Those who would like to consider the other side of the story might want to check out the book by Peter Lumpkins, “Alcohol Today: Abstinence in an Age of Indulgence,” hannibalbooks.com, 2009. He deals with both Scriptural and philosophical issues.

“Alcohol Today” is recommended by Jerry Vines, Paige Patterson, Hayes Wicker, Junior Hill, Jack Graham, Jim Richards, Brad Reynolds, O. S. Hawkins, John Sullivan, and others. “Legalists” every one .
David R. Brumbelow
.-= David R. Brumbelow´s last blog ..Common Wine in the Bible =-.

If God is sovereign should that not omit or need to be frustrated?

Is this supposed to mean that he is not?

Actually Jesus can’t get lost in good theology. Paul spends quite a bit of time correcting the ignorant who believe that the faith is found in what one drinks or does not drink. He in fact found it an opportunity to correct stupid people who think that ignorance and outward shows of religion demonstrates Christ.

There are two wonderful programs on Collosians at Whitehorse Inn for anyone interestest.
.-= Thomas Twitchell´s last blog ..Regeneration By The Spirit Preceeds The Preaching Of The Word To The Will =-.

Thanks for the insightful response jw. If you are indeed a real little sprite.
.-= Thomas Twitchell´s last blog ..Regeneration By The Spirit Preceeds The Preaching Of The Word To The Will =-.

. And I admit to being frustrated by this whole argument over drinking within the SBC because it is simply a distraction from the gospel and, even if it were truly a sin, it is a sin focused on at the expense of other sins.
Why dont you just ignore the SBC then, your continued frustration may mean you doubt your own position. Is frustration a sin or is that legalistic also? If God is sovereign should that not omit or need to be frustrated? Just wondering. Seems Jesus and the cross can get lost in these “how many angels fit on a head of a pin” debates.

“What I choose to say is ‘Stop Drinking, America!’ Or since America is not listening to me, ‘Stop Drinking, Bethlehem [Church]!’ And I choose to oppose the carnage of alcohol abuse by boycotting the product. Is it really so prudish to renounce a highway killer, a home destroyer, and a business wrecker?”

Source: http://www.christianitytoday.com/le/buildingleaders/ministrystaff/troublebrewing.html?start=5
.-= Jason Smathers´s last blog ..Dressing Jesus Up Like Snow White =-.

I’ve been guilty in the past of stating “If I had to err to either side…” It’s foolish, and much evil and error has crept into the church and elsewhere with that kind of thinking. Don’t err to either side. Get it right.
.-= Chris Poe´s last blog ..Hiatus =-.

I’m sorry to have made you sad. Would you mind explaining a bit more? I really thought I was keeping with the theme of the post of which type of person would you rather have as a church member which was gleaned from Piper.

I’m not disputing that all sin needs to be dealt with by the Gospel. Nor am I saying that sin is not everyone’s problem regardless of what form it takes. I was merely answering the poster on his grounds which was to shift the “blame” away from the alcohol.

The last part of your quote of me was just stating a fact that I’ve seen answers to the question at hand from folks who’ve experienced alcoholism and legalism. Right or wrong, they’d prefer to deal with alcoholism.

Please forgive me if I looked as though I was discounting one sin for another.

Also, there are some who would argue that alcoholism is not a disease, but sin.

Sad to read this from you, Mark, after that terrific, original entry. Sin is everyone’s problem, be it drunkeness, or something more boring — like pride. Drunkeness is a sin, to be sure. Alcoholism is a disease. Until the church catches up with the rest of the western world on this, we’re going to continue to be a lackluster hospital for the sick.

We are typically in this age language challenged even in our native tongues. So we do not tend to use the English language well, so my English Major daughter tells me. The word propaganda is both negative and positive but we use it mostly negatively. Buzz-words have a tendency to gain an imbalanced usage. Just say “I am a Calvinist” and watch the pigeons scatter. It’s like setting off a firecracker.

My one blog is subtitled Words, words, words, because as one man maddened by the lunacy of others quipped “A rose by any other name would still smell as sweet.” Words carry many meanings and often carry men further than men can carry their words.

