Paul Thompson blogs at “The Bridge.”
There is not shortage of places or people weighing in on the legalization of same-sex marriages. Crimes against nature are no small matter, and now it is legal and celebrated.
But this is not the only matter weighing the nation in the balance of danger.
I get that unbelievers don’t want laws like believers do. They want laws, just laws that ease their conscience. But, that’s not really the problem either.
The Lord’s church has grown cold, complicit even with many other fleshly vices that are rarely addressed from the pulpit any more, and even encouraging sinful behavior by her silence or participation. No, really, many in the church have been for too long “drinking the intoxicating cup of worldly sensual pleasure.”
Watch how many who are all bothered by the legalization of sodomy (historically known as crimes against nature) will within the same moment indulge in the fleshly demands for any and/or all of the following…
THE FOLLOWING BULLET-POINTS ARE EXCERPTS AND QUOTATIONS FROM “YOUTH WARNED” BY JOHN ANGELL JAMES (1824)
- Who is warning the Lord’s people of the danger of gambling? “There is virtually no difference in who frequents the game table, slot machine, or online gaming sites. What believer today knows that gambling is to the mind what alcohol is to the body. “
- Who is warning the Lord’s people of the danger of the theater? “The theater is generally frequented by all; the theater, that corrupter of public morals; that school where nothing good and everything bad is learned; that resort of the wicked and school of vice; that broad and flowery avenue to the bottomless pit! Here a young man finds no hindrances to sin, no warnings against wickedness, no mementos of judgment to come! But, on the contrary, everything to inflame his passions, to excite his immoral desires, and to gratify his appetites for vice! The language, the music, and the company, are all adapted to a sensual taste—and calculated to demoralize the mind!”
“It is by no means the author’s intention to affirm that all who frequent the theater are wicked people. Far be it from him to prefer an accusation so extensive and unfounded as this. No doubt many amiable and moral people are among the admirers of dramatic representation. That they receive no contamination from the scenes they witness, or the language they hear, is no stronger proof that the stage is not immoral in its tendency and effects, than that there is no contagion in the plague, because some constitutions resist the infection. That people fenced in by every conceivable moral defense and restraint, should escape uninjured, is saying little; but even in their case, I will contend that the mind is not altogether uninjured. Is it possible for an imperfect moral creature (and such are the best of us,) to hear the irreverent swearing, the filthy allusions, the anti-Christian sentiments, which are uttered during the representation of even our purest plays, and hear these for amusement, without some deterioration of mental purity?” - Who is warning the Lord’s people of the danger of gossip? The house of prayer is frequently visited with hungry gossips not ready to weep over their own sins and can’t quite wait to report to other gossips of all the worldly behaviors of all being prayed for.
- Who is warning the Lord’s people of sensual pleasures? “Where [professing Christians] live in this way, it directs their reading, which is not pious or improving—but light, trifling, and polluting. Inflammatory novels, stimulating romances, lewd poetry, immoral songs, satires against pious characters, and arguments against Scripture and biblical morals—are in general the works consulted by corrupt and wicked youth, and by these they become still more wicked. Never did the press send forth streams of greater pollution than at this time. Authors are to be found, of no small abilities, who pander to every corruption of the youthful bosom. Almost every vice has its high-priest—to burn incense on its altar, and to lead its victims, decked with the garlands of poetry or fiction, to their ruin.”
- Who is warning the Lord’s people of the danger of dancing? “Mirthful [dancing] where eating, drinking, and revelry, are carried on until midnight, or until morning, are another source of ruin! [Professor of Christ], such meetings unfit you not only for the serious pursuits of godliness—but even for the duties of business. Their expense impoverishes your purse, their influence impairs your health, and their guilt ruins your soul!”
- Who is warning the Lord’s people of the danger of bad company? “[Professor of Christ], if you determine to live in the gratification of your passions and the indulgence of your sinful appetites, you will soon have associates suited to your taste, and that will never disturb your conscience with the language of warning or reproof. And will these be wicked fools, blaspheming scoffers, apostate people, hardened sinners, degraded sots, dissolute infidels, abandoned prostitutes! Look at the mirthful party. Can you approve it? Are there not moments, when you feel the last dying remains of moral feeling stirring within you in sickening revulsion at such society as this? But even these ‘dying, lingering signs of a conscience’ which are not quite dead, will soon vanish—and you will yield yourself without a struggle to all the corrupting, damning influence of bad company!”
“The improvement and diffusion of modern education, have produced a bold and independent mode of thinking, which, though it be in itself a benefit, requires a proportionate degree of religious restraint to prevent it from degenerating into lawless licentiousness. It is probable also, that of late years parents have relaxed the salutary rigor of domestic discipline. Trade and commerce are now so widely extended, that our youth are more from beneath their parents’ inspection than formerly, and consequently more exposed to the contaminating influence of evil company.” - Who is warning the Lord’s people of the danger of alcohol? Where is it said that young people may innocently walk in all kinds of sensual indulgences? On what page of the book of God’s truth do you find these allowances for the excesses of youth, which you make for yourselves, and ill-judging friends make for you? “Woe to those who rise early in the morning, that they may run after strong drink, who tarry late into the evening as wine inflames them! They have lyre and harp, tambourine and flute and wine at their feasts, but they do not regard the deeds of the Lord, or see the work of his hands.” (Isaiah 5:11-12)
- Who is warning the Lord’s people of the flirtatious behavior of immodesty? “Worldly pleasure, decked in the voluptuous attire and the gaudy ornaments of a harlot, appears to their heated imagination, with all the attractive charms of a most bewitching beauty”.
- And many more….
Religion and boredom are not synonyms. For too long the church has been trying to make religion look cool by the world’s standards, essentially flirting with the sinful vices of the flesh and now when we speak on the matters of Scripture it sounds so prudish and full of piety that we avoid even using the word religion any more. Think about it; who doesn’t want a feel-good emotional friendship with God? Just so long as that god doesn’t hate everything we love about our self governed idolatrous life. And I’m only thinking of the majority of professing believers.
“In God’s name, I serve you with notice of the trial. Prepare to meet your God! He is coming! He is coming—and you must meet him! O think of judgment to come—in the midst of all your sinful pleasures and criminal liberties—think of it! Will you drink the drunkard’s cup; will you go to the brothel, to the gambling table, to the scene of riot and wickedness—knowing that for all these things God will bring you into judgment? With the terrible solemnities of the last day before your eyes—will you, can you, dare you—proceed in the career of vice? Conscience—O faithful monitor! O dreadful avenger! I charge you to whisper in the sinner’s ear, when going to the scene of his unholy pleasures, “But know, that for all of these things, God will bring you to judgment! For God will bring every act to judgment, including every hidden thing, whether good or evil.”
Return to your ordained duty church. The city needs you on the wall warning of an approaching enemy looking to devour all who will entertain his attractive disguise covering his hideous appearance. Who is warning of a devouring devil? Who is warning of a judgment to come? Who is pointing to the same, a saving Savior? If not the church, no one will take this duty on. No one volunteers for this kind of duty. Only called-out, redeemed sinners who know there is a devouring enemy conquered by a Redeeming Savior.
Arise, church! Arise!
Grace is the message of scripture. Christ is the message of scripture. Oh dear church do not go back to the above message. It is the message of the Law that we cannot follow. To panic and go back to the way it was or is in Independent Baptist messages or even back to prudism messages of don’t do this or don’t do that will be missing the whole message of the Bible.
We are going in the right direction as Southern Baptists, let’s not now go back due to panic and disgust.
“””Grace is the message of scripture.””””
A common misrepresentation of the Scripture. Grace has no meaning without the Law. Paul devotes an entire book on the correct understanding of Grace, and a key element is the Law.
This statement above implies something faulty in the Law that had to be erased and nullified. Yet, Jesus said His mission was exactly the opposite of nullifying the Law–He came to fulfill it.
Even though this post quotes the preaching of nearly a century and a half ago, where is the fault with such preaching? Can we not say that one of the open doors for lasciviousness and fornication (of all types) has not been the front door of the theater?
