Standards

Arguments Against Alcohol

205 Comments

Promoted from the comments section on the About page because it’s just too good to let languish there

“Mike” says:

We are naturally sinful beings. It DOES mean that we will tend towards the sinful side of anything. Men love darkness rather than light. ALL of our righteousness is as filthy rags! We may say,”I’ll have a drink or two, but I’ll never get drunk.” But the Bible says, if any man thinks that he stands, take heed! lest he fall. And the Bible says that alcohol is not a sutable past time for even kings. And God Almighty is THE King, and we are His children in Christ, therefore we are literally royalty. We are heirs! Alcohol is not appropriate for us. The Bible says that he that drinks alcohol is not wise, that he is a fool. The same word found here for fool is the same word found when it says, “The FOOL hath said in his heart, there is no God.” If the Scriptures relate a foolish person who consumes alcohol as the equivalent of the fool who denies God and will perish in Hell for eternity, then God obviously is not fond of alcohol.

That’s beautiful. Anything I could add would be superfluous.

205 thoughts on “Arguments Against Alcohol”

  2. I would like to ask Mike this: What exactly was it that Jesus turned the water into at that wedding?

    1. Whoa! Jason, you mean you haven’t seen those postulations on reconstituted grape juice, fresh juice, and other such foolishness? Forget that the context clearly shows that the lord of the feast clearly inddicated that it could get you drunk…

        1. Polished Shaft: You didn’t use a King James… THAT’S what’s wrong with your translation!

      2. Polished Shaft – And they look at you with a straight face and tell you this bull. Don’t pee on my leg and tell me its raining. This MOG who everyone looks up to, is really trying to “convince” us folks that the best juice was saved for last. Amazing!

        2. I don’t know if you’re being serious or not, Theo; but these statements are so classic.

          “It was..the pure-er the better.”

          I have heard this a lot, but not in the Bible. Is fermentation the presence of evil? Is there a moral uprightness to a squeezed grape before it has aged? Really, calling unfermented grapejuce ‘pure’ and attaching a moral connotation to it, is going beyond the standard drinking or not drinking argument. What about cheese? How did it escape the aging-is-sin rule?
          I’m not trying to be a jerk, it really doesn’t make any sense to me.

          “Jesus wasn’t a bartender.”

          Jesus wasn’t an airline pilot either. What’s your point? These things really bear little weight on the conversation.

        4. JohnRF,

          Just adding to the fire!
          😉

          While on the subject though, the people were “well drunken” and if the “good stuff” was alcoholic, then Christ would have caused or contributed to their drunkeness.

          I don’t think Jesus spiked the punch. No soft drinks, Welches etc, back then. MacArthur has some good history on this and what the customs were then for religious Jews.
          I like what John Wesley said“The Water looked at Jesus and Blushed”

          But hey, you may disagree.

        5. MacArthur has some good…anything?

          I’ve read that piece you are talking about. Full of bad rhetoric, outright lies, purposedly misquoted Bible verses…nothing good about it.

          And the man has gotten arrogant since people have confronted him about it…

  3. My parents have always forbidden us to say “shut up” or call something “foolish”. Instead of “shut up”, we have to say “Please be quiet”. I think the reasoning behind forbidding us to say “foolish” is that’s it’s like calling someone as bad a name as “atheist”.

      2. At CT, we weren’t allowed to say “shut up”, so we would tell people to “shut down” or “shush talking” instead. I wasn’t raised religious, but my dad went to seminary when I was a teenager. I wasn’t raised to say “yes sir”, but I was still raised to show respect. It’s all just words, and it’s how we take those words that causes problems.

        1. CTS: Really? I never heard that before. 😯

          Several former staff members did not have a problem with telling me to shut up. My permanent guilt trip on the whole CT thing is that I was the one some of your worst tormentors practiced their emotional abuse skills on before they got to all of you.

    2. That was our rule too. Only I think the reasoning was that verse in the Sermon on the Mount that says if you call your brother “Thou Fool” you might as well go to hell now, (or something like that).

    3. Ohh, yes. We were not allowed to say “stupid”, “dumb”, or “shut up.” In some ways this doesn’t bother me, because hey, I don’t want my kids telling each other to shut up or saying someone is stupid, either, but still, I think we may have taken it too far.

      Up until maybe third grade or even a little after, I thought people were referring to the word “dumb” when they said “four-letter-word.” (Alas, naivety strikes again.)

  4. Let’s open early with Deuteronomy 14:26

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

    1. That is my life verse.

      You ought to see me lusteth after oxen, after I’ve had my strong drink 😆

      1. I won’t say I’ve never lusted when I shouldn’t have, but I can truthfully say that it wasn’t for oxen or for sheep.

        4. And, pray the images get knocked out of my mind, somehow.

          I can see me drunk, too, “But, Scorpsdghewi, sthe ox isnn..isnnnn… issnnn.. even your type… you like blondesthes… “

    4. Dangit, you beat me to it, Darrell! Whatever hermeneutical gymnastics you want to do to get around wine being, well, wine, don’t apply to strong drink!

