This is a letter, which I attempted to send to the famous preacher John Piper. I e-mailed it but am not sure if he received it. The subject is drinking, our culture is vastly becoming more pagan and alcoholic, as a results many church are running to compromise there ethics on the subject as quickly as possible. The former values of alcoholic abstinence are being rapidly replaced. Therefore, I wrote this letter responding to John Pipers scathing article against abstinence to alcohol, in which he equated abstinence to a Judaizing false gospel. Those of you who are against, or have not made up your mind on the subject need to search the scriptures.
Dear John Piper
Hello, my name is Matt Singleton. I am a Southern Baptist Minister from Louisville Kentucky. I would like to say that I have appreciated your work in the past. Specifically the book “Counted Righteous in Christ”.
Today however, I would like to write you in regards to an essay you wrote in your book “Brothers, We are not Professionals”. The article was entitled “Brothers, Don’t fight flesh tanks with pea-shooter regulations.”
In this book, you have taken what I believe is an extreme view of moderation on the issue of alcohol consumption. The reason I state this is not simply because you believe in moderate drinking but that you have made the position abstinence from alcohol morally equivalent to alcoholic abuse. Your reasoning for this charge seems to be that many abstinence believing churches have a pledge in their church covenants to stay away from alcohol and the alcoholic industry.
Your argument follows as such.
1. Drinking in moderation is not prohibited in scripture.
“The second meaning of legalism is this: the erecting of specific requirements of conduct beyond the teaching of scripture and making adherence to them the means by which a person is qualified for membership in a local church. This is where unbiblical exclusivism arises.”
2. You should not add rules to the scripture.
“The second meaning of legalism is this: the erecting of specific requirements of conduct beyond the teaching of scripture and making adherence to them the means by which a person is qualified for membership in a local church. This is where unbiblical exclusivism arises.”
Putting this rule in excludes moderate drinking Christians
“I am persuaded that such a regulation for church membership falls into the category of legalistic exclusion and stands under the judgement of the apostolic word in Scripture.”
3. Therefore it puts division in the Body of Christ.
“In principle, therefore, these churches exclude all persons except teetotalers from church membership.”
4. Therefore it is like the same as the legalism of the Gnostics and Judaizers in Scripture. And is a false gospel of salvation.
“In what follows I will try to show what legalism means and why the requirement of total abstinence for church membership falls into this category and is therefore wrong.”
“First, legalism means treating Biblical standards of conduct as regulations to be kept by our own power in order to earn God’s favor.”
“It seems beyond doubt that God hates legalism as much as he hates alcoholism.”
“And it is clear from the New Testament that both will result in the tragic loss of eternal life, if there is no repentance.”
At this point I must go on to refute you thesis.
Many in the Bible are prohibited from alcohol.
Prohibition on drinking is not a man-made doctrine, many in the Old and New Testament were prohibited from drinking. Specifically the Nazirites were to keep away from all alcoholic substances.
Num 6:2 Speak unto the children of Israel, and say unto them, When either man or woman shall separate themselves to vow a vow of a Nazarite, to separate themselves unto the LORD:
Num 6:3 He shall separate himself from wine and strong drink, and shall drink no vinegar of wine, or vinegar of strong drink, neither shall he drink any liquor of grapes, nor eat moist grapes, or dried.
Num 6:4 All the days of his separation shall he eat nothing that is made of the vine tree, from the kernels even to the husk.
This effectively destroys you first thesis. Why? Because you have made the claim that abstinence is an entirely man-made rule, and that it is unbiblical. You then build the case from there. You may still have a case in regards to Interpretation but you can not claim that teetotalers are unbiblical any longer.
Certainly, you would argue that this was an Old Testament regulation, and no one in the New Covenant would hold himself or herself to this vow.
John the Baptist
Luk 1:15 For he shall be great in the sight of the Lord, and shall drink neither wine nor strong drink; and he shall be filled with the Holy Ghost, even from his mother's womb.
Mat 11:18 For John came neither eating nor drinking, and they say, He hath a devil.
The Apostle Paul
Act 21:24 Them take, and purify thyself with them, and be at charges with them, that they may shave their heads: and all may know that those things, whereof they were informed concerning thee, are nothing; but that thou thyself also walkest orderly, and keepest the law.
Act 21:26 Then Paul took the men, and the next day purifying himself with them entered into the temple, to signify the accomplishment of the days of purification, until that an offering should be offered for every one of them.
Both New Covenant Christian leaders had no problem with a nazirite vow. Not only this but that many Christians who were Jews were free to live under this vow. It was not to make one superior to the other it was to show their devotion to God.
This begs the question, why should groups of churches be penalized for making a church covenant with the inclusion of sobriety to God?
Your next claim is in regards to the regulative principal
This line of reasoning is that we should only follow what the Bible directly says. If the Bible does not directly say something then, it is against the scriptures to do this. While I do find the regulative scripture superior to the normative principle which teaches that we should only never contradict the scripture, because the Bible forbids adding to God’s revelation. However, there are serious flaws in the regulative principle as stated. In the since, that not only should the meaning of scripture be followed but also the implications of scriptures as well.
In the beatitudes, Jesus argued not only for the following of the commandments but their implications as well. For instance the idea that to look lust fully is adultery of the heart. He was not arguing this as the meaning of the text. Other wise women would divorce men every time their eye wandered. He was simply arguing that we should not even desire to break the commandment. And if an activity involves that desire then it is implicitly breaking that commandment.
Another problem with emphasis on silence is that it easy leaves out obvious issues. The Bible does not specifically address injecting heroin or snorting cocaine. So can a person be a crack-head and a Christian church member in good standing?
Therefore, it seems obvious that if the Bible implies that Christians should practice abstinence over casual drinking then we should follow the implication.
Another problem with this line of reasoning is where does the bible directly teach that moderate drinking is ok?
So how does the Bible imply that moderate drinking is wrong?
Drinking is unwise
Pro 20:1 Wine is a mocker, strong drink is raging: and whosoever is deceived thereby is not wise.
The practice of drinking weaker wine(definitely weaker than our liqours) is a mocker, (this practice is not holy). The practice of stronger drinks which are common sold in America is raging which is almost criminal. Therefore drinking is unwise.
Drinking is fleshly
Eph 5:18 And be not drunk with wine, wherein is excess; but be filled with the Spirit;
This verse makes drinking anti-thetical to the practice of being filled with the spirit.
Gal 5:16 This I say then, Walk in the Spirit, and ye shall not fulfil the lust of the flesh.
Gal 5:17 For the flesh lusteth against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh: and these are contrary the one to the other: so that ye cannot do the things that ye would.
We must put ourselves at war fleshly practices.
Gal 5:18 But if ye be led of the Spirit, ye are not under the law.
We do not worry about the flesh when we are in the spirit. However if we are engaged in the practices of the spirit we’d better be concerned!
Gal 5:19 Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are these; Adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness,
Gal 5:20 Idolatry, witchcraft, hatred, variance, emulations, wrath, strife, seditions, heresies,
Gal 5:21 Envyings, murders, drunkenness, revellings b, and such likec: of the which I tell you before, as I have also told you in time past, that they which do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God.
Obviously, the lifestyle of drinking is a fleshly lifestyle.
Gal 5:22 But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith,
Gal 5:23 Meekness, temperance a: against such there is no law.
Gal 5:24 And they that are Christ's have crucified the flesh with the affections and lusts.
Gal 5:25 If we live in the Spirit, let us also walk in the Spirit.
In order to live a spiritual lifestyle, we must have self-control. The practice of drinking weakens our self-control.
a temperance
Strongs Lexicon
1466 egkrateia {eng-krat'-i-ah}
from 1468; TDNT - 2:339,196; n f
AV - temperance 4; 4
1) self-control (the virtue of one who masters his desires and passions, esp. his sensual appetites)
2970 komos {ko'-mos}
from 2749;; n m
AV - b revelling 2 , rioting 1; 3
1) a revel, carousal 1a) a nocturnal and riotous procession of half drunken and frolicsome fellows who after supper parade through the streets with torches and music in honour of Bacchus or some other deity, and sing and play before houses of male and female friends; hence used generally of feasts and drinking parties that are protracted till late at night and indulge in revelry
3664 homoios {hom'-oy-os}(such like) c
from the base of 3674; TDNT - 5:186,684; adj
AV - like 47; 47
1) like, similar, resembling 1a) like: i.e. resembling 1b) like: i.e. corresponding to a thing
We are not to be drinking with any desire for intoxication
Pro 23:29 Who hath woe? who hath sorrow? who hath contentions? who hath babbling? who hath wounds without cause? who hath redness of eyes?