Were not the theatrical productions of T.V. series like “Will and Grace” the fodder that fed the golden calf of homosexual tolerance?
In regard to modesty for example, can we even say there is a “standard for modesty” in society anymore? You would question this for sure if you walked on the streets of San Francisco for example. But, I’m not so sure modesty is well understood in many churches.
And . . . don’t get me started on warning of the dangers of alcohol. Anyone who does not think alcohol poses a real and present danger to society has not driven by an accident where a man is burning alive because of a drunk driver.
Grace does not remove the necessity to warn others of the dangers of sin–whether persons inside or outside of the church. A warning seems to be the most grace-filled and loving act we can perform as preachers.
I do understand the equal danger of legalistic preaching of some in the Independent Baptist movement. That is a danger also. But, let’s not throw the baby out with the bathwater.
Law is an essential component of grace. Forgiveness has no meaning if one does not first grasp one has violated the Law. The Book of Romans makes this crystal clear.
Grace that wrenched from the full counsel of God’s Word is a “cheap grace” (to quote a Preacher much more worthy than myself).
As sort of a post script, I have started reading more ancient theologians (some all the way back to the 19th century). This helps me not misread God’s Word because I am sullied by the political correctness of my time.
So, let’s warn people strongly and clearly, but always do so with grace. It seems to me a preachers job is not to make people feel good about bad behavior, but to live good with godly behavior.
Not an easy task.
Jack,
Amen and Amen. Beautifully written and completely accurate.
typical istoria antinomianism
Thank you Adam. I take this as a compliment. It’s an inaccurate charge, but I don’t take it as an insult.
“It is the message of the Law that we cannot follow.”
Brother Thompson is not exhorting us to law vs. grace. He is reminding us of the balance needed in proclamation of the whole truth. Speaking the truth in love can be the best message of grace we can offer to the culture around us, including that from the world which has made its way to church. As Jack reminds us “A warning seems to be the most grace-filled and loving act we can perform as preachers.” These are days for faithful watchmen to get on the wall and sound the alarm.
Max,
Amen!
” don’t do this or don’t do that”
Do we ignore the rules (maybe that is what parents are doing today as they raise their kids – they sure do not seem to be living by any rules) so that grace may abound?
Now how did Paul answer his own question on this subject?
I do not for one second believe that the new laws are due to the church not doing it’s job. Quite the opposite. Satan doesn’t rattle cages unless the church was making a difference.
Debbie,
Its not that Satan is upping his game because the church is doing right. His ‘game’ so to speak, has always been to rob kill and destroy. Rather its about God lifting His hand of providence away from a sinful and rebellious people who despite being saturated with the Gospel their whole existence continues to dive deeper and deeper into the cesspool of sin.
The consequence for turning to sin and more sinfulness is a judgment from God to allow one’s will or the collective will to do just what they desire. But He also might show mercy and move in hearts, so we as the church still pray and witness the Gospel, for God has called us to be lights in the darkness.
The church is full of sinners who mess up, and who make mistakes, who are infiltrated by wolves in sheep’s clothing [false teachers and leaders], and who need more faith. We do good by the grace of God. And i am sure you agree with all of that.
“… its about God lifting His hand of providence away from a sinful and rebellious people …”
Scripture contains examples of God’s abandonment of individuals and nations when they cross the line into sin and rebellion. Samson felt God’s absence and lost power over his enemies. The Northern Kingdom of Israel experienced the loss of God’s protection when the Assyrians invaded their land, destroyed their cities, and dispersed them. The Southern Kingdom surrendered God’s providential care when they continued in sin and rebellion; Jerusalem and the temple were destroyed and the children of God were taken into captivity. There are many more examples of God lifting His hand of providence. Folks may say “Lighten up, that’s Old Testament stuff … we are under grace now!” But Paul reminds us “Now these things befell them as an example and warning to us; they were written to admonish and fit us for right action by good instruction, we in whose days the ages have reached their climax” (1 Cor 10:11 AMP).
Perhaps God’s abandonment wrath on America has begun. The blood of 60 million innocents cry out against us; perversion has been legalized by the highest court in this land; evil has been liberated. Is it too late? Can the church of the living God do anything at this point? Certainly! As parsonsmike reminds us “He also might show mercy and move in hearts, so we as the church still pray and witness the Gospel, for God has called us to be lights in the darkness.”
Yes Mike I would agree with that as well. God leaves those who continually sin to themselves at times. But….it’s not because the church is not doing its “job”, which is what I get the poster to be saying.
It’s the lost who do not receive the message of Christ that should be worrying and they are not. This is aimed at Christians, who it seems are being brow beat with a legalistic set of rules above, that just are not in scripture.
So do you guys actually believe that if we don’t drink a drop of alcohol, don’t dance, that our country will be saved by God? Do you actually believe that not teaching the above list, which most things on this list are not found in scripture, is why our country is in the state it is in? I disagree. I believe that the church is doing harm to Satan and he is upping the anty. Not that we did it wrong, but we are doing it right and making a difference, Satan is once again trying to destroy that.
The scriptures all point to Christ, not the above articles list. The Law simply shows our need for a Savior. The purpose of the Law is to show our inability to keep it.
Contrary to what some believe, not all things happen because we aren’t doing something right, Satan turns up the heat when we are doing things right and he has to stop that from happening.
“The purpose of the Law is to show our inability to keep it.”
The error of the “total inability” message that is popular today; the path toward antinomianism.
Me thinks it might be best if we not be about creating lists is sin that identify some things as sin that scripture does not?
Trying that again…. Lol
Me thinks it might be best if we not be about creating lists that identify some things as sin that scripture does not?
The church is not about denominations but about those who are called by His name. The Bible is not merely a book but God speaking to His people.
In the second letter to the Thessalonians, who is God talking to and what does He say? He speaks of the coming of the day of the Lord and He gives signs to recognize. Why would He give warnings to those who will not be here to see? He speaks of the apostasy, or “the falling away”.
I believe the church is embracing the ways of the world and by doing so turning away from the one power we have God. I wonder why many churches have on their signs “God Bless America” when God cannot bless a country that openly embraces sin? I wonder why we do not speak out against sin? Grace can only be grace when we understand what sin is. John 3:16 is a beautiful verse, but do not take it out of context; read also to the end of the chapter.
Thanks for this OP!
Would that the difference between saved and unsaved lifestyle were more clear. We cannot be evangelistic if we cannot preach repentance, and we cannot preach that unless people can be brought to understand the meaning of “sinner.”
This sensual worship combined with “I’m ok-you’re ok” psychobabble has castrated the church.
“We cannot be evangelistic if we cannot preach repentance, and we cannot preach that unless people can be brought to understand the meaning of “sinner.””
Amen Sister! The “culturally-relevant” message in 21st century church has strayed amiss. We need desperately to get a balanced message back in the house.
Yes, we must preach repentance and Grace to the lost, just not the list above, which is not in scripture and is usually given after the person is saved and a member of that church. I call it the gottcha list.
Linda: Read the OP post again. The Law was given to Moses in Exodus 20, it was what God expected for holy people and was given under 3 categories: Moral, Civil and ceremonial.
By the time of the New Testament, the religious leaders added to the law as the writer has in his post above. The Law however could not change the heart,(Romans 8:3) it just changed the outside, the heart was the same. And the leaders had control over their sheep. Jess well named it sheep beating. After the Pharisees added to it, it became a oppressive, burdensome law to keep and no one could. (Luke 11:46)
It was during this time Christ came in God’s perfect time. God gave us the Law, now He gave us Christ. This was where conflict between Christ and the religious leaders began. He began to preach the message I gave in my comments. It’s Christ not the Law that gives us the power to overcome sin and want to be Holy. It’s Christ and Christ alone. Christ fulfilled the law on our behalf.
We are not saved by the Law, but by faith in Christ. And I agree with Jess, and I believe the scriptures do as well. Ephesians 2:8&9, Romans 3:20, and Titus 3:5.