        1. There’s nothing like just reading part of a verse and using that to prove your point.

          Everything hinges on the word “that” – also translated “in order to” in another version. It’s not the giving of the drink, but the motivation behind the giving of the drink, that is being preached against in this verse.

  6. Darrell, how long do you think Mike will stick around?

    His brief bio would seem to indicate he is not quite ready for SFL 2.0

    1. If this were Facebook I would like this comment and then unlike just so I can like it again.

    2. I’m happy to recommend some starters to get you off the straight-and-narrow if you’d like. :mrgreen:

      1. I’m past the gasping and fainting, but I’m still struggling with the wincing and the glancing around to see who might be watching me sit near someone who has a drink!

        But I’m trying. God’s Word has to trump my traditions.

        1. Okay okay, glad everyone is having fun. I’m okay with it all. Maybe I’ll stick around for a while. But I was only quoting Scripture and explaining my beliefs here. It’s good for me to be challenged in my beliefs. So I welcome it (famous last words?). Haha

        2. Such a hot topic these days. In all honesty, taken at face value, there are conflicting passages, to a point. It’s probably safe to say drunkenness is off-limits – there are prohibitions aplenty. But there are warnings to stay away from alcohol and there are admonitions to consume it, either to chase away life’s troubles or as an aid to merry-making. So my philosophy has morphed a little. Don’t get drunk – so filled with alcohol that it takes control of your actions – but don’t feel bad having a glass of wine or the occasional mixer, either. Whatever you do, do it with moderation and for crying out loud, get a designated driver if you’re going to tread that thin line between “buzzed” and “full-on drunk.” And know your limits. 😉

        3. “God’s Word has to trump my traditions.”

          Amen. (and I mean that seriously, not in a “hay-men” way) That’s something I have to work on nearly every day.

        5. Oh, Mark, no. Ric Flair, not Astley.

          Ric Flair is/was a famous wrestler. Nature boy Ric Flair. He was really big when I was a kid.

          (I had misspelled his first name earlier.. it’s Ric.)

          But, here’s his site, WITH the famous Wooo!

          http://www.ricflair.com/

        6. Ok, I caught the Nature Boy reference. But alas, I never actually watched any 90s wrestling, so the “wooooo” reference was lost on me.

          For what it’s worth, I meant to say “weeeeee” in roller coaster-rider fashion. Oh well.

        7. Yeah, we’ll say that I was a kid in the ’90’s. 😉

          (Flair actually goes back further than that)

        8. Let’s go on back to Wahoo McDaniel, Black Jack Mulligan, Ricky Steamboat, Ivan Koloff, Dusty Rhodes… ah those were the days. Saturday Wasslin’. That and Roller Derby!
          *and all the non-antique folk go, “hungh??”*

          Oh! Oh! Oh! you have to visit Ivan’s page! Don’t miss this!!!!!

          http://www.ivankoloff.com/

        9. Ivan is now an ordained minister!

          If you would like for Ivan to perform your marriage

          ceremony, click on the Soul Mates button above!

        10. Uh huh. Thought so. South Carolina Lottery used him recently to promote on of their scratch off games. 😛

        12. Yeah, Flair has had to call the po-po’s (I can say that, I’m a cop’s wife) out to his house.

          Apparently, the Mrs. likes to beat up on him. I’ve never heard of him assaulting her. Good man, but as Hot Fuzz always says to people, “If a relationship has gotten to the place where we have to be called out, then that might be a sign that its time to end it.”

  9. Ah fundy logic strikes again!

    My bottle of wine is chilling in the refrigerator, and I am going to enjoy it very much later.

        2. Natalie: After today, I could use a little of anything. Chocolate and alcohol? Sure, why not?

          (BTW, I think installers fear my home. No install ever goes as planned. My home will drive people to drink once they do any work in it.)

  10. I’m still chuckling at “sutable” and “past time”.

    Mike is correct. Alcohol is in & of itself a completely atheistic denial of the existence of any form of a Transcendent Being.

    Glad we got that set straight.

  11. Great. Just when I thought that perhaps I should take a break from SFL for awhile, along comes Mike and now I’m pulled right back in.

  12. By Mike’s logic, everybody better quit having sex, because sex would lead to porn, perversions, and adultery. Quit using money, because money would cause greed. Quit eating, because food causes gluttony. Don’t drive, because driving leads to speeding, which is law breaking. Don’t use words, because words would lead to usign bad words….hmmm….I’m seeing a pattern here….

    1. Yup, we all need to take a Vow of Abstinence, Vow of Poverty, Vow of Silence . . .

      Hmm, maybe Baptists really aren’t that different than Catholics.

      1. Not remotely. Your comment relied on unidentifiable leaps of logic and ungainly word associations. Bass’s comment is merely the natural progression of your own argument applied to other “issues.”

        And watch out for her. Bass’ll eat you alive and feel good about it, to boot.

      2. Mike, you used the premise that because we are all sinners, “we will tend towards the sinful side of anything.” And I agree with the premise, but not your conclusion. If, to be safe from sin, we have to abstain even from good things that can become harmful when abused, then we would also have to avoid sex, even within marriage, money, food, words, driving at any speed, and lots mmore, because any of them can be abused. In fact, we woudl have to avoid holding any authority, for authority can be abused. I agree, alcohol, sex, money, and authority are the big baddies of carnal sin. They are all also good in and of themselves, and they have all been given to us for our relief, help, and happiness. And they are meant to be received with gratitude and a mature temperance.

