;)
Self Control: Christ’s Fulfillment of the Law of Abstinence
Posted by Chris Johnson in Baptist Life, Bible & Theology, Church & Missions, News & Culture
There is a higher law than abstinence. The Apostle Paul’s letter to the Galatians addresses the religious Baptist culture of today and its sometimes zealous desire for partial law keeping. Pastors tend to be philosophers at times, recommending and often demanding adherence to certain laws, or constructing fancy cages while joyfully overlooking other lawmaking opportunities. In a more precise way than the philosophies of men, the Apostles’ summation concerning the work of Holy Spirit brings to mind the real value of Christ’s work and sums up the goal of the instruction as he exorts….
Galatians 5:16 But I say, walk by the Spirit, and you will not carry out the desire of the flesh.
To “walk by the Spirit” strikes at the very heart of those making treasure in the law, making them queasy at the idea that Christ has attained the mark; because there are times when man can be persuaded that law keeping is more appetizing than following Christ and yielding to the Holy Spirit. The man or woman that walks by the Spirit “will not” carry out the desire of the flesh…. this type of thinking runs unflinching to Christ and yields a mature Christian who is willing to be taught and eager to disciple. This type of thinking also demands that Christ is the Lord of life and recognizes the joy of the salvation that He alone brings. So those that pursue being holy as Christ is holy…only do so as they follow Christ who is the fulfillment of the Law. This is a much better and sure way.
Proverbs 21:28-29 A false witness will perish, But the man who listens to the truth will speak forever. (29) A wicked man displays a bold face, But as for the upright, he makes his way sure.
Acts 13:34-35 “As for the fact that He raised Him up from the dead, no longer to return to decay, He has spoken in this way: ‘I WILL GIVE YOU THE HOLY and SURE blessings OF DAVID.’ (35) “Therefore He also says in another Psalm, ‘YOU WILL NOT ALLOW YOUR HOLY ONE TO UNDERGO DECAY.’
The Apostle conveys God’s truth in an unyielding fashion, gently reminding the traditional law-keeper of a supreme fulfillment that produces Spiritual fruit by way of an abiding Holy Spirit. This is a clear reminder to the zealously stubborn that against such truth and certainty there is no law. Notice that the Apostle did not say that the law was of no value (a warning to those clamoring the familiar antinomianistic chant), yet in view of what the Spirit accomplishes, the law has no recourse and no completion.
Galatians 5:22-26 But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, (23) gentleness, self-control; against such things there is no law. (24) Now those who belong to Christ Jesus have crucified the flesh with its passions and desires. (25) If we live by the Spirit, let us also walk by the Spirit. (26) Let us not become boastful, challenging one another, envying one another.
The Apostles’ indicative of “have crucified the flesh” expresses the extent of belonging to Christ by His choice. So then living by the Spirit is not a product of sheer strength and minimal effort, or law creation, or higher moral authority …but “living” is accomplished by submission to the Holy Spirit’s abiding…. known to the Saint as Self Control. Self Control is not something we fashion together or construct as a neo-Law or aggressive practice of resolutions. Self Control is a “perfect control”, expressed by yielding to holiness before God, because it is a desire of God and His abiding gift. Self Control is a gift that is given through the power of the Holy Spirit to those in Christ; it is not designed and created “by the spiritual man” in search of a higher truth. There is no higher value than the work of Christ.
Galatians 5:25 If we live by the Spirit, let us also walk by the Spirit.
If we do not understand that abstinence is inferior to Christ’s fulfillment of it…then we run the risk of allowing our conscience to war against the power of the Holy Spirit in our lives. Our hearts are deceitfully wicked and these wicked hearts can sometimes pretend to be dependent upon a well crafted philosophy to maneuver the course in search of a holier plain or a more effective tweety cage. A philosophy though does not lead us to yield to the Spirit of the life of Christ. Christ alone is the only sufficient supply of grace and obedience. One wise theologian has said, “it is not by philosophy; it is not by mere resolutions to resist them; it is not by force of education and laws; it is only by admitting…and yielding into ourselves to the guidance of the Holy Spirit of God. If we live under the influences of that Spirit, we need not fear the power of the sensual and corrupt propensities of our nature.”
Can you think of anything higher than the law of spirit of life in Christ? Can you love your brothers and sisters that abstain from wine the same way that you can love your brothers and sisters that do not?
Self Control allows us to know the answer to those questions and many others in a most wonderful way!
Blessings,
Chris
;)
;)
;)
;)
;)
;)
;)
;)
;)
;)
“To be understood, truth must be lived” was a statement made by A. W. Tozer. From that idea I have structured a way of living in order that opinion and speculation is eliminated and the application is clarified. There is much more to know about Self Control than what can be put in written form. Individually, we must walk out what God has revealed to us through His word in order to pear into His kingdom domain. That kind of truth brings change within us. We do not see it (Matt. 25:37-40) and, yet, we are rewarded for it. To God be the Glory.
Great post!
Self-control as you define it (being led by the Spirit) is not a virtue in most Evangelical churches today. Rather it is defined as being led by the dictates of the denomination or following the rules in the unwritten checklist for that particular church. One of the reasons for this may be that if people are being led by the Spirit, they may not necessarily agree with the pastor and as a result fail to be “pastor-led” as many in leadership prefer.
A dangerous message here, but one that is much needed. Thanks for sharing.
I really think that what we have today are some fleshly, worldly, immature Christians in our pews and even in our pulpits who are trying to be as hedonistic as they can without being so hedonistic that they look sinful.
David
I too think that what we have today are some fleshly, worldly, immature Christians in our pews and even in our pulpits who are trying to be as legalistic as they can without being so legalistic that they look sinful.
Granted, this problam isn’t as big as it was “back in the day” in the 1970′s, but there are still pockets of it. I would agree though, David, that we’re more likely to see hedonism than legalism. George Will had an article in the Washington Post that highlighted some of the moral irony in our society entitled, “Prudes at Dinner, Gluttons in Bed” that describes the topsy-turvy nature of our society.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/02/25/AR2009022503123.html
The more “laws” we have, the less conscience, and the less wisdom is needed. Less reliance on the Spirit, and the less of that fruit of the Spirit, Self Control. Those who lack self control over a certain thing should abstain from that thing. I have almost no self control over Oreos. I can eat none, or I can eat ten. I can’t eat two.
Good words Chris.
Brother Vol,
You have definitely mapped out the fork in the road for the under-shepherd. What does he do? Does he continue to look upon Christ’s flock as impotent, unworthy, puny, and lacking in most everything? Or does he proclaim the truth.
James 1:4-6 And let endurance have its perfect result, so that you may be perfect and complete, lacking in nothing. (5) But if any of you lacks wisdom, let him ask of God, who gives to all generously and without reproach, and it will be given to him. (6) But he must ask in faith without any doubting, for the one who doubts is like the surf of the sea, driven and tossed by the wind.
Doubt comes in the form of lists of things to accomplish, or things to improve, or bigger guard rails so it is impossible to run off the road, and eventually better cages for tweety. In contrast, running to Christ, asking God who gives generously and without reproach is a much better way. That is the power of the gospel in action from the mouth of the under-shepherd. We are living in an age where we can easily be deceived into thinking a list of well meaning laws are better than the preached Word of the Good News.
The flock of God is not puny, impotent, unworthy, lacking in most everything kind of folks…..if they appear that way they must not be hearing the gospel of God. Angels know the difference of hearing the gospel versus forming the congregation based upon lists and laws.
1 Peter 1:10-12 As to this salvation, the prophets who prophesied of the grace that would come to you made careful searches and inquiries, (11) seeking to know what person or time the Spirit of Christ within them was indicating as He predicted the sufferings of Christ and the glories to follow. (12) It was revealed to them that they were not serving themselves, but you, in these things which now have been announced to you through those who preached the gospel to you by the Holy Spirit sent from heaven–things into which angels long to look.
Blessings,
Chris
I was teaching the Adult class in our VBS last night. (By the way, the Adult Lifeway material for “Boomerang Express” almost looks like a comic book. No wonder volfan007 described the church so accurately.) We were discussing “Worship” and I asked the group a “what if” question. We looked at the way we worship now and zeroed it out on a scale from 0 to 100% and said, “What if every believer read the Bible daily, prayed daily, ministered their gift daily and told someone about Jesus daily. What percent would our worship increase?” They began to chuckle and expressed a tripple diget increase. These were the people mentioned above who said that. They know where they are and seem to be comfortable with it because shepherds seem to accept it. By the way, after class there was much distress about what they heard. All I did was show what the Bible said about things and people began to squirm. People may not be trying to use Self Control because they cannot see what to do. There is no light shining out of the darkness.
Self control, when properly exercised in the Spirit, will dispell the sins of legalism and carnal desires from the believer. It’s easy to point the finger and say, “See, you’re too carnal” or “You’re too legalistic” when we ourselves are legalistic or carnal.
You drank a beer? You’re carnal! You abstain from alcohol? You’re legalistic! Honestly, a Christian walking in step with the Spirit isn’t going to make such overly simplified judgments on another believer.
Great post. The challenge of self-control is made easier by walking in step with the Spirit.
Andrew: I don’t think people see abstainers as legalistic, but those who insist that others should abstain. Now I don’t doubt that it is as easy to throw the epithet of legalism around as it is the epithet carnal.
Brother Rick,
I like your comment #2, because this message is only dangerous if you are telling the truth. I hope we are able to expose the danger of not telling the truth about Christ’s fulfillment of the law….without catching a rock up side the head. Sometimes a well thrown rock expresses the bigger story of the flesh.
And Bruce,…you are right to say that God does receive Glory as we walk in His way. What an amazing reality for those in Christ led by the Holy Spirit. Your words remind of of Jude’s confident statement of truth:
Jude 1:22-25 And have mercy on some, who are doubting; (23) save others, snatching them out of the fire; and on some have mercy with fear, hating even the garment polluted by the flesh. (24) Now to Him who is able to keep you from stumbling, and to make you stand in the presence of His glory blameless with great joy, (25) to the only God our Savior, through Jesus Christ our Lord, be glory, majesty, dominion and authority, before all time and now and forever. Amen.
Blessings,
Chris
Chris,
If abstinence can be shown to be the Biblical view, and I think it reasonably can, then how can one walk in the Spirit if he or she imbibes? It is a valid question if true, as the Holy Spirit will not contradict the Word of God. If abstinence is not an exegetically reasonable position, your point is well taken and therefore I would agree with you. But, if abstinence is exegetecially and hermeneutically sound, self control then becomes secondary not primary. Self control in the Spirit indwelled believer will affirm the Word of God and not contradict it in any way.
It then becomes important and necessary to see what the Bible actually says about this issue. Peter Lumpkins has contributed an excellent treatise to this debate. This is why today on my blog, I argued for the necessity to engage this issue on the merits of the evidence Peter has put before us in his book: “Alcohol Today: Abstinence In An Age Of Indulgence”. I would especially invite moderationists to examine the etymological evidence that Peter has advanced. Until the moderationists answers the research Peter (and others he cites) have contributed to this debate, the moderationist view seems to be the weaker position to defend Biblically.
Blessings,
Ron P.
Despite the personal nature of salvation, of the Bible, and of our relationship with Jesus, some folks I’ve encountered still seem to think that the Holy Spirit reveals to them what others are to do .. how they are to behave.
Proverbs 16:2 states that all of a man’s ways are pleasing in his own eyes, but the Lord weighs the spirit. Since one cannot really depend on his own assessment of anybody else’s spirit, you’d think there’d be a lot less judgmentalism than there is, including such about your topic here.
Good post.
Chris:
I will cooperate with those that abstain, but will they cooperate with those that use alcohol. May I be verly clear I am an abstainer.
IMHO this is just something else to divide SB’s over. Something else to endlessly argue over and change very few minds. Will this dividing ever stop in the SBC–sadly I think the answer is no.
Brother Ron,
You have raised an excellent question….along with the following statement.
“If abstinence can be shown to be the Biblical view, and I think it reasonably can, then how can one walk in the Spirit if he or she imbibes? It is a valid question if true, as the Holy Spirit will not contradict the Word of God.”
There is no question that abstinence has been shown as biblical, yet never primary.
