Quote:
Originally Posted by armourbearer  A deeper analysis of the situation will show that the problem is not so much with its use or non-use, but with the *manner* in which its use or non-use is recommended. We should listen to each other here. One side is saying it is a matter of avoiding legalism, and the other side is saying that it is a matter of avoiding stumbling-blocks. |
I simply don't agree. Again, I have provided ample opportunity for clarification along those lines. Instead of clarity that resulted along a proper motivation, I kept getting more of the same overstatement and blurry explanation.
Quote:
|
Which side does the Bible come down on? Undoubtedly on the side of laying no stumbling-block before our brother. Therefore I would suggest if any person does not feel it is a stumbling-block for them personally to partake of alcohol, then they should enjoy their liberty in the privacy of their own lives. When they hear brethren recommending the disuse of this liberty because it can be a stumbling-block, if the shoe doesn't fit they need not wear it. But it undermines our ability to lovingly warn each other as brethren if we maintain a person needs chapter and verse in order to recommend abstinence from a certain action. In fact, I would go so far as to say that such a course is itself legalistic, making the letter of Scripture restrictive of the full operation of its Spirit.
|
I didn not ask for chapter and verse. I asked for some warrant. The point for the motivation to avoid something or commend something must be for Christ's sake. It is therefore incumbent upon the arguer to present the case in which a certain course of behavior is likely pleasing to Christ. I would even have accepted a line of argumentation along the lines of Romans 6. I take no issue with the idea that "...let not turn our liberty into a license to sin...." I don't need chapter and verse for that to be wise. However the argument is framed, however, it needs to align to a biblical principle, even if broadly, and be couched in terms that can be argued for so that the mature understand how it is applied.
I know you have personal convictions against alchohol use. I personally think that if somebody was arguing against something else using the same tack and not clarifying when challenged with a concern that a Gospel motivation remains unexpressed that you would probably see more clearly the manner in which this was argued from the beginning. To recap the line of argumentation read below and ask yourself: What is distinctively "Christian" about the below arguments?
Quote:
Originally Posted by bwsmith The way I oppose Russian roulette, I oppose the use of alcohol. But, guess what? Nobody cares. |
Quote:
Originally Posted by bwsmith Indeed -- and I have thought a bit about the use and abuse of alcohol. The Scriptures condemn drunkenness which indicates there is a risk in drinking.
One in four people will be affected by someone else’s use of a substance that produces unexpected “kicks.” For the person who picks a harmless drink, relying on their freedom to do so, somebody else usually picks up your tab – there is no absolute prohibition, but there is a risk, and those who are over thirty have lived to see many who have wrecked so much by exercising their rights.
I know I am on the losing side of this debate – |
Quote:
Originally Posted by bwsmith Because I have seen too many lives wrecked -- and these folks have been well-educated, and often with positions of leadership, some in the church. |
Quote:
Originally Posted by bwsmith Anyone who picks up a drink runs the risk of being ensnared – That is not a condemnation; that's a warning – one that many who dot the “I’ ” and cross the “t” in sound doctrine ignore. Maybe this can be classified as sour grapes  Never seen anybody with a couple of drinks in them who was as clever as they thought they were – or as restrained and careful in their speech or conduct. |
Quote:
Originally Posted by bwsmith What would make me feel better is if many in leadership would the epidemic that addictions are in the church . . . |
Quote:
Originally Posted by bwsmith And most will not listen until they've ridden the elevator all the way down. Yet, with so many examples, we think that it can't/won't happen to us. . . |
Quote:
Originally Posted by bwsmith Perhaps instead of coping the church will help each other overcome?
Addictions are worship disorders. Addictions: Banquet in the Grave, by Ed Welch is quite helpful for those churches who have the courage to help hurting people. |
Quote:
Originally Posted by bwsmith Biology may well predispose -- one to alcohol abuse – so does practice. That’s probably why Scripture warns, even though it does not prohibit.
I hope you will consider learning about addictions – “Addictions” are behavior that intersects the hear and its eagerness to idolize physical desires, and the influences on our hearts and nurture.
As a starter, I recommend reading [U ]Addictions: Banquet in the Grave[/u] by Ed Welch. (Christian Counseling and Education Fund) |
Quote:
Originally Posted by bwsmith Abuse of alcohol comes from the heart – a heart whose worship is disordered. With the multiplication of created substances, comes the multiplication of “worship disorders.” These disorders are oh so apparent in the church – and they are real obvious to those who watch.
Insisting on the right to use a substance that “disables” its imbiber – in time of war – remains unwise. |
Quote:
Originally Posted by bwsmith What are warnings about drunkenness if not related to its use; non-drinkers do not become drunk; drinkers run that very use.
The very substance itself mocks, and starts fights – even before intoxication! “Wine is a mocker , strong drink a brawler, And whoever is intoxicated by it is not wise.” Or, as my friend Eugene Peterson puts it: Wine makes you mean, beer makes you quarrelsome — a staggering drunk is not much fun. (Prov 20:1 from THE MESSAGE ) |