Thread: Drinking

I'm a Baptist - I drink.

I drink, but don't eat meat sacrificed to idols.

I exercise my liberty in privacy according to conscience. If I learn that a Brother has a problem with alcohol then I remember that Christ died for him and do not use my own liberty as a basis to judge his.

I do not believe, however, that an unbeliever seeing me enjoy a Diet Coke at a restaurant is going to lead to conviction of sin and cause him to ask me: "What must I do to be saved?"

I recommend you read this post I made back in 2004.

http://www.puritanboard.com/f39/best...13/#post103783

Here is a portion of it.

1. The position summarized: Alcoholic beverages are not expressly forbidden in Scripture, yet it is wise that all Christians abstain from using them.


2. It is wise for reasons of expediency.


a. It is a poor witness to unbelievers, to weaker brethren, and to our children. As a matter of love (not legalistic requirement), all Christians should totally abstain (Mt. 7:12; Rom. 14:15-21; Rom. 15:1-2; 1 Cor. 8:13; 1 Cor. 10:31-33; 1 Tim. 3:7).

(1) A response to the argument that it is a poor witness.

(a) It is true that we should always seek to be a good witness before believers and unbelievers alike.

(b) But even that which constitutes a Christian witness must be judged by Scripture and not by our culture. If unbelievers judge that it is a poor witness for Christians to be so "intolerant" in their views of sexual promiscuity, should they change so as to have a better witness? Or if Christians are accused of being "narrow-minded" because of their pro-life views, should they be more concerned about what God says or what man says? If Scripture does not condemn a practice as a poor witness (but on the contrary approves of the practice), then neither should you disapprove of it. Does a Christian necessarily project a biblical Christian witness to the world by practicing total abstinence when there is no biblical warrant for doing so? No!

(c) The Lord and His disciples continued to use alcoholic beverages despite the fact that sinful men abused them to their own destruction at the time in which Jesus lived just as they do today (1 Cor. 5:11; 1 Cor. 6:10). In fact, Jesus Himself was falsely accused of abusing wine (Lk. 7:31-35) and yet He didn't discontinue His practice of drinking wine (what the Lord drank was wine for what John the Baptist did not drink was wine, cf. Lk. 7:33). He even created wine for consumption in a social context (Jn. 2:1-12). Certainly no Christian would think of accusing the infinitely wise Son of God of being unwise in that situation. However, if one believes Jesus should have abstained from all wine because He was falsely accused of being a winebibber, then likewise He should have abstained from all bread because He was also falsely accused of being a glutton.

(d) Who is the "weak" brother referred to by Paul (Rom. 14:15-21; Rom. 15:1b)? He is weak in his conscience i.e. his conscience condemns him for eating certain foods and drinking wine (perhaps because the food and wine had previously been dedicated to idols) although both the food and wine found Christ's approval (Rom. 14:14). The problem with this "weak" brother was that his conscience was controlled by standards other than the Word of God (whether by his culture, by his own feelings, or by the commandments of men). He had allowed something other than God and His Word to be the lord of his conscience (which indicates that he was an immature Christian). As a result of this weakness, he was condemning the "strong" brother who could partake of the food and wine without offending his conscience; and thus the "weak" brother was thereby seeking to impose his "weakness" upon the church (Rom. 14:3b-4).

(e) Who is the "strong" brother referred to by Paul (Rom. 14:2a; Rom. 15:1a)? He is strong in his conscience i.e. his conscience approves of him eating all foods and drinking the wine in question (Rom. 14:2a). The conscience of the "strong" brother is not controlled by anything except by God and His Word; and since Christ approves of the food and wine (Rom. 14:14), the "strong" brother is able to enjoy them to the glory of God (1 Cor. 10:31). This indicates that the "strong" brother is a mature Christian (Paul includes himself in the category of the "strong", rather than in the category of the "weak" cf. Rom. 14:14; Rom. 15:1a). As a result of his lawful liberty in this area, the "strong" brother was likely to flaunt his liberty before the "weak" brother, to despise and look down at him, and not to fully receive him into the fellowship of the church because of his weakness (Rom. 14:1a,3a).

(f) What were both the "weak" and the "strong" to do in regard to these issues?

/1/ One the one hand, each one was to be convinced in his own mind (i.e. not to act contrary to what you believe you are required to do at the time, Rom. 14:5b,22-23). On the other hand, the "weak" were not to stubbornly remain in a weak position. They were to diligently study the issue involved from the vantage point of God's Word and when persuaded that God approved of the practice in question, they were to submit their conscience to God's authoritative Word and change their conviction regardless of how they might still "feel" about the issue.