Pro 23:30 They that tarry long at the wine; they that go to seek mixed wine.
Pro 23:31 Look not thou upon the wine when it is red, when it giveth his colour in the cup, when it moveth itself aright.
Pro 23:32 At the last it biteth like a serpent, and stingeth like an adder.
We are not encourage others to be intoxicated
Hab 2:15 Woe unto him that giveth his neighbour drink, that puttest thy bottle to him, and makest him drunken also, that thou mayest look on their nakedness!
Hab 2:16 Thou art filled with shame for glory: drink thou also, and let thy foreskin be uncovered: the cup of the LORD's right hand shall be turned unto thee, and shameful spewing shall be on thy glory.
The Bible clearly teaches that we should avoid temptations and flee sin.
Moderate drinking is not avoiding sin but becoming dangerously close to sin in order to express freedom.
Avoid temptations
1Pe 5:8-9 Be sober, be vigilant; because your adversary the devil, as a roaring lion, walketh about, seeking whom he may devour: Whom resist steadfast in the faith, knowing that the same afflictions are accomplished in your brethren that are in the world.
Mat 26:41 Watch and pray, that ye enter not into temptation: the spirit indeed is willing, but the flesh is weak.
Mat 6:13 And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil: For thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, for ever. Amen.
Gal 6:1 Brethren, if a man be overtaken in a fault, ye which are spiritual, restore such an one in the spirit of meekness; considering thyself, lest thou also be tempted.
Gal 6:2 Bear ye one another's burdens, and so fulfil the law of Christ.
1Th 5:22 Abstain from all appearance of evil.
The concern of moderation advocates freedom in Christ. Yet a strict principle which they ignore is the principle of avoiding temptations. We are not to glide ever so close to sin. (especially since we have an inclination to it.) Instead we are to steer away from temptation.
When faced with the temptation of evil the Bible teaches that we are to separate ourselves from evil.
Pro 4:14 Enter not into the path of the wicked, and go not in the way of evil men.
Pro 4:15 Avoid it, pass not by it, turn from it, and pass away.
2Co 6:15 And what concord hath Christ with Belial? or what part hath he that believeth with an infidel?
2Co 6:16 And what agreement hath the temple of God with idols? for ye are the temple of the living God; as God hath said, I will dwell in them, and walk in them; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people.
2Co 6:17 Wherefore come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean thing; and I will receive you.
Jam 1:27 Pure religion and undefiled before God and the Father is this, To visit the fatherless and widows in their affliction, and to keep himself unspotted from the world.
But what about our freedom in Christ? Does not that have greater weight than avoiding sin?
Paul says…1Co 8:9 But take heed lest by any means this liberty of your's become a stumblingblock to them that are weak.
1Co 8:11 And through thy knowledge shall the weak brother perish, for whom Christ died?
1Co 8:12 But when ye sin so against the brethren, and wound their weak conscience, ye sin against Christ.
Rom 14:13 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.
Rom 14:21 It is good neither to eat flesh, nor to drink wine, nor any thing whereby thy brother stumbleth, or is offended, or is made weak.
…No.
We are to honor the convictions of the our godly ancestors like the rechabites.
Jer 35:5 And I set before the sons of the house of the Rechabites pots full of wine, and cups, and I said unto them, Drink ye wine.
Jer 35:6 But they said, We will drink no wine: for Jonadab the son of Rechab our father commanded us, saying, Ye shall drink no wine, neither ye, nor your sons for ever:
Jer 35:13 Thus saith the LORD of hosts, the God of Israel; Go and tell the men of Judah and the inhabitants of Jerusalem, Will ye not receive instruction to hearken to my words? saith the LORD.
Jer 35:14 The words of Jonadab the son of Rechab, that he commanded his sons not to drink wine, are performed; for unto this day they drink none, but obey their father's commandment: notwithstanding I have spoken unto you, rising early and speaking; but ye hearkened not unto me.
Jer 35:16 Because the sons of Jonadab the son of Rechab have performed the commandment of their father, which he commanded them; but this people hath not hearkened unto me:
Jer 35:17 Therefore thus saith the LORD God of hosts, the God of Israel; Behold, I will bring upon Judah and upon all the inhabitants of Jerusalem all the evil that I have pronounced against them: because I have spoken unto them, but they have not heard; and I have called unto them, but they have not answered.
Jer 35:18 And Jeremiah said unto the house of the Rechabites, Thus saith the LORD of hosts, the God of Israel; Because ye have obeyed the commandment of Jonadab your father, and kept all his precepts, and done according unto all that he hath commanded you:
Jer 35:19 Therefore thus saith the LORD of hosts, the God of Israel; Jonadab the son of Rechab shall not want a man to stand before me forever.
“The trial of the Rechabites' constancy was for a sign; it
made the disobedience of the Jews to God the more marked. The
Rechabites were obedient to one who was but a man like
themselves, and Jonadab never did for his seed what God has done
for his people. Mercy is promised to the Rechabites. We are not
told respecting the performance of this promise; but doubtless
it was performed, and travellers say the Rechabites may be found
a separate people to this day. Let us follow the counsels of our
pious forefathers, and we shall find good in so doing.”Matthew Henry
The spirit behind moderate drinking is ultimately a spirit of rebellion. As a Baptist, as you claim you should have considered the wisdom of your spiritual forefathers.
Dealing with your passage in Colossians.
Col 2:18 Let no man beguile you of your reward in a voluntary humility and worshipping of angels, intruding into those things which he hath not seen, vainly puffed up by his fleshly mind,
Col 2:19 And not holding the Head, from which all the body by joints and bands having nourishment ministered, and knit together, increaseth with the increase of God.
Col 2:20 Wherefore if ye be dead with Christ from the rudiments of the world, why, as though living in the world, are ye subject to ordinances,
Col 2:21 (Touch not; taste not; handle not;
Col 2:22 Which all are to perish with the using;) after the commandments and doctrines of men?
Col 2:23 Which things have indeed a shew of wisdom in will worship, and humility, and neglecting of the body: not in any honour to the satisfying of the flesh.
From verses 18-19 it is obvious that Paul is dealing with Gnostic type teachers and . Who worshipped angels and downplay the deity of Christ. Yet the group of which you have aimed your critiques are usually fundamental Baptist and Anabaptist in heritage. These have historically had a good reputation of standing for orthodoxy and against idolatry. Yet you appear to be making the parallel anyhow.
From verses 11-14 we understand Paul to refer to judgements in regards to salvation. Baptist prohibitionist have historically held that our justification is not of works. Therefore, we may be saved regardless whether we have drunk alcohol yet. Yet the Apostle Paul teaches in 1 Cor. 6 that we are to give judgements over moral issues. Therefore this is not pharisaical judgement.
Verse 21 shows that this is a particular type of abstinence, which is ascetic. This view would say that we should not handle these substances. Abstinence does not have to be monastic in form and commonly isn’t. Alcohol may be used for medicinal purposes and if it is at microscopic levels that a person could not get drunk with then it is acceptable. So one could be a teetotaler without necessarily having ascetic ethics. ( like myself)
From verse 16-17 we see that Paul is referring not to the subject of alcohol, but Old Testament regulations like clean and unclean clean food. Now intoxicated drinks are unclean yet their danger goes beyond the regular consequences of unclean meat. And the New Testament is very clear about their results (drunkenness).
Finally, in verse 23, the goal of Paul’s passage at the end is not to satisfy the flesh. Yet moderate drinking is what satisfies the flesh.
The church has the duty and authority to be concerned over such matters.
Earlier in the letter I mentioned that New Covenant Christians were free to make this vow. But would a local church have the authority?
A. It should be knowledgeable enough to judge.
Eph 3:10 To the intent that now unto the principalities and powers in heavenly places might be known by the church the manifold wisdom of God,
1Ti 3:15 But if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth.
1477 hedraioma {hed-rah'-yo-mah} ground
from a derivative of 1476; TDNT - 2:362,200; n n
AV - ground 1; 1
1) a stay, prop, support the truth
4769 stulos {stoo'-los} pillar
from stuo (to stiffen, properly akin to the base of 2476); TDNT - 7:732,1096; n m
AV - pillar 4; 4
1) a pillar 2) a column 2a) pillars of fire i.e. flames rising like pillars 3) a prop or support
In other words, it is the duty of the local church to protect the truth. Not Seminaries or TV preachers! (that’s why they stink so bad at it!) Therefore, through the scriptures, the church must identify for itself, God’s Will. You may argue that this is the “invisible” church. However why would Paul be away from the invisible church? Isn’t it supposed to be the body of all believers?