It is not the drinking of the wine that causes sin according to Jesus by way of Matthew…… Matthew 15:10-11 After Jesus called the crowd to Him, He said to them, “Hear and understand. (11) “It is not what enters into the mouth that defiles the man, but what proceeds out of the mouth, this defiles the man.”
Christ is very clear that it is not what enters the man that defiles the heart. It’s actually the other direction…what comes out of the heart is what defiles him. The lawmakers had met their match in Christ, as he corrected their game a bit.
So abstinence can be a very good thing, even today… but it never is primary or preeminent to the work of Christ on our behalf. That was the essence of Christ’s teaching concerning Himself. It is John that echoes this reality as well….
John 3:30-34 “He must increase, but I must decrease. (31) “He who comes from above is above all, he who is of the earth is from the earth and speaks of the earth. He who comes from heaven is above all. (32) “What He has seen and heard, of that He testifies; and no one receives His testimony. (33) “He who has received His testimony has set his seal to this, that God is true. (34) “For He whom God has sent speaks the words of God; for He gives the Spirit without measure.
Blessings,
Chris
Bill,
I couldn’t presume to know the number of people who think abstainers are legalistic, but I would believe the number is relatively high, assuming alcohol isn’t the only thing people abstain from. In high school I knew good Christians who didn’t go to school dances because of their inner convictions. I’ve known people who don’t watch football on Sunday because of their views about the importance of the Lord’s day and the Sabbath. It can be easy to view these “abstainers” as legalistic, but that doesn’t mean they are.
Ron,
I think that abstention from alcohol is not unbiblical or even extra-biblical (indeed, it is even praiseworthy), but to argue that it is a biblical mandate is going beyond the Word of God. The Bible mentions alcoholic beverages in both a positive and negative light. Perhaps it would be good to look at some of the passages that represent wine in a positive light. Here are a few that I found (my favorite is the one in Isaiah):
Gen 14:18; Ex 29:40; Lev 23:13; Num 6:20; Deu 14:26; 2 Chr 2:10; Isa 25:6
Brother Andrew,
Your argument is correct. Abstinence is a good practice. Yet it is dangerous to go beyond scripture to try and prove a point about a personal practice. That would be the same as telling everyone that you are abstaining from food (fasting), and they should as well if they want to experience a new level of holiness. When Christ makes it clear that….
Luke 18:11-12 “The Pharisee stood and was praying this to himself: ‘God, I thank You that I am not like other people: swindlers, unjust, adulterers, or even like this tax collector. (12) ‘I fast twice a week; I pay tithes of all that I get.’
Matthew 6:17-18 “But you, when you fast, anoint your head and wash your face (18) so that your fasting will not be noticed by men, but by your Father who is in secret; and your Father who sees what is done in secret will reward you.
I don’t go around telling everyone that I abstain from wine….like a billboard for righteousness. There is no reason, when in fact I am admonished to keep silent and live my life peacefully and share the gospel of God. The Holy Spirit takes care of the results.
Boasting is anti-biblical approach which emanates from a liberal perspective of the text of scripture. It is easy to create an isogetical situation using solid hermeneutical principles, yet we are called to rightly divide (exegete) in the light of Christ, not from a perspective of philosophy. Peter does give us some good things to think about, as I mentioned in the book review. But the obvious error is an isogetical/philosophical approach demanding abstinence where none exists. Self Control clears up the confusion that law making can demand.
Blessings,
Chris
Ron: “Until the moderationists answers the research Peter (and others he cites) have contributed to this debate, the moderationist view seems to be the weaker position to defend Biblically.”
With respect, you seem to be saying that abstinence is the de facto “biblical” view until moderationists can prove otherwise. Who decided that? And that Peter’s new book is the new standard by which the moderationist argument will be judged. Why is that so? Also I would remind you that during Peter’s series on alcohol there were plenty of moderationists who answered the research Peter had done, with scripture, although assuredly not to any abstentionist’s satisfaction.
We could just as easily say that until the absentionists answer the research Ken Gentry has done in “God Gave Wine”, the abstentionist view seems to be the weaker position to defend biblically.
I would be interested in hearing a single biblical argument from the abstentionist position that has not been answered. (note: that doesn’t mean the answer is necessarily correct)
In my opinion, there is no way to spin “let no one judge you in food or drink” into “let others tell you what you can eat or drink”.
Ron said:
“If abstinence can be shown to be the Biblical view, and I think it reasonably can, then how can one walk in the Spirit if he or she imbibes? It is a valid question if true, as the Holy Spirit will not contradict the Word of God. If abstinence is not an exegetically reasonable position, your point is well taken and therefore I would agree with you. But, if abstinence is exegetecially and hermeneutically sound, self control then becomes secondary not primary. Self control in the Spirit indwelled believer will affirm the Word of God and not contradict it in any way.”
Ron, I agree that abstinence can be shown to be the biblical view, and not just abstinence regarding wine. It is covered here:
Romans 14:1Him that is weak in the faith receive ye, but not to doubtful disputations.
2For one believeth that he may eat all things: another, who is weak, eateth herbs.
3Let not him that eateth despise him that eateth not; and let not him which eateth not judge him that eateth: for God hath received him.
The Bible is clear that abstainers are weaker brothers who should not be engaged in disputations about doubtful things. However, we are commanded not to despise the weaker brethren, but to be considerate in the exercise of our liberty according to I Cor. 8.
For that reason I do not seek to persuade abstainers to become imbibers, nor do I engage them in debates about the issue. I will share what the BIBLE says (and not what some worldly authority purports to teach about the nature of ancient wine from a post-Prohibition worldview) about temperance, liberty, and its limitations.
So, yes, abstinence is a “biblical view,” but it is biblical in the sense that abstinence is regarded as a position of the weaker among us, not the most spiritually mature.
Bill,
You said: “Also I would remind you that during Peter’s series on alcohol there were plenty of moderationists who answered the research Peter had done, with scripture, although assuredly not to any abstentionist’s satisfaction.”
I believe that is exactly why the apostle Paul instructed us not to engage in disputations with them about doubtful things. No argument is sufficient to convince them that any position but their own is correct.
Rick: Good point, although to be fair the same thing can be said for our side as well.
Although I am a moderationist I am also a teetotaler, or very nearly so. I haven’t had enough alcohol in my 47 years to fill a milk carton. For much of my Christian life I was an abstentionist. I wanted abstentionism to be the correct position. I think the world would be a better place if most people were teetotalers. But eventually I just couldn’t ignore what I believe the bible says about the issue. What is more, with all due respect to our abstentionist brethren, I don’t even think it is a close call.
Brother Rick,
I would like to expand a little on the “weaker brother” truth that scripture has given. The weaker brother is not to be seen as an “inferior”, or “less worthy” individual because of their lack of faith and understanding concerning food and drink; quite the opposite. The Apostle gives us some fantastic news concerning the body of Christ.
1Co 12:22-26 On the contrary, it is much truer that the members of the body which seem to be weaker are necessary; (23) and those members of the body which we deem less honorable, on these we bestow more abundant honor, and our less presentable members become much more presentable, (24) whereas our more presentable members have no need of it. But God has so composed the body, giving more abundant honor to that member which lacked, (25) so that there may be no division in the body, but that the members may have the same care for one another. (26) And if one member suffers, all the members suffer with it; if one member is honored, all the members rejoice with it.
Here we are….the weaker brothers and sisters are necessary since we are able to bestow much honor on them! That is truly amazing. We as brothers and sisters in Christ, should lift up and give more abundant honor to those who feel oppressed by the law,… and that continue to feel the need to have the law soothe their conscience concerning meat and wine.
The same writer to the Romans (in chapter 14) portrays the weaker brother as someone that is to be loved, hands done, no questions asked. He obviously is the one weighed down by consuming meat and wine,..but the mature man should love him even more and show him more abundant honor while gently correcting his aberrant view.
Good discussion,…thank you for the input; you have hit on the real substance here. Loving our brothers and sisters in Christ!
Blessings,
Chris
Bill, I agree with you and Chris both that we are not to despise the weaker brother, hence my citation of I Cor. 8 in addition to the Romans passage. It closes with a call to abstinence for the sake of the brother who is not to be despised. But it is not a legalistic abstinence that is imposed on us. It is a voluntary limiting of a God-given liberty which we are otherwise free to exercise were it not for the mutual love of the father which we have for our brothers.
Chris,
Thank you for this opportunity to discuss this issue. I note that you and several others have agreed that abstinence is Biblical. If that is true, then your other statements are “Non Sequitur”. Abstinence by definition necessitates an either/or argument. It is like the woman who tells her husband that she is “sort of pregnant”. Either abstinence is Biblical or it is not. It seems to me that the moderationists wants to argue a middle ground of compromise for abstinence. They foster the “Abstinence may be OK for you, but it may not be OK for others” viewpoint. The Biblical Abstentionist argues that it is so for all believers, if properly viewed in it’s historical and Biblical context. The refrain of the moderationist is one of personal liberty, ignoring whether abstinence is exegetically and ethically the norm of Scripture. This is not similar to the eating of meat, as there is no debate on the nature of the meat itself. But there clearly is a debate as to the nature of “wine” in both the Old and New Testaments, and thus whether it is Biblical to hold abstinence from intoxicating drink for all believers.
Andrew,
The Bible does speak both positively and negatively of “wine”. What has been disputed by the moderationists, and held up as “gospel”, is the nature of the wine and whether God’s Word spoke positively of intoxicating wine. A valid etymological study of the Hebrew and Greek plus Latin and even the English words for wine clearly indicate usage for both fresh grape juice as well as fermented drink. The moderationists argument tends to hold to a limited definition of “wine” that is not in agreement with its usage in antiquity.
Bill,
In the comment I made that you referenced in #17, I was speaking generally of the view of abstinence and more specifically to the treatise that Peter has put forward. It seems to be the context of which this conversation was birthed. Hence, the burden now rests with those objecting to what Peter has articulated. Peter’s book may be new, but the position itself is not. In his book, Peter discusses the difficult passages that moderationists use as proof texts. But I think the greatest strength of the book is the reliance on contemporary sources of the Biblical record to validate the historical usage of “wine” that does not necessarily include intoxicating drink.
Also, you stated in #20: “But eventually I just couldn’t ignore what I believe the bible says about the issue. What is more, with all due respect to our abstentionist brethren, I don’t even think it is a close call.” I hold the opposite position precisely because the Scripture seems to be clear on this. Not as I define the term “wine” but as it was used by authors as inspired by the Holy Spirit. We can not impute our language and culture into the text of Scripture. Though this charge is leveled incessantly at those of us who hold to abstinence, it could equally and rightfully be said of the moderationist. Note that any drink that was intoxicating in Scripture comes no where close to the nature and strength of the drinks concocted today. It is a far leap off the cliff of reason to ascribe such brew today to be equal in nature to that which Scripture references.
Rick,
Congratulations. You have affirmed my reason for writing the second part of my blog post that I published earlier today. By casting aspersions and throwing down the “weaker brother” charge, you have attempted to divert the attention away from the issue. It will not work. This is a classic underpinning in a debate that wants to move the discussion from the issues. Making anyone “the issue” is nothing short of a lack of intellectual acumen to discuss this on the merits of the academic scholarship raised by either side. I will agree that there are those who hold this position (and many other issues) with a legalistic mindset. But there are a great many of us that embrace this because we believe it to be Biblical. However, I would like to offer you insight into this issue for a great many of us: A desire to understand the heart and mind of God and His Word on this issue and to be faithful to the Biblical revelation. We want to know one thing: “What saith the Scripture?” It has nothing to do with legalism or a desire to impose our beliefs upon others. It does come from a genuine desire to know Him, and what He he has commanded of us.
If God’s Word speaks ill of intoxicating drink, then I want nothing to do with it. This erudite work of Peter’s has been written in a manner that forthrightly seeks to find the answers to these questions in a genuine scholarly approach. I will gladly discuss the issues with anyone, but erecting strawmen are clear attempts to evade the evidence presented. I would rather stick to the issues than sling mud.
Blessings,
Ron P.