The word imbibe comes from imbibere, simply meaning to drink in. In a positive context we might say, if we used English instead of letting it use us, “He imbibed the sunset suffused summit of the subliminal.” Then again we might just say that he drank of the many color peaks of his own thoughts. Most of us wouldn’t, and I only talk like that when I am being silly. In either case it would not be negative, necessarily, depending on what was being contemplated. We might say that a person sat in the Louvre imbibing art. But in today’s world it seems pretentious, so we opt for what is the least offensive and most humble, except when we want to give offence or show contempt. To speak with high an lofty words like imbibe, or abstinance et cetera makes the prohibitionists seem temperate. But the reality is, their pride so blinds them that they don’t really see how poorly they are garbed. Vestments look fine on some in the right context for the right reason on the right person. In the case of alcohol and the SBC controversy, the issue is being used to wedge in a political cock fight. The ludicrous thing is that it no longer matter to the vast majority.

In my former SBC church the constitution required abstinance of all its members and the deacons further pledged temperance. But… ninety percent of that church enjoyed a cup now and then and I knew the half of the deacons who drank. It is hypocrisy, yes, and exists because a foolish law was errected by liberals who during the progressive era were trying to foist upon the U.S. and Canada a kind of sharia to bring about the utopian new world of manifest destiny. Most SBC’ers don’t know that the Temperance Movement was a liberal, communistic effort to force down the throats of the free citizens a state religion and the SBC was one of the major players in what the founders would call the sinister incestuous marriage of church and state.

Wonder what would happen if they knew?

One thing that we have come to understand is that Lumkin like authored books would never be sold if the SBC would honestly educate its members. But the reality is that ignorance is easily manipulated, and power is founded upon the basis of the ignorance of the masses. This is the fundamentalis MO; it is the tactic of Baptist Identity.

That is what is tearing the SBC apart. Many in its ranks are finally becoming enlightened. They no longer live under the shadow of manipulated knowledge. The SBC can no longer keep the truth buried thank to the internet. What astounds is that we actually have people in the SBC who would like to regulate it in the same way they would regulate alcohol because of that very fact. Our stength though is in knowledge and the freedom that it affords. Sight is so much better than being a blind man lead by the hand. The truly converted want to give sight to the blind, not keep them dependent on a helping hand.

Well, that was more than just imbibing

Just some thoughts…
.-= Thomas Twitchell´s last blog ..Regeneration By The Spirit Preceeds The Preaching Of The Word To The Will =-.

3. Positive blessing. In various places in Scripture wine appears as a positive, divine blessing. In Deut 14:22–27 we read legislation governing the tithe of Rejoicing. There we discover that God invited Israel to purchase both wine (yayin) and strong drink (shēkār) with their Tithe of Rejoicing: ―And you may spend the money for whatever your heart desires, for oxen, or sheep, or wine, or strong drink, or whatever your heart desires; and there you shall eat in the presence of the Lord your God and rejoice, you and your household‖ (Deut 14:26). Not only does God himself specifically allow the purchase of these fermented beverages, but they are to be consumed ―in the presence of the Lord your God – as the people ― rejoiced with their whole household.

What I meant about something being the best action is that he really didn’t give any way for Christian liberty and conscience per Romans 14.

As far as the Nazirite I want to say “see, you’re only going by what your friend said” but I won’t.

Num 6:20 and the priest shall wave them for a wave offering before the LORD. They are a holy portion for the priest, together with the breast that is waved and the thigh that is contributed. And after that the Nazirite may drink wine.

I agree with you that the issues are drunkenness and alcohol consumption. In addition, these are the issues and not percentage of alcohol in the wine which is also addressed in the first link I gave.

I only wanted to point out the emotive part because those of us from the conservative side normally don’t go down this road. You can easily see this in The Shack review comments.

I appreciate you challenging me to think a bit more on this.

Let me deal here with a few points; y’all may consider that I doubt I could, or don’t feel like, defending the ones I leave aside.

If something is not a sin then how can avoidance of such be the best?

If it’s permitted, but not particularly commended. Wouldn’t divorce in the case of sexual adultery be one example of that? It’s not the best, but it’s not sinful.

Do we dismiss the Scripture of meat being sacrificed to idols since we really don’t do that anymore? …since our drinks are stronger today the Bible doesn’t apply to us as such.

Wouldn’t we take it into acct in principle?
But I don’t see where you’re going with this, since the problems discussed here are twofold: drunkenness and alcohol consumption. Both of those are still questions today. That may not be the best analogy…

They weren’t to abstain forever.