You may think you are perfect in keeping the law, because if you break one you break them all according to scripture, but Christ’s sermon on the Mount is meant to point out otherwise. We can’t do it, only Christ can perfectly keep the Law and when God sees those of us who have had faith in Christ, He sees Christ and what He has done, not what we have or haven’t done.
Grace and Law work perfectly together if one correctly understands the use of the Law which is not to be added to as above, but looking to Christ the Author and Finisher of our faith.
The post is not a suggestion we pick up an old “list” or create a new “list” in addition to the law. It’s an offer for consideration that the church needs to return to her post or remain faithful on the wall warning of the wolf dressed in sheep’s clothing. The quotations are from 1824 and of interest concerning how many within the church today don’t treat the vices of the flesh with serious concern. For too long many in the church have been trying to make religion look cool by the world’s standards, essentially flirting with the sinful vices of the flesh.
Richard Owen Roberts once said, ” listen to how may Christians quote ‘if God be for us who can be against us?’ But did you ever consider if God be against us it doesn’t matter who is for us.”
There are many professing Christians embrassing sinful vices other than homosexuality. Homosexuality is not the only issue before the Lord’s people.
Oh we love His grace. It is sweet. When we give strong warning we must speak of this grace. Grace is cheap when there is no known need of repentance.
Make no mistake, the Lord’s church is advancing the gospel banner, she’s a brilliant light beaming in the darkness, she is not weak, she will prevail against a fight she is hated when she does her duty.
Paul: Thank you for being willing to converse and explain. What you have said is what I got from the post and where I also disagree.
Do you disagree in part or the whole?
I disagree in the whole.
Consider yourself warned of some potential risky area of life.
Oh mmm ok. Although at 59, I don’t know what I will suffer from dancing, being around those that you might consider bad company, that would have me afraid of God’s judgement. I know who I am in Christ. That may be why.
The issue I have with the list is that it seemed to me that in it you seemed to call out “sins” that are not clearly delneated in in scripture.
You intimated that all consumption of alcohol, all gambline (without defining the term), all dancing, and movie going to be sinful. Then in your explanation you equated this “sin list” to homosexuality which is clearly called a sin any time it is practiced. throughout scripture.
I appreciate your conviction to preach and teach that Christians should live holy lives and be sanctified – but I must respectfully disagree with you – that all the things mentioned in your list are in and of themselves sin like practicing homosexuality is.
It could be reasonably, and has many times on this forum, that moderate/non intoxicating consumption of alcohol is not a sin – but choosing to drink to excess and become intoxicated is always a sin. Yet in your list you, without qualification, implied it to always be sin. Same principle could be applied with dancing, or theater/movies…not necessarily sin – but can be if done/used improperly.
It is always, in and of itself, sinful to practice homosexuality – see the difference?
based on your explanation I was correctly understanding you.
Tarheel,
But, of course, you know that many Southern Baptists would disagree with your views as well.
One of several examples:
SBC Resolution On Gambling
http://gulfcoastpastor.blogspot.com/2015/06/sbc-resolution-on-gambling.html
David R. Brumbelow
Respectfully, David,
I don’t determine sinfulness of actions by SBC resolutions.
I think we ought be careful declaring things in and of themselves sinful where the scripture does not do so.
Notice when referring gambling I said (without defining the term).
There are some who consider the playing the stock market gambling. Wonder how many SBC pastors who voted for that resolution have a Guidestone account? (of course, I do not see that as gambling – but calling something sin without defining it well, leads to this kind of thing, no?)
Tarheel,
Consumption of alcohol—— People who help you find what you are looking for in the liquor store…….
Should be called “Spirit Guides.” 🙂
I get that a strong warning may sound too harsh for some.
First: I’m not listing out sins, I’m asking the question of who is warning the Lord’s people of the dangers.
Second: Paul’s list in 1 Corinthians 6 is rather broad… Unrighteous, sexual immoral, idolaters, adultery, homosexuality, thieves, greedy, drunkards, reilers, swindlers…
Warning the Lord’s people of danger is not calling everything sin, it’s warning them of potential sin.
Love is not a sin, but Solomon “loved many foreign women”… (1 Kings11:1)
Paul Thompson writes “I get that a strong warning may sound too harsh for some.”
Such is the life of a watchman on the wall; most of his audience disagrees. Warnings of sin and judgment to come have always been received as harsh words by those who don’t want to personalize the message. Such sermons are particularly resisted by church folks who don’t want to be stirred from their worldly ways … those who desire to have sin clothed in cultural relevance … those who try to drag as much world into their lives and still appear Christian.
Linda,
That is hard to do when so many preachers yell we are all sinners, referring to the church. By a doctrine like this, I ask who is the biggest sinner the lost or what suppose to be the church. I for one still preach we are saints of God, we are the righteous, we are the redeemed, and we are separate from the world. I don’t call the Saints of God a bunch of sinners. That is not bible, I don’t care who disagrees.
There are several church members that I know personally who are living with their partners without marriage. I have witnessed to them, they flat out told me that their preacher told them we are all sinners. There is no church discipline because the SBC and seminaries love money more than truth.
I once won two gay people to Christ, and baptized them. The church gave them such a cold shoulder they departed from the faith and went back. They were not a couple in any way, but they were talked about as typical Baptist do with wagging tongues. Today’s church is not a hospitable place for one that use to be a gay person.
I’ll have to admit I’m ashamed of what I see here on Voices. It’s easier for folks to talk about a Confederate flag than to talk about loving and winning the gay community.
I guess instead of seminary, we could get it mail-order. Am I right, Jess?
Jess are you saying Christians aren’t sinners? We became sinless at salvation?
Tarheel,
My friend, we sin, but we are not in the category of sinners. Jesus come to save sinners from their sin, not in their sin.
Christians do not practice sinning. Sinners practice sinning.
Nowhere in scriptures does Christ call his glorious church a bunch of sinners. It is heresy to call the bride of Christ sinners.
Jess–I agree that we do not need more beat the sheep sermons.
Last week our pastor preached from Romans 1 and 2. Given the SCOTUS ruling he felt he had to do so.
He didn’t beat up any group, saved or unsaved. He simply said “here is what the Word says a sinner does. This is what sin looks like.” Didn’t care who it offended but was definitely not offensive either.
Then he detailed the penalty of sin, and the remedy. Would that he had followed with an invitation!
Forgot to mention–that passage covers a whole lot more than gay sex. If a person reads it and feels no conviction at all, I’d have to wonder if their conscience is burned out.
So the thinking seems to be that if the church just did its job, all Americans would be Christians and America would be heaven on earth. It is curious that this way of thinking, and dispensationalism is so wide spread at the same time.
I understand that the church isn’t perfect but I tire of hearing the church blamed every time something in the culture doesn’t go our way.
Bill Mac,
That’s not the thinking at all, but the church should do it’s job. Here is the problem. In family of six, mom works from nine to five, dad may work a swing shift, some of the kids want to be on a ball team, one might want to play traveling ball which will tie up a parent and child on Sunday. There is no visitation to even speak of to grow a church unless the pastor visits the lost. I wonder how much time the pastor puts in visiting the lost to grow the church. I know a few families just like what I’ve mentioned.
I know many visitation programs doesn’t work out. This is why the church must be taught to be a witness to those they do come into contact with, including neighbors.
I for one believe the things that happen is the churches fault. We get tied up in politics, ball, and only the Lord knows what else.
I have always been a bi-vocational pastor and always packed the load for the church. I would work until three in the afternoon, then go home, clean up, and start visiting sometimes until six to seven in the evening. I have done this for 36 years. You can bet I will not do it any more. I’m old, tired, grumpy, and will speak my mind. I don’t take anything from anyone. I don’t have too any more, and won’t. I’m not anyone’s sugar daddy anymore, I’m the salt of the earth.
Paul Thompson,
Thanks for a biblical message too seldom heard today.
David R. Brumbelow
My the Lord’s mercy and grace be heard as we warn all
May the Lord’s mercy and grace be heard as we warn all
Tarheel,
Sin is not determined by SBC resolutions, but those resolutions do show that most Southern Baptists, at least at that convention, believe it is wrong. And they have Scripture to support those views.