Was the church of Macedonia wrong for giving more than their regular giving? (2Cor. 8) Was it legalistic for the church to go beyond the Biblical expectations? To go beyond what other local churches were doing. To expect from each other giving that was not required? (After all, someone had to come up with the idea of giving extra.)
In discerning God’s will, it is obvious that God Wills his children to be set apart form sin.
B. It is a ministry goal to help in sanctification
Col 1:28 Whom we preach, warning every man, and teaching every man in all wisdom; that we may present every man perfect in Christ Jesus:
2Co 11:2 For I am jealous over you with godly jealousy: for I have espoused you to one husband, that I may present you as a chaste virgin to Christ.
1Th 4:1 Furthermore then we beseech you, brethren, and exhort you by the Lord Jesus, that as ye have received of us how ye ought to walk and to please God, so ye would abound more and more.
Heb 10:24 And let us consider one another to provoke unto love and to good works:
Heb 10:25 Not forsaking the assembling of ourselves together, as the manner of some is; but exhorting one another: and so much the more, as ye see the day approaching.
Heb 10:26 For if we sin wilfully after that we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins,
Heb 10:27 But a certain fearful looking for of judgment and fiery indignation, which shall devour the adversaries.
C. The minister is to concentrate on being an example
1Pe 5:2 Feed the flock of God which is among you, taking the oversight thereof, not by constraint, but willingly; not for filthy lucre, but of a ready mind;
1Pe 5:3 Neither as being lords over God's heritage, but being ensamples to the flock.
1983 episkopeo {ep-ee-skop-eh'-o} (oversight)
from 1909 and 4648; TDNT - 2:599,244; v
AV - look diligently 1, take the oversight 1; 2
1) to look upon, inspect, oversee, look after, care for 1a) of the care of the church which rested upon the elders 1b) to look carefully, beware
5179 tupos {too'-pos}(ensample)
from 5180; TDNT - 8:246,1193; n m
AV - ensample 5, print 2, figure 2, example 2, pattern 2, fashion 1, manner 1, form 1; 16
1) the mark of a stroke or blow, print 2) a figure formed by a blow or impression 2a) of a figure or image 2b) of the image of the gods 3) form 3a) the teaching which embodies the sum and substance of religion and represents it to the mind, manner of writing, the contents and form of a letter 4) an example 4a) in the technical sense, the pattern in conformity to which a thing must be made 4b) in an ethical sense, a dissuasive example, a pattern of warning 4b1) of ruinous events which serve as admonitions or warnings to others 4c) an example to be imitated 4c1) of men worthy of imitation 4d) in a doctrinal sense 4d1) of a type i.e. a person or thing prefiguring a future (Messianic) person or thing
A church may not have to discipline, based on such a covenant, but simply require that they make the covenant, and follow it to their own ability. The idea of a church covenant was never to put requirements on to salvation they were simply there to encourage membership accountability and help a young believer. Besides there are many other churches to go to if one does not like this.
Philosophical problems
Where in the Bible is teetotaling against the gospel?
If you can not sight a passage you would be adding to God’s Word.
How moderate drinking can attack the gospel…
Essential to the gospel was Jesus is a sinless, spotless, lamb. OT Law states that one may not help others to get drunk. If the wine in the wedding of Cana was intoxicating wine like the wine we have today, then two rounds would have been enough to get the party drunk. For Jesus to encourage the drinking party into drunkenness would break Old Testament Law. (Hab.2:15)
Your proposal “we engage to abstain from all drugs, food and drink, and practices which bring unwarranted harm to the body or jeopardize our own or another’s faith.”
This puts the interpretation entirely in the hands of the members’ persuasion. What is harm to the body? Weed smokers will easily argue that they are therefore free to privately smoke since they don’t interpret their drug to be dangerous. The same goes across the board. What you say is freedom in Christ is actually freedom outside of Christ. When a member of the church becomes a raging alcoholic how can you hold them to accountability unless they admit that they’re an alcoholic? So what if it’s radical!?
Witness
Rom 14:13 Let us not therefore judge one another any more: but judge this rather, that no man put a stumbling block or an occasion to fall in his brother's way.
Rom 14:21 It is good neither to eat flesh, nor to drink wine, nor any thing whereby thy brother stumbleth, or is offended, or is made weak.
I would like to give a personal illustration of this fact. When I first started college I remember an interesting conversation among my youth group. A boy named “E___” brought up his opinion about drinking. His Father was a deacon at the church and very well respected. They were a traditional Christian family with lots of children (6). They were very well respected at my church. He brought up the fact that his father was a moderate drinker and smoker. He testified how his father never in his memory ever abused these substances and that he was allowed to moderately drink at a certain point as long as he didn’t get drunk. His speech was very inspiring and convincing but it never swayed me. In fact this young man as far as I know has never practiced this. However there was the little brothers. As his younger brothers have grown up three out of four have been involved with alcoholism and drug abused. (only one or two are over twenty)
The second oldest boy not went to rehab but 3 years ago went to a party with a girl in the youth group. He was drunk and crashed into a tree. He ended up maimed and disfigured. He had to serve some time in Jail. She is dead. Luckily her parents who were members of the church did not press charges. However she will never receive a second chance. Because the father and oldest son were selfishly only concerned with there freedom in Christ they ignored the obvious weaknesses of the younger brother. How many younger brothers and sisters have been dying for the sake of freedom in Christ?
Covenants are to be honored
Gal 3:15 Brethren, I speak after the manner of men; Though it be but a man's covenant, yet if it be confirmed, no man disannulleth, or addeth thereto.
Wouldn’t you have had to been under the church covenant if you were pastor? How could you change the church covenant without breaking your own vow?
If you are to throw away the whole concept shouldn’t we throw away other covenants like marrige? Wouldn’t they be legalistic?
Aren’t you being legalistic by judging Christians with church covenants as legalistic heretics?
Rom 14:13 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.
Dear John,
I hope you were intellectually honest when you wrote this article. I hope you are not reading with prideful eyes that assume pastoral infallibility. (Which all us minister can be guilty of.)
I hope you read this. I also hope consider this the next time you preach on the subject. Although I know your popular and this may be ignored a while or forever. But I wish you well.
May draw closer to the Lord and His Holy Will,
In Christ,
Bro. Matt Singleton
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
36 comments:
Greetings!
Great topic. As a recovering alcoholic, born again Christian, and theology nut I had to put in my two cents.
I am convinced that John Piper is correct on this point, although I wouldn't go so far as to make it a warning.
There is ABSOLUTELY nothing sinful with drinking alcohol, or food, or or rest. However, it is sin in getting drunk, being a glutten, or being slothful. I'm shocked at how many ministers preach of the evils of alcohol but are very fat, defiling their temple and substituting pleasure in food for pleasure in God.
If I drink, it's a sin, as I'm physically pre-disposed to a deep desire to get drunk once I start. Others drink one or two glasses of wine and stop, I don't possess this ability.
You asked where it says in the bible that any alcohol is ok, Jesus turned water into wine. Don't fall for the lie that it was watered down grape juice like substance, that's silly. If it was, then why the warnings about getting drunk? Drunk on what? Grape juice?
"Whatever is not of faith is sin". Jesus didn't free us to sin, but he freed us from the legalistic regulations that some can't keep. If you doubt me, I invite you to join me in a AA meeting, filled to the brim with ex-Catholics who couldn't "Live up to the rules", and therefore hate God and the bible.
We are truly free, but as Children of God we are responsible to do the best for ourselves and the glory of God.
Thank you and God bless.
Dear Mick,
Thank for comments and feel free to read other blogs of mine!
By argueing this are saying this about drink vodka smoking pot, crack or injecting heroin as well?
You say there is "absolutly" nothing sinful with drinking. By what authority? The Gospel according to Mick?
I need evidence from the scripture.
"There is ABSOLUTELY nothing sinful with drinking alcohol, or food, or or rest. However, it is sin in getting drunk, being a glutten, or being slothful. I'm shocked at how many ministers preach of the evils of alcohol but are very fat, defiling their temple and substituting pleasure in food for pleasure in God"
Here you are arguing from a philosophy about relativism. As a conservative evangelical, I believe all mankind is sinful including every pastor myself included.
