I’ve heard it taught on, I’ve also heard that statement followed up by something along the lines of ” . . . but there are some good biblical reasons not to drink. Let me give you some.” At least, that’s been my experience, and that’s how we handle it in teaching on the topic.
Not so serious question: So I’ve got this awesome pork roast recipe I marinate in the fridge for 24 hour in a red wine and garlic sauce, then roast nice and slow till it’s falling apart tender. Anyone want to come to dinner? 🙂
Leigh,
Good questions.
First, the Bible clearly refers to both alcoholic and non-alcoholic wine as “wine.” Previously I’ve given verses on both. I agree with you, the basic way to interpret them is by the context; both the immediate context, and the wider biblical context. Most are easy to figure out; some maybe not so much. We have to do the same with words such as God / god, Spirit / spirit, angel, etc.
On 1 Timothy 5:23; that verse is dealt with fairly extensively in my book, Ancient Wine and the Bible. I believe Paul was most likely recommending unfermented wine as it has more health benefits than alcoholic wine. It was the ancient “multi-vitamin.” However, most abstainers would agree that alcohol can be used for strictly medicinal purposes. That’s one reason the many SBC resolutions against alcohol often distinguish it as “beverage alcohol.”
There are no plans that I know of to put “Ancient Wine and the Bible” on Kindle. Maybe in the future.
You asked about those pastors who, “tell folks its perfectly okay to put down a shot of whiskey.” I’m glad to say they are apparently in the small minority in the SBC, but you meet them (SBC and otherwise) often on the internet and in a few books out there. And some of them are very militant.
I believe the Bible directly speaks against alcohol, but I agree with you that regardless, “there are good biblical reasons not to drink.”
Finally, I know the alcohol content is cooked out, but I would prefer a roast marinated in grape juice. Have you checked out Draper Valley Vineyards? Their non-alcoholic Pinot Noir is outstanding. But your pork roast that is “falling apart tender” does move me :-).
David R. Brumbelow
Origin of the “Two Wine Theory”
When William Patton wrote Bible Wines in 1874 he acknowledged he used material from two essays called Bacchus and Anti-Bacchus. They were two essays written in the 1830’s to be entered in a contest that offered a large cash prize for the best essay that promoted total abstinence from all alcoholic drinks. These two essays invented the theory that the Bible speaks of two different kinds of wines – one fermented and the other unfermented. Before these essays, there are no historical records that speak of unfermented wine.
During the 1830’s the temperance movement in United States was in its early stages. At first the movement focused on the abuse of distilled drinks, primarily rum and whiskey. As the movement progressed, the focus shifted to prohibiting any amount of any kind of alcoholic drink including beer and wine. This shift from fighting the abuse of distilled liquors to promoting the total abstinence of all alcoholic drinks in any amount caused a new problem in the temperance movement.
Devout religious people, both Protestant and Catholic, had been using wine and other alcoholic beverages for centuries. Since the first century, the common practice in all churches was to use wine during the Lord’s Supper. Groups such as the Catholics, Calvinists, Huguenots and Arminians debated many doctrinal positions but they all understood wine was to used during Communion. Everyone knew the Bible condemned drunkenness but it was also common knowledge that the Bible also spoke of wine in favorable contexts.
Members of the Prohibition movement searched for a way to convince people that total abstinence from all alcohol was the only acceptable lifestyle before God. Bacchus and Anti-Bacchus developed a new theory that claimed in ancient times both fermented and unfermented wines were used. According to this new theory, anytime the Bible speaks of wine in a bad context, it is speaking of fermented wine. Whenever the Bible speaks of wine in a good context, such as Jesus turning water to wine, then it is referring to unfermented wine.
William Patton was either not aware, or did not care, that in 1841 John Mclean, a Presbyterian minister, published two reviews of Bacchus and Anti-Bacchus and thoroughly exposed their poor scholarship and constant misuse of historical evidence. Mclean’s reviews are still available for study. While reading Mclean’s reviews of Bacchus and Anti-Bacchus it would be easy to think he was writing about Patton’s Bible Wines because Patton’s book is so similar to the material found in Bacchus and Anti-Bacchus.
Mclean’s reviews are available in .pdf or .txt files at http://quod.lib.umich.edu/m/moajrnl/. Just enter Bacchus and Anti-Bacchus in the search bar and you will quickly find them.
I did most of the research that is found on this site before reading Mclean’s reviews. Although I was once convinced that William Patton’s book provided a logical answer to the various uses of wine in the Bible, it became obvious that John Mclean’s work is consistent with all the reference works and William Patton’s two-wine theory is a fraudulent re-writing of history. Whether Patton willingly distorted historical facts or if he acted ignorantly, his book Bible Wines is a twisting of historical evidence concerning the use of wine during earlier centuries. It does not matter how well-meaning those in the Prohibition movement were in their desire to eliminate the real problems associated with alcohol abuse. We must be honest with the evidence and teach what the Bible actually says instead of what we would prefer it to say.