Another example:
2006 SBC Resolution on Alcohol Use in America
http://gulfcoastpastor.blogspot.com/2011/04/2006-sbc-resolution-on-alcohol-use-in.html
I’ve never known of a SBC resolution against investing in the stock market.
David R. Brumbelow
Could that be because we have an entity that not only offers it but encourages it?
Hmmm. I think most of my Southern Baptist’s I know personally actually do not think Alcohol assumption is sinful. I know many who don’t drink and still don’t think its sinful. I can actually think of only a couple who actually think drinking alcohol in moderation is sinful.
but Tyler….The resolution says…
I’ll tell you what, Tarheel. If we ever meet you can have a drink on me! We can talk theology and SBC Resolutions 😉
I would say we’d meet at Mickey’s house in Orlando but behold – there’s a resolution agin’ that, too!
Wait, seriously?
We never joke about our boycott resolutions, unfortunately.
http://www.sbc.net/resolutions/435/resolution-on-disney-company-policy
Paul,
Despite your assertion that “The post is not a suggestion we pick up an old “list” or create a new “list””….That is exactly what the section you have quoted has done…
While there is little I would disagree with in the section YOU ACTUALLY WROTE…your quotation on the whole weakens your point and in fact leads one toward legalism…ie, calling something a sin that scripture does not call a sin. Surely the sins God tells us about are the ones he wants us to avoid, right? If in fact you fully agree that all alcohol, all dancing (though a careful reader will notice THIS article does not go after ALL dancing, which is commendable), all gambling, and all theatre-going in sinful, you are in fact calling things sins that THE BIBLE DOES NOT…and are not putting forth a strong belief in the SUFFICIENCY of scripture.
You are correct that the church SHOULD warn against sin, especially the sins that are most tempting to our young people in this age…but we need not invent new sins to do this…If I had written your article, and my main examples were pants on women, playing with face cards, and using canned (recorded) music in church, OR Preaching without a tie, or using the sanctuary for youth activities (all stuff I heard growing up)….You would be right to point out my inconsistency.
Warning against sin is not legalism. Warning against a sin that is no sin IS.
Well said, Andy!
Any preacher that uses alcohol as a beverage should be booted out of the SBC.
I’m saying this in the nicest, and most articulate way I know possible. If one cannot lay it down, one has a problem.
Jess,
You are right, if one cannot lay it down they have a problem.
But that does not mean they cannot drink it all.
Maybe we should say that all who wish to force their unBiblical ideas on others should be booted out of the SBC… and in this case it would be you.
Those who wish to force unBiblical ideas on others have a problem.
Parsonmike, you are correct. God has given us a specific understanding of this subject. Ephesians 5
“Do not get drunk” – he Paul had words at his disposal to articulate “don’t drink wine at all” – but he did not – he forbade drunkeness – just like other times alcohol use is mentioned in the scripture drunkenness/excess is forbade and not merely. consumption.
yes sir, …scripture is clear, yet men try to improve it (or think they are) by adding meaning to an already perfect definition.
Tarheel, …. furthermore, if one is “not drunk with wine” that person need not fear (whether resolutions exist or not) and is free to be filled with the Spirit. It appears that the problem lawmakers have with wine is its “ability” to make one drunk. Those being filled with the Spirit do not have the same problem. “Ability” doesn’t equate to “Reality”(Paul’s lesson to the Galatians) The Spirit maintains freedom and obedience. Seems Paul (through the Spirit) thought it an important distinction and was very sure of the difference….a life of not being drunk over and against drunkenness.
I had a professor at the University of Texas ask one morning (during his diatribe), ….if anyone in the class had never been drunk. I raised my hand, since I was very sure I had not been. He called me a liar in front of the class. There is still a lot of that same goings on today in many local churches.
While some things may not be sinful, they are still foolish.
Kissing a rattlesnake.
David
parsonsmike,
You must not be thinking straight this morning, last night must to have been a big night for you. Too much grape squeezins, eh!
Jess,
Some people might think out is okay to drink alcohol because they like to have a glass once in a while.
But since I last had alcohol when I Drank half a can of beer in high school 40 years ago, I don’t fall into that category.
I get my theology from the Word of God, not from the traditions of men.
1st Tim 3:8 Likewise must the deacons be grave, not doubletongued, not given to much wine, not greedy of filthy lucre;
1st Tim 5:23 Drink no longer water, but use a little wine for thy stomach’s sake and thine often infirmities.
Eph. 5:18 And be not drunk with wine, wherein is excess; but be filled with the Spirit;
The word for wine in the verses above [all from KJV] means the same as the word for wine used thoughout the Gospels.
The word for “much” means the same as what we mean it to mean: large many, much.
Is too much wine prohibited? Of course. That would be ‘much’ wine.
Is drinking wine in any amount prohibited? Not according to the Word of God.
So on one side we have what the Word of God says.
On the other, an opinion of man.
I don’t drink it at all, never have. But the Word Of God says that its use moderately is alright, UNLESS by drinking it you make your brother stumble.
That means freedom restricted by love.
And not freedom restricted by a man’s opinion.
Jack Daniels was brewed first by a Baptist preacher.
Scott,
That doesn’t surprise me in the least. That’s why they call it the Spirits Store.
Uh oh. Jesus would have been kicked out of the SBC for turning water into wine and not grape juice. Bummer.
Tyler,
If the SBC believes in moderate drinking, Jesus was kicked out of the SBC a long time ago. The SBC doesn’t believe in moderate drinking, and Jesus wasn’t kicked out.
If the SBC doesn’t believe in moderate drinking, please don’t tell most local package store owners….they and their accountants thought the profit margins were real.
Come on Jess, we need to have a little more integrity than what that comment suggests.
There once was a productive discussion of moderate use of alcohol/prohibitionism on a blog. Oh, wait, no. Never mind. There NEVER has been.
Check some Presbyterian blogs 😉
Jess,
B. H. Carroll would agree with you.
“No man should be made the pastor of a church who drinks intoxicating liquors as a beverage.”
-B. H. Carroll, Interpretation of the English Bible. Carroll (1843-1914) was founder and first president of Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary.
David R. Brumbelow
First of all, preachers cannot be booted out of the SBC…FOR ANY REASON!
CHURCHES can be removed from Cooperative membership. But that is normally done only in the cases of support of homosexuality or appointing a female pastor.
Uh Oh. Spurgeon and Lewis were not fit to be pastors.
“I hope they will be full of spirit against evil spirits, stout against stout, and hale against ale.” -Charles H. Spurgeon, letter to temperance society, March 19, 1884.
Charles Spurgeon, later in his ministry, turned against alcohol with a passion. He was very much opposed to alcohol.
He also only used unfermented wine, rather than alcohol, for the Lord’s Supper.
Charles H. Spurgeon on Alcohol
http://gulfcoastpastor.blogspot.com/2010/04/charles-h-spurgeon-on-alcohol.html
David R. Brumbelow
Why are so many Christians against alcohol?
A few reasons:
1. The Bible says those deceived by wine are not wise (Proverbs 20:1). We are commanded to be wise (Ephesians 5:15; etc.).
2. The Bible teaches us to guard our influence and not to lead others astray. You may be able to hold your liquor. There are still at least two problems with that. First, you are supporting an evil industry that has brought untold heartache to the world.
Second, someone else will look at you and say, “That is the best man I know. If he can drink, then so can I.” And that may be someone whose life will be ruined by drink.
3. Your body is the temple of the Holy Spirit (1 Corinthians 6:19-20). Alcohol destroys that body. Even moderate drinking increases the risk of cancer, fetal alcohol syndrome, and other health problems.
4. The Bible says you are to love God with all our mind (Matthew 22:37). Our minds are altered and damaged by alcohol. Beverage alcohol is a recreational, mind altering drug. Every drink kills brain cells and dulls your judgment. When it comes to beverage alcohol, its very use is abuse. We should love and serve God with clear minds.
5. Scripture proclaims believers in Jesus Christ to be kings (Rev. 1:6; 5:10). Kings are not to drink lest they pervert justice (Proverbs 31:4-5).