Also as a fundamentalist I do not preach from my own authority but that from the word of God. Therefore, I find it immature to point a sin on a pastor and argue that God's Word is no longer authoritative or that God will excuse your sin over someone elses. The preacher is to preach the word. If it is biblical then you must listen if your are earnest in following christ.
another issue you may not be aware of is the biological effects of alcohol. "Alcohol" is derived from the arabic language referring to the charcoal used for mascara & eye liner. It is an indigestable substance. It has to burn itself out in your veins. This produces rips and tears in your veins to the point where drunkeness makes the alcohol bleed through your veins and arteries into your organs. This is why it causes cancer.
Gluttony can do damage yet it will eventually digest.
When a substance is labeled "intoxicating" it means poisonous. You need wisdom to realize that this will hurt wether you get drunk or not.
"You asked where it says in the bible that any alcohol is ok, Jesus turned water into wine. Don't fall for the lie that it was watered down grape juice like substance, that's silly. If it was, then why the warnings about getting drunk? Drunk on what? Grape juice?"
When you read a word many times you find multiple definitions. like the word love. Love could mean "like" "want" "apreciate" "romantic" or "charitable". So you have to find the context of the passage to give the meaning of the word.
The word wine in ancient writings could be referring to barely alcoholic(under 3%) non-alcoholis or intoxicatingly alcoholic(3%-100%proof).
To find what it was reffering to we must look at the context.
I interpret by this rule.
If the text views wine in a negative context I believe it must be alcoholic. If it is referring to wine in a positive context it must be non-alcoholic. If it is refferin to wine as not necessARILY INTOXICATING BUT EVENTUALLY SO THEN IT WAS BARELY ALCOHOLIC.
BTW, If Jesus turned the water into alcholic wine he would be leading people to drunkiness this would brake old testament law (habbakuk2:15) making Christ appear a sinner. this would destory the doctrine of atonement making Christ unfit to save anyone's soul.
John Piper IS a teetotaler: http://www.soundofgrace.com/piper81/100481e.htm
But Piper sure fellowships with alcoholics!
Consider his recent activities with Mark Driscol.
Matt, I find it hard to trust your argument simply because of this last statement:
"But Piper sure fellowships with alcoholics!
Consider his recent activities with Mark Driscol."
With all do respect, you sound like a Pharisee nor is your statement accurate or relevant.
Bless you brother
"If you doubt me I invite you to join me in an AA meeting, filled to the brim with ex-catholics who couldn't live up to the rules and therefore hate God and the Bible."
I just notticed this statement. First AA is agroup that rarely succesful because it tries to help people overcome sin without the power of being born-again. Secondly Catholicism permits drinking. Thirdly it does not aloow people to read the Bible for themselves.
"with all do respect, you sound like a pharisee nor is your statement accurate or relevant"
Your accusation is contradictory; you have called me a pharisee as form of name calling because i have criticized Piper.
Piper has no problem criticizing others. You have a double standard. It sounds as if you put certain people on a pedistool.
It is accurate piper has endorsed mark driscoll and ministered alongside him.
It is relevant. Driscoll has services serving alcohol recreationally. Piper is supporting alcohol.
Jesus had services serving alcohol as well. As did Justin Martyr, Cyprian, Basil, Martin Luther, Calvin, John Wesley, John Gill, John Bunyan, as supported by the Westminster Confession, the London Baptist Confession, the Heidelberg, etc. Everywhere, in all of Church History, alcohol has ALWAYS been the element of communion, according to Christ's example, except the 2nd century cult of Tatian the Assyrian. It's beyond silly to equate the proper and biblically commanded use of alcohol to the use of illegal drugs, for the simple reason that one is commanded, and the other is not! Your arguments make no sense in light of Church history or biblical proof. You frequently leave out passages that condemn your own arguments. For instance- you quote "John the Baptist came neither eating nor drinking" to support your teetotaler position (Luke 7:33). That which he did not drink was alcohol, according to your argument. Look at the very next verse- who does it say came "drinking"? Therefore, your position demands that one act more spiritual than Jesus Christ, who has made us free from the doctrines and commandments of man. This is pharisaical legalism, my friend. I pray that God delivers you from the bondage of such a position, lest you make the Word of God void by your tradition which you have handed down. Drunkenness is sin; drinking wine is Biblical, even being commanded by Jesus Christ in communion. Replacing the biblical element with grape juice flows from Gnosticism and legalism, as the only ideas that would lead anyone to such a position originate from the imagination of man, and not from the Scriptures. I hope you will consider these things, my brother.
John P. Mayberry: show me the verse where Jesus served "alcohol". Also why didn't Jesus partake in the vinegar narcotic on the cross? He obviously wanted releif. if it was not morally wrong why did he refuse it?
You must be a catholic since you base your morals on religious people instead of the bible. I follow christ and the Word of God. There are teetotalers throughout all of christian history across several denominational lines. Teetotaling is especially explicit in the traditional baptist church covenant. many pentecostals, holiness, baptists, anabaptists, mennonites, waldenses and others throughout history have endorsed prohibiting intoxicating beverages.
If drunkeness is a sin and drinking wine is biblical, isn't your God tempting people to sin?
Could you please cite me where in those confession you brought up that the consumption of alcohol is endorsed?
Also john P. Mayberry. I see that you have flat out lied. I never quoted luke 7:33. but to be clear John the baptist was not drinking wine in that passage. "nor drinking wine" then in verse 34 christ is only said to be "eating and drinking". It was the pharisees that made the claim that Jesus was a winebibber. So when you claim jesus is a winebibber then you are following Pharisaical doctrine, not I.
Dear sir,
I want above all things to encourage you to search your heart and find where this bitterness is coming from in your comments to me and others. I prayed for you, and expressed genuine concern for you as a “pastor”, for you will endure a stricter judgment, and be held accountable for the things you teach. You responded by implying that we worship different gods, that I “must be Catholic”, and accused me of outright lying. I saw (or certainly thought I saw) you quote Luke 7:33 on one of your blog posts. If I didn’t, it was an oversight/mistake; not a lie! I am a bible-believing Christian, who is also a rightly ordained Presbyterian minister in a conservative Presbyterian denomination. The Word of God alone is authoritative, but it is foolish to reject the counsel of those who have gone before us, who have also held to this conviction. I do not base my faith upon the words of men, but only upon the Bible alone. I don’t see anywhere that it says “Thou shalt not consume alcohol” (and I see several places where the consumption of alcohol is explicitly commanded (cf. 1 Timothy 5:23). I see that drunkenness is specifically condemned. How can you claim to be following the Bible “alone” when your whole case is based on an addition to the Word (the Word says “don’t be drunk with much wine”; and you say “Don’t drink at all”). Who gave you the authority to add to Christ’s words? This is what the Pharisees did when they attempted to make the law more strict than it was, for the sake of outward righteousness. They did not know that “that which goes into a man does not defile a man, but that which goes out of him defiles him” (Matthew 15:11)... which is the antithesis of your position at the lips of the Lord.
You strike me as a man that is puffed up with pride rather than able to correct gently. The historic nature of this doctrine calls for careful and biblical reason; not insults.
That said, and because I suspect that you are a man who is wise in his own eyes, I will answer a few your questions, and pose two more to you, which, if you will answer without insulting me, I will continue this dialogue.
As for your response to church history- first of all, you don’t care what men think, remember? So your references to the groups you say were teetotalers is irrelevant to the conversation. That said, I will qualify that I didn’t mean to refer to those groups who are new (i.e. post temperance movement). You referred to new groups, not the historic Church (with the exception of the Waldenses, Mennonites, and Anabaptists- for these, you will not be able to prove that the Waldenses were teetotalers, because of a lack of original materials for that period of their history. Concerning Anabaptists and Mennonites, you are simply wrong that they did not drink- see for instance “The Global Anabaptist Mennonite Encyclopedia Online”: http://gameo.org/index.php?title=Alcohol_(1958)).
For the Confessions, see The Belgic Confession, article 35, the Heidelberg Catechism, q. 78-80, the Thirty Nine Articles, article 28, the Westminster Confession, ch. 29, the London Baptist Confession (1689), ch. 30.