Hmm, I thought they were. Or maybe until they de-Nazirited themselves later in life?

argue against the emotive rather than the factual

I have no doubt that this is the case, much like KJVO, for most of these interactions. But rest assured that I have no dog in this fight; it is merely interesting to me, and I don’t really care one way or th’other, so long as I understand the sides. Thank you for any and all time you’ve spent and will spend interacting with me on this.

Grace and peace,
Rhology

Question, why in the world is the word “imbibing” used so frequently towards those who hold to the moderationist position? I have never heard anyone use that word in person. And I don’t see the word as being one that is frequently used in other writings either.

Any ideas?

The Bible Condemns Strong Drink as a beverage

Recently a comment at an SBC blog was pumping Pumkin’s book and quoted Proverbs 31. But there there is a direct paralell to what Paul is saying in Timothy. And also, the construction is a typical Hebrew parallelism where yayin and shekar are used as synonyms. The word drink connotes hard drinking and not simply imbibing. Paul makes use of this same construction in repeatedly admonishing soberness, right-mindedness, et cetera, and not abstinance. In fact Paul make the same inference that drinking is okay but addiction or drunkeness, or much, (shekah), drink is not. He makes the same allowance for wives of both deacons and elders. In Pr. 31 yayin does not stand alone but is called shekar yayin. So it says strong drink wine, or strong drinking of wine and then again repeats, strong drink drinking. In other words it is not the consumption of the liquid, but the manner and the amount. Now the parallel to Timothy in Proverbs 31:1-9 is found in this word: “desire,” also. The Hebrew is a word used for a Hebrew who takes an illicit wife. It is a compound that means unaccountable want. Or, a want that is not under control, or what James might say, a lust which arises within and carries one away.

Lemuel is being instructed on what it will mean to be an elder, just as Paul is instructing his true son in the faith who is already an elder. Of course that has been the theme of Proverbs all along: how to rule well as an elder; a king; to live long and posper; upholding the commandment to honor mother and father which is the first commandment with promise. It does not honor them to deny the things they taught, and the one thing that they did not teach was abstinance according to Proverbs. This passage like that in Timothy makes ruling over inordinate desire to goal and the key to kingly living. It is not fear of it, for we were not called into bondage but to liberty. So certainly they did not teach abstinance, for God has granted us not to be judged by what we eat or drink, instead has called us into the glorious freedom of the sons of God.

I was an alcoholic and drug addict for years and I have found in counseling alcoholics the hardest thing to get them away from is the teaching that once and alcoholic always one. That is not true. The truth is that as believers we can know the truth and the truth can set us free. We know that God answers according to grace. That is my testimony, it does not have to be others. My liberty is my liberty and I will not surrender it to any one. It is God’s gift to me and I honor it. I will not flaunt it, but I will not be brought again into captivity by those who say taste not, touch not, either.
.-= Thomas Twitchell´s last blog ..Regeneration By The Spirit Preceeds The Preaching Of The Word To The Will =-.

What do you think would have happened if one of the elders decided not to abstain? Would that have been accepted?

Curious…

I’m glad you offer a kinder hand to Rhology. He is a friend. I agree with what you are saying.

Rhology,

There were several unhelpful things. Gentry’s book (and those links above) does answer the question of the two wine theory and the alcohol % of biblical wine. Strong drink isn’t condemned everywhere in Scripture.

Your friend states that it’s not a sin to drink alcohol and then goes on to give scenarios in which he claims abstinence is the best action. This is not a Scriptural approach. If something is not a sin then how can avoidance of such be the best?

Using the Lincoln assassination story as if it were the fault of alcohol is just disingenuous and unfair. Not to mention the question he proposed several times – How much can I get away with and not sin? What person who drink in moderation has that question as their motive? Show me one and I’m sure my other brothers who agree with me will rebuke him.

Again I ask, in shift the focus from moderation and drunkenness to percentage of alcohol, where else to we use this type of hermeneutic? Do we dismiss the Scripture of meat being sacrificed to idols since we really don’t do that anymore? Of course not because that’s not the driving principle of application for us. I could give him his position on alcohol percentage and just as easily say that since our drinks are stronger today the Bible doesn’t apply to us as such.