        *WE* are evil, not the powerful gifts that we have been given. We don’t overcome evil by rejecting the gifts, but rather by rejecting our own sinfulness and our inclinations towards excess and self-glorification. We need to recognize that these gifts are powerful, and accept them as mature adults who respect the happiness they bring us as well as the harm we will do if we misuse them. So we humbly thank God for these wonderful gifts and use them with thankfulness.

        That’s life, Mike. That’s how we live. It’s called temperance, and it’s a Christian virtue.

        1. I do wonder, though, once we have been reborn . . . are we still evil at the core? Or have we become a new creation, still struggling with the flesh but transformed inwardly by the power and grace of the Almighty? It’s fun to joke with Mike about alcohol, but I think the my main disagreement with his statement is that we are still sinners even after embracing the new birth offered by Christ.

        2. Our old nature is as evil as it ever was, but by faith we live according to the life we have in Christ, the new man who is born to walk in the Spirit.

      3. I don’t think it’s that much of a leap. Wine is a gift from God that has been badly misused and caused heartache and death: answer? Ban alcohol.

        Sex is a gift from God that has been badly misused and caused heartache and death: answer? Ban sex.
        The Shakers did! The Catholics continue to (the most “dedicated”, those who give their lives fully to Christ, must be celibate).

        Yet 1 Timothy 4:3 says, “They forbid people to marry and order them to abstain from certain foods, which God created to be received with thanksgiving by those who believe and who know the truth.”

      4. No, BASSENCO is just pointing out your logical progression: “A may lead to sinful behavior, therefore we should avoid A to avoid sin.” For some folks, this is undoubtedly true; A may be their point at which the victory in Christ is not manifest, and they stumble. But to declare that anything which may lead to sinful behavior will do so (that’s how I read your out-of-context verse fragments) leaves only the conclusion that all activities which might lead some to sin should be banned for all. The whole problem is that it isn’t the props, it’s the heart which is at fault. It is that which is in us that defiles us. Attempting to equate drinking with the denial of God by misrepresenting Proverbs is just a heavy layer of cheap bakery icing on your rhetorical cake.
        And that’s some pretty deep exegesis – drinking is an inappropriate recreation for kings? Don’t know where that comes from.

  13. The fool hath said in his heart there is no God.

    It’s foolish to drink alcohol.

    Drinking alcohol is the same thing as denying there is a God.

    It’s just so…logical.

    3. So if we take Mike’s argument to its full end, Jesus could not have been God. If the making/use of alcohol is denying the existence of God, then that leaves Jesus as just another impostor. So where does that leave us? I guess we should be thankful that it couldn’t have been real wine? 🙄

  15. Trouble, oh we got trouble,
    Right here in River City!
    With a capital “T”
    That rhymes with “B”
    And that stands for Beer,
    That stands for Beer.
    We’ve surely got trouble!
    Right here in River City,
    Right here!
    Gotta figger out a way
    To keep the young ones moral after school!
    Trouble, trouble, trouble, trouble, trouble…

    No wonder there was so much guarded laughter about that Movie among fellow fundies, kinda like SFL, it was funny, hilarious even, but…

  16. Let’s take it a step further. Let’s say you have five or six drinks with the intention of getting drunk….*gasp!* chances are that in the morning you’re still going to <3 Jesus and you're still not going to be an alcoholic.

    I've woken up several times on my Episcopal friend's couch after a night of too much partying and I have yet to see him burning a Bible or denying his god.

  17. Mike is so right. It is clear that, both at the wedding at Cana and the Last Supper, the “wine” was in fact grape juice. That is why the host of the wedding feast commended it. There was no trace of that nasty alcohol taste, allowing the guests to enjoy the wholesome and unadulterated taste of grapes. Normally unpasteurised grape juice could be expected to ferment after a while due to stray yeast in the atmosphere, on the grape skins, the containers used and so on. Which just goes to prove an unmentioned miracle – that at the Last Supper, the grape juice consumed had miraculously preserved itself unfermented by years.

      1. Darrell, I would just like to apologise for writing “years” when I meant “yeast”. I am having trouble with typing after injuring my elbow this afternoon falling off the tightrope. And I would hate to mislead your flock into thinking that the mere application of “years” to grape juice would convert it into wine. Although, of course, in a way it would.

        1. There’s already a warm spot in my heart reserved for more stories about the Funamblist Baptist Church!

    2. very revealing exegesis, can you also explain the Deuteronomy passage Darrell posted above? You know, about how the strong drink there is actually strong because it magically fermented without any alcohol being present? Was this a result of some long forgotten Jewish ritual processing or an actual supernatural event?

    3. Rev’d!!!!! I sooooo hope you find a new congregation and start a new blog! I miss the Baptibus stories EVERY SINGLE MONDAY!

  18. I have vodka and gin in my freezer (I like it cold), some small bottles of red wine in a cabinet. I also found some wine racks yesterday I can’t wait to fill up! Yum.