You stated that Luke 7:34 does not say that Jesus drank wine, only that he came drinking. Friend, this shows that you need more education/study before declaring the text to others, both in the areas of English grammar and Greek exegesis:
The words “eating/drinking” in the text are participles. In verse 33, the nominative referent is listed (“bread”/”wine”). The structure of verse 34 is parallel to the structure of verse 33, akin to a proverb with contrasting parallelism (in which form the Lord Jesus often taught, where the second half of the statement is contrasted with the first). The difference is that the participles in verse 34 function substantivally; that is, they do not have a nominative substantive explicitly named. The reason is that they borrow the substantives/nominatives which appeared in the first half of the proverbial statement- this use is signaled by the repetition of the same verbs in the second half of the sentence. To repeat the nominatives would be structurally redundant and unnecessary. Thus, that which is eaten or not eaten (esthion) in both verses is “bread”, and that which is (pinown) in both verses is “wine”. Any Greek grammarian will tell you the same thing, and I invite you to try my words by calling a few and posing the question to them- although this is clear in English as well...
As for your question regarding sin- no, the true God does not tempt anyone to sin, neither can He. Men sin when they are led away by their own lusts. I will explain this to you more if you will answer two simple questions, which expose the error of your position. 1) If sex outside of marriage is sin, and yet sex inside of marriage is biblical, isn’t your God tempting people to sin when he tells them to not depart from coming together?; 2) If gluttony is a sin and eating food is biblical, isn’t your God tempting people to sin? (I'm speaking as you did- please feel only what you intended me to feel by this inflammatory nature of these questions).
I pray still that God will use this to build you up in the most holy faith, and that you may, by the Holy Spirit, trust in the Lord with all your heart, and lean not to your own understanding. Show yourself wise, and reform your position via the Word of God!
1 corinthians 4:3 But with me it is a very small thing that I should be judged of you, or of man's judgment: yea, I judge not mine own self.
4 For I know nothing by myself; yet am I not hereby justified: but he that judgeth me is the Lord
I really don't care about your scam. If you care about the truth, continue to debate.
You start off with "holy language" and perhaps educated vocabulary so that you can have force and intimidation. So I am supposed to be gullible and not nottice that you don't practice what you preach.
"You strike me as a man that is puffed up with pride rather than able to correct gently. The historic nature of this doctrine calls for careful and biblical reason; not insults."
Do you have some charismatic gift to read minds?
If not perhaps you are just insulting me. 'puffed up with pride' and contradicting your statement at the end about insults.
You think can order people around and teach that to be humility?
Humility is not about the way you talk, it is about how you act and if you can lower yourself.
You want to brag that you are a Presbyterian minister? Is that so that you can piggy back off of the reputation of presbyterians as opposed to simply proving your spiritual depth by your own spiritual conversation?
Now officially I recognize the presbyterians as only a protestant man-made church. The New Testament teaches that we can only please God by faith. Hebrews 11:6
Baptism which is the entry in the New Testament religion is according to our doctrine and not our parents. Acts 19:1-6
for good measure remember ezekiel 18.
So ordination in a false church gives me no assurance. now if you believe in the gospel of grace you can have assurance of salvation to the glory of God. But you need to justify your faith by (biblical works) if you want to convince anyone else.
I may sound strict about that. But I am currently dealing with a former scottish reformed theology student who just converted to messianic judaism and is denying christianity.
And when we talk about drinking, i can't help but remember all stupid protestants who gave into this sham called drinking in moderation. And when they drink and get a teen aged girl killed in a drunk driving accident and you have to look at their disfigured face and the whole church is about to fall apart and that girl's family breaks up in a nasty divorce you can easily get bitter. Alcohol is ravaging this nation more than every before and the "christians" are leading the way.
Moderation is thoroughly irrational because it is extremely hard to know the difference between drink and drunk and how much each individual can take. this is why the government has been advertising the public service announcement "buzz driving is drunk driving" people don't recognize the different levels of proof. I have never seen a moderate drinking advocate tell people to abstain from highly alcoholic substances like whiskey, vodka or moonshine. Why? Because then we would know what we are supposed to be abstaining from.
here is a scholar who is familiar with greek and hebrew.
Wine-Drinking in New Testament Times
ROBERT H. STEIN
A
s evangelicals we maintain that the Bible is for us the only infallible rule of faith and practice. It is our final authority in all matters of doctrine (faith) and ethics (practice). Yet the Bible was not written to evangelicals living in the twentieth century. The science—or better, the art—of interpreting the biblical text so that the revelation of God written centuries ago is meaningful and correctly understood today is called “hermeneutics.” The basic principle of hermeneutics, to be somewhat simplistic, is that the question “What does it mean for us today?” must be preceded by the question “What did it mean for them yesterday?” If we do not seek first to understand what the text meant when it was written, it will be very difficult to interpret intelligently what it means and demands of us today.
My subject here is the use of the term “wine” in the New Testament. Some readers may already be thinking, “Is he going to try to tell us that wine in the Bible means grape juice? Is he going to try to say that the wine mentioned in the New Testament is any different from the wine bottled today by Christian Brothers or Château Lafite-Rothschild or Mogen David?” Well, my answers are no and yes. No, the wine of the Bible was not unfermented grape juice. Yes, it was different from the wine of today.
In ancient times wine was usually stored in large pointed jugs called amphorae. When wine was to be used it was poured from the amphorae into large bowls called kraters, where it was mixed with water. Last year 1 had the privilege of visiting the great archaeological museum in Athens, Greece, where I saw dozens of these large kraters. At the time it did not dawn on me what their use signified about the drinking of wine in biblical times. From these kraters, cups or kylix were then filled. What is important for us to note is that before wine was drunk it was mixed with water. The kylix were filled not from the amphorae but from the kraters.
The ratio of water to wine varied. Homer (Odyssey IX, 208f.) mentions a ratio of 20 to 1, twenty parts water to one part wine. Pliny (Natural History XIV, vi, 54) mentions a ratio of eight parts water to one part wine. In one ancient work, Athenaeus’s The Learned Banquet, written around A.D. 200, we find in Book Ten a collection of statements from earlier writers about drinking practices. A quotation from a play by Aristophanes reads: “‘Here, drink this also, mingled three and two.’ Demus. ‘Zeus! But it’s sweet and bears the three parts well!’” The poet Euenos, who lived in the fifth century B.C., is also quoted:
The best measure of wine is neither much nor very little;
For ‘tis the cause of either grief or madness.
It pleases the wine to be the fourth, mixed with three nymphs.
Here the ratio of water to wine is 3 to 1. Others mentioned are:
3 to 1—Hesiod
4 to 1—Alexis
2 to 1—Diodes
3 to 1—Ion
5 to 2—Nichochares
2 to 1—Anacreon
Sometimes the ratio goes down to 1 to 1 (and even lower), but it should be noted that such a mixture is referred to as “strong wine.” Drinking wine unmixed, on the other hand, was looked upon as a “Scythian” or barbarian custom. Athenaeus in this work quotes Mnesitheus of Athens:
The gods has revealed wine to mortals, to be the greatest blessing for those who use it aright, but for those who use it without measure, the reverse. For it gives food to them that take it and strength in mind and body. In medicine it is most beneficial; it can be mixed with liquid and drugs and it brings aid to the wounded. In daily intercourse, to those who mix and drink it moderately, it gives good cheer; but if you overstep the bounds, it brings violence. Mix it half and half, and you get madness; unmixed, bodily collapse.
It is evident that wine was seen in ancient times as a medicine (and as a solvent for medicines) and of course as a beverage. Yet as a beverage it was always thought of as a mixed drink. Plutarch (Symposiacs III, ix), for instance, states. “We call a mixture ‘wine,’ although the larger of the component parts is water.” The ratio of water might vary, but only barbarians drank it unmixed, and a mixture of wine and water of equal parts was seen as “strong drink” and frowned upon. The term “wine” or oinos in the ancient world, then, did not mean wine as we understand it today but wine mixed with water. Usually a writer simply referred to the mixture of water and wine as “wine.” To indicate that the beverage was not a mixture of water and wine he would say “unmixed (akratesteron) wine.”