Ron: And yet people became intoxicated and were warned about becoming intoxicated. So some people were evidently chugging massive amounts of this barely alcoholic grape drink. How alcoholic something is isn’t really relevant. Did God’s people rightfully and lawfully partake of beverages containing alcohol? There is no doubt in my mind that they did. I believe they did it during Passover, I believe they did it during the Lord’s Supper. In Deuteronomy God told the Israelites to purchase wine or strong drink to feast before the Lord. Paul in his epistles told Christians to NOT let anyone judge them in food or drink. Jesus said nothing we ingest can defile us. The Law of Moses covered prohibitions in microscopic detail, especially dietary restrictions. There is no Mosaic prohibition against alcohol.
Brother Ron P.,
I always enjoy your comments,..they are well thought out. Thank you for being patient with me as I try to explain why Self Control must be of higher value than a law of abstinence. If not, the Holy Spirit’s gifts play second fiddle to all we can think of as great laws to follow.
When I say that abstinence is biblical….I simply mean that in scripture there are periods of time that abstaining from wine, food, sex, etc. can be found. So, I do agree that abstinence is something that is not sin and can be done willingly as it was in all of scripture,… and the act may serve us beneficially.
As for me personally, I follow the path of abstinence,…yet of greater value and power is Self Control, simply because it is a gift of the Holy Spirit. Abstinence is not a gift, it is an act,…which can be acted out as good or bad. So it is logical and will follow that the Holy Spirit is the preeminent giver of the gift and Self Control is of higher value than the law….because there is no law that can be constructed to surpass it.
Drinking wine that is fermented is not sin. Can it lead to sin? absolutely. But so can a whole host of other activities. So logically, you can drink wine (fermented or not fermented) and remain in full fellowship with Christ. It seems to me that you are arguing for whether wine is fermented or not, …again, I think that is Peter’s strongest chapter and argument in the book (the Cana Wedding)….but the argument for wine being fermented or not fermented has absolutely nothing to do with remaining in full fellowship with Christ. Self Control through the power of the Holy Spirit always maintains our relationship with Christ. The perfect work of the Holy Spirit effected by the work of Christ guarantees that our fellowship remain.
Now if I do not allow Self Control to perfect my relationship with Christ and I become drunk on wine, sex, money, etc…. then I relinquish sweet fellowship with my Lord. Big mistake.! But the wine, sex, and money are not inherently evil (none of them)…it is my heart that is wicked and if I roam around and ignore Self Control, my fellowship with Christ is shot. The gift of Self Control, effected by the author and finisher of my faith is the only hope. Abstinence is not bad,…its just never prescribed as the ultimate remedy in scripture…. Self Control is …hands down.
Blessings,
Chris
Ron, thank you for verifying the apostle Paul’s wisdom in Romans 14:1.
Let me address the points in your post. You said:
“I note that you and several others have agreed that abstinence is Biblical. If that is true, then your other statements are “Non Sequitur”. Abstinence by definition necessitates an either/or argument. It is like the woman who tells her husband that she is “sort of pregnant”. ”
I said yes abstinence is biblical. At the same imbibing is also biblical. For that matter temperance is also biblical. You apply the fallacy of the excluded middle and prejudice the argument by assuming that there is a SINGLE biblical position. This is clearly in error. While abstinence as practiced by an individual may be an either/or position, the Bible clearly allows some folks to be temperate and others to be abstinent as guided by the dictates of their own conscience and the strength of their faith in God. Hence, Paul’s words in Romans and I Corinthians.
You aver this by saying, “The Biblical Abstentionist argues that it is so for all believers, if properly viewed in it’s historical and Biblical context. The refrain of the moderationist is one of personal liberty, ignoring whether abstinence is exegetically and ethically the norm of Scripture.” By your own admission you apply a “one-size-fits-all” normative application that is contrary to the clear teaching of Roman 14 and I Cor. 8.
And then you completely ignore the teaching in I Cor. 8 when you say: “This is not similar to the eating of meat, as there is no debate on the nature of the meat itself. But there clearly is a debate as to the nature of “wine” in both the Old and New Testaments, and thus whether it is Biblical to hold abstinence from intoxicating drink for all believers.” The entire substance of the argument in I Cor. 8 is on the nature of meat that was offered to idols. You may be reading Lumpkin well, but you’re certainly not reading the apostle Paul well. As to a debate about the nature of wine in the Bible, this is a fabricated argument that did not even exist until the temperance movement in the United States.
You said, “A valid etymological study of the Hebrew and Greek plus Latin and even the English words for wine clearly indicate usage for both fresh grape juice as well as fermented drink. The moderationists argument tends to hold to a limited definition of “wine” that is not in agreement with its usage in antiquity.”
I suggest that you consider such arguments valid because they confirm your prejudices against imbibing and temperate Christians. Even if wine were an intoxicating beverage in every instance, there would still be a case for temperance and even abstinence to those of tender conscience. One need not revert to extrabiblical “authorities” when the plain sense of scripture is sufficient.
You then say, “I hold the opposite position (viz a viz imbibing) precisely because the Scripture seems to be clear on this.”
I will not dispute that abstinence is a biblical position. However, just because you agree with part of what the Bible says, does not mean that you agree with all of what the Bible says.
Finally you said, “Making anyone “the issue” is nothing short of a lack of intellectual acumen to discuss this on the merits of the academic scholarship raised by either side.” I will agree that there are those who hold this position (and many other issues) with a legalistic mindset. But there are a great many of us that embrace this because we believe it to be Biblical. However, I would like to offer you insight into this issue for a great many of us: A desire to understand the heart and mind of God and His Word on this issue and to be faithful to the Biblical revelation. We want to know one thing: “What saith the Scripture?” It has nothing to do with legalism or a desire to impose our beliefs upon others. It does come from a genuine desire to know Him, and what He he has commanded of us.
So what are you saying here? That those who practice temperance do not believe it to be biblical? That we do not have a desire to understand the heart and mind of God and his word? That we are not wanting to be faithful to the revelation of the Holy Spirit in our lives? That we lack a genuine desire to know Him and what He has commanded of us? And all because we don’t conform to your understanding of scriputre.
Yet you accuse us of making ad hominem attacks.
Bill,
You are correct that people became intoxicated by some wines in the Bible. All I am saying is that not all wine in the Bible was such. You and I will have to disagree on the relevance that the nature of the drink bears on either side of the debate. What evidence do you have that any wine commended in the Bible was intoxicating? How could the Mosaic law condemn something (the distilled spirits available today) that did not yet exist?
Chris,
I too share respect for you and your position. I do for all who hold to a moderationist view, though I strongly disagree with it. But I will continue to argue from an exegetical viewpoint that Biblical Abstinence of intoxicants is required of all believers. You state that “Drinking wine that is fermented is not sin.” I will not rehash Peter’s book here, but he gives a great amount of ink to answer this with a plethora of evidence and supporting data that calls such thinking into question. I would strongly disagree with you that “…the argument for wine being fermented or not fermented has absolutely nothing to do with remaining in full fellowship with Christ.” I, as will any other who holds this position, will state that being faithful to the exegetical usage of wine and it’s context is most important. I agree with you that the Cana Wedding chapter is a good argument that has been presented. But no less so than the numerous sources of antiquity cited by Peter as to the nature of wine in the Bible. It is very important to this debate. I do not think that you can make a case for Scripture affirming the drinking of the distilled brews of today, which far surpass the potency of anything in antiquity. To completely ignore such evidence is exegetically dangerous. Let me state that I do agree with you in general about self control. But I would argue that the Bible’s definition of self control here would be for the believer to abstain from the imbibing of intoxicating alcohol.
Rick,
I will not join you in your mud slinging.
Again, the nature of the wine in the various verses is essential to the argument for abstinence. Abstinence in other things I would agree with you. But if the distinction between commended wine (fresh grape juice) and condemned wine (fermented) is to be believed, and I think it is, then moderationists have a huge problem because it is they that have imposed their presuppositions upon the text. Thus, this particular issue, has special significance attached to it by Scripture itself.
I may have not stated it clearly, but the nature of the meat that I was referring to was in it’s substance, not it’s former use (sacrifice to idols). There is no dispute that it was meat. What would be in dispute is what type of meat, but not the substance of it. That can not be said of intoxicating drink. The nature of it in Scripture (as I state above) is in dispute by moderationists who insist upon an intoxicating drink.
You state that “Even if wine were an intoxicating beverage in every instance, there would still be a case for temperance and even abstinence to those of tender conscience. One need not revert to extrabiblical “authorities” when the plain sense of scripture is sufficient.” The references to extra-biblical sources is solely to demonstrate that wine plainly could mean fresh juice or other types of drink from the grape. Take the meat reference above. Meat may refer to any number of animals. It clearly is a reference to an animal, but we do not know which one. So too with wine. It clearly is a reference to the fruit of the vine (grape), but it does not necessarily mean intoxicating drink. The moderationist view does not render a clear reading of Scripture in that it seems comfortable with an apparent contradiction in the Word of God that both commends and condemns wine (not just drunkenness). That position is not tenable to me.
Finally, you have misread me if you believe I am making an ad hominem attack on moderationists. I cannot reach a compromise on the usage of the word wine which would require me to ignore the intent of the authors and the Holy Spirit in the various passages in both the OT and NT. No insult was intended towards the moderationists. It was only to explain where I stand. For example. I cannot compromise on abortion. It is murder plain and simple. Our President wants us to reach common ground on this issue. But there is no common ground for me with one who believes it is permissible to take the life of the unborn, as it would require me to compromise what I believe to be the clear teaching of the Word of God. So too would be my compromise of the abstinence position. It would require me to ignore the definitions of wine, the textual exegesis of Scriptures regarding the commendation and condemnation of the use of wine, the example of Christ at Cana, the teachings of the Apostle Paul and so forth. It is not a compromise that I am willing to make.
Blessings,
Ron P.
For whomever has actually read Peter’s book, I am curious about what he has to say about:
Deuteronomy 14:26 (New International Version)
“Use the silver to buy whatever you like: cattle, sheep, wine or other fermented drink, or anything you wish. Then you and your household shall eat there in the presence of the LORD your God and rejoice.”
I have not read Peter’s book, but did read most of the posts on alcohol on his blog a while back. I asked him about this passage back then, and he promised he would eventually get to it, but, if I remember correctly, never did.
For the record, I am “officially undecided” on this issue. In practice, I have been, and continue to be, a strong abstentionist. If it really can be demonstrated that all mentions of fermented wine or other forms of alcohol in the Bible are negative, I am definitely open and receptive to this. For me, Peter’s point (from what I read in his blog) about different types of wine in the Bible, depending on the context, is well taken. But I still don’t have a very good abstentionist answer for Deut. 14:26. If there is one, I would be very happy to know it.
All,
I’ve decided to stay out of the discussions concerning my book–at least for the most part–on blogs who’ve been kind enough to review it. Thanks to Chris and SBC Impact for doing so. And, I plan to make only a few exceptions. This will be one.
David made a great introductory statement, addressing his comments “For whomever has actually read Peter’s book.” It would be telling to know who on this thread commenting thus far has read it (blog posts don’t count, guys. Sorry. I assure you, there’s much more in in than what I posted on my blog). How enlightened I’ve been thus far–that is, from reading some of the blog posts–to discover some things I’ve wrote or believe concerning which I had no idea I embraced!
Just a few quick responses if I may:
Bill, there was plenty of discussion on the blog posts. But the way I recall, not once did abstentionism have to stand down. Personally, I don’t remember a nervous moment but I could be wrong…
Chris, you are correct that self-control is a gift of the Spirit (well, technically, fruit of the Spirit). You are incorrect in juxtapositioning self-control with abstinence as if abstinence is but “an act,…which can be acted out as good or bad.” To the contrary, broadly speaking, abstinence is a command, not an act. Hence, you’ve wrongly positioned the fruit of the Spirit against the commands of the Spirit. What follows can only be moral chaos (NOTE: I’m not suggesting at this point, abstinence = abstinence from alcohol; only speaking in general terms).
Also, to suggest as does Chris and Bill, “Jesus said nothing we ingest can defile us” applying Jesus’ words in Matt. 15:10-11 to intoxicating beverages, concluding, “It is not the drinking of the wine that causes sin according to Jesus by way of Matthew…” is a blade that cuts way too deep, gentlemen. If you are correct, you’ve just made the moral case for any drug use whatsoever. Marijuana, anyone? In addition, I’d like to see that verse used in the woods while you guys are picking mushrooms.