6. God commended the Rechabites for not drinking wine (Jeremiah 35).
7. Don’t abuse your Christian liberty (1 Corinthians 8:9; 10:23).
8. The Bible often gives the appalling results of alcohol. It tells of Noah, Lot, and others getting drunk and the terrible consequences.
9. About one out of nine drinkers becomes a problem drinker. Never take that first drink and I guarantee you will never become an alcoholic.
10. From the overall teaching of the Bible, do you really believe God condones the recreational use of a mind altering, dangerous drug? Whether it is alcohol, marijuana, cocaine, prescription drugs, the answer is obviously, no.
11. Countless lives have been saved from ruin by teaching abstinence from alcohol. What is the worst that can happen to you by not drinking? Abstinence works every time it is used. Not drinking is safe, and it is wise.
12. Addiction to alcohol and other drugs is a serious problem. Jesus said, “whoever commits sin is a slave to sin“ (John 8:34). With beverage alcohol, it is easier to not start, than to start and then struggle to stop. You can save yourself and others a world of heartache by just staying away from alcohol.
Whether or not you accept that the Bible directly speaks against alcohol, the Bible clearly teaches against it.
Wine is a mocker, strong drink is a brawler, and whoever is led astray by it is not wise. -Proverbs 20:1
At the last it bites like a serpent, and stings like a viper. -Proverbs 23:32
Therefore let us not sleep, as others do, but let us watch and be sober. -1 Thessalonians 5:6
David R. Brumbelow
“You may spend the money for whatever your heart desires: for oxen, or sheep, or wine, or strong drink, or whatever your heart desires; and there you shall eat in the presence of the LORD your God and rejoice, you and your household.”
…signed, “GOD” (Deuteronomy 14:26)
Deuteronomy 14:26, NKJV
And you shall spend that money for whatever your heart desires: for oxen or sheep, for wine or similar drink, for whatever your heart desires; you shall eat there before the Lord your God, and you shall rejoice, you and your household.
The word used for “strong drink” in the KJV is the Hebrew word “shekar.”
Some authorities believe shekar always means an alcoholic drink.
A number of authorities, however, disagree.
Shekar was a drink made from fruit other than grapes.
Just like wine, shekar could be made and preserved as an alcoholic drink, or as a nonalcoholic drink.
The New King James Version (NKJV) translates shekar in this verse as “wine and similar drink.” That is correct, because, like wine, it can be either fermented or unfermented.
Wycliffe translated shekar as “cider.” Again, like wine, cider can be either fermented or unfermented; sometimes called hard cider or soft cider. Also, cider is, of course, made from a fruit other than grapes.
Shekar – “Sweet drink (what satiates or intoxicates).” -Dr. Robert Young, “Young’s Analytical Concordance to the Bible,” Eerdmans, 1970.
“Not only the word yayin, but also shekar can refer to grape juice as well as to wine (cf. Deuteronomy 29:6; Numbers 28:7; Exodus 29:40).” -Dr. Robert P. Teachout in his doctoral dissertation on “The Use of Wine in the Old Testament,” 1979, Dallas Theological Seminary.
So, if you believe this verse justifies the recreational use of a dangerous mind altering drug – that is your “interpretation,” not you just taking the Bible for what it says.
For more information see:
Deuteronomy 14:26 – Does it Commend Alcohol?
http://gulfcoastpastor.blogspot.com/2011/08/deuteronomy-1426-does-it-commend.html
David R. Brumbelow
I am no hebrew scholar, but is this same word used in other places warning against the use of Se’kar? If it is not fermented, why warn against it?
Andy,
I look at wine and shekar just like a number of other words.
Sometimes they are referring to alcohol, sometimes they are not.
Virtually every word in the dictionary has more than one meaning.
Examples today of words that can mean either alcohol or non-alcohol:
Drink, cider, liquor, punch, eggnog.
Today wine usually means an alcoholic drink, but years ago it was used much more generically.
Even today large wine stores sometimes have an aisle labeled something like, “Non-Alcoholic Wine.”
A preacher says don’t drink. Later he says at the church fellowship the church will provide the drinks. His church knows one meant alcohol, the other did not.
A highway sign says, “Don’t Drink And Drive.” Everyone knows they are talking about alcohol, not a soft drink.
Wine and shekar could refer to either alcoholic, or non-alcoholic drinks. Both could be made and preserved. Both were available in the ancient world.
David R. Brumbelow
David B.,
“Andy,
I look at wine….”
Exactly. You. Your opinion.
Forbidding alcohol is not as clear in scripture as you seem to make it.
It’s your opinion. Your conviction. That’s fine. We disagree – that’s ok to.
David B., Jess, and others,
I promise to not look down on you for your lack of conscience freedom Relating to alcohol – leading you to a Prohibitionist stance – if you promise to not look down on others because of the freedom that They experience leading them to enjoy alcohol in moderation – avoiding intoxication of course.
Deal?
moderationists should also seek to not offend in thier liberty.
Him that is weak in the faith receive ye, but not to doubtful disputations. For one believeth that he may eat all things: another, who is weak, eateth herbs. Let not him that eateth despise him that eateth not; and let not him which eateth not judge him that eateth: for God hath received him. Who art thou that judgest another man’s servant? to his own master he standeth or falleth. Yea, he shall be holden up: for God is able to make him stand. One man esteemeth one day above another: another esteemeth every day alike. Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind. He that regardeth the day, regardeth it unto the Lord; and he that regardeth not the day, to the Lord he doth not regard it. He that eateth, eateth to the Lord, for he giveth God thanks; and he that eateth not, to the Lord he eateth not, and giveth God thanks. For none of us liveth to himself, and no man dieth to himself. For whether we live, we live unto the Lord; and whether we die, we die unto the Lord: whether we live therefore, or die, we are the Lord’s. For to this end Christ both died, and rose, and revived, that he might be Lord both of the dead and living. But why dost thou judge thy brother? or why dost thou set at nought thy brother? for we shall all stand before the judgment seat of Christ. For it is written, As I live, saith the Lord, every knee shall bow to me, and every tongue shall confess to God. So then every one of us shall give account of himself to God. Let us not therefore judge one another any more: but judge this rather, that no man put a stumblingblock or an occasion to fall in his brother’s way. I know, and am persuaded by the Lord Jesus, that there is nothing unclean of itself: but to him that esteemeth any thing to be unclean, to him it is unclean. But if thy brother be grieved with thy meat, now walkest thou not charitably. Destroy not him with thy meat, for whom Christ died. Let not then your good be evil spoken of: For the kingdom of God is not meat and drink; but righteousness, and peace, and joy in the Holy Ghost. For he that in these things serveth Christ is acceptable to God, and approved of men. Let us therefore follow after the things which make for peace, and things wherewith one may edify another. For meat destroy not the work of God. All things indeed are pure; but it is evil for that man who eateth with offence. It is good neither to eat flesh, nor to drink WINE, nor any thing whereby thy brother stumbleth, or is offended, or is made weak. Hast thou faith? have it to thyself before God. Happy is he that condemneth not himself in that thing which he alloweth. And he that doubteth is damned if he eat, because he eateth not of faith: for whatsoever is not of faith is sin. (?Romans? ?14?:?1-23? KJV)
If in this passage Paul is talking about some form of grape juice or fruit juice why would he speak it in the context that he spoke with you as being possibly offensive? It was certainly potentially intoxicating otherwise we have to partake of the willing suspension of literal interpretation to read it another way.
Wine is not synonymous with alcohol in the Bible or in ancient literature.
Some wine was alcoholic, some wine was not.
They could make and preserve either kind of wine.
The only way to tell what kind of wine it was is by the context.
Examples of non-alcoholic wine in the Bible:
Jesus called both fermented and unfermented wine by the same name, “wine (oinos),” in Matthew 9:17.
The Old Testament refers to just pressed grapes as “wine” (Proverbs 3:10; Isaiah 16:10; Joel 2:24). Just pressed grapes produce nonalcoholic wine or grape juice.