      1. I had to buy a bottle of something in order to deal with visiting my mother-in-law. Call it liquid courage. 🙄

        My preferred wine, strangely enough, is the Greek Orthodox communion wine mavrodaphne. Very sweet stuff.

  20. This is a very timely post. I have just noted that one of the local Baptist Churches here is offering mulled wine 😯 to visitors as part of the seasonal attractions. I was waiting for my chance to share this with SFL.

    1. Sounds good to me. The 4:00 and 6:00 pm service at my church uses wine for the communion. Nothing special and you don’t drink, you dip, but still. I find it refreshing. Demystifying alcohol. I think that is a big reason that alcohol is such a big deal in the US…it isn’t like this in other countries, but here drinking is a profession and it is anathema to churches. I think it has to do with prohibition and the fact that we make it such a stink.

      In Italy you can drink at any time of the day. Buy it on a street corner and drink it out in public. Never once saw a drunk Italian. Of course partying happens, but here it is a sport to be relished there it seems more like an accident.

      2. Here in the UK we have a lot of problem drinkers and alcoholics and it is getting worse. Most churches don’t make a big deal out of not drinking though.

        1. I was a drunkard (and a drug addict rock musician) before Christ saved me. In FundyLand I swallowed the “just grape juice” kool-aid before I understood the Bible better about alcohol.

          I (unwisely) tried and tried (and tried) drinking again in moderation. FAIL. After a glass or two my decision making got all wonky and I would just drink way too much.

          I just figure it is better for me to live without it. I rejoice, though, for those who can use God’s gift of alcohol without abusing it.

        2. Same thing happens to me when I get around chocolate. 😉

          But, in all seriousness, at least you recognize it. Not all people do. It is fine in moderation, but when it can’t be taken in moderation, (when ANYTHING can’t be taken in moderation), its best to stay away.

          I think all of us have something that we respond that way to. Perfectly normal.

        3. @Jon

          I totally respect that. I hope my freedom doesn’t give you grief. I know my limits and I know my desires. I drink, but rarely do too much, and rarely do stronger drink then wine. I also don’t crave it. I just enjoy it with friends and stuff. I know I’ve abused it, but that happens so rarely and completely controlled. But Jon I do respect your position. May God bless and don’t let all of us “heathens” 😉 tempt you.

      3. Both my parents are immigrated from Italy. I grew up from the age of 6 having a small bit of wine with water with my every meal as well as some hot peppers, garlic and olive oil with my bread. When I was sick my mom would boil orange juice and wine together and make me drink it..did the trick everytime.
        I have no reason to have shared that other than just because.

        Man would I wouldn’t do for some hot Italian bread and olive oil right now…
        Carry on…

        1. A lot of people rub bourbon on the gums of babies when they’re teething.

          I keep a little bottle of vodka in my medicine cabinet. Nothing cuts the pain of a sore throat like gargling vodka. I hate how it tastes, so I don’t swallow it (gargling is pretty nasty itself), but it’ll numb the back of your throat like no one’s business.

        4. @Don – Nnnaaahhh… 😛

          No, seriously, I can’t stand the stuff. I had originally bought it for martinis, but discovered that I didn’t like it in martinis. So, one day when I had a NASTY sore throat, I gargled some and discovered that it really worked. Since then, it’s my remedy of choice.

      4. The picture above adds some interesting context for this discussion.

        One of the founders of the WCTU, Hannah Whitehall Smith was big in the Holiness Movement, ended up with her husband being influenced by Wesleyan theology (as seen in the IFB classic heretical hymn “Higher Ground”) They recieved the baptism of the spirit around 1869ish – whereupon some reports show Hannah claiming “complete sanctification” – during the initial stages of the Keswick movement in England the Smiths left and returned to the U.S. due either to a “nervous breakdown” by her husband (which might have involved a young woman in his hotel room that was not his wife) or due to him being accused of heresy. Seems the former is more likely due to the fact that Hannah (a famous Feminist) had begun a self-imposed sexual abstinence that “brought severe strains on the marriage”. In spite of their “unhappiness and eroding marriage” they became very famous teachers on the subject of holiness and sanctification (same greek word, two different things theologically) You really can’t make this up. A Classic story of fundamentalism – before it even existed. The real connection to SFL is that U.S. Fundy culture, especially in the IFB has long been a descendant that spawned from the Keswick movement and the protestant extravaganza that was the revivalist tsunami led by among others, the Ringling Brothers showman, Charles Finney.

        Decisions instead of Discipleship
        Emotionalism over genuine Conversion
        Style over Substance
        Self focus instead of God’s glory

        There are crumbling theological foundations at the feet of all the Fundy craziness – the Word was abandoned and every man did what was right in his own eyes, and damned you if you didn’t.

    1. I don’t generally, either; but I was wondering if that entry would make my brain hurt less with a couple of margaritas under my belt.

  23. Personally, I think Fundyland would be a lot better off with some יְמֵי מִשְׁתֶּה וְשִׂמְחָה (days of drinking and gladness), however, I think all the comments with verses about letting people drink alcohol are missing a wonderful opportunity to address Mike’s supposition that alcohol is not suitable for the King of kings.