If I remember rightly he misused the Nazarite vows. They weren’t to abstain forever. Besides, we don’t have those vows anymore.

I recommend this article from the Criswell Theological Review – THE BIBLE AND THE QUESTION OF ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES It will answer many if not all of your friends biblical questions and positions.

When liberals and conservatives argue the conservatives often have to argue against the emotive rather than the factual. In a sense, this is what’s happening here.

A good debate on this issue to consider.

Gentry: Scripture Endorses a Moderate Use of Beverage Alcohol
Reynolds: Scripture Prohibits the Drinking of Alcoholic Beverages
Gentry Responds
Reynolds Responds
Gentry’s Concluding Remarks

Believe me, I know how it is to be all fired up about sthg and get too harsh, especially on teh Interwebz. Don’t worry about it, but just recognise the tendency. It’s a lesson I’m always trying to learn in myself! And I just don’t see this issue as that big a deal, you know? But then again, when legalists get a hold of it, THEY make it a big deal when it’s not, and ARGH results. So I feel you. And I’m not a teetotaller in principle (but I never drink b/c I hate the taste and much prefer cheaper alternatives, such as Dr Pepper). So, just where I’m coming from.

I would say that the sermon is consistent with the notes, yes, though ISTM the sermon is a bit more detailed.
Actually, now that I look again, I had asked him about this a while back and he sent me another set of notes.
Here are a few of the things therein:

A. The Bible Condemns Strong Drink as a beverage.
B. Today’s Beer and Wine are Strong Drink.
C. Hence, Today’s Beer and Wine are Condemned by the Bible as a beverage.
D. We Should not do What God Condemns.
E. Therefore, we should not drink today’s beer and wine as a beverage.

I guess, to be fair, that is a version of the two-wine theory (or sthg) (and again, I’m not old-hat in this discussion, so sorry if I repeat things you’ve heard a million times; feel free to point it out). In this case, the issue is NOT non-alcy wine vs alcy wine, but RATHER DILUTED wine vs non-diluted wine. And he’s equating non-diluted wine with the strong drink that’s condemned in the Scr, and identifying the wine that makes the heart glad or is used medicinally or whatever as the diluted kind.

1. The Bible condemns using strong alcoholic beverages and drunkenness.
2. In Bible times, they used light alcoholic beverages in moderation.
3. Today, given the many harmful results of alcohol and the many non-alcoholic alternatives, total abstinence is the best policy.
He includes an enormous list of biblical references condemning wine and strong drink, and I guess the upshot is that these are undiluted.

As for pastors, I think he’s linking to the whole “higher position, more responsibility” thing, and don’t you think it really is the best policy, so you won’t cause a weaker sheep in the flock to stumble? You think there aren’t any struggling alcoholics in your congregation? Might want to think again.

You said:
simply because one “doesn’t believe his position isn’t biblically supported” does not make that position biblically supported.

I know, you’re right, but my point was that I’m asking you for a little grace. My pastor (not the guy who preached the sermon in question) is a great pastor, but one of his quirks is that he’s a teetotaller, but not a legalistic one. There are far worse quirks to have, and if one is a teetotaller by conviction but not a legalist about it, he’s on your team!

scripture emphasizes moderation in the enjoyment lest one become a slave to any.

Yes, definitely.

this small gift that does “gladden the hearts of men.”

I assume he dilutes it in the same manner as did the Psalter, then, when his heart is gladdened.

Grace and peace to you,
Rhology

PS – Sorry, but I’m cheering for the local team, OkState, on Sept 5 (even though I’m a Sooner fan).

Thanks for giving me the benefit of the doubt. My wife read my post and agreed my tone was not as light as I usually am when I comment on other blogs. And I admit to being frustrated by this whole argument over drinking within the SBC because it is simply a distraction from the gospel and, even if it were truly a sin, it is a sin focused on at the expense of other sins. But generally, I am not angered about it as I am biblically satisfied it is not a sin and no one is going to bind my conscience about it.

Anyway, to respond to your points: I did not listen to the sermon. However, I did read the thorough outline that accompanied it. I assume the sermon is consistent with the notes. And if not, then that is disingenuous on the part of the pastor/author. Keeping that assumption in mind, please note the following:

In the outline, the mention of Psalm 104 is given in the context of moderation. Exactly right. Yet, his conclusion from the verses he quotes is that alcohol was a part of the diet of ancient culture with the implication being that it is NOT now. That is simply faulty reasoning. It is a normal and regular part of diet around the world now.