Finally, I agree with Ron: to make this into a “weaker brother” issue remains so absolutely twisted and mangled, it’s hard to take such conclusions seriously. Rick’s mangling of the Apostle’s words, concluding “abstinence is regarded as a position of the weaker among us, not the most spiritually mature” leaving us poor, spiritually destitute abstentionists fighting for our spiritual lives may be the most morally absurd conclusion I’ve come across in a long, long time.
If I were yall, I think I’d look deeper still into the Apostle’s words and see if such an odd conclusion exists. Perhaps I’ll do a post myself soon on those who are “weak” in the faith.
With that, I am…
Peter
P.S. David, yes, I dealt with the DT. passage….
Gentleman, with regard to the weaker brother argument, I refer once again to scripture. Romans 14:
1 Him that is weak in the faith receive ye, but not to doubtful disputations.
2 For one believeth that he may eat all things: another, who is weak, eateth herbs.
In this case, the one who abstains from meat is clearly identified as the weaker brother, while the one who partakes is not.
1 Corinthians 8: 10 For if any man see thee which hast knowledge sit at meat in the idol’s temple, shall not the conscience of him which is weak be emboldened to eat those things which are offered to idols;
In this case it is the man with the tender conscience who is abstaining while the one with the more robust conscience is eating.
I would be interested in seeing where the NT mentions someone who abstains as being stronger in the faith than one who is temperate.
Also, despite protestations to the contrary, meat does apply to this argument because meat that was offered in sacrifice to an idol was perceived by the one of tender conscience to be qualitatively different than meat that had not been offered to an idol. The dispute was not about the species of animal sacrificed, but whether or not the meat was tainted by being cooked in honor of a pagan deity.
Similarly, we recognize that there is a qualitative difference between wine, vinegar and grape juice. This difference, however, is immaterial to the argument. Even if we eliminate the passages that might possibly be referring to grape juice, we are still left with plenty of passages where wine is imbibed without condemnation in the word of God. And how do we know alcoholic wine is being referred to? By the apparent effect. For instance, we know that new wine contains alcohol because at Pentecost, it was erroneously credited with giving the apostles their ebullient character. The same is true at Cana. “The best wine” is not freshly pressed grape juice, but wine that clearly has an alcoholic component. Jesus turned the water into the best of wines, not the best of juices.
As a footnote, I do find it interesting that Baptists (and others like Mormons and Seventh Day Adventists) have bowed to the cultural pressures and turned it into a doctrinal area, i.e. a teaching that is intended to result in a particular custom or practice. Outside of the US and Muslim countries alcohol consumption is not regarded as a moral evil. C. S. Lewis makes this plain in his writings that it’s not even an issue. Among Christians, it is largely an American phenomenon. This alone should indicate that in this case we are certainly not using the Bible as our “sole rule of faith and practice.” Instead we have substituted a cultural norm and burnished it with a patina of biblical justification.
David R,
I think Peter’s response to the Deuteronomy passage was basically that you shouldn’t base your doctrine on one obscure passage, indicating that the word(s) used about wine in that passage or obscure. I haven’t read his book, just got it from his site.
Everyone,
I disagree with the belief that wine is never mentioned in a positive light, and there is really no evidence to suggest that every positive reference is strictly about non-fermented drink. Earlier I mentioned that Isaiah 25:6 was one of my favorite verses about wine in a positive sense. I’ve posted it here below because I doubt many have looked it up. Regardless of whether or not this feast is figurative or literal, the point is that the wine is viewed in a positive light. If wine is truly sinful, then this passage would be promising people sin as an enticement to follow God.
Isaiah 25:6 (HCSB)
The LORD of Hosts will prepare a feast for all the peoples on this mountain — a feast of aged wine, choice meat, finely aged wine.
Isaiah 25:6 (NIV)
On this mountain the LORD Almighty will prepare a feast of rich food for all peoples, a banquet of aged wine— the best of meats and the finest of wines.
Isaiah 25:6 (ESV)
On this mountain the LORD of hosts will make for all peoplesa feast of rich food, a feast of well-aged wine, of rich food full of marrow, of aged wine well refined.
Isaiah 25:6 (KJV)
And in this mountain shall the LORD of hosts make unto all people a feast of fat things, a feast of wines on the lees, of fat things full of marrow, of wines on the lees well refined.
Peter: My only point was that there wasn’t any abstentionist argument in your series that went unanswered by moderationists, and as you point out, vice versa.
Ron: It isn’t necessary to have Mosaic prohibitions against today’s alcoholic beverages. There aren’t any Mosaic prohibitions against the recreational use of alcohol by the Israelites, except for priests when they minister in the tabernacle, and to Nazirites during their vow. The exceptions prove the rule. Why warn the priests not to drink alcohol when they minister if no one was allowed to drink alcohol period? God didn’t warn the priests not to eat pork before they ministered, because everyone understood they weren’t ever allowed to eat pork.
All: What is obscure about the Deuteronomy passage?
Rick
First, the Romans passage you quote says absolutely nothing about drink.
Second, while Paul brings up drink later on, there is no mention of a “tender conscience.” Could you please tell me where you get “tender conscience” from Paul in these verses?
Third, the specific occasion for the Apostle’s concern for offense was “meat offered to idols.” Could you please inform us precisely how we jump from a specific incident to which the Apostle alludes, having nothing whatsoever to do with whether believers should or should not imbibe intoxicating substances, to the implication abstentionists possess “tender consciences”?
Fourth, Paul clearly says the “weaker brother” is definitively one who is in danger of “stumbling.” I assure you, the arguments put forth here affect my conscience not one iota. Furthermore, were I out for dinner and I saw one here who likes a cold Bud with his pizza, neither would I be in danger of “stumbling” nor surely would I display a “tender conscience.” Hence, “weaker” is not at all coextensive with abstentionism, not even close. If this is so, the point for “weaker brother” or should I say “tender conscience” is moot, and, from my view, comes across as what the Apostle described elsewhere as “puffed up.”
Fifth, for the sake of argument, suppose abstentionists like myself do constitute the “weaker-brother-syndrome,” a spiritual malady which others suggest are to be loved and accepted–I get the feeling at times, like a three-legged dog or a one-eyed cat!–a “there, there, now” sort of tolerance. In short, I am to be pitied, if you will. Why? Well, because I, along with other abstentionists, just cannot let go my fleshly, legalistic desire for rules and control rather than being led of the Spirit. Hence, I attempt to impose my personal abstinence–preference–on everyone else, etc.
Let’s suppose I am, then, the “weaker brother” and have been “offended” by both the teaching and practice of the drinker.
Granting this assumption, places apologists such as yourself at odds with the Apostle Paul, coming under his sword of judgment. For he explicitly states that “no man [ought] put a stumbling block or an occasion to fall in his brother’s way.” If they do, the Apostle concludes, one is not walking “charitably” toward one’s brother. To the contrary, through “offense” one is endanger of destroying both his brother and God’s work: “Destroy not him…for whom Christ died…destroy not the work of God…”
Then, in summary, he says, “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” commanding, in the end to have one’s freedom to eat or drink privately “to thyself before God.” To do otherwise leads to self-condemnation (RM. 14:13-22).
I say once again, to employ the “weaker brother” argument, not to mention mysteriously morphing it into an odd “tender conscience” meaning, remains moot to whether or not Scripture affirms or denies intoxicating substances.
With that, I am…
Peter
David Rogers,
You asked about Deuteronomy 14:26. The following is my view.
Deuteronomy 14:26 simply uses the words wine and “shekar.” Shekar is translated variously in the Old Testament. Sometimes it means strong drink, sometimes it does not. If someone interprets shekar in Deuteronomy 14:26 as meaning strong drink, beer, etc., that is their “interpretation.” The NKJV translates it “wine and similar drink.”
Shekar was generally considered a drink made from fruit other than grapes. We get our words sugar, saccharine, cider from variations of shekar. Some scholars believe as time went by, the word shekar became more associated with intoxicating drink, rather than either intoxicating or non-intoxicating. Kind of like our English word wine. It used to be used much more generically than it is today.
Peter Lumpkins does deal briefly with this passage on pages 154-155 in Alcohol Today.
David R. Brumbelow
Bill,
I am afraid our engagement will only lead to ridiculous circles. Nevertheless, I simply must make a point here. Not only did your sweeping conclusion concerning our Lord’s words make little sense–”Jesus said nothing we ingest can defile us,” as noted above–you now make another sweeping judgment that baffles the tar out of me. As a rhetorical question, you ask, “Why warn the priests not to drink alcohol when they minister if no one was allowed to drink alcohol period?” Why warn the priests not to lie with women when they minister if no one else was allowed to lie with women period?
With that, I am…
Peter
Andrew,
You write, “I disagree with the belief that wine is never mentioned in a positive light.” So do I. My question is, who is arguing that belief?
With that, I am…
Peter
Peter,
1. Romans 8 has nothing about drink? See your own quote of v.21. Apparently, the apostle Paul thinks this line of argument applies to imbibing. However, my point is that it is a passage of scripture that documents those who practice abstinence (in this case from eating meat, among other controversial areas) as being weaker brothers. I’m still waiting for a NT citation that supports the notion that those who abstain are more mature than those who are temperate.
2. I Corinthian 8:7, 12 speaks of a “weak” conscience, i.e. tender, sensitive, easily offended. My use of the term tender conscience was an attempt to remove any pejorative connotation from the term “weak” that seems to polarize the discussion. If you prefer a term that you take to be pejorative (based on your later comments), that is your business. I prefer more inoffensive terminology that respects the sincere conscience of those who differ with me.
3. No, I will not. Rather I will ask how you cannot make this connection since the principles at work in Romans and I Corinthians have a direct bearing on this issue. If this connection is neither obvious, nor immediate to you, (particularly in light of v. 21), then clearly we lack a common ground for discussion and you are proceeding from a hermeneutic I am unwilling to adopt, as is my hermeneutic alien to your way of thinking. This is more about agreeing to disagree. Apparently we cannot even agree on the basis of which to disagree.
4. Once again, our hermeneutics are at odds. You interpret “stumbling” as imbibing (in the case of alcohol). The stumbling is in the disputation of doubtful things. Continuing the Romans passage:
10But why dost thou judge thy brother? or why dost thou set at nought thy brother? for we shall all stand before the judgment seat of Christ.
11For it is written, As I live, saith the Lord, every knee shall bow to me, and every tongue shall confess to God.
12So then every one of us shall give account of himself to God.
13Let 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.
14I know, and am persuaded by the Lord Jesus, that there is nothing unclean of itself: but to him that esteemeth any thing to be unclean, to him it is unclean.
15But if thy brother be grieved with thy meat, now walkest thou not charitably. Destroy not him with thy meat, for whom Christ died.
16Let not then your good be evil spoken of:
17For the kingdom of God is not meat and drink; but righteousness, and peace, and joy in the Holy Ghost.
Suffice to say, I am temperate with regard to alcohol consumption for THIS reason, not because I think abstinence is valid. I recognize that it is “biblical” i.e. it is sometimes portrayed in a positive light, but I also recognize that it is not normative on all Christians at all times and in all places. Even the vow of the Nazir was temporary with only two recorded exceptions of Nazir for life – Samson and Samuel. If abstinence is enjoined in the Bible, it is not mandated over one’s entire lifetime.
Keep in mind that for almost 20 years, the only place I drank fermented wine was in commemoration of Our Lord’s Supper, and yet I was content to say I was an abstainer at that time.
5. You assert that the weaker brother position is a pejorative term. That is not how I stated it in replies 18, 19, and 22. However, I reiterate Paul’s advice that we should receive such, however, not to disputations about doubtful things. The hermenutic you employ and the closing words of your reply serve to vindicate his advice.
One example should be sufficient: You say that Romans 14 has no application to alcohol consumption by rhetorically asking, “Could you please inform us precisely how we jump from a specific incident to which the Apostle alludes, having nothing whatsoever to do with whether believers should or should not imbibe intoxicating substances, to the implication abstentionists possess “tender consciences”?” Yet you then go on to apply it yourself and say, “Then, in summary, he says, “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” commanding, in the end to have one’s freedom to eat or drink privately “to thyself before God.” To do otherwise leads to self-condemnation (RM. 14:13-22).”
Such self-contradiction is unbecoming.
Sadly, I think when the dust clears it will be said by the abstainers that any others that do not believe the way they do–Do not believe the Bible. The Battle for the Bible will continue.