One might wonder whether the custom of mixing wine with water was limited to the ancient Greeks. The burden of proof would be upon anyone who argued that the pattern of drinking wine in Jewish society was substantially different from that of the examples already ‘given. And we do have examples in both Jewish and Christian literature and perhaps in the Bible that wine was likewise understood as being a mixture of wine and water. In several instances in the Old Testament a distinction is made between “wine” and “strong drink.” In Leviticus 10:8, 9, we read, “And the LORD spoke to Aaron, saying, ‘Drink no wine nor strong drink, you nor your sons with you, when you go into the tent of meeting. . . .‘“ Concerning the Nazarite vow Numbers 6:3 states that the Nazarite “shall separate himself from wine and strong drink.” This distinction is found also in Deuteronomy 14:26; 29:6; Judges 13:4, 7, 14; First Samuel 1:15: Proverbs 20:1; 31:4,6: Isaiah 5:11, 22; 28:7; 29:9; 56:12; and Micah 2:11.
The 1901 Jewish Encyclopedia (Vol. 12, p. 533) states that in the rabbinic period at least “‘yayin’ [or wine] ‘is to be distinguished from ‘shekar’ [or strong drink]: the former is diluted with water (mazug’); the latter is undiluted (‘yayin hal’).” ln the Talmud, which contains the oral traditions of Judaism from about 200 B.C. to A.D. 200, there are several tractates in which the mixture of water and wine is discussed. One tractate (Shabbath 77a) states that wine that does not carry three parts of water well is not wine. The normal mixture is said to consist of two parts water to one part wine. In a most important reference (Pesahim 108b) it is stated that the four cups every Jew was to drink during the Passover ritual were to be mixed in a ratio of three parts water to one part wine. From this we can conclude with a fair degree of certainty that the fruit of the vine used at the institution of the Lord’s Supper was a mixture of three parts water to one part wine. In another Jewish reference from around 60 B.C. we read, “It is harmful to drink wine alone, or again, to drink water alone, while wine mixed with water is sweet and delicious and enhances one’s enjoyment” (II Maccabees 15:39).
In ancient times there were not many beverages that were safe to drink. The danger of drinking water alone raises another point. There were several ways in which the ancients could make water safe to drink. One method was boiling, but this was tedious and costly. Different methods of filtration were tried. The safest and easiest method of making the water safe to drink, however, was to mix it with wine. The drinking of wine (i.e., a mixture of water and wine) served therefore as a safety measure, since often the water available was not safe. (I remember drinking some water in Salonica, Greece, that would have been much better for me had it been mixed with wine or some other purifying agent.)
When we come to the New Testament the content of the wine is never discussed. The burden of proof, however, is surely upon anyone who would say that the “wine” of the New Testament is substantially different from the wine mentioned by the Greeks, the Jews during the intertestamental period, and the early church fathers. In the writings of the early church fathers it is clear that “wine” means wine mixed with water. Justin Martyr around A.D. 150 described the Lord’s Supper in this way: “Bread is brought, and wine and water, and the president sends up prayers and thanksgiving” (Apology 1, 67, 5). Some sixty-five years later Hippolytus instructed the bishops that they shall “eucharistize [bless] first the bread into the representation of the Flesh of Christ; and the cup mixed with wine for the antitype of the Blood which was shed for all who have believed in Him” (Apostolic Tradition XXIII, 1). Cyprian around A.D. 250 stated in his refutation of certain heretical practices:
Nothing must be done by us but what the Lord first did on our behalf, as that the cup which is offered in remembrance of Him should be offered mingled with wine. . . .
Thus, therefore, in considering the cup of the Lord, water alone cannot be offered, even as wine alone cannot be offered. For if anyone offer wine only, the blood of Christ is dissociated from us: but if the water be alone, the people are dissociated from Christ. . . . Thus the cup of the Lord is not indeed water alone, nor wine alone, unless each be mingled with the other [Epistle LXII, 2, 11 and 13].
Unmixed wine and plain water at the Lord’s Supper were both found unacceptable. A mixture of wine and water was the norm. Earlier in the latter part of the second century Clement of Alexandria stated:
It is best for the wine to be mixed with as much water as possible. . . . For both are works of God, and the mixing of the two, both of water and wine produces health, because life is composed of a necessary element and a useful element. To the necessary element, the water, which is in the greatest quantity, there is to be mixed in some of the useful element [Instructor II, ii, 23.3—24.1].
To consume the amount of alcohol that is in two martinis by drinking wine containing three parts water to one part wine, one would have to drink over twenty-two glasses. In other words, it is possible to become intoxicated from wine mixed with three parts of water, but one’s drinking would probably affect the bladder long before it affected the mind.
In concluding this brief article I would like to emphasize two points. First, it is important to try to understand the biblical text in the context in which it was written. Before we ask “What does the biblical text mean for us today?” we must ask “What did it mean to them originally?” Second, there is a striking difference between the drinking of alcoholic beverages today and the drinking of wine in New Testament times. If the drinking of unmixed wine or even wine mixed in a ratio of one to one with water was frowned upon in ancient times, certainly the drinking of distilled spirits in which the alcoholic content is frequently three to ten times greater would be frowned upon a great deal more.
Robert H. Stein is associate professor of New Testament at Bethel College, St. Paul, Minnesota. He has the B.D. from Fuller Seminary, S.T.M. from Andover Newton Theological School, and Ph.D. from Princeton Seminary.
" I don’t see anywhere that it says “Thou shalt not consume alcohol” (and I see several places where the consumption of alcohol is explicitly commanded (cf. 1 Timothy 5:23). "
1 timothy 5:23 Drink no longer water, but use a little wine for thy stomach’s sake and thine often infirmities.
Look at the verse. there is never any mention of the word "alcohol"
You presuppose that a little wine means alcoholic wine. but as the previous article indicates wine was diluted with water back then.
btw, sex in marriage was the first commandment given.
sex outside of marriage is simple fornication.
When you fornicate you are not having sex outside of marriage.
Wine that is like grape juice is good.
Wine that is alcoholic has microscopic intoxicating coal.[arabic: al coh ol)
when you consumed rotten wine you are not consuming good wine.
Just as we are not to eat leavend bread we are not to drink intoxicating wine.
Now it has been years since I wrote this article and I am not sure if I have made this distinction.
there is breaking the law and then there is acting unwisely.
Being unwise or foolish is bad not necessarily a violation of the law. You can borrow things and pay them back but the borrower is a slave to the lender. it is not wise.
If you handle a substance that is intoxicating you know it unwise or it would not be called intoxicating.
So I call moderate drinking foolish or stupid. drunkiness is more strictly a violation.
gluttony is unwise but I would argue that it is not a law. because it would have to be objective as to show what is too much.
drinking is unwise and then proceeds to sin.
proverbs 23:30 they that tarry long at the wine;
they that go to seek mixed wine.
31 Look not thou upon the wine when it is red,
when it giveth his colour in the cup,
when it moveth itself aright.
32 At the last it biteth like a serpent,
and stingeth like an adder.
Goodness, you are a bitter man. I find it ironic that you speak of the dangers of wine, in that it might inhibit the fruit of the Spirit, and yet I see no fruit of the Spirit here at all. Don't be angry simply because I am making reasoned points from the Bible alone, whereas you are quoting this idea and that idea, desperate for some way to support your legalism. I have been SO clear that drunkenness is a sin. Drunk driving is a sin. I'll leave you to re-read my arguments, as they are sufficient to the point.
Thanks, by the way, for disproving your own teetotalism via your own quotes! Your Hebrew Scholar, along with all the men in church history that you quoted prove the point that none of them were teetotalers- they were men who believed in moderation, whether that moderation was a 3-1 ratio, a 4-1, or whatever. The point remains that none of them, not a single one, would take your position... and that's because they too, like me, read the Bible and found that our Lord Jesus Christ drank and served wine in moderation too, as the Scriptures show.
As for me being a member of a "false church"- wow. Silly man- I wasn’t bragging; I was responding to your insults. I would never have mentioned my denominational affiliation if you hadn’t accused me of being a Catholic! No one said anything about gaining assurance from ordination- my assurance is in the work of Jesus Christ on my behalf, as He has poured out His blood for my wretched sins on the cross, and sealed the work of redemption to my soul by the regenerating work of His Holy Spirit, not because of works that I have done or will do, but only for His Sovereign glory alone, according to the good pleasure of His will, because He predestined me to adoption as a son. Perhaps God has bidden you to throw stones at me. I suppose I'll just quote 1 Corinthians 4:3 right back at you. May God give you discernment and spare you from a stricter judgment- because right now you are making His Word void through your tradition of teetotlerism which you have handed down.
As for the debate itself, both of us are arguing at this point that the wine in the Bible and in Church History was partially alcoholic- glad you came around to see things my way! Again, thanks for the quotes- it saved me a lot of legwork!