Here is just one example of the many contradictions I found between the claims of Patton in “Bible Wines” and all other reference works. Patton claimed that one way the Israelites preserved grape juice unfermented was to store it in cool locations so the lower temperature would prevent fermentation. Compare his claim to this quote:
“Wine had to be produced immediately after harvest because fresh grapes could not be stored. The grapes were treaded on a flat, hard surface, and the juice which ran into a reservoir hewn in the rock or built out of stones and clay was collected into large jars, which were put for fermentation in a cool storage place.”
Freedman, D. N. Agriculture, The Anchor Yale Bible Dictionary.
Patton says juice was stored in cool locations to avoid fermentation while Anchor Yale Bible Dictionary says it was put in cool locations for the purpose of fermentation. Who do we believe? One contradiction is not enough to settle the debate, but when all the evidence is compiled, it becomes overwhelmingly obvious that Patton was careless with facts to promote a Prohibitionist agenda.
Jake,
You quote from an article,
“Wine had to be produced immediately after harvest because fresh grapes could not be stored. The grapes were treaded on a flat, hard surface, and the juice which ran into a reservoir hewn in the rock or built out of stones and clay was collected into large jars, which were put for fermentation in a cool storage place.” -Freedman, D. N. Agriculture, The Anchor Yale Bible Dictionary.
Mark also refers to this article.
This quote, however, is factually, scientifically incorrect.
In ancient times fresh clusters of grapes were stored for months at a time. Even a modern day magazine, California Rare Fruit Growers, referred to this practice and even tells the modern grapes that are good keepers. Ancient writers tell of this practice. Books from the AD 1800s tell of this practice. They tell of how fresh grapes could be stored for up to a year.
Second, the above quote is wrong because it assumes all grapes that were treaded were made into alcoholic wine. The fresh grape juice could be made into and preserved in either an intoxicating or un-intoxicating state. Columella gave a recipe in one sentence for either kind of wine. This fresh grape juice was often, commonly boiled down to a thick consistency that would not ferment or spoil.
Third, grape juice will not ferment if the temperature is too low, or too high. It may eventually spoil, but it will not ferment.
David R. Brumbelow
Jake,
You say, “Before these essays [in the 1830s], there are no historical records that speak of unfermented wine.”
You are wrong. Roughly 3,000 years ago Solomon referred to fresh pressed grape juice as wine (Proverbs 3:10). Isaiah did too (Isaiah 16:10). Solomon also referred to the hard stuff (Proverbs 20:1; 23).
Jesus Himself believed in the two-wine theory. In Matthew 9:17 Jesus called both unfermented wine and fermented wine by the same name, “wine.”
So William Patton was just faithfully following Scripture.
By the way, Aristotle, Hippocrates, Pliny, Columella, Athenaeus, Josephus, and other ancient writers also refer to un-intoxicating wine by the name “wine.” This is just a historical fact.
Charles Spurgeon at one time said there was no such thing as unfermented wine. He studied the issue, however, and radically changed his viewpoint.
David R. Brumbelow
David,
I really believe that you would make a pact with the devil to promote your prohibitionist agenda.
David: You say that non-Alcoholic wine has more benefits, but I mentioned earlier that I come from a long line of hillbillies, they were big on natural remedies and many include alcohol. So do you have proof that non-Alcoholic has more benefits than alcohol?
Debbie,
You asked,
“So do you have proof that non-Alcoholic has more benefits than alcohol?”
Yes, I do. Unfermented wine or grape juice is full of sugar, vitamins, anti-oxidants. It is nutritious. Alcoholic wine is not nutritious and has a few of these qualities.
Alcoholic wine is a poison; non-alcoholic wine is safe for anyone to drink and is not a poison. By the way, did you know the word intoxicate means you have toxins in you. That is what alcohol does, intoxicate.
To put it another way, fermented wine can make you drunk and maybe addicted. Non-alcoholic wine will not do either. Many people have become alcoholics because a medical doctor started proscribing alcohol, and they ended up addicted.
Medical research shows simple unfermented wine or grape juice has:
Antioxidants
Helps cardiovascular health.
Encourages flexible arteries.
Contributes to healthy blood pressure.
Yes, they have discovered some health benefits from alcoholic wine. Nonalcoholic wine has those benefits and more, without the harmful side effects.
David R. Brumbelow
One thing I can never figure. I remember when young, the Baptist church I was in taught that cards, all Bible character figurines and dancing were sin. They said this was what the Bible taught. The same can be said for abstationists couldn’t it? The Bible says wine, not juice. The Bible warns about drinking in excess. There are no denying those passages even from an unstudied person. The Bible is clear.