    This is especially fun in the light of Numbers 28:7 and other references to the drink offerings. (And no,הַסֵּךְ נֶסֶךְ cannot be translated “Welch’s”.)

  24. Everyone knows that its OK to drink for the purpose of celebrating. Events such as National Potato Week, Bastille Day, National Boss’ Day… Haven’t you seen the Andy Griffith Show episode where the church ladies make moonshine?

    1. Yes, oh yes I have seen it. Love it! Especially when Andy gets sprayed with the ‘shine and says, “I guess it’s all right–it is National Still-Smashing Day.”

  25. Oh that is so painful.

    I do drink…I even make my own beer. So I think if it is a sin to drink I’m chief among them. For me it comes down to this. Drunkenness is a sin, and that is the only sin in regarding alcohol. Anything else is perfectly acceptable. Jesus changed the water into wine, and I when it says that “the best wine” was saved for last they are referring to the good stuff ;-).

    I’m also reminded that Jesus was accused of drunkenness (Matt 11). I find it hard to believe that he’d be accused of such if he himself didn’t partake.

    But no matter, to anyone that doesn’t drink I completely understand and there are good reasons why you might not want to. Just make sure you have intelligible reasons not silly drivel like this. And also understand that while you might not drink it is ok if your Christian brothers and sisters do drink. 😀

    1. MR – Exactly, it makes no sense at all to accuse Jesus of being a drunk if He never consumed any alcohol, that point is made even clearer because its contrasted with John the Baptist’s non-drinking.

      Matthew 11:18,19 “For John came neither eating nor drinking, and they say, “He has a demon.” the Son of Man came eating and drinking, and they say, “Here is a glutton and a drunkard, a friend of tax collectors and sinners. But wisdom is proved right by her actions.”

      1. Great verse. It’s so clear to me that Jesus did drink and drinking is allowed Scripturally. What??? Did I just write that? Ouch. Growth is so painful! (I still don’t drink and probably never will, but I just can’t call out other believers on this any longer.)

        1. PW – I can soooo relate. When that little light clicks on, and we allow the Word to get into those crevasses, especailly when we have been taught differently for years and years, it feels alittle scary at first. Jesus turned the water into “real” wine. Our Lord Jesus actually DRANK wine, it can’t be!

          I think it was Don who spoke about “externalizing” sin, the fundies are experts on this, much easier to attack alcohol, than to really get involved with someone with an alcohol problem and try to “actually” minister to this hurting person.

          Ahhhh, but isn’t liberating, free in Christ. Whom the Lord sets free is free indeed. And everybody said?

      2. Thanks Greg…I didn’t quote the verse, but I should of. Thanks for sharing it. Obviously John The Baptist drank some liquid to survive, so it seems pretty obvious that when it said he didn’t drink they are talking about alcohol. And it seems pretty obvious that if they could accuse Christ of such then he drank himself.

        One thing that I’d add. I know a lot of people take issue with the amount of alcohol found in current drinks of this age. I’ve heard it preached even in BJU satellite churches that drinking itself might not have been wrong, but the amount that is found in today’s drinks go way beyond the drinks in that time period. I’m not sure that this really matters for a couple of reasons. First I’m sure that the amount of alcohol varied through different time periods. If you look at the purity laws for beer there were originally 3 ingredients not 4…the 4th one (supposed to be yeast) was magic 😀 Today we can control the amount of alcohol pretty solidly, but in light of the Matt chapter mentioned people could get drunk in either time period. So the salient point is drunkenness not an exact percentage found in the drink itself. If one person gets drunk off of 5 beers at 5% and I don’t get drunk off of one glass of scotch at 40% what is the difference?

        If Jesus was accused of drunkenness the point isn’t how strong his drink was, but that he didn’t get drunk.

  26. Mike, welcome to SFL, you have definitely committed yourself. 🙂

    As noted by others, your paragraph quoted by Darrell just doesn’t make sense using the standard principles of logic.

    Slow down. My last Fundy pastor would dialog for about 5 minutes about any verse and convince most of the sheeple that what it stated is not what it meant. I would recommend that approach. The short version is not working.

  28. I don’t drink simply because there is a heavy history of alcoholism in my family but I don’t care if others indulge…just please don’t play with that front end loader until I leave…. 😉

    1. I dunno – I see bad exegesis, logical chasms, and a not-so-subtle guilt trip, but I don’t see the WB argument. I’m sure someone will play that card soon enough, though…and it’ll be real fun when it happens. 😀

      1. Anytime some one declares their (non-essential doctrine) standards are the absolute they automatically take on the role of Ruling Weaker Brother. You drink, I am offended and I declare alcohol to be evil. I am the weaker brother projecting my conscience on everyone else.
        You cuss. I am offended, and declare that such language is ungodly and you can’t be right with god unless you change your standard to the ones I use. Again I become the weaker brother dictating your conscience conform to mine. Any non-essential, extra-biblical issue that you set the standard for and declare your standards superior to everyone else’s crown you with the role of the Ruling Class Weaker Brother.

        1. The reason we don’t see The WB Ruling Declarations clearly, and for what they really are, is because for years we former IFB/Fundie refugees have sat under it disguised as preaching.