The Bible refers to grapes on the vine as “wine’ (Isaiah 65:8).
Scripture even speaks of infants crying for wine (Lamentations 2:11-12); parents do not give alcoholic, but nonalcoholic wine to infants. They do so today; ever heard of juice boxes?
Josephus called just pressed grapes “wine.”
Ancients talked of wine that would not intoxicate.
It is wrong to say or imply that “all wine” in the Bible and in ancient times was alcoholic.
David R. Brumbelow
But why would non-intoxicating wine potentially offend? Romans 14?
Romans 14 could refer to intoxicating or even non-intoxicating wine, or both.
The Bible refers to both as wine.
If either offends, we should be cautious.
Unfermented wine could possibly offend if someone thought they were drinking fermented wine.
Some will not drink a soft drink in a bottle that looks like it is a beer.
Some will not buy Fre or Ariel nonalcoholic wine because they don’t want someone to assume they are buying alcohol.
And maybe there were some back then with a conviction against any kind of wine, even non-alcoholic.
Timothy is an example of a preacher who apparently would not drink any kind of wine, probably because of concern for leading others astray.
Wine for Your Stomach’s Sake; 1 Timothy 5:23
http://gulfcoastpastor.blogspot.com/2015/02/wine-for-your-stomachs-sake-1-timothy.html
Nazarites were forbidden to partake of any type of product of the vine, even unfermented wine, again, apparently that extra concern that they not be a stumbling block, and that they were willing to make a sacrifice.
But when it comes to alcoholic wine,
“The upcoming generations need to know the havoc brought on our society and upon individuals by the use of 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.”
-Judge Paul Pressler quoted in “Ancient Wine and the Bible.” Pressler was a leader in the Conservative Resurgence in the Southern Baptist Convention.
David R. Brumbelow
David,
There are maybes, probablys and possiblys in there.
As to the Nazarite, what about shaving heads, attending funerals, vinegar, and grapes?
“Again the Lord spoke to Moses, saying, 2 “Speak to the sons of Israel and say to them, ‘When a man or woman makes a [a]special vow, the vow of a [b]Nazirite, to [c]dedicate himself to the Lord, 3 he shall abstain from wine and strong drink; he shall drink no vinegar, whether made from wine or strong drink, nor shall he drink any grape juice nor eat fresh or dried grapes. 4 All the days of his [d]separation he shall not eat anything that is produced by the grape vine, from the seeds even to the skin.
5 ‘All the days of his vow of separation no razor shall pass over his head. He shall be holy until the days are fulfilled for which he separated himself to the Lord; he shall let the locks of hair on his head grow long.
6 ‘All the days of his separation to the Lord he shall not go near to a dead person. 7 He shall not make himself unclean for his father or for his mother, for his brother or for his sister, when they die, because his separation to God is on his head. 8 All the days of his separation he is holy to the Lord.”
One thing SEEMS clear to me. The bible does not forbid the enjoyment of alcoholic drinks by Christians.
Two things ARE clear to me:
1. Drunkenness is a sin and is to be avoided.
2. The case for prohibition is at best not clear…Christians for centuries have disagreed over the interpretation of the various passages concerning alcoholic drink.
As an aside, and I know this won’t really matter to the good concious SB prohibitionists, the prohibitionist side in the SBC is losing this argument at an alarming pace IMO. I have quite a few SB relatives and friends. I’ve had a part in two SB weddings this spring and summer in Alabama. Relatively small churches. Definitely not megas and definitely not Calvinist leaning churches. In fact, all my relatives are non Calvinists. This…
Alcohol was abundant at both weddings and the surrounding festivities. In fact, at the first one, I sat at the rehearsal dinner table with the long time SB pastor who officiated. He passed on the wine at the table, but expressed no shock at the wine being there.
Most of the SB that I know who are under about 50 see no problem at all with moderate consumption. But they DO think the prohibitionists are fundies (and David I am not calling you a fundie) who are focused on the externals where they shouldn’t be focused. Fellas, these are grounded Christian SB who love Jesus and serve Him faithfully.
Les,
Well then, we disagree, don’t we?
David R. Brumbelow
Yes we do David. But I’ve seen enough here by you and on your website to happily count you as a brother and am thankful for you and your ministry.
Les,
And I would certainly count you as a brother in Christ.
Hey, I’m just doing what Southern Baptists have asked folks to do:
“Be it finally RESOLVED, That we commend organizations which treat alcohol related problems as well as those organizations which promote prevention, using scripturally based principles.” -SBC Resolution against alcohol, 1988.
“RESOLVED, That we urge Southern Baptists to be actively involved in educating students and adults concerning the destructive nature of alcoholic beverages; and be it finally
RESOLVED, That we commend organizations and ministries that treat alcohol-related problems from a biblical perspective and promote abstinence and encourage local churches to begin and/or support such biblically-based ministries.” -SBC resolution against alcohol, 2006.
David R. Brumbelow
David,
The preachers I know that always drank alcohol, turned conservative. I told them that one sin always leads to another. “)
My dad was one of those alcoholics that we envision drunk in the gutter on skid row. It was so severe that he had episodes of alcoholic psychosis. He painted all the windows in our house purple and orange, and cut the fringe off of the Chinese modern furniture that was so popular in the 50’s. He once tried to run me over with his car intentionally. He set fire to our house twice by passing out while smoking. In the end, he died on a park bench with no one who loved him near.
When he was sober, he was the most loving dad that God ever gave a breath of life.
Despite growing up in this chaos, I can find not a single admonition in scripture forbidding people from drinking alcoholic beverages.
I discouraged it in my children and others who sought my advice. But, it’s not forbidden and I would never try to use the Bible to discourage its use.
There is NO prohibition against alcohol. There IS a prohibition for using anything that replaces the Lord Jesus Christ in our lives.
I’ve been involved with lots of these alcohol conversations, and I have always argued strongly for moderationism as a doctrinal position, even though I am a teetotaler in practice. I think the bible is crystal clear that consuming alcohol is not sinful. I have read all the arguments for abstentionism and they fall short, far short of being compelling.
Having said all that, I hate, seriously hate the alcohol culture in this country. I hate the fact that “where two or three are gathered” alcohol consumption is practically obligatory. I hate being in stores on Friday and see people loading up on massive quantities of beer for the weekend. I hate the fact that every function I attend for my employer has alcohol attached to it. I hate the fact that every place I visit, I am offered alcohol, unless they know I abstain. Sometimes, even though they know I abstain, I am repeatedly offered it. I’m not tempted, that’s not the point. I hate the fact that in the minds of millions of people, “hospitality” = “alcohol”. I hate the fact that in the minds of millions of people, “good time” = “alcohol”. I hate the fact that there isn’t a single activity more subject to peer pressure than drinking. I hate the fact that for my students, “going out” means drinking, and free time, means going out.
As I said, I’m a biblical moderationist. I know some people drink in moderation, and I would not judge them for that. But for the most part, Americans are not a moderate people, we are a over-consumptive people, and the deck is stacked against moderation.
Bill Mac, my stance on this is plain to see. Having said that, I can agree with the sentiment of what you say. I don’t even consume very much. But the way of “enjoyment” here in the US is too often over the top…as in most things we do.
I see a lot of that as well and I trace a lot of it to the taboo topic of honest, biblical discussion about alcohol, especially with kids. You don’t see this type of issue in Europe where alcohol is just a part of the culture and its use is not attached to social stigma.
Prohibition really screwed up America in this regard.
It may not be attached to social stigma, but Europe is anything but conservative on the matter of drinking, in fact, they consume more than any other area of the world.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/03/27/us-europe-alcohol-who-idUSBRE82Q16A20120327
While some things may not be sinful, they are still foolish.
Kissing a rattlesnake.