Aren’t there some more important issues than this one?
If wine is truly sinful, then the Isaiah passage (Comment 31) would be promising people sin as an enticement to follow God. Either wine in and of itself is not sinful or this passage presents a major challenge to our understanding of sin and God’s blessings.
Also, Peter, what passage goes along with your question, “Why warn the priests not to lie with women when they minister if no one else was allowed to lie with women period?”
Peter: So you think that the priests are being warned not to drink grape juice (wine) before they minister in the tabernacle? Or do they think they are being doubly warned against doing something they had already been forbidden to do? Likewise, for David B and your definition, the priests were warned not to drink apple cider, or other such similar fresh fruit juices (strong drink) before ministering in the tabernacle?
Tom,
I think you’ve hit the nail on the head and it brings us full circle on the article’s intent. Chris opened with:
There is a higher law than abstinence. The Apostle Paul’s letter to the Galatians addresses the religious Baptist culture of today and its sometimes zealous desire for partial law keeping. Pastors tend to be philosophers at times, recommending and often demanding adherence to certain laws, or constructing fancy cages while joyfully overlooking other lawmaking opportunities.
And this whole thread only seems to reinforce that assertion. A zealous desire for partial law-keeping has resulted in the effect that you describe. Those who adhere to temperance and allowing people to be Spirit-led are more inclined to make room for those who feel led of the Spirit to practice total abstinence. I don’t see the abstainers allowing the same space and respect for those advocating temperance.
Indeed, being Spirit-led rather than fleshly-driven is the higher road. I just wish all would agree that it is to be preferred to the “command and control” approach.
Brother Peter,
Thank you for jumping into the conversation,..I have been away from the computer for most of the morning. I did enjoy your book and it is definitely worth having on the shelf in my opinion. It is a difficult subject, but I think we are at least getting past the temporal mode of protecting decaying items and moving toward things of the Spirit…(hopefully)
First of all,…good point… Self Control is fruit (I guess it may be referred to as some sort of gift), and fruit does make my point even clearer,…since the supernatural is emerging as fruit for those that are adopted by Christ in this world who are now allowed to move within the supernatural / Self Control. Abstinence is an act that can proceed from Self Control …Conversely; the act of drinking wine and not becoming drunk is a part of life for many every day. Thus, there are reasons that men abstained from wine and other things for a time….some longer. Being drunk is a great analogy for any indulgence (wine, sex, eating, etc.) that begins to diminish the life of Christ in us… Being drunk with the Spirit is the goal and best fermentation we can know. Abstinence is an act based upon a command, for instance…..
1 Thessalonians 5:21-23 But examine everything carefully; hold fast to that which is good; (22) abstain from every form of evil. (23) Now may the God of peace Himself sanctify you entirely; and may your spirit and soul and body be preserved complete, without blame at the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ.
There is not a case for defining the moment of evil when we are to examine everything carefully. It seems that you are trying to make the case that there are two different wines for two different reasons. One wine that is evil and one wine that is not…and that distinction is all based upon the instant of decay (trace of alcohol). Scripture does not make such a distinction. It speaks of wine from beginning through its natural processes in this world. It is obvious to me from scripture that the best wine is the freshest squeezed fruit of the vine and as it ages it becomes less pleasant and eventually vinegar….that’s the process. But to somehow establish a new law “marking the time” that the substance “became evil” does not exist in the context of scripture.
This is precisely the point of Christ…. He certainly was not trying to legalize marijuana or any other earthly substance. His law was a higher law…. Self Control demands more and protects us from moral Chaos.
We should not read in the evil hearts of Americans sipping on Jack Daniels and Vodka back into the scriptures….pretending that is the same context as wine used at the Feasts, Weddings, or wine used by Timothy. Completely different contexts….one is meant for evil the other is meant for good.
Blessings,
Chris
I have been a long-time reader but have never been sufficiently ‘inspired’ to comment until now.
As I read through the posts, I’ve been struck with how much disunity this issue causes. When Christians begin to impose their own convictions on matters of Christian liberty onto other individuals, legalism results. If one believes in abstention from alcohol, do all Christians need to agree? If one believes in the moderate consumption of alcohol, why do all Christians need to reach the same conclusion?
The foundations of our faith do not rest on the consuming or abstaining from alcohol. I doubt anyone would disagree with that statement, yet in practice we are making this issue one of great importance. At some point, the subject of alcohol becomes large enough to eclipse the gospel and our mission to share it with the world. Is this issue really more imperative than being one in Christ?
As Chris noted in his original post, “Can you love your brothers and sisters that abstain from wine the same way that you can love your brothers and sisters that do not?”
Furthermore, these kinds of arguments give the SBC a negative, narrow-minded reputation in Christianity and the world at large. Before I became a member of an SBC Church, the only distinguishing feature of the SBC that I knew of was the traditional SB view of alcohol. And I know I’m not alone. I’m not condemning that view, but instead simply pleading that this issue not define and divide us to an unbiblical extreme.
I would like to hear from a person who has no pre-knowledge of what wine is all about and have them read the Bible and explain what they read. Personally, I have been influenced from hearing past sermons and opinions that my conscience is affected. In the back of my mind I even flinch a little when I play cards. The liberty we have should be to abstain if or when it affects others if we believe in moderation. We should be experienced on examining ourselves by now and be able to know what to do individually in each situation.
John Piper, a proponent of abstinence from alcohol (though not one who believes it is a biblical mandate), has an interesting article/sermon on his site. It also talks about the role of family values and traditions (Bruce, you should read this section). Here is the link and a few quotes.
http://www.desiringgod.org/ResourceLibrary/sermons/bydate/1981/313_Total_Abstinence_and_Church_Membership/
“The least we can infer from all this is that while drinking is not always viewed as wrong, its dangers and harmfulness were such as to call forth numerous warnings, and in some cases (priestly service, Nazirite vow, Timothy’s apostolic efforts) abstinence was seen as commendable. Drunkenness is always wrong.”
“The biblical principle [in Romans 14] is that we should not act against our conscience, even if our conscience condemns us for actions that are morally neutral in themselves.”
“Now if there were some good reason, I could work to reeducate my conscience on this matter. But in view of what I know about alcohol, I have no inclination to rid myself of my conscientious misgivings about the use of alcohol. Many young evangelicals need to have a far more positive attitude toward the sensitivities of conscience which many owe to their parents and church… I know I owe my conscientious misgivings about alcohol to my parents. We never drank, and I am glad. I never felt the least slighted. On the contrary, we were the happiest family I ever knew. Total abstinence paid off.”
“If someone laughs and says, “Why not prove you can hold your liquor. Why rule it out on the basis of a possible weakness?” my response is, “I’ve got nothing to prove. God forbid that I should boast in anything except the cross of Christ by which the world is crucified to me and I to the world” (see Galatians 6:14). I don’t have any inclination to prove to anybody that I’m not weak. I have values in my life that are infinitely more important than proving to myself or to someone else that I can drink and not be addicted.”
“I choose to oppose the carnage of alcohol abuse by boycotting the product. If people can go on hunger strikes to make a political statement, and boycott Nestle’s products to make a statement about child nutrition and third world exploitation; if people can go without lettuce for the sake of solidarity with Southern Californian farm workers, or swear off white bread and granulated sugar, is it really so prudish or narrow to renounce a highway killer, a home destroyer, and a business wrecker.”
“For these four reasons, then, I am a very happy teetotaler, and I think you should be too. But that brings us to our second question: Should total abstinence be a requirement for church membership? My answer is, No. The reason is this: the New Testament allows for a difference of conviction and practice on this issue in the church, and, therefore, it is wrong not to allow for that same difference in the church today. Romans 14:20, 21 puts wine-drinking in the category of eating meat and leaves the ethical judgment with the believer to grapple with whether his behavior will make the brother stumble.”
I believe this issue is clearly a “Romans 15″ type issue. Those who choose to abstain from wine should not condemn those who partake. Those who partake should not disdain those who abstain. All must be done in a spirit of service.
Hannah, the disunity you referenced comes from a spirit of control and legalism that tries to project one’s choices on this subject and make them a universal mandate for everyone.
Dave: I agree with you, but does anyone disdain abstainers? From what I’ve seen on the blogs regarding this topic, most in the moderationist camp are also abstainers.
David Brumbelow (and/or Peter),
Could you direct me to the sources of scholars who claim an ambiguous etymology of the term “shekar”?
Checking on Bible Gateway, other than the NKJV, which you reference, here are the other translations:
NIV: “other fermented drink”
NASB, KJV, ESV. 21st Century KJV, American Standard Version, Young’s Literal Translation, Darby: “strong drink”
The Message, Contemporary English Version, New Century Version, HCSB: “beer”
Amplified Bible: “strong[er] drink”
New Living Translation: “other alcoholic drink”
New International Reader’s Version (together with “yayin”): “any kind of wine”
Bill,
I guess it’s not really abstainers that are disdained, but rather those who abstain because they view it as sin. For some, it really is a sin and we need to respect that and not try to convince them that it is okay for them to drink (i.e. making them stumble). We just need to understand that even if we view it as sin, we are not to pass judgment on a brother or sister because they do not.
And to piggyback on David Rogers request, can anyone show me where this was an issue in Baptist churches prior to the Prohibition movement? For instance, what the Baptist Church Covenant even in existence prior to the 20th Century? Were there any churches that served grape juice in communion before the 20th Century?
I know of none. But that only expounds on my ignorance. If you guys can show me were early Baptist churches eschewed alcohol for the Lord’s supper or even table consumption and taught thus, I would be interested in seeing it.
David Rogers: In Leviticus 10:9, which obviously predates Deuteronomy, the New King James translates shekar as intoxicating drink. It seems unlikely then that Moses would then use the term in Deuteronomy to refer to fruit juice.
From http://www.sbc.net/resolutions/amResolution.asp?ID=1156
“RESOLVED, That the messengers to the Southern Baptist Convention meeting in Greensboro, North Carolina, June 13-14, 2006, express our total opposition to the manufacturing, advertising, distributing, and consuming of alcoholic beverages; and be it further
RESOLVED, That we urge that no one be elected to serve as a trustee or member of any entity or committee of the Southern Baptist Convention that is a user of alcoholic beverages.”
Do you think that this resolution, in its attempt to be counter-cultural, is too restrictive on the moderationist? Does this passage encourage division or at least discrimination against those who imbibe? It certainly doesn’t seem to tolerate even moderation in Southern Baptists.
Shekar:
Vines Complete Expository Dictionary: “a strong intoxicating drink”
Nelson’s Dictionary: “any beverage that intoxicates, e.g. beer”
Smith’s Bible Dictionary: “any beverage that had intoxicating qualities”
Jerome states that the Jews would have used beer, apple wine, honey wine and date wine.
Strongs defines shekar as “an intoxicant”. Variations of the word are used for the words drunk, and/or drunkard.
Isaiah 1:22 describes wine mixed with water as a symbol of corruption.
Rick Presley,
You have written as concise, scriptural, logical and gracious of a position on this issue in the few comments you have contributed to this thread as I have read from anyone on the internet.
Congratulations.
Wade
Sister Hannah,
Thank you for your comment here,…you have returned us back to the main goal as the Apostle Paul asserts,…..
1 Timothy 1:5-14 But the goal of our instruction is love from a pure heart and a good conscience and a sincere faith. (6) For some men, straying from these things, have turned aside to fruitless discussion, (7) wanting to be teachers of the Law, even though they do not understand either what they are saying or the matters about which they make confident assertions. (8) But we know that the Law is good, if one uses it lawfully, (9) realizing the fact that law is not made for a righteous person, but for those who are lawless and rebellious, for the ungodly and sinners, for the unholy and profane, for those who kill their fathers or mothers, for murderers (10) and immoral men and homosexuals and kidnappers and liars and perjurers, and whatever else is contrary to sound teaching, (11) according to the glorious gospel of the blessed God, with which I have been entrusted. (12) I thank Christ Jesus our Lord, who has strengthened me, because He considered me faithful, putting me into service, (13) even though I was formerly a blasphemer and a persecutor and a violent aggressor. Yet I was shown mercy because I acted ignorantly in unbelief; (14) and the grace of our Lord was more than abundant, with the faith and love which are found in Christ Jesus.