        2. You know, Don, once again you are completely right and I tip my hat to you. A few weeks ago I came to the realization (for the first time) that I’d been so deep in it that I couldn’t even recognize when I was still peering through the Fundy lens, much less do anything about it. It’s one thing to know how to fix a problem; it’s completely another thing to recognize that there even is a problem in the first place.

          You just broke that part of the lens. I never made the connection between professional “weaker brother” syndrome and external standards. Thanks for that insight.

        3. It’s not been that long ago I saw it for what it was myself. I am just sharing what I have been given. If you had known me just three years ago you would not believe I am the same person… Deconstructiong one’s worldview and piecing it back together is tough. You have to be brutally honest and that ain’t easy sometimes. Then like a blind mouse you find a bit of cheese… 😎

        4. And to prempt what is coming:

          We have to properly define “offend” in that passage. It does not mean that I have infringed on your sensibilities, or hurt your feelings. It means that I do something that will cause you to sin against your conscience and your convictions. My liberty in Christ is limited by my concern for your well being. ie. If I know you have a history of problems with alcohol I am not going to invite you out for drinks or make alcohol available to you. I will drink coffee or tea, or milk or water with you. And as the weaker brother grows there may come a time when he offers to allow me my liberty in his presence. Best I know how to explain it.

        5. Something like this was said by an anti-prohibitionist back in the day: some Christians think God made a mistake in the Bible. They believe that it actually should have said that if your hand offends you, cut off not only your hand but also everyone else’s hand as well. This is just another perspective on the fallacious IFB interpretation of that verse.

    2. Hey, get your stumbling block out of my way, I’m trying to get to the bar before it closes

    3. Don, you will not pull me into your sarcasm, you will not pull me into your sarcasm, you will not pull me into your sarcasm.

      I’m being nice. I want to stay being nice. So…

      You will not pull me into your sarcasm.

      1. I certainly hope he does. This page has been as funny as the one about the Rapture. 😆

  30. Actually, all churches served wine during communion until the temperance movement. That’s one reason why communion was only once a quarter. You know why most Protestant churches use grape juice? Because Mr. Welch was Methodist. And, Methodists were big in the temperance movement. Can you say opportunist? Anyway, historically, the Church has always taught that Jesus turned water into real wine. This grape juice stuff is a residual effect of the temperance movement, also.

    1. Okay, now THAT is interesting.

      Now, why couldn’t the guy who invented Coca-cola have been the TIC (Temperant In Charge).

      1. Of course the original recipe had actual coca extract cocaine in it thus the women drinking the Coke were getting more buzzed than the men were on their Burbon. No wonder Lester Roloff was so dead-set agin’ it! 😎

        1. Please tell me he wasn’t against that, TOO. He was against pork too, I believe.

          I knew that Coke had cocaine in it at one time. Not because I’m a great historian, but because I’ve been to The World of Coke. 😉

          Hey, what’s interesting is that Hot Fuzz told me that Novacaine and drops that docs use to dialate your eyes have cocaine in it.

  31. Excellent! And Finney was quick to pick up if he embraced Temperence then he could increase his crowds… fast fwd to Billy Sunday and his full blown preachertainment crusade against alcohol. What a way to build your empire! What say ye Bob Sr.? Why you even built a school for your empire. My, my, anti-alcohol seems to be almost as lucritive as providing alcohol.

    1. george! now you put that up there under captain_solo’s posting about WCTU where it is supposed to go and quit messing with replys like that.

  32. Southern Baptists still (at least in leadership) believe alcohol is bad too. I was asked on an application if I had had any alcohol within the last 12 months. Guess it takes that long to get it out of the body. That’s worse than marijuana!

    1. Nope, it doesn’t take anywhere near that long for alcohol to leave the body. Leave it to the SBC to come up with baseless manmade rules on top of their other baseless manmade rules. As far as I’m concerned, they’re in the fundamentalist closet, and just haven’t come out yet.

      1. In many ways, I agree. The fact is that the SBC and other denominations came from the same era as fundamentalism. This isn’t to say that I’m against denominations or that the SBC is bad. It’s just to say that there are unbiblical expectations placed on people.

      2. I applied to a SBC program way back in my college days, and that question was asked on the application.

        I answered honestly, Yes I have a very occasional drink, then defended it with various verses from the Bible and a discussion about moderation.

        I got in the program, so I guess they accepted my argument.

        With the SBC, it *really* depends on the church or leadership. I attended some churches where everyone would have a collective heart attack over nyquil… Mostly, though, SBCers don’t let it be known that they drink.

        I attend a Methodist church now, and I was beyond shocked when I went to a ladies night out and everyone had drinks. I was the only one without one–mostly because I was not about to shell out $10.00 for a drink.

    2. Not just the SBC, either. The GARBC has been anti-booze for as far back as I can remember. IME, if the church has Baptist anywhere in its name, it will will probably have abstinence somewhere in the church bylaws.