David
French Combat Youth Binge-Drinking
“In decrying the excessive alcohol consumption of their compatriots, American and British health experts have long pointed to France with special admiration. Here, they said, was a society that masters moderate drinking. In wine-sipping France, the argument went, libation is just a small part of the broad festival of life, not the mind-altering prerequisite for a good time. The French don’t wink like the English do at double-fisted drinking; they scorn people who lose control and get drunk in public. It’s a neat argument. But it sounds a little Pollyannish now that France itself is grappling with widespread binge-drinking among its youth. Worse still, fully half of 17-year-olds reported having been drunk at least once during the previous month.” -Time Magazine, July 17, 2008; quoted in “Ancient Wine and the Bible.”
Maybe things aren’t such a utopia in the European countries where many, though not all, consider drinking a part of everyday life. Maybe alcohol is the same dangerous drug there it is here.
David R. Brumbelow
Those you identify in France would not be the only ones considered as “disobedient” to remaining filled by the Spirit.
The more moderate drinking you have, the more immoderate drinking you have.
The more you encourage moderate drinking, the more drunkenness you have to deal with.
The Problem With Drunk Preachers
http://gulfcoastpastor.blogspot.com/2015/04/the-problem-with-drunk-preachers.html
David R. Brumbelow
We should encourage being filled with the Spirit, and you will have less drunkenness.
Good point, Chris.
Chris,
That is a good point. Being filled with the Holy Spirit would make people not to want to do something as foolish, and potentially sinful as drinking alcohol. Being filled with the Spirit and the joy of Jesus is far, far, far better than booze and drug abuse.
David
Completely agree….. That is the point, by never being drunk, one can be in fellowship and benefit from fellowship with the Spirit. At least that the case when it comes to consuming wine. Of course there are other things that when over indulged can detract from that wonderful fellowship as well.
David B.,
The less teachers of holiness we have the fewer legalists we will have too.
Point is you’re not making a good argument.
Name calling and Legalism
“More precisely, legalism is the false belief that keeping certain laws – whether biblical or not – can be used as a condition for meriting God’s grace, whether for justification or sanctification (see Galatians 3:3). But one can legislate wise laws about human behavior without being legalistic in the biblical sense of the concept. Otherwise, laws against drunk driving and illegal immigration – and a host of other things beneficial to society – would be legalistic and, thereby, wrong.” -Dr. Norman L. Geisler.
Why not argue your case on the merits, rather than calling the fellow who may be winning the argument, a legalist.
http://gulfcoastpastor.blogspot.com/2009/08/what-legalism-really-means.html
Therefore by the deeds of the law no flesh will be justified in His sight. -Romans 3:20
David R. Brumbelow
I wasn’t calling you a legalists- honest I wasn’t. I am speaking on the merits. Remember my points yesterday?
I was illustrating that your argument (essentially less moderationists = less drunks) is fallacious and I used an example to demonstrate it.
Let me try again –
Your argument says “if Christians don’t drink they won’t ever get drunk. So therefore people should not be moderationists.”
Ok – but that proves nothing and doesn’t further your point.
It’s also true that less people teaching personal holiness = Less teachers falling prey to legalism. So to follow your argument – Therefore people should avoid teaching personal holiness.
Using sinful excess as basis to prohibit activities is a road that’s best left not traveled.
Another example – The excesses and sins associated sexuality – does not render sexuality itself sinful.
Heel,
The Bible doesn’t say that having sex is foolish, but it does talk about drinking wine as being foolish.
Proverbs 20:1…”Wine is a mocker, strong drink is raging: and whosoever is deceived thereby is not wise.”
David
Vol,
“The Bible doesn’t say that having sex is foolish…”
Would you time to have an opportunity to retract this?
Les,
The Bible does not teach that having sex is foolish. It’s a good thing that God gave for a married couple to enjoy. Any sex outside of the marriage boundary is sin. It’s not just a foolish thing, but a sinful thing. But, sex inside the marriage boundary is a great thing. It’s a good thing that God gave to a married couple. It’s a gift, Brother.
Now, if some Christian walks onto a nude beach, by accident, then it’s not sinful that he sees naked women. He can’t help it. He just walked onto a nude beach. So, it’s not sinful. But, it would be very FOOLISH for him to remain on that beach, and continue to see naked women. Because, the temptation to lust after those women would be very great. Also, if his wife was with him, it would even be more foolish!
So, no, I would not want to retract my statement. The statement I made was true.
DAvid
Vol,
The bible says sex is a good thing created by God. But we all know that the good created thing (sex) can be misused and thus the good thing becomes a sinful thing. See several warning passages in Proverbs.
The bible says wine is a good thing created by God. But we all know that the good created thing (wine) can be misused and thus the good thing becomes a sinful thing. See several warning passages in Proverbs.
Proverbs 20:1…”Wine is a mocker, strong drink is raging: and whosoever is deceived thereby is not wise.”
Kissing a rattlesnake is not wise, either.
Eating cat poop is not a good thing, either.
David
You can’t pick one verse and use it to deny others. You need to have a balanced, biblical perspective.
“Proverbs 5:15-23
“Drink waters out of thine own cistern, and running waters out of thine own well. Let thy fountains be dispersed abroad, and rivers of waters in the streets. Let them be only thine own, and not strangers’ with thee. Let thy fountain be blessed: and rejoice with the wife of thy youth. Let her be as the loving hind and pleasant roe; let her breasts satisfy thee at all times; and be thou ravished always with her love. And why wilt thou, my son, be ravished with a strange woman, and embrace the bosom of a stranger? For the ways of man are before the eyes of the LORD, and he pondereth all his goings. His own iniquities shall take the wicked himself, and he shall be holden with the cords of his sins. He shall die without instruction; and in the greatness of his folly he shall go astray.”
Also, David B.,
You never answered my question from yesterday – if Romans 14 is referring to wine that was not fermented and nonalcoholic – then why did Paul give the inference that it it’s use could possibly an offense to a weaker brother– were people back then offended by someone drinking regular old grape juice? If it was talking about for minute why Paul had the vocabulary to have forbide fermented wine completely – but he did not nor did he and other text.
The literal – plain reading – of the scripture does not forbid drinking alcoholic beverages in Romans 14 – only intoxication does it forbid – And he wanted to forbid, such was certainly within the realm of Paul’s writing ability under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit.
Tarheel,
OK, I see your point about legalism and that you did not call me a legalist or imply such. Sorry for my misunderstanding.
Does Paul, and the Bible, directly speak against alcohol?
First, note my first comment here about a number of reasons many Christians don’t drink, including biblical principles.
It strikes me that one side here is arguing for Christians taking drugs for pleasure (albeit in moderate amounts), the other side is against it. And I believe Scripture “teaches” against taking drugs for recreation and pleasure.
However, apparently Paul and the Bible do directly speak against drinking.
1 Thessalonians 5:6-8
6 Therefore let us not sleep, as others do, but let us watch and be sober. 7 For those who sleep, sleep at night, and those who get drunk are drunk at night. 8 But let us who are of the day be sober, putting on the breastplate of faith and love, and as a helmet the hope of salvation.
1 Peter 1:13
Therefore gird up the loins of your mind, be sober, and rest your hope fully upon the grace that is to be brought to you at the revelation of Jesus Christ
1 Peter 5:8
Be sober, be vigilant; because your adversary the devil walks about like a roaring lion, seeking whom he may devour.
Sober (nepho) literally means “wineless.” Does “sober” speak only to alcohol? No, but it surely includes it.
Proverbs 23 describes the effects of alcoholic wine (no question here what kind of wine it is talking about) and about that kind of wine it says not to even look at it.
But, if someone does not believe these verses speak directly against alcohol, there are still a number of biblical principles to deal with.
David R. Brumbelow
correction from above – *only intoxication does Paul forbid in Ephesians 5.
Why did Paul not just forbid its use? Why make repeated references to it and not do so but choose to address drunkenness. It seems that he is intentionally not forbidding moderation but wants to be clear relating to drunkenness. It seems that to read a prohibition into his writings requires making assumptions that the plain reading does not allow for.
I am glad you acknowledge that the 1 Peter passages to be “sober” is in no way talking about alcohol – its conveying “be alert, be serious, be on guard”.
The Thess. passage, again, furthers my point more than yours. Speaks to forbid drunkenness – says nothing about moderation.