The Bible is clear on homosexuality, adultry, it is specific on sin. Anyone can read scripture and know something is sin, yet alcohol is not clear according to those who are against moderation. It takes how many paragraphs and comments to explain away the simple word wine and the use of alcohol as told in scripture. It seems to be rewriting scripture it takes so many paragraphs to explain it away. Why?
Debbie, the best thing to do is to just ignore these people. They’re confusing us with complex arguments that are tangential to Scripture because they’re committed to a long American tradition of temperance; which in our history means abstinence.
Vol,
I don’t know how old you are, but seriously, this study shows the result of ONE study. When I was young, I watched a lovely young woman succumb to cancer. I was terrified of it. The scientists swore it didn’t run in families, or it wasn’t caused by anything they knew of in the environment, etc., ad nauseum. What do we know now? We’ve proven conclusively that some types of cancers do indeed run in families… to the point that some women with the breast cancer gene are having mastectomies to prevent it. We know that most cervical cancer (certainly not all) is the result of promiscuity which is quite efficient in passing the HPV virus along. I could go on and on, but I think you get the point. Knowledge changes. We’ve demonized the egg, chocolate, butter, and Big Macs. Yet none of those things will make us ill if we practice moderation. I remember some years before the fall of Mike Warnke, he joked about casting the demon of secret sauce out of a person.
You’ve taken some heavy hits here today. I don’t want to pile on. I think however, that you might be letting your own passion regarding the bad effects of alcohol override clear thinking. Mature Christians (yes, I think you are one of them) evaluate evidence, weigh the pros and the cons against what scripture teaches and make decisions about how they will act. We stumble, fall, repent, grieve and run to the Father for healing. What we shouldn’t do is to take a stand and then force scripture to fit the stand. That’s backwards and I’m sure you know that.
The gospel message really is Jesus + Nothing. No fighting over make-up, jewelry, alcohol, anti-depressants, the length of a woman’s skirt, tattoos, piercings, jeans in the sanctuary. The list goes on and on. The more loudly we judge these things, the more people run from us. I don’t think that’s how we can work towards the great commission. I appreciate a Pastor who teaches Godly living, but we can go overboard.
You and I disagree on almost everything, but I’d never say that you weren’t my brother in the Father’s family.
A great teacher once told me “It’s all about the delivery”. Think it over.
I guess what I will never understand (in addition to the general tone and tenor of many of the comments) is why we cannot follow the biblical admonition of Romans 14 to form our own convictions and then NOT try to force everyone to share them.
Dave, the best thing to do is to withdraw interaction; the conversation will fall off quickly. That’s what I’m going to do from now on. And I would like to see some more topics that invite meaningful discussion instead. We’ve wasted too much time discussing alcohol. The SBC is always going to have it’s teetotalers for reasons of which we are well aware.
I’m surprised you didn’t refer to the latest study showing that sitting causes cancer. By sitting around misrepresenting Scripture on alcohol you have increased your risk of cancer.
For shame!
If anti-alcohol busybodies want to do the right thing they will quit sitting down during the day. Who knows, perhaps the stereotype of the fat preacher who speaks out against alcohol, but is silent regarding gluttony, will be a thing of the past as such pastors begin to lose weight.
As I browsed through all the responses to this post today I found a problem much greater than the effects of alcohol amongst Southern Baptists. It seems we have an unhealthy appetite for quarelling. Consider:
“…not addicted to wine or pugnacious, but gentle, peaceable, free from the love of money.” (1 Timothy 3:3 NASB)
In context Paul is talking about the qualifications of “bishops” or church leaders. How many of us contributing to this post are pastors or leaders in our respective churches? I love that word pugnacious – it may be archaic but it is far from retirement in the SBC. We are a pugnacious lot. The KJV translates it as “no striker” and the Greek word is actually plektes. It occurs only twice in the NT – in 1 Timothy and Titus in the list of qualifications for church leaders. Thayer defines it this way: “bruiser, ready for a blow, pugnacious, contentious, quarrelsome person.”
No, alcohol is not our big problem, a name change is not our big problem and Calvinism is not our big problem. That word pugnacious is our big problem. We are our own worst enemies. Some of the bloodiest battles in the SBC have been because of friendly fire. We seem to reserve our toughest rhetoric and assaults for each other. I worry that if we could legally burn people at the stake today, we’d be doing just that over issues like this. I appeal to you that it must not be this way. Especially if God has called you to the ministry as a leader.
I am guilty of this myself, and I think we should all agree to repent and dialogue in a Christlike, loving matter. The true test is not when we discuss issues we can pretty much agree on (say something like the sanctity of life). The true test is when we have passionately opposed views. That is the true test of our Christian character. I’m afraid I’ve failed that test too many times.