      1. The Southern Baptists do not come from the same era as Fundamentalists. Fundamentalism arose around 1890 at the earliest. The SBC dates back to 1845, when they split with their Northern brothers over the issue of slave ownership. It is only fairly recently that Southern Baptists even care to be associated with Fundamentalism. Generally, prior to 1950, nearly all Fundamentalists were Northern– John R. Rice and Bob Jones Sr. being two notable exceptions.

  33. In parallel passages in Luke and Matthew, Jesus says this: The Son of man is come eating and drinking; and ye say, Behold a gluttonous man, and a winebibber.

    Doesn’t that imply strongly that Jesus drank strong drink?

      1. Theo, is that a question for me? If so, I don’t have a clue what you mean. “The accusers”? Accusers of what?

      2. Jesus clearly drank fermented beverages (certainly at the Passover, quite likely at other times as well). If he abstained completely, that accusation would have been so silly that even the Pharisees wouldn’t have tried to use it. However, since we know that he did not sin, we know that he was never drunk. How is this hard to understand?

      3. The exact accusation is that He was an Oinopotes, which is an alcoholic, a sot, an habitual drunkard on wine. So saying He drank wine does not align the speaker with the accuser. No petito principii, please. I’m deriving. 😎

  35. Fundy’s against alcohol need to explain this verse to me.

    On this mountain the LORD of hosts will make for all peoples a feast of rich food, a feast of well-aged wine, of rich food full of marrow, of aged wine well refined. (Isaiah 25:6 ESV)

    Or if you prefer the KJV
    “And in this mountain The LORD of hosts will make for all people A feast of choice pieces,
    A feast of wines on the lees, Of fat things full of marrow, Of well-refined wines on the lees”

    Lees definition http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lees_%28fermentation%29

    Please note who is making the wine, and who is getting it.

  36. Ok, I had to do this…

    We are naturally sinful beings. It DOES mean that we will tend towards the sinful side of anything. Men love darkness rather than light. ALL of our righteousness is as filthy rags! We may say,”I’ll just have one candy bar.” But the Bible says, if any man thinks that he stands, take heed! lest he fall. Soon the sin of gluttony shall take over, and the person’s face will be smothered in chocolate. Chocolate is a DRUG! The Bible tells us not to be under the power of any, and a drug exorcises power over us.

    I could go on.
    🙄

    1. So, should I be convicted about that chocolate/caramel apple that I just ate? It was REALLY good, and I didn’t eat all of it.

      Uh-oh… chocolate… and an apple… it’s the Eve thing.

      At least, I didn’t give my husband any. He asked.

    2. Interesting that Fundies say drugs and alcohol and smoking are wrong b/c they are addictive and bad for you … and then they drink coffee by the gallon. Hmmm ….

  37. This issue in general really bothers me because I have seen men I respect try to make the Bible say something it doesn’t just to cater to this issue.

    I don’t drink. I personally don’t think it is a good idea. But that’s me: my opinion. I recognize it as my opinion and don’t judge people who have other opinions or practices.

    We can argue all day about which meaning is behind the NT word for wine (since both are within the syntactical range) in each and every use. We could compare stories and life experiances about our grampa who brewed moonshine or our sister who was killed by a drunk driver. We could argue about the health drawbacks or benefits, or talk about it’s uses in modern medical practice (which is very little, but it is still used for some things). We could compare the alcohol levels of ancient wines to modern drinks.

    The plain fact stands, however: the Bible dose not teach abstinence.
    Fundamentalists wish like crazy that it did, but it doesn’t. It’s a fine position to have as a personal standard, but not a Biblical one. It didn’t teach abstinence when it was written, and it doesn’t now. Their attempt to make it teach what it did not originally through cultural and theological gymnastics is atrocious hermeneutics (as they well know).

    They mean well, and if they want to talk people out of drinking that’s fine. So make the arguments and try to win the converts, but don’t try to make the Bible say what it doesn’t. I happen to think that Book is worth more then being abused for the sake of our petty arguments.

    1. Thank you, JohnRF, for saying exactly what I was thinking. I don’t drink either, but not because I think it’s sinful. It’s just my personal choice, and I refuse to look down on people who do choose to drink because it’s just. not. wrong.

      I hate when people decide things must certainly be wrong, most likely because they’re just uncomfortable with them, and then they try to come up with a Bible verse to back them up. People, it’s okay to have an opinion, really, but don’t try to make your opinion “doctrine” just because you can twist a verse to suit your fancy. Argh.

  39. This is one of the issues that caused me to question the inspiration of the bible. On the one hand, passages like proverbs that say look not upon the wine, and then Christ making wine, etc. I’m sorry but the scriptures seem to contradict on this issue. But what do I know? I’m drinking Twisted Tea!

    1. EF, perhaps we have a perverted view of “Scriptures”. Who says that the musings of a “wise” man are something we’re supposed to follow? I have come to the place where I don’t think everything in the Bible is supposed to be taken literally by us – Psalms, Proverbs, and others are sometimes just the thoughts of men. Inspired? Perhaps. Inerrant? I don’t think so. The Bible never claims this for itself.

    2. The problem is almost always that we refuse to treat the text with any shred of respect; instead, we use it to further our own agendas. The problem you refer to disappears if the entire “saying” (Prov 23:29-35) is read; what is being criticized is a crystal-clear picture of problem drinking, verging on alcoholism. Context is everything. It’s getting to the point that I wish that Scripture had never been cut up into “chapters” and “verses.”