John P Mayberry and the word of God for the win.
Excellent.
So I have taken your advice and reviewed your statements.
"Drunkenness is sin; drinking wine is Biblical, even being commanded by Jesus Christ in communion."
What is drunkenness? Are you stating that drunkenness is not drinking wine?Your whole argument hinges on whether this statement makes any logical sense. God is not the author of confusion.
"You responded by implying that we worship different gods, that I “must be Catholic”, and accused me of outright lying."
Here you misquoted me.
"You must be a catholic since you base your morals on religious people instead of the bible." I used the little "c". Most reformers believe in an invisible church and that there is a universal catholic church. They do not reject that title.
My observation is from your quote.
"Jesus had services serving alcohol as well. As did Justin Martyr, Cyprian, Basil, Martin Luther, Calvin, John Wesley, John Gill, John Bunyan, as supported by the Westminster Confession, the London Baptist Confession, the Heidelberg, etc."
Then you go on to contradict yourself.
" I do not base my faith upon the words of men, but only upon the Bible alone."
"The Word of God alone is authoritative, but it is foolish to reject the counsel of those who have gone before us, who have also held to this conviction."
The Bible explains itself. Men in church history can be an encouragement and show you the scriptures in advance, but they don't prove anything on their own. It is also an irrational base, because we are leaving "church" and Christianity undefined. This is why i told you that in my faith I do not accept presbyterianism as the religion taught by christ and do not rely on man-made teachings.
" That which he did not drink was alcohol, according to your argument. Look at the very next verse- who does it say came "drinking"? Therefore, your position demands that one act more spiritual than Jesus Christ, who has made us free from the doctrines and commandments of man."
Here you have ensnared yourself in your own reasning. Because the Bible commands people at different points to abstain from alcohol.
numbers 6:2 Speak unto the children of Israel, and say unto them, When either man or woman shall separate themselves to vow a vow of a Nazarite, to separate themselves unto the Lord: 3 he shall separate himself from wine and strong drink, and shall drink no vinegar of wine, or vinegar of strong drink, neither shall he drink any liquor of grapes, nor eat moist grapes, or dried. 4 All the days of his separation shall he eat nothing that is made of the vine tree, from the kernels even to the husk."
If Jesus was sinless and a winebibber, then Why is the Bible commanding people to be holier than him? Especially if he is commanding alcohol consumption. This is blatantly an irrational position.
If wine is used as a moral positive then it is not alcoholic. There is such a thing as non-alcoholic wine. you can get it at your local party store.
"Any Greek grammarian will tell you the same thing, and I invite you to try my words by calling a few and posing the question to them- although this is clear in English as well..." Then why bring up the Greek at all?? Because your moral intimidation is not working, so now you are switching to academic intimidation.I want my reader's to understand my arguments because my arguments are true.
The fact is that John the baptist was accused of being possessed by a devil. We know that he was a prophet and therefore he was not possessed. So in the parallel jesus was accused of being a winebibber. If John the Baptist was not possessed by a devil, then Jesus was not a winebibber.
luke 7: 32 They are like unto children sitting in the marketplace, and calling one to another, and saying, We have piped unto you, and ye have not danced; we have mourned to you, and ye have not wept. 33 For John the Baptist came neither eating bread nor drinking wine; and ye say, He hath a devil. 34 The Son of man is come eating and drinking; and ye say, Behold a gluttonous man, and a winebibber, a friend of publicans and sinners! 35 But wisdom is justified of all her children."
One problem is the fact that since you have yet to define "drunkenness", you have also yet to define "moderation".
Meanwhile you impose the word "alcohol" as a command. When you have no quote of that word. how much alcohol is alcoholic? We have all sorts of elements in anything we consume.It only matters if it is effective. We are told apples are good for us, even though they have Strychnine. however if there is enough to take effect we must get away from such poison. If something is labeled intoxicated then it is effective and we should abstain from it.
"As for your question regarding sin- no, the true God does not tempt anyone to sin, neither can He. Men sin when they are led away by their own lusts. I will explain this to you more if you will answer two simple questions, which expose the error of your position. 1) If sex outside of marriage is sin, and yet sex inside of marriage is biblical, isn’t your God tempting people to sin when he tells them to not depart from coming together?; 2) If gluttony is a sin and eating food is biblical, isn’t your God tempting people to sin? (I'm speaking as you did- please feel only what you intended me to feel by this inflammatory nature of these questions)." Here was my response:As for your question regarding sin- no, the true God does not tempt anyone to sin, neither can He. Men sin when they are led away by their own lusts. I will explain this to you more if you will answer two simple questions, which expose the error of your position. 1) If sex outside of marriage is sin, and yet sex inside of marriage is biblical, isn’t your God tempting people to sin when he tells them to not depart from coming together?; 2) If gluttony is a sin and eating food is biblical, isn’t your God tempting people to sin? (I'm speaking as you did- please feel only what you intended me to feel by this inflammatory nature of these questions)." So this begs the question. How do you explain that Christ is sinless even though he was in your interpretation getting the party drunk?
*sigh* I never said Jesus was getting the party drunk- you're not paying attention. Drunkenness is the state of mind where one is out of control of ones actions (cf. Noah, Lot; etc.). Moderation is drinking to an extent where one is in control of ones actions and thoughts- cf. Jesus at Cana, along with all the men you yourself quoted. If you want to understand moderation, revisit all the men you quoted and ask them to define it for you.
I think I’m done arguing with you and I'll tell you why- you intentionally slant and redefine your own statements as it suits your fancy/arguments. For me to explain what should be obvious (and what is obvious to others) is tedious and unfruitful. For example- when you said "you must be catholic because you base your morals on religious people instead of the Bible", I could ONLY interpret "catholic" as "Roman Catholic"- unless you mean to say that ALL CHRISTIANS in the INVISIBLE UNIVERSAL CHURCH base their morals on people (which is how you claim to have meant the word "catholic" in your interpretation). This would make your accusation totally nonsensical! You would be saying "you must be (a member of the invisible Church) because you base your morals on religious people instead of the bible". Notice that that is a direct quote from you- all I did was define "catholic" as you say you meant it. That's just not honest, Matt. You can't even interpret yourself- how can you interpret Scripture!?
As for Greek- I brought it up because the Greek manuscripts (not the English translations) are the authority for deciding these sorts of matters- the text clearly shows that the wine in the Bible is alcoholic- and you have demonstrated via your quotes that the Church has always known this! Finally, you demonstrate yet again that your exegetical skills are severely insufficient. You need to get out of the ministry before you damage the souls of those who listen to you, and go back to school! Learning Greek (and perhaps gaining a mastery of English) would do you some good! That's not me trying to "intimidate you with academics" or whatever- it's me trying to warn you of the judgment that you will face for leading people astray. You have demonstrated that your lack of interpretation is not limited to one issue, but is widespread. For instance, You take a VOLUNTARY Nazarite vow, and act as though it was a moral command! You do err, not knowing the Scriptures: 1) Nazarite vows were not compulsory- but should someone enter into a Nazarite vow, there were rules that they voluntarily had to accept wholesale. One of these rules was that they could not drink wine. They also could not eat grapes. This brings up the second fallacious assumption behind your question about "the Bible commanding people to be holier than Jesus": you assume that alcohol is inherently negative! How about cutting your beard- are you a teetotaler when it comes to that? What about touching dead things? I assume you'd NEVER touch a dead animal lest you be defiled! You see- the Nazarite vow had these three elements in it, none of which were intrinsically moral or amoral. If they were, God would never have commanded Peter to "kill and eat". Again- you haven't yet realized that it is not that which goes into a man which defiles a man, but that which comes out of his heart! Speaking of the heart- how is it that "(non-alcoholic) wine makes the heart of man glad" (Psalm 104:15). The answer is- "it doesn't." And that's because it wasn't non-alcoholic! The wine that makes the heart of man glad, which you will note is a gift from God himself according to the text, is alcoholic wine consumed in moderation. This is perhaps the saddest part of our interaction- I’m about to enjoy a glass of wine as I read my Bible, but you could never do this because you think that which goes into a man defiles a man, even though the Lord Jesus has said the opposite. You’re missing out on one of the simple joys of the Christian life- a heart made glad by one of God’s gifts (and while you may respond with some super-spiritual statement such as “I don’t need wine to have a glad heart”, let me go ahead and say “neither do I, but the text remains.”). I may not respond again, but I’m sure I’ll think of you from time to time, and pray for your liberation in Christ. Even though I have hard things to say to you, they are not meant to be mean- they are said in consideration of the office which you have taken to yourself, with deepest concern for your soul.