Randy
Excellent.
Mr. Donahue: You are a true gentleman. I tip my hat to you, sir.
Randy, I agree with you although I love a good debate! And have been guilty of pugnaciousness, myself on other issues.
One of the things that became clearer to me on this thread is that many who are dogmatic about any alcohol consumption, are so, for very good reasons. It is my responsibility to listen to them and understand where they are coming from. I have not gotten the impression it was simply to be more pious than others although that has been the progression of the thread on both sides. It was harder for me to relate because I have not really been exposed to the devastation it has caused. But woe to me if I cause a brother or sister to stumble because of it.
I brought this up with an old friend last night who is not dogmatic on the issue but refuses to take a glass of wine, ever, because of a close friend of hers who has had serious problems with alcohol and was saved 10 years ago. It is sort of a comraderly thing in support of a sister who struggles. I think that is a big blessing and selfless act. This whole thread has caused me to re-evaluate what I think are my “freedoms” in Christ. To others, that freedom can be bondage to sin.
Indeed. Our Christian freedom is freedom from sin, not freedom to indulge our fleshly desires.
The problem lies in making those convictions my convictions or the convictions of those who do not share those convictions. I indulge my fleshly desire in a candy bar, I don’t think I’m sinning. I indulge my fleshly desire when I have sex with my husband. I’m not sinning. When I’m thirsty I indulge my fleshly desire in a soda or water. Once in a while I have alcohol. I am not sinning. Not all fleshly desire is bad. I don’t see the Bible condemning alcohol in moderation.
While I respect and do not drink in front of those who it would offend or even cause to stumble, I do drink alcohol in moderation. I haven’t changed my mind. I do not believe I will be condemned. Legalism is when it is pushed onto another person as though my conviction or your conviction should be the norm.
First of all….love, hugs, and kisses from TN to everyone! 🙂
Secondly, some of yall are disecting this post waaaaaay too much. I did not write this post to be complete, exhaustive book on alcohol. If you want to read something like that, then get David Brumbelow’s book….it’s advertised at the top of this blog sight, on the right hand side.
I was just writing this as an observation about a research study, which backed up what the Bible teaches about the foolishness of drinking alcohol….even moderate drinking. That’s all. Good grief, Charlie Brown, some of yall are acting like I didnt cover this, and I didnt say that, and I should have considered X,Y, and Z studies, etc, etc, etc.
I was simply writing an observation, and what I saw about it, and how I believe that it showed what the Bible teaches about alcohol……
Wow.
David
For anyone wanting to read more about the two wine theory in Scripture check out Wine and the Bible: Origin of the “Two Wine Theory”.
This site gives a summary of and links to two articles in “THE PRINCETON REVIEW” from April 1841 by John Mclean who addressed the two wine theory.
Another resource that some may find interesting – The Presbyterian review, Volume 2. 1881. “IV. The Bible Wine Question”.
This entire debate reminds me of something much broader, something I’ve known for a while but that I’ve confirmed more recently through the writings of C. S. Lewis and Oswald Spengler’s “The Decline of the West.” Both thinkers, although incredibly apart, say something similar about how we picture the world and construct our beliefs. Of science, Lewis said nature’s full stock provides us with much to choose from. One can find various things there to use in support of almost any argument. I think Spengler would say (though in a way that’s consistent with his thinking) that the full stock of reality likewise contains plenty to choose from when it comes to all our beliefs. In other words, much of what we believe is true is projection. When we feel moved to picture the world a certain way, evidence arises conveniently. When we’re ready to construct a system or devise a new idea, we can locate something at hand, something that was always there but that suddenly became noticed because we suddenly looked for it. All of this takes me back to a most significant thing Karl Barth once said. There is God and his creation; then there are our paltry attempts at understanding it all (paraphrase). Hence the rise and fall and revival of movements. Hence the arrival and departure of many worldviews and beliefs surrounding the seen and unseen.
Incidentally, can we think in ways other than in pictures? Can we think without somehow using the imagination? I think Lewis considered it impossible.
Throughout time and across the world, cultures / civilizations have uniquely conceived of five themes: the individual, society, nature, the universe, and God. (Permit such generalization for the sake of discussion.) As Christians, biblical revelation shapes and informs our understanding as we accept the truthfulness of its narrative. But revelation is commingled with our culture. Niebhur’s Christ and Culture has been critized for displaying a typology that is not true to reality. The paradox nevertheless remains: we are in the world yet not of it; we believe God’s revelation, and we’re situated in culture which conceives of the five themes in its own way (this has always been problematic even in the West). How do we understand this relationship with regard to understanding the world? Living Christianly within it? Holding to what’s true while understanding what’s relative? It’s all food for thought…