In the outline, he overstates the conclusion to be drawn from Paul’s instructions to Timothy and Titus about elders and deacons by stating that they are to be “extremely cautious in their consumption of alcohol” (the verses simply say they must not be drunkards or addicted to much wine) and then his argument’s “bottom line” is that “those who want to wholeheartedly follow God and be an example of purity should abstain from alcohol.” That, simply is eisegesis of the text and not careful exegesis. Clearly if Paul had meant that elders and deacons were to abstain in totality he would have said that. It is a logical fallacy to argue that because deacons and elders are not to be drunks, therefore they should not drink. It is overreaching.

Finally, simply because one “doesn’t believe his position isn’t biblically supported” does not make that position biblically supported.

In Mere Christianity, C.S. Lewis has a great discussion about the meaning of temperance (which seems to be the biblical position) having been changed into meaning “teetotalism.” As he points out, it is the Muslims who are teetotalers (and mormons and other cults). We have been given gracious gifts in food, wine, sex, music, work, and any number of material things (and I even include tobacco with those) and activities to enjoy. But on the whole, scripture emphasizes moderation in the enjoyment lest one become a slave to any. Anytime one has to go through forced mental gymnastics to support his position biblically, then that person ought to carefully review his position in the light of the whole tenor of scripture and not in the light of his preconceived cultural predilections and prejudices.

The edification of the church would be best served if alcohol were not used as something from which to run, but, as Douglas Wilson, argues in Future Men, that church members were taught to drink in a biblically approved pattern of moderation and with thanksgiving for this small gift that does “gladden the hearts of men.”

Cheers!

Mark had an excellent point in his comment above about not questioning motives, and also about gluttony and other things that are generally overlooked.

Sad that the SBC elevated the issue of alcohol above the problem of unregenerate church membership in recent resolution adoptions. I’m still waiting for the one on abstinence from ice cream after Sunday buffet!

While your pastor preaches abstinence, portions of his flock ignore him

1) Well, I don’t think it’s correct to say we IGNORE him. It’s just that we weigh the arguments and find them wanting.
2) Don’t Calvinists all over the place do the same in the non-Calvinist churches they attend?
3) Ditto for ppl who don’t prefer the worship style? Or the ecclesial gov’t structure? Or eschatology?
In short, this isn’t a problem specific to the issue of alcohol. It’s that we’re not perfect people, with imperfect understandings of Scr, and we’re not in Heaven yet. I think you’re being too harsh.

Taking a position that is not biblically supported denigrates the office of pastor

Well, sure, but some grace is called for too! My pastor doesn’t believe his position isn’t biblically supported. So yeah, it’s imperfect, but that’s the way it is.
Also, did you listen to my friend’s sermon? Just curious; you didn’t say you listened, but you are quick to shoot it down.

his failure to recognize that wine is given precisely for its ability to “gladden the hearts of men”

If you’d listened, you’d know he quoted and interacted with that very verse.

if Paul had thought that to be an elder one should not drink, he would have said do not drink rather than don’t be a drunkard in his instructions to Timothy and Titus.

If you’d listened, you’d know he quoted and interacted with that very verse.

All that to say, RaBR, I am trying to give you the benefit of the doubt and would imagine you’ve been provoked by teetotallers toward this near-anger you display here, but I really think your attitude is part of the problem. Nothing is gained by acting like you listen to the other side but in reality ignoring them and as a result misrepresenting their points.

Peace,
Rhology

The positions your friend took in his sermon are rehashing tired old arguments. Get a copy of Kenneth Gentry’s God Gave Wine for a detailed rebuttal. The most glaring logical error in your friend’s sermon is his failure to recognize that wine is given precisely for its ability to “gladden the hearts of men” and to enable the poor to forget their poverty and their misery.

Further, if Paul had thought that to be an elder one should not drink, he would have said do not drink rather than don’t be a drunkard in his instructions to Timothy and Titus.

It amazes me how a denomination that is “of the Book” so easily fails to understand the plain meaning of the text. It’s like people who deny the doctrine of election while yapping about how much they love the New Testament.