John I expect you to continue to reply, because you are proud and you don't like being corrected. So as soon as soon as I finish destroying your assertions you will have to comeback.
You assert that it is not the alcohol which is sinful. But as Jesus taught it was the sin in the heart. This is true which is why your position falls apart. Because you teach that it is only when you have consumed enough substance that a person sins in alcohol.
But indeed you sins in your heart concerning alcohol long before you consume even a moderate amount of it.
proverbs 23:29 Who hath woe? who hath sorrow?
who hath contentions? who hath babbling?
who hath wounds without cause? who hath redness of eyes?
30 they that tarry long at the wine;
they that go to seek mixed wine.
31 Look not thou upon the wine when it is red,
when it giveth his colour in the cup,
when it moveth itself aright.
32 At the last it biteth like a serpent,
and stingeth like an adder.
33 Thine eyes shall behold strange women,
and thine heart shall utter perverse things.
34 Yea, thou shalt be as he that lieth down in the midst of the sea,
or as he that lieth upon the top of a mast.
35 They have stricken me, shalt thou say, and I was not sick;
they have beaten me, and I felt it not:
when shall I awake? I will seek it yet again. notice those who tarry? The sin starts with the lust and desire.
Isaiah 28:7 But they also have erred through wine,
and through strong drink are out of the way;
the priest and the prophet have erred through strong drink,
they are swallowed up of wine,
they are out of the way through strong drink;
they err in vision, they stumble in judgment.
8 For all tables are full of vomit and filthiness,
so that there is no place clean.
9 Whom shall he teach knowledge?
and whom shall he make to understand doctrine?
them that are weaned from the milk,
and drawn from the breasts.
John when people are depending on you for the word of God. You are drinking in hopes to pervert your theology and later preaching. You are in sin and error regardless of if the wine gets you drunk. Because your lust is keeping you from the scriptures illuminating you.
As a spiritual leader people under your authority will suffer because their standards are naturally lower than yours. which means that they will be lead astray much easier. Remember this when it happens.
Also as you drink in front of the Bible ask your self If the Word of God is Sovereign over you; or are you Sovereign over it? Are you in a spirit of submission? Or are you working to re-interpret the Word of God according to your ways. So that you may take the place of the Holy Spirit to your congregation. You said that the English text was a fine place to make your point, but you went back to the Greek. Is it being used as way of encouraging your message? Or are you did you use it to put up a priestly wall between you and the congregation to establish your own authority? I don't think anyone who reads a good sample of my articles will assume I am against education or the Greek and Hebrew base of the text. But I have offered a rational interpretation. While you have been using personal attacks motivated by your offense of being corrected by my article.
This may or may not be relative to the topic, but I feel that it is. As I read the initial post and was in disagreement with some of your points Pastor Singleton, but I found that we both agree on the point that drunkeness is a sin, we just drew the line in different places. After reading the comments back and forth between Mr. Mayberry, and Pastor Singleton, I found myself tending to side more with Mr. Mayberry... that's when I realized there was an issue. While I agree with the viewpoints of Mr. Mayberry, and tend to interpret Scripture after a similar fashion as him, I realized that I was becoming far more concerned with taking his "side" than I was impressed with the gospel of Christ. Satan need not attack us if we are going to destroy ourselves from within. I thought Mr. Mayberry did a very good job of humbly presenting his views, and avoided name calling, Pastor Singleton, I am afraid you did not handle it the same way. Instead you resorted to attacking a brother in Christ, and instead of agreeing that drunkeness is sin, and agreeing to disagree on total abstinence or moderation, you vehemently attacked him. Why can we not lay the minor doctrines aside and focus on Christ crucified? Why can't those who are fine with drinking, lay drinking down in order to avoid causing their brother to stumble? And why can't those who believe in total abstinence show grace to those who believe in moderation, realizing that both parties are just as guilty of the blood of Christ, and just as clean due to their belief in the power of His blood? We need to stop devouring each other, instead let us unite around the central thing, the cross, Christ crucified, the Gospel, and let us proclaim it to a lost and dying world. Or, we can continue to sit and debate whether or not tattoos are sinful, if drinking in moderation is ok, or if we should avoid it all together, do we agree on the doctrine of election or not. We can lose sight of the prize, lose sight of Christ and argue these things, and that is what we grow to do more and more in America, we sit in our little bubbles, arguing minor things, and letting the masses run headlong into hell without telling them about the One who could save them. Shame on us, shame on me, for I know that I am guilty of this at least
Luke, I can assume you are not being honest person. Because you claim that I am attack mayberry and He is not attacking me. Being called a"pharisee" (one who denied christ) is definitely name calling and an attack. not to mention the fact that he was calling me bitter. these seem to be very judegmental terms so I can only assume that you are deluded and that is why you are so bias. Being the fact the fact that you are deluded I have no hopes of reasoning with you. At least not immediately. So I will tell you the simple truth. I am not worried that arguing for the truth of scripture will destroy the body of Christ. Because the idea of an invisible church is an irrational doctrine imposed upon the scriptures.
I encourage you to read these articles dealing with that subject.
http://biblesmack.blogspot.com/2008/04/little-c-catholicism-true-flaw-of.html
http://biblesmack.blogspot.com/2008/02/why-ecumenicist-are-evil-bigots.html
http://biblesmack.blogspot.com/2009/04/who-is-final-authority.html
http://biblesmack.blogspot.com/2008/04/why-should-we-have-separate.html
http://biblesmack.blogspot.com/2007/09/one-baptism.html
http://biblesmack.blogspot.com/2010/03/who-is-new-testament-church.html
So if you read these you should realize that the body of christ is either in Heaven or in the local church. We can not assume the salvation of strangers. Jesus was not ecumenical.
Matthew 10:34-38Authorized (King James) Version (AKJV)
34 Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword. 35 For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law. 36 And a man’s foes shall be they of his own household. 37 He that loveth father or mother more than me is not worthy of me: and he that loveth son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me. 38 And he that taketh not his cross, and followeth after me, is not worthy of me.
Now from the very start this article is about a charge of heresy against "teetotallers" Since no one has denied John Piper's charge it can only be assumed that label those who practice abstinence as heretics is permissible. So I am not shaken by people who approach me as angels of light or speak "Peace, Peace" like the false prophets of northern Israel.
Jeremiah 6:13-15Authorized (King James) Version (AKJV)
13 For from the least of them even unto the greatest of them
every one is given to covetousness;
and from the prophet even unto the priest
every one dealeth falsely.
14 They have healed also the hurt of the daughter of my people slightly,
saying, Peace, peace; when there is no peace.
15 Were they ashamed when they had committed abomination?
nay, they were not at all ashamed, neither could they blush:
therefore they shall fall among them that fall:
at the time that I visit them they shall be cast down, saith the Lord."
There is only unity when we agree upon the words of scripture. If this really is a secondary issue you have no need to respond.
If I or any Christian are the reason you stopped believing in God, then you never believed in God to begin with. You can't go acting spiritual and tell people they need they need to be more gracious while condemning them. The whole point of this "version" of Christianity is to feed it's flesh and point the finger at others yelling j8udgement from a seat of self righteousness.
This is a very lengthy position paper with many lengthy comments. So I have not read this in its entirety. I would like to ask one question. Maybe two by the time I finish. John Piper in the portion you posted said things in regards to drinking and church membership. without scrolling all the way back to the top and just using my faulty memory. Did he not say, it would be wrong or legalistic to make abstinence a requirement for church membership. ? I believe in the statement he is referring to church membership. We all grow, that is why it is called being born again. When my child was born, I did not bring her home and try to feed her steak. Nor did I even try to feed her mushed up bananas. no she drank milk. the rest of us had steak or hamburgers potatoes and such. That did not exclude her from the family. growth takes time. As he stated abstinence requirements for church membership would be wrong until they can grow into that. I would think that any position of ministry would include such a requirement, but I do not think, but I could be wrong, that is not what he was getting at. Of course, not drinking is a good idea. would you really exclude someone from attending your church because they sip a glass of wine when having spaghetti? I believe he would encourage not drinking. But making it legalistic I believe is wrong. Apart from drunkardness. and for those called to ministry. Thank you for allowing me to voice my opinion.
Post a Comment