Proverbs 23 – again, talking about drunkenness and the advice to “not look at it” (verses 29-35) quite obviously is talking to one who struggles with addiction and the drunkard (red eyes, stumbling over stuff and getting hurt, seeing things not as they are, doing stupid and dangerous stuff, and lastly exclaiming “I must have another drink”) – in fact, again, (v.20 and 21) speak clearly and unequivocally to being drunkenness and addiction.
A true moderationist who occasionally enjoys a beverage (remember as others have pointed out, not everyone who ‘allows’ for moderation consumes alcohol) is not addicted to it and does not get drunk lest he sin.
As I said before, using excesses and sins of an action as the basis to deem the action in and of itself a sin is a road, though well intentioned, will get ya in trouble.
Tarheel,
You said, “I am glad you acknowledge that the 1 Peter passages to be “sober” is in no way talking about alcohol…”
No, I did not say that.
I said, “Sober (nepho) literally means “wineless.” Does “sober” speak only to alcohol? No, but it surely includes it.”
The first drink of alcohol ends your sobriety.
David R. Brumbelow
David B.
You have made excellent points in this comment thread. Thanks for you scholarship in this area.
Why would anyone want to defend drinking alcohol with all the bad and terrible things it causes in our society, today? It’s just mind boggling, and makes me scratch my head. When I see all the horrible things that alcohol and drugs does to families, and to individuals, and to our communities………..how in the world could anyone defend it? And, how in the world can a Christian be for it?
It’s not sinful to eat dog poop, either. But, it’s not wise.
David
“Do not suppose that abuses are eliminated by destroying the object which is abused. Men can go wrong with wine and women. Shall we then prohibit and abolish women? The sun, the moon, and the stars have been worshiped. Shall we then pluck them out of the sky?”- Martin Luther
Drinking fermented wine is foolish. It’s not sinful to drink a little bit…but, it’s extremely foolish to play around with it. It can take over your life. It’s kissing the rattlesnake foolish.
And, as David B. has so brilliantly pointed out, in his comments, the Bible does teach that it’s foolish to drink fermented wine.
It’s better to be filled with the Spirit, rather than be controlled by booze.
David
Ryan
Martin Luther’s logic and theology was flawed in several places and this is one of them. We are stuck with women, the sun, the moon and the stars. They cannot be avoided. We are not stuck witth alcohol. It can be avoided.
Wait DL – in this discussion apparently quoting other people and SBC resolutions is definitive evidence so I call a forum comment foul on you disagreeing with a quote that was posted! 😉
Ryan was simply doing as others do. 😉
Tarheel
OOPS!!! MyBad. Then I shall quote Vance Havner…”we used to call it itch now we call it allergy, but you have to scratch it just the same”. That has nothing to do with the post, I just like the quote 🙂
Ryan,
Yes, Martin Luther drank alcohol and praised such behavior. He made fun of those against alcohol.
Martin Luther also hated Jews; Nazis looked up to him.
Martin Luther also hated those who believe like Baptists.
He did not believe some of the 66 biblical books were inspired of God.
He had other aberrant views, though he did some good things.
For these and other reasons, I do not find his quote in favor of alcohol to be very persuasive.
David R. Brumbelow
No sir, intoxication ends sobriety.
Tarheel,
That distinction is truly the real debate. There are some that believe that the process of fermentation, in and of itself, is evil. Sort of a subtle form of gnostic logic. So, some take it as far to say, that a mere drop of any fermented substance on the tongue will contaminate the soul. The Apostle Paul is crystal clear ….that type of determination is certainly not the case!
Yep.
I have read the same thing over the years. The argument is that fermentation is essentially decomposition and a symbol of evil. I would hope that people that believe that to be true also avoid yogurt, buttermilk, sourdough bread, and sauerkraut.
And pickles. And all vinegar.
Sorry David but your translation of 1 Peter 5:8 does not hold to the context. The word “nepho” is translated “vigilant” and the phrase next to it is “awake” or “attentive.” Why is this necessary? Because the people in question are being hunted by the Enemy and the Enemy is not alcohol but the devil. There is NOTHING in this passage that has the slightest suggestion of having to do with alcohol. You can’t twist it to make it meet your personal bias or opinion.
Same goes for 1 Peter 1:13. The context is of a warrior preparing for battle not someone dealing with alcohol. In fact, the subject is not addressed anywhere in that passage either.
Also in 1 Thessalonians 5, the implication of “nepho” is a person who is not going to be caught unawares of the coming of the Lord- once again implying vigilance, not alcohol. The “night” people are not vigilant- being either drunk (which is a sin) or asleep (is this also a sin or is it a lack of vigilance)
You can’t play fast and loose with the context to make your point. You fall short on all of these verses due to this oversight.
Yep – context is important.
I still haven’t gotten an answer to my query concerning Romans 14 where Paul refers to the freedom of drinking wine – if this is unfermented wine he speaks of, as David Brumbelow asserts – were people somehow offended by other people drinking grape juice?
A moderationist who is living by the Spirit will forgo his liberty for the benefit of the weaker brothers and will not knowingly consume alcohol in their presence nor boast it before them.
Look you guys, all the moderationists here are trying to do on this thread is dissuade some of you from being prohibitionist and declaring that those who consume alcohol in moderation are sinning/foolish/not up to par, disuade you from using the Bible out of context to seek to intimidate your brothers based on personal opinions and preferences and lack of conscience freedom.
What you guys are doing is a clear violation of Romans 14 – you are judging your brothers based on a conscience liberty that they have – that you do not have.
Having or not having a conscience freedom does not make anyone better than the other.
Tarheel,
Perhaps you should go back and read my comments a little more carefully.
David R. Brumbelow
Ryan,
I disagree completely.
The biblical word sober (nepho) literally means “wineless.”
“Be sober” does not only speak against drinking alcohol, but it certainly includes it.
You can’t be sober and do recreational, mind altering drugs.
You can’t be vigilant and do recreational, mind altering drugs.
You can’t be attentive and do recreational, mind altering drugs.
Beverage alcohol immediately affects your judgment and reaction time.
The verses I quoted are from the NKJV and do use the word sober, but other English words in other translations also fit pretty well.
And again, the original Greek word for sober literally means wineless; that is very plain.
Strange how the Bible says be sober, and people interpret that as license to drink alcohol right up to the point of being legally drunk.
David R. Brumbelow
You can disagree all you want to. I ddint say that “nepho” could never mean “wineless.” I said the context of the passage- observance of which is a basic hermeneutical principle- does not match with translating the word as “wineless” but as “vigilant” or “watchful” in any of the passages you cite. None of them have anything to do with alcohol or wine.
To restate, you can’t take your own biases and impose them on the text. To the 1st century reader, would they have heard “nepho” and connected it with wine in the context of the letter. No way. There was nothing in the passage to make the connection in any of the cases you cited.
If someone did violence to scripture like this in relationship to same sex marriage or slavery, you would be up in arms- and rightfully so. Why do you think its ok to misuse scripture to prop up your own personal conviction?
Ryan,
Maybe it’s you, who is misinterpreting these Scriptures, and not David B.? Maybe it’s you, who does not like the implications of the word that’s used in these passages?
David B. gave a very good answer above….very good.
David
Vol,
Very accurate statement as it lines up with what the scripture teaches….”It’s not sinful to drink a little bit…but, it’s extremely foolish to play around with it.” “Play around with it” is a good way to view the debate as well and explains the “why” around the warnings of consuming wine. In other words, wine, when consumed without stopping will make one drunk. The same principle applies with being drunk in the Spirit….always consuming, and was Paul’s point.
Pastors and teachers effectively lower the fidelity of scripture by ignoring the principle, and then blame the substance (wine in this string). It is more profitable to teach the principle, and avoid the bait and switch techniques that become obvious to those that study the scriptures.
The simple fact is that nothing productive comes of these arguments. David and David are not going to be convinced of anyone else’s arguments, no matter how well they are put. David and David are not going to convince any of the rest of the group with their arguments.
Why do we continue to ride the merry-go-round?
It is pointless and it is fruitless.