I hope our goal is the same as Paul’s….because there truly is unity of the Spirit available.
Blessings,
Chris
Back to the theme of the article….. What is the value of Self Control? Is it a longing to view Christ’s substance more clearly as I live in relationship with Him, or is Self Control an urge to create more precise laws? The Apostle pencils out the answer to the church…..
Colossians 2:16-17 Therefore no one is to act as your judge in regard to food or drink or in respect to a festival or a new moon or a Sabbath day– (17) things which are a mere shadow of what is to come; but the substance belongs to Christ.
The reason is….no one can act as your judge…only God. There is a higher, more convicting law than what man can muster up….and it is an amazing substance made available to the children of God. It is the life of Christ.
I’ll lock arm in arm with men and women around the country denouncing drunkenness and its devastating effects on this and any other society. Drunkenness kills, steals, maims and introduces people to hell….preach hard against it!
Thanks to all for a lively and healthy view toward Self Control.
Blessings,
Chris
Rick,
First, I most definitely did not say “Romans 8 [sic] has nothing about drink.” Instead I wrote, “the Romans passage you quote says absolutely nothing about drink” (emphasis added). Now, I’ll give you a shiny new nickel for every time you can point out “drink” in Romans 14:1-2, which is the Romans passage you cited and to which I referred. Even more, my #2 explicitly noted “While Paul brings up drink later on” and quoted the passage.
Second, I appreciate the concern for the “tender” consciences of abstentionists but I believe I can say with a reasonable amount of confidence, abstentionists are not “easily offended.”
Third, to the contrary, Rick, you are the one who made the connection between a)an occasion Paul addresses concerning consumption of meat offered to idols (and presumbably wine in some similar context later on), b) the “tender conscience” and c) those of us who understand Scripture to teach an abstinence ethic concerning intoxicating drinks.
My point was and still is, to leap from a) the occasion of meat offered to idols to b) pleasurable consumption of intoxicants today, deserves more than a casual assumption that the two require the exact response of the Apostle. And, if that is your “hermeneutic,” Rick, you are correct: “we lack a common ground for discussion.”
Fourth, you write, “Once again, our hermeneutics are at odds. You interpret “stumbling” as imbibing (in the case of alcohol).” I haven’t a clue what you’re getting at in the entire paragraph. Sorry.
Fifth, I’m glad you “recognize that [abstinence] is “biblical.” Though I hardly think we possess the same ideas about what constitutes being “biblical.” Evidently, you think abstinence–because at times it is only temporarily enjoined–is not “mandated over one’s entire lifetime.” I would simply add, it all depends on precisely what the content is about which we’re enjoined to be abstinent.
Sixth, you write I “assert that the weaker brother position is a pejorative term.” Not exactly. Indeed that’s what you wrote, not I. My comments on your “weaker brother” position were more about the reduction of “weak” to “tender,” a mystery still unsolved. The caricature I pencilled in was in response to the plethora of allusions to “moral legalist,” “personal preference” type of rhetoric. Actually, for being a caricature, it really is kinda accurate, were one to ask me.
Seventh, you feel the need to “reiterate Paul’s advice that we should receive such, however, not to disputations about doubtful things, concluding “The hermeneutic [I] employ and the closing words of [my] reply serve to vindicate his advice.” I’m unsure what you mean by this, Rick, but I’ve got a feeling it is not flattering.
Eighth, you conclude I say “Romans 14 has no application to alcohol consumption by rhetorically asking, “Could you please inform us precisely how we jump from a specific incident to which the Apostle alludes, having nothing whatsoever to do with whether believers should or should not imbibe intoxicating substances, to the implication abstentionists possess “tender consciences”?”
First, I most certainly do not say Romans 14 has no application to alcohol consumption by rhetorically asking any question. There may be many reasons why Romans 14 is not a viable passage upon which to base one’s view of imbibing intoxicating substances for pleasurable purposes. But I do not base such upon a rhetorical question.
Second, the question was not, in fact, rhetorical, I have to say. I wanted to know the details behind what I perceived to be an unwarranted leap from the ancient “that” (meat offered to idols) to the contemporary “this” (pleasurably imbibing distilled spirits), a perfectly legitimate question, I think. As I recall, your response was “No, I will not. Rather I will ask how you cannot make this connection…”
Finally, Rick, I’m charged with “self-contradiction” which, in your view, “is unbecoming.” While I agree with you that self-contradiction is unbecoming, I’m lost where I’m supposed to have contradicted myself.
A) The entire scenario I offered in the quoted portion you cite was for the sake of argument, a granting you your premises and arguing from there. This is not an unusual method of making a point. And, I made this clear: “Let’s suppose I am, then, the “weaker brother”…Granting this assumption…”
B) But even if we allow my final words to stand the way you used them, nothing contradictorily follows from my quoting the Apostle Paul’s words concerning “drink[ing] wine.” To the contrary, I think you miss my larger point I was making, Rick: whether it’s concerning ‘ritualistically’ contaminated wine or ‘recreational consumption of wine’ is irrelevant to this particular point I’m making while granting your premises.
Rather the Apostle Paul concludes one is to eat or drink privately “to thyself before God.” To do otherwise leads to self-condemnation.
How one can justify one’s public advocacy for drink in light of Paul’s words here I do not know; those who are advocating drink will need to explain.
I hope this is helpful.
With that, I am…
Peter
Andrew,
I asked a simple question: who is it who argues wine is never positively viewed in Scripture as you indicate?
Nor does there have to a passage to “go along” with the question I raised to Bill. It stands on its own to show the absurdity of the question. But, for starters, consider Eli’s sons.
With that, I am…
Peter
Bill,
First things first, Bill: you wrote, “Why warn the priests not to drink alcohol when they minister if no one was allowed to drink alcohol period?”
I retorted, “Why warn the priests not to lie with women when they minister if no one else was allowed to lie with women period?” This was the second of two sweeping judgments you made (the first being the words of Jesus) which, when challenged, you simply change the subject and stroll right along, bringing up yet more “questions.” Sorry, bro.
With that, I am…
Peter
David Rogers,
You are right that most English translations translate “shekar” (Deuteronomy 14:26) as some form of intoxicating drink. The NKJV is an exception; and is right, in my humble opinion. But there are scholars who agree with my view. A couple of examples (these are not exhaustive):
Shekar – “Sweet drink (what satiates or intoxicates).” -Dr. Robert Young, Young’s Analytical Concordance to the Bible, Eerdmans, 1970; p. 273.
“There is enough evidence to say that it is unjustifiable to claim that shekar must essentially be an intoxicating drink, and since the circumstances of its use in Deuteronomy 14:26 are such that an intoxicant is inconsistent with God’s commands given in other places, we must assure that a non-intoxicant is intended here.” -Dr. Stephen M. Reynolds; The Biblical Approach to Alcohol, 1983; alcoholandthebible.org. Reynolds is a Presbyterian scholar and has a Ph.D from Princeton University.
Dr. Stephen Reynolds deals with shekar much more extensively that just the above quote. Also, I would remind everyone that I am not saying that shekar is never an intoxicating drink, just that it can be either intoxicating or non-intoxicating, depending on the context. For example, it is definitely an intoxicating drink in Proverbs 20:1; that is easily seen by the context.
By the way, in a whole other argument, there are those who believe shekar means an intoxicating drink, but fiercely argue whether or not it should be translated “beer.” That also is a further indication that not all is known about shekar; and that it may have had multiple meanings.
David R. Brumbelow
As for those who seem to suggest the “newness” of the debate, etc. I have to say, in one sense they are correct. The irony is, abstentionists did not all of a sudden “go after” the moderationists. The SBC has always expressed itself as an abstinent-embracing fellowship. Oh, there have been a few who’ve written differently but never were their words accepted as the norm for Southern Baptists.
No resolution ever brought from the convention floor supported anything other than total abstinence from imbibing alcohol. Did some SBs drink? Asking such a question is delightfully humorous. Nevertheless, the public position was invariably abstinence.
If I am correct, it seems all too obvious the ones pushing the buttons on this issue today.
With that, I am…
Peter
Chris,
Thanks for the warm words about the book. In your comment, you appear to be assuming some things from your reading of my book that I’d be delighted to examine in another context but not here. All of two people probably have read it who are commenting on this thread and I’m really not interested in creating an exchange where ignorance (concerning my book’s argument) reigns. That’s one of the reasons I’m declining much talk about the book on blog threads.
On another note, a major weakness in your assertion concerning self-control being “higher” than abstinence concerns the different natures of each. For example, self-control seems only applicable in the context of things which are intrinsically useful and/or amoral. Is it possible to be self-controlled concerning adultery, for example?
Put another way, could one moderately adulterize? The answer is obviously no. Scripture commands us to abstain from adultery. Indeed abstinence is the only response we’re directed to make. Yet, abstinence can also be for amoral things as well as being only temporary in nature. Nonetheless, abstinence is wrapped in absolutist garments in Scripture.
With that, I am…
Peter
David Brumbelow,
Thanks for the info.
I tried to access alcoholandthebible.org, but it appears to be a dead link. Any other ideas of how to access the research of Dr. Reynolds?
David Brumbelow,
It is also significant to me that Robert Young, whom you reference above, chose to translate “shekar” as “strong drink” in Deut. 14:26 in his “Young’s Literal Translation.”
Brother Peter,
Yes, I would love to dialogue another time on that…..
You have also explained why Self Control is “higher”, because it is of a different nature. It is supernatural. Certainly Self Control has contained many urges that may lead to adultery. Self Control is only one of the amazing qualities allowed to operate among all believers, and as we are sanctified, its function in our lives brings on maturity as we recognize the life of Christ in us. Again, the fruit of Self Control may lead to abstaining from a host of things,…and in this context drunkenness.
Self Control functions more fully than any law of abstinence….Self Control being the fruit of the Spirit reveals and yields perfect obedience….when on the other hand,…my act of abstinence may or may not achieve its purpose as perfectly as I perceive, especially if I am proud of what I have done.
Lets catch up with each other sometime and you can explain to me more about your book.
Blessings,
Chris
Chris,
I fear you totally ignored my comment. The difference in nature I suggested did not focus on whether self-control was supernaturally based but instead the way self-control operated and toward what self-control referred. I’ll ask again, is it possible to moderately lie, covet, commit adultery or make idols? May one periodically indulge in any of these actions God forbids? The language of “temperance” simply cannot fit into those categories.
In addition, to assert self-control is higher because of its supernatural origin is not only to imply the moral commands of Scripture are lower because they enjoin denial–”thou shalt not…”–but also the moral commands of Scripture lack supernaturalness, an implication I do not think you intend to make.
With that, I am…
Peter
David Rogers,
First, I don’t know why Robert Young translated the word as he did in Deuteronomy; I’d love to ask him.
Second, alcoholandthebible.org was available last year. I haven’t accessed it in a while. I do have a copy of the article and I could email it to you. That is if my slow computer would allow it. If nothing else I could email it to you in parts.
I am running out of time before I will be leaving for the SBC. It might be a couple of weeks before I can do so, but I’ll be glad to do it.
David R. Brumbelow
Peter,
I will concede the argument to you. The sheer verbosity of your posts prove too dauntless for any reply I might hope to craft.
rick
Bro. Brumbelow,
I appreciate a minority opinion as much as anyone else and am stimulated to see someone like Dr. Reynolds offering one. However, what I’ve not seen from either side of this discussion is a reference to shekar that is unambiguously referring to juice rather than a fermented beverage. It is one thing to assert multiple interpretations. It is something else to document them.
Peter: Jesus said nothing that enters the mouth can defile him. If you have a problem with that, then take it up with Him. If you want to suggest that drinking is sinful but not defiling, then I’d love to hear the argument. In the sense of that passage of Jesus, then I would have to say that eating mushrooms would not defile the person either, although they may suffer the penalties of the law or of requiring a liver transplant, depending upon the mushroom.
My comment about Leviticus 10:9 was directed at Ron, not you. I’ll confess I didn’t understand your rejoinder, which was why I asked for a clarification. Your singular style of prose often renders your meaning somewhat obscure.
David B: Understanding that the majority does not necessarily rule, doesn’t it seem that the vast majority of scholarly opinion renders shekar as an intoxicating drink? Also, if shekar means fruit juice, doesn’t that render its usage in Lev. 10:9 as somewhat odd?