  40. There are plenty of good reasons why one may choose to abstain from drinking wine (cost, genetic predisposition towards alcoholism, etc). Biblical proscription is not one of the reasons.

  42. As an alcoholic, I wouldn’t dare to presume that NO ONE should be imbibing. To some, I guess, it’s “if *I* can’t have fun, no one should.”

    And to say that Jesus drank fermented drink, but didn’t get drunk, I would ask, did He ever get tipsy? I would say perhaps. If you drink more than one glass of wine, most people start to feel it.

    1. That would be the same as asking if jesus ever farted. We are afraid to say “yes” because it would sound disrepectful. So probably YES he did get tipsy and YES he probably farted on more than one occasion and more than likely laughed about it.

    2. The Roman custom at the time was to drink wine mixed with water–generally two parts water to one part strong, sweet wine. People who drank unmixed wine, like the Emperor Tiberias, were regarded as drunks. Jesus probably wasn’t one of them.

      I’ve studied Roman history, so I have an idea what was going on in Italy, but I’m not so sure what was customary in First Century Judea . It was under Roman rule and heavily influenced by Rome, though, so ordinary folks were probably not drinking their wine straight.

  43. I just want to go on record as being someone who drinks. I think it’s a good thing. I love red wine and IPA’s.

    2. I’m not quite IPA reformed yet but I am Amber almost exclusively these days. Have been known to enjoy porter as well.

  45. Fundamentalism often thrives on an ignorance of history, science and common sense. This is true when it comes to alcohol.
    1. Studies have shown that regular moderate use of red wine can have positive health benefits.
    2. In some ancient societies as well as medieval Europe, it was unsafe to drink from the local streams and rivers. The water was just too polluted. Beer and wine were seen as safer choices, because of their alcohol content. Last Saint Patrick’s Day Weekend, the History Channel run a marathon of the television program “Modern Marvels”. They shown episodes about beer, wine, scotch and whiskey. These spirits were not initially created for the sole propose of getting people drunk. It appears the first beers were an attempt to create portable liquid bread that would not spoil.
    3. There are far worst problems in the world then the abuse of alcohol, like the abuse of power. I doubt fundies preach against that. The world would better off if Fred Phelps was drunk.

    1. The trouble with the water argument (“of course Jesus drank wine – it weren’t safe to drink the water!”) is that it, er, doesn’t hold water. A well-and-cistern culture won’t have nearly the purity problems that river-water cultures do. This also holds for Roman aquaculture – the Romans were well capable of assuring even large water supplies. It’s the suicidally stupid sanitation practices of post-Roman Europe that lead us to think this way.
      To learn about Jewish practices in handling wine, consult Rabbinical sources. Turns out that they did mix wine and water, in a Greek or Roman way. Wines were fortified and flavored with water mixing in mind.

  46. Come on, Darrell! Your middle name is Mike. Admit it. You wrote this comment. It is so similar to your brilliant sarcasm that I cannot be convinced that Darrell and Mike are not one in the same. 🙂

  48. The irony is that the Methodist college I attend looks down on alcohol. An IFB would have nothing to do with the Methodists.

  49. Nathan and I just bought one of those Soda Streams (GET ONE NOW!) and one of the first things I did was put some white wine into the bottle and turned it into Champagne!

    W00t! 😈

  50. @Theo,

    I couldn’t find a reliable source for the John Wesley quote – I did find a similar quote attributed to Richard Crashaw. Either way, I don’t see how this supports your Jesus == teetotaler position. If you mean that you don’t know whether it was in fact alcoholic, the you’re not paying attention to the whole text. From the comments of the master of the feast, it’s clearly oinos, fermented and filtered grape juice. So I guess you’d have to say that Jesus wound up being a butler (the servant whose job it was to assure and supply wine and other beverages for the formal dinner) at His mother’s insistence. As far as the lowliness of the position or the triviality of the need in the larger picture of the Incarnation and Redemption, that’s just the example He gives us – when we approach Him in our needs so trivial yet so pressing, He graciously meets the need. Drunkenness need not fir into the picture; as anyone who has drunk wine with a loooong meal knows, the palate gets dulled by the food and drink, making it easier to bring out the bad stuff late in the meal. So there’s no reason to say the He was enabling drunkneness, any more than we can say that about God’s creation of alcohols in the first place. The alcohol isn’t the cause of drunkenness. We are left only with the question of alcohol in abstract; clearly your position is that drinking it is evil in and of itself. The trouble is that Scripture really doesn’t support this, as others have pointed out. Teetotalling is a cultural appendage, not a matter of faith or doctrine in Scripture.
    As to 1st C AD Israelite consumption of alcohol, that is also pretty well-established: rabbinical writings on the subject indicate that wine was always mixed with water in some proportion, in part due to the alcohol’s potential effect on the drinker. So declaring that the wine was really unfermented grape juice won’t stand up. if you want to imagine Jesus as creating grape juice for wedding guests who are expecting wine, I suppose there’s no stopping you.

Comments are closed.