Do you abstentionists really think that fermented drink was not an everyday part of the life of the Israelites? Do you really think that Israel was primarily a teetotaler society? I’m curious as to whether any Jewish scholars think so.
Brother Peter,
We are back to square one of my review …..
It is obvious that one cannot moderately lie, covet, commit adultery or make idols….and wine whether fermented or not… does not define evil. But, if you deem a certain kind of wine evil, then you get your wish. You can make it be anything you want. This is our disagreement….. I do not believe the “fermenting” of the wine deems it evil. I believe it is what comes out of the heart of man that does (that can take in idol worship, coveting, lying and adultery,..even without the actions, just the thoughts)….
Christ perfectly carried out the fulfillment of the law…we did not and cannot. So that is how we live…in Christ.
Blessings,
Chris
Bill,
The point is not that shekar never refers to intoxicating drink, but that is was used of both intoxicating and non-intoxicating drinks.
It would be foolish today to say that we only have intoxicating drinks since people get drunk. Just like today, two or three thousand years ago they had both available.
Rick,
Yes, most scholars believe shekar only referred to intoxicating drinks, but not all. Examples of those who believe shekar could be translated differently include the translators of the NKJV, Robert Young, Stephen Reynolds, F. R. Lees, Moses Stuart, Lyman Abbott.
David R. Brumbelow
Rick,
Suit yourself, bro. For the record, my first comment to you was under 500 words to which you responded with a 773 rejoinder. My response to you was not out of balance at 830 words, Rick; thus, hardly warranting the closing jab, “The sheer verbosity of your posts prove too dauntless for any reply I might hope to craft.”
Chris,
Sorry man. You’re simply losing me “and wine whether fermented or not… does not define evil.” Oh my. To reduce my thesis to such nonsense, Chris, really tries my patience.
I respectfully requested not to get in a dialog about alleged passages from my book, Chris. I have good reasons for not doing so. Instead you apparently bring up something I allegedly wrote there when we were doing well discussing what everybody on this thread can share–ideas from your post.
As for other questions from others I have not gotten around to, I’m convinced it’s better to bow out now. Sorry.
And, thanks, Chris, for validating my concerns.
With that, I am…
Peter
Bro. Brumbelow, I seem to have been misunderstood.
I was not asking whether it could be translated juice or not. I was asking for a citation to back up the assertion. Can you point me to a passage where it unambiguously refers to juice rather than a fermented product?
Brother Peter,
Sorry to of lost you there my friend. I was not using any passages from your book. I thought the discussion had turned from Self Control,..to a discussion of the names and quality of wine.
As for my opinion of your thesis… I do not think it is “nonsense” at all. I believe you have done some good research. How you come to your final analysis on the elevation of abstinence I may disagree,…but hey, these same discussions have been around since Genesis. We are not breaking any new ground here.
Blessings,
Chris
Chris Johnson,
Your post and comments, along with Rick’s comments, make a powerful one-two punch (unfermented punch of course).
It reminds me of the old Batman cartoons when Batman and Robin threw a couple of roundhouses and the words “POW” and “WHAM” and “BAM” flashed on the screen – and then the Joker hit the deck.
Well done.
Wade
Brother Wade,
I do remember watching those episodes when I was a young one. But really, my intent was not to offend or win a war of words. The truth of Christ’s fulfillment of the law is too often something we are ready to forget, even as we try to do the right and responsible thing in this life.
By way of reminder, Paul lays me out with a pretty good punch though as I consider love for one another.….
Romans 15:15-17 “But I have written very boldly to you on some points so as to remind you again, because of the grace that was given me from God, (16) to be a minister of Christ Jesus to the Gentiles, ministering as a priest the gospel of God, so that my offering of the Gentiles may become acceptable, sanctified by the Holy Spirit. (17) Therefore in Christ Jesus I have found reason for boasting in things pertaining to God.”
All we have to boast in is Christ and all that He has done!
The soundtrack of the Batman tv series was mesmerizing and became a familiar theme for me and my gang of five and six year olds as we terrorized our little town in Texas.
Blessings,
Chris
It seems that the challenge in discussing the issue of alcohol is that we’re comparing apples to oranges. Those who say it is a sin (prohibitionists) ask, “Can you moderately lie? Can you moderately commit adultery?” Those who say it is not a sin (abstentionists/moderationists) say, “No, but we can moderately eat fattening food and moderately watch TV.” Apples and oranges.
The argument that a word sometimes means “strong drink” and sometimes means “satiating drink” would be stronger to me and others who hold that drinking acohol is not a sin per se if there was some sort of hermeneutical method for interpreting the word’s meaning besides “It means strong drink in the passages where it is viewed negatively, and it means satiating drink in the possitive passages.” To me the assumption that alcohol is sinful has already been established before the passages have even been examined.
Besides, I’m still waiting for someone to explain the Isaiah 25:6 passage
I think the issue also raises the question of the perspicuity of scripture. Some passages are harder than others but as someone earlier said, sit down without preconceptions and read the relevant passages, and it is difficult for me to believe you can come away with the idea that taking a drink of an alcoholic beverage is a sin. As brother Chris pointed out, when does the drink become evil? At 0.001% alcohol, 0.01?, 1%?
I’ll ask again: Were the Israelites commanded to be a teetotaler society? They were given laws governing what they could eat, what they could wear, what types of hair and beards they could wear, how to worship, how to conduct business, and how to harvest their crops. It seems unlikely that if God did not want the Israelites to drink alcohol that Moses would have neglected to mention it in the Law.
If I have missed the command to teetotalism in the Law, please point it out to me.
Although Peter has signed off, he did ask me a question that I’ve thus far failed to answer. He asked “Who is it who argues wine is never positively viewed in Scripture as you indicate?” No one said it, but if the point of the prohibitionist is that positive references to wine are actually to a fruit beverage that was non-alcoholic, then they are saying that there is no positive references to wine that is alcoholic. To be honest, I assumed we all understood wine to be alcoholic. If I mentioned to someone that I had some great wine the other day, there would be no question. That was my assumption.
Bill asked, “Why warn the priests not to drink alcohol when they minister if no one was allowed to drink alcohol period?” Peter then responded “Why warn the priests not to lie with women when they minister if no one else was allowed to lie with women period?” I assumed Peter had a scriptural backing to that question since it would prove that God told the priests not to do something specifically in their ministry that was prohibited to everyone, thereby making Bill’s question moot. Peter’s response was unable to cast reasonable doubt on Bill’s point.
On a last note to Peter, and please understand me that I care about you and have never meant to be snippy, short, or rude in my communication, is that this post is not about your book. You said, “All of two people probably have read [the book] who are commenting on this thread and I’m really not interested in creating an exchange where ignorance (concerning my book’s argument) reigns.” I don’t believe anyone needs to read your book or know its argument before discussing the issue of Christians and alcohol on this post about self-control, though I do understand your frustration. I may be picking it up myself.
I can’t speak for everyone, but I truly want to know when I am wrong and I will listen to evidence brought forth from scripture and other references (so far as they don’t contradict scripture). When I ask questions, I do it to find the truth. Thus far no one has even touched the Isaiah 25:6 passage and no one has explained how to know when “shekar” or any other words should be translated as “strong drink” or “satiating drink” aside from the flawed reasoning that begins with the assumption that alcohol is a sin.
When you get down to the root of it I am a Christian first and a Southern Baptist second. I’d rather have a biblically correct view than an incorrect view that pronounces judgment on the innocent and encourages division.
Brother Andrew,
As you probably know… this section has been translated as prophetic language to varying degrees. It is obvious that whether local / recent or later with our Lord, the intent is to understand the richness of the wine. Sir Edward Barry gave us this concerning the stay on the lees……
“Hebrews lees; that is, of wines kept long on the lees. The word used to express the lees in the original signifies the preservers; because they preserve the strength and flavor of the wine. “All recent wines, after the fermentation has ceased, ought to be kept on their lees for a certain time, which greatly contributes to increase their strength and flavor. Whenever this first fermentation has been deficient, they will retain a more rich and sweet taste than is natural to them in a recent true vinous state; and unless farther fermentation is promoted by their lying longer on their own lees, they will never attain their genuine strength and flavor, but run into repeated and ineffectual fermentations, and soon degenerate into a liquor of an acetous kind. All wines of a light and austere kind, by a fermentation too great, or too long continued, certainly degenerate into a weak sort of vinegar; while the stronger not only require, but will safely bear a stronger and often-repeated fermentation; and are more apt to degenerate from a defect than excess of fermentation into a vapid, ropy, and at length into a putrescent state.” Sir Edward Barry, Observations on the Wines of the Ancients, p. 9, 10.
The prophets seemed to use wine in much of their discussions of showing the working and sovereignty of Almighty God. Habakkuk also gives us good indication that wine can be a mocker and how…..
Habakkuk 2:4-5 “Behold, as for the proud one, His soul is not right within him; But the righteous will live by his faith. (5) “Furthermore, wine betrays the haughty man, So that he does not stay at home. He enlarges his appetite like Sheol, And he is like death, never satisfied. He also gathers to himself all nations And collects to himself all peoples.
The prophet recognizes that the heart is deceitfully wicked and when the soul is not right, and the righteous are not living by his faith…. Wine betrays this type of man in his haughtiness. So wine wrongly applied by a haughty man brings disaster.
It is clear from the Isaiah passage that the Lord’s presentation of wine is prepared rightly and is sweet and strong…. Yet even this wine when wrongly applied will turn the haughty man to hell. Self Control – the life of Christ in us,.. allows us to “know” our fellowship with the Savior and how to rightly apply wine as He clearly has done and will do according to Isaiah.
Blessings,
Chris
Chris,
Thanks for the explanation and your patience throughout the discussion. You truly kept a clear head about everything (2 Tim 4:5). My wife and I are heading down to Mammoth caves this weekend (to celebrate our first anniversary). Know of any good churches around there?
Brother Andrew,
Sounds like fun…I love caves… we are going out to the Virginia and DC in late July and will be exploring the Luray Caverns. Caves are cool…literally.
Geoff may have better traction on churches in that neck of the woods.. (he is about an hour or so from there)..or feel free to jump on down to Nashville for the morning..we would love to meet you and your wife and worship our Lord together.
Blessings,
Chris
All,
Sorry for dropping off. I have been in bed sick the last two days. I did read most of the comments as they came across my BB, but I was too “weak” to join back in.
Since this thread pretty much has dried up, I will only make a couple of final points.
Rick, if I was wrong in that you were patronizing abstainers as being weaker brethern, I apologize. But it seemed to me that you were more than a little bit condescending. However, writings can seem to say more (or less) than intended. So, please forgive me.
I would agree with Peter that the weaker brother argument is only valid if one were to stumble. Like Peter, it does not cause me to stumble if a believer drinks intoxicating beverage. I know several who do, some that I have a very good personal relationship with. So the weaker brother argument is moot in this instance.
Believe it or not, many years ago, I leaned towards the moderationist viewpoint even though I personally do not drink. As a young teenager I lived in Germany, and it was always a lively discussion with the Christian adults that smoked (Americans) with the ones who drank (Germans). The experience very much influenced me towards a moderationists view that culture and Christian liberty were key to determining the validity of either belief. My mind has changed on both substances since. It was not until a discussion in one of my classes at Criswell College where “wine” in the Bible came up. It was clearly not the wine and alcoholic drinks that anyone today is familiar with. It was in that discussion that I started to question and do a little bit of research into the matter. I came to the belief that moderationists were using a 20th century vernacular for wine and mistakenly applying it to ancient words that were not of the same nature (type of drink), and not necessarily even the same definition. It also made me realize, that I could not let personal experience, culture, or predilection to determine Biblical truth.
Bruce brought up an interesting but impossible proposition. How could someone read the Bible with no pre-knowledge of what wine is all about? Can anyone believe that in our day and age that there is anyone who does not have at least a passing familiarity with alcoholic drinks today? I would agree that they would likely have no familiarity with the nature, types and usage of wine in antiquity. That is why linguistic scholarship is so important. This kind of suggestion can be dangerous if we hold our English translations and current vernacular as authoritative, rather than what was actually written. This has happened with other words as well.
For example, the KJV states in Ex. 20:13 “Thou shalt not kill”. Many have wrongly taken this English translation to mean that the taking of human life for any reason is forbidden. However, just like with our debate with wine, two things are similar. One, the word itself ratsach does not mean the equivalent of our usage of the word kill. If I remember correctly, this Hebrew word can have multiple meanings depending on context (prohibits every type of murder or wrongful death whether intentional or careless etc.) In this case, though, unlike with wine, we have another word in English (murder) that is a better translation. If one were to only go by the KJV, one could take it to mean what our English definition of kill means – to deprive of life in any manner. Therefore, linguistics and etymology play an important role in translation and interpretation. If only we had better words in English to translate these words that we see always translated as wine. Secondly, similar to our debate with wine, the rest of Scripture (OT and NT) support the death penalty – the lawful taking of life. So context within all of Scripture, with other Scripture interpreting said words remains significantly important. This can be said of many translated words. Another example most everyone is familiar with is love. It does not mean the same thing in our language as it does in the Greek NT. Our word love is imprecise when trying to translate, so too is our word wine.
Thus, those of us who hold to abstinence from intoxicating drink, do so from a contextual viewpoint of trying to understand all of the Scriptures regarding its usage (linguistics) as well as nature and substance of wine that the text actually is speaking of. It makes all the difference in the world. I realize that moderationist stake the same claim. However, Scripture both condemns and commends wine. Context within each passage and within all of Scripture itself, leads many of us to see the usage of wine (that has different meanings and is not the wine of today) to a position of abstinence. It seems that the wine that is always condemned is intoxicating. The wine always commended, in several texts clearly is not intoxicating and in several other passages would most likely be (or at a very minimum, could very well be) the wine of the Bible known today as fresh grape juice.
It is because this and other arguments, that like Peter, I would concur that one can not moderately do that which Scripture seems to condemn.
Thank you all for the lively discussion. I really enjoyed it, and wish I had been able to participate the past couple of days.
Blessings,
Ron P.
Ron,
Thank you for the kind and gracious reply.
I have heard the “biblical wine” arguments including having John McArthur quoted at length to me as well as a few others, possibly even Peter as well. I think the argument that biblical wine is non-intoxicating runs up against the injunction not to be inebriated with it. Clearly from the passages cited by the abstentionists, it is the inebriating nature of the biblical wine that provides its evil character. From what has been quoted to me, the argument wants to have its cake and eat it too.
How do they reconcile the non-intoxicating nature of biblical wine with the injunctions against being intoxicated with this presumably non-intoxicating wine?
rick
Brother Rick,
It is good to see that John MacArthur has changed his thinking on the issue from several years back and now follows a more sound biblical approach to wine.
I have attended the Shepherd’s Conferences many, many times and John is as solid as you can find… He realized his position was not defendable and changed his view on wine from what he had written previously. He certainly believes that it is unwise in our day and age,and does not drink wine and promotes abstinence among the leaders in his church…which I think most would agree….but he found it more important to be faithful to the text of scripture and ministry to preach the truth of the text.
Blessings,
Chris
Chris,
Thanks for posting this. I didn’t know that. If you have a link, I would love to see it. But, yes, that is my biggest disappointment with many in the abstentionist camp – that they are willing to sacrifice faithfulness to the Biblical record and perform all sorts of hermeneutical gyrations in order to support what is in effect a cultural position that is unique to 20th Century America. The net effect is to make a laughingstock of Baptist scholarship in the eyes of those who lack our abstentionist compulsions. Abstentionists would retort that they would rather be faithful to the Bible than what everyone thinks, but then use what someone thinks about “biblical wine” to defend their position. Nor do I mean this to be derisive, but rather to call us to a faithful hermeneutic, one that upholds the sanctity of the Word, even when it contradicts what we were raised to believe.
For me as a Baptist, watching how they handle a minor matter like temperance, moderation, and alcohol use in the Bible does not inspire a great deal of confidence when they are set loose to tackle areas like ecclesiology and eschatology. And hermeneutical integrity concerns me much more than moderation/abstinence. Makes me worry that prejudice will predispose them to conclusions that are inconsistent with the intent of the biblical authors.
God bless you, Chris, for starting this thread.
rick
Rick,
It’s not a matter of me wanting it both ways. It is the way it was in ancient times. It is that way even in our own language today (see below). In fact, I would argue the opposite: It is moderationists who are trying to impose a 21st/20th century linguistic standard (i.e. English vernacular) to define words in languages that are well over 2000 years old (Greek) and 3500 years (Hebrew) respectively. In other words, moderationists are ignoring the idiomatic nature of the originating language. The words for wine that are in dispute in the original languages can mean both intoxicating and non-intoxicating. It never means both exclusively. No one that I know of has argued that all wine in the Bible is non-intoxicating. Even the English word for wine was defined in earlier dictionaries with both usages. The English definition has morphed into what we know it today: intoxicating drink, but it has not always been that way even in our very own language.
Thee are many examples of this in our own language, as well as the two languages we are most concerned with (Hebrew and Greek). Peter used the illustration with water (salt, fresh, well etc.). Context determines the nature of the substance and thus the definition. Wine commended contextually would be fresh grape juice and wine condemned would be intoxicating. This is the most faithful way to avoid needlessly inserting a contradiction in Scripture due to our vernacular that did not exist in the original languages.
Besides words in our own language that are generic (like water) there are other examples of linguistic idiosyncrasies in English today. It would be wrong for moderationists to assert we are trying to have it both ways, when our very own language has numerous examples of this. Homophones can be spelled the same (or not), but generally sound the same (but not always). However they are pronounced and/or spelled, they are not defined the same. Just a few examples that are spelled the same: ball, bear, fast, lap, lead, might, sound, toll, and wind. Without a context, you might not know if I was referring to lead as in leader, or lead paint. Context determines the definition.
Blessings,
Ron P.
Ron: Did Moses, when delivering the Law, command the Israelites to abstain from alcohol?
Ron,
I’ve read my Bullinger and I know what synecdoche is and I am a moderationist. I believe it is the only consistent biblical position. However, I believe that when a synecdoche is employed, the instances are unambiguous.
For instance, the vow of the Nazir is unambiguous in covering all phases of wine production from the Jewish equivalent of dolmathes to vinegar:
Numbers 6:2-4 (King James Version)
2Speak 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:
3He 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.
4All the days of his separation shall he eat nothing that is made of the vine tree, from the kernels even to the husk.
In other instances, the usage is unambiguous that the synecdoche refers to the end-product and not the grapes themselves when it is clear that grapes are what is being talked about:
Deuteronomy 11:14
That I will give you the rain of your land in his due season, the first rain and the latter rain, that thou mayest gather in thy corn, and thy wine, and thine oil.
One gathers the grapes to make the wine, but this is clearly a synecdoche. However, this points to the fact that the ultimate end product is a fermented beverage just as the ultimate end product of pressed olives is oil.
The same for Isaiah 27:2 – In that day sing ye unto her, A vineyard of red wine. Clearly it is only wine after it is pressed and stored.
Or: Isaiah 65:8 Thus saith the LORD, As the new wine is found in the cluster, and one saith, Destroy it not; for a blessing is in it: so will I do for my servants’ sakes, that I may not destroy them all.
However, these are both exceptional and obvious in their meaning. They refer to grapes which will end up being pressed into wine, a clear synecdoche, i.e. substituing the end for the whole process.
The problem still stands, that the drinking of alcoholic beverages is not only permitted, the offering of them up to the Lord via the Levites is commanded in Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, Ezra, Nehemiah, and various of the prophets.
Are you suggesting that the people were commanded to offer only grape juice to the Lord’s servants?
rick
Brother Rick,
The discussion here has been good from all angles and from your posts it appears your position is similar to mine and John MacArthur’s as well. At the end of the day, I have experienced and believe that the vast majority of pastors in the SBC practice abstinence for a plethora of good reasons, ….as it was called for on occasion and with certain people in scripture, all to the glory of God. It is Self Control that maintains a life that is free from drunkenness, so there is not a better way to live,….never being drunk with wine. Thank God he has given us this precious fruit, so that we are unspotted from the world.
I began listening to John MacArthur back in the late 70’s and have learned a great deal from his teaching ministry. He said many more provocative things in the 70’s and then with less frequency in the 80’s, 90’s, etc. His commentary on Ephesians, and his subsequent study notes in his first popular study bible came from the mid- 80’s, where he outlines a philosophy on page 235 of the commentary that most people latched onto at the time. During his sermon series on wine and then in a sermon on leadership in his church in 1993, he echoes the same practice of abstinence, but begins to use less of his philosophy and more of the scriptural text. Here is a link to that sermon….http://www.biblebb.com/files/MAC/wine.htm
One thing to be clear on with John M. is that is position on abstinence has never changed, but his view on wine in the bible has become more accurate. I think that speaks to his maturing as an expositor of scripture, and him surrounding himself with a host of Godly men (the 35 or so other Elders at Grace) to help hold him accountable to the Word. For instance,…Bill Barrack is why I would go to the Shepherd’s Conferences,…it was not so much about John M. (he was just fun to listen to), but Bill is a monster in OT Study, an amazing teacher and I would spend as much time with him as possible.
John M. has refined his language concerning wine more accurately even today,… but let me state again, he will teach abstinence every time, yet he will do so now by maintaining the text and its clarity. That is a good lesson for all of us, since the fruit of the Holy Spirit and Christ’s work maintains our relationship.
Blessings,
Chris
Hey Rick,
Here is Bill Barrick’s website if you are interested. I misspelled his name earlier (forgive me Bill B.)
http://www.drbarrick.org/
check the site out sometime…. He will place some good papers there for viewing on OT Study and bible translation stuff.
Blessings,
Chris
Chris: I’m not expert on this, but historically speaking, hasn’t the SBC’s stance on abstinence been more about prudence and practicality than a stand that the bible outright forbids consumption of alcohol? That seems to be a more recent phenomena. I think that explains why so many abstainers actually argue the moderationist position.
Chris, thanks for the link to Bill’s site. What a goldmine of material.
As for Mac’s abstentionist position, I think it is probably consistent with I Cor. 8, one I wish more people would adopt than the “biblical wines” argument which I have seen used to say that Jesus did not create an alcoholic beverage at Cana.
Rick: Good points about the Nazirite vow. Vinegar is a product of alcoholic beverages. The vow forbids wine, then the vinegar of wine, strong drink, then the vinegar of strong drink.
As far as I know, the biblical description of the Nazirite vow lists the things the Nazirite must abstain from with the understanding that these things were not forbidden to non-Nazirites. You just can’t make Israel into a teetotaler nation.
Brother Bill,
To address your comment #94
The Southern Baptist officially announced its organization in 1845. It was 51 years later (1896) that the first official denouncing of alcohol was put forth, and since then there have been various other responses from the convention about the abuse and use of the substance and the commentary continues for a lot of good reasons, especiallly during the last 15 to 20 years. As Peter does a good job noting in his book, the sell and use of beverage alcoholic is astounding, and the effects of the its use are obvious…..so I doubt that the issue will ever be resolved anyway but there will no doubt be a lot of commentary and resolutions.
The greater problem in my opinion is the omission of the Spirit’s fruit of Self-Control in the line of commentary. The teaching of Self-Control is actually the more conservative biblical view of how wine was used in scripture and how that Self-Control is the “higher” remedy addressing its abuse. A law of abstinence has always been an option… as in OT teaching, NT thought, and now contemporary thought…its certainly a normal response to the effects of sinful living without Christ. Abstinence is a good and worthy pursuit, but it is not more worthy than the result of Self-Control where an individual remains drunk in the Spirit of Christ while drinking wine and never being drunk. That is the biblical view and Baptists have taught that since there have been Baptists. There will always be well meaning commentary that insists on a prohibition of alcohol, or a requirement of abstinence, yet that is simply a more liberal biblical view on the subject which will eventually tend toward error as it runs its full course….because it simply runs to the law for satisfaction.
On the other hand,…Self-Control expresses the pinnacle of the Apostle’s Paul’s teaching, and the power of the Gospel, because being joined to Christ yields the greatest reward for the glory of God.
Roman 7:4 “Therefore, my brethren, you also were made to die to the Law through the body of Christ, so that you might be joined to another, to Him who was raised from the dead, in order that we might bear fruit for God.”
Blessings,
Chris
Chris: Thanks.