/2/ The "weak" brother must immediately stop condemning the "strong" brother and must discontinue his attempts to impose his "weakness" upon the church (Rom. 14:3b-4). The "weak" were to outgrow their "weakness" and become mature Christians by submitting their conscience to the Word of God alone . However, it may actually be the case that a "weak" brother does outgrow his "weakness" in believing a certain practice to be sinful (e.g. drinking alcoholic beverages) and in expecting others to refrain from the practice. In such a case he becomes a "strong" believer, but for other reasons (e.g. he doesn't care for the taste of alcoholic beverages, or he has an allergic reaction to them) he may legitimately refrain from using them in a social or private setting (in other words, the "strong" brother is not required to use alcoholic beverages privately or socially). It would hardly be an act of love for elders to leave a brother (for whom Christ died) in his weakness. To truly fulfil Matthew 7:12 (i.e. to love others as oneself) requires an elder to patiently work with a "weak" brother to overcome his "weakness." Although the apostle Paul temporarily acted as one who was "weak" in the presence of a "weak" brother , he only did so in order to win the "weak" to the position of the "strong" (1 Cor. 9:22). This practice of "weakness" was not intended to be permanent, but rather temporary. Paul would never have permitted the position of the "weak" to become the position endorsed by the church. Paul argued from the position of the "strong" in order to bring the "weak" out of his position of "weakness."

/3/ On the other hand, the "strong" brother must immediately cease from tempting the "weak" to sin by encouraging him to violate his conscience in partaking of food and wine which he yet believes to be sin. To consciously flaunt one's liberty before a "weak" brother is to set a stumblingblock before him. It is to play the role of Satan in tempting him to sin (Rom. 14:13,20). The strong brother must be willing to sacrifice the lawful use of his Christian liberty temporarily in the presence of the "weak" brother, so as to keep him from stumbling (Rom. 14:21). In fact in 1 Corinthians 8:13, Paul hyperbolically illustrates this point by declaring that if eating food offered to idols leads a "weak" brother to stumble (i.e. leads a "weak" brother to eat while he yet believes it to be sinful), Paul will forever refrain from eating meat in the presence of the "weak" brother (however, for Paul to eat the meat privately at home would not violate this statement because the weak brother would have no knowledge of Paul's eating the meat in the privacy of his own home). Those who are "strong" must remember that there are issues more important than food or drink, namely, love for the brethren and the growth of God's kingdom (Rom. 14:16-18).

/4/ Both the "weak" and the "strong" must above all else seek the profit of the other, seek to edify one another, and seek to demostrate the love of Christ to one another (Rom. 15:1-3).

(g) The argument that we must permanently refrain from all alcoholic beverages in order to be a good witness is unbiblical. It is not the lawful use of wine that is a bad testimony, but the unlawful use of it. Children will not be any more likely to abuse wine when it is lawfully used within a Christian family, than they would be to abuse a car when it is lawfully used within a Christian family. You should not refrain from the lawful use of any of God's good gifts simply because there is the possibility of abuse, rather you should carefully instruct your children in the legitimate use.

(h) Finally, the argument that we must permanently abstain from all alcoholic beverages in order to maintain a good testimony before men, will open the door to hundreds of legalistic standards imposed upon the Christian simply because of the possibility that someone might be offended. In the name of not offending people, you would have to give up pork, red meat, guns, beards, jewlry, etc. ad infinitum. This is a principle that cannot be carried out consistently, nor should it be, because it is unbiblical.


b. The abstentionist also argues, "For the sake of the "constitutional alcoholics" around us, all Christians should abstain from the use of alcoholic beverages. There are so many "recovering alcoholics" in the work place, in the church, in the neighborhood, and in the family. Even seeing you drink one beer could lead them back into their syndrome.

(1) A reponse to the "constitutional alcoholic" argument.

(a) It is true that certain people have different levels of tolerance to alcoholic beverages (just as it is true that there are differing degrees of tolerance for food among people).

(b) But the notion that a predispostion toward a particular kind of sinful abuse (whether beer, sex, food, violence, fashion or any thing else) should lead all Christians to abstain permanently from the lawful use of that object (whether to abstain from all alcoholic beverages, from all sexual relationships with one's wife, from all food, from all corporal discipline, or from all clothing) is not biblical. Again, you should never wittingly tempt one whom you know to be vulnerable in a particular area, but that is quite different from advocating the permanent cessation of a good gift from God in all circumstances.

(c) The Bible teaches that all men are predisposed to sin by nature and that all men are "constitutional sinners" (Ps. 51:5; Ps. 58:3; Rom. 5:19) and yet all men are responsible for their own sin. The fact that one habitually and sinfully abuses beer and is predisposed to abuse it, should not put him into some preferential class of treatment, for all men, women, and children are in the same condition (some of our sins are just more observable than others). The point that must be made if you are to truly help one who abuses alcoholic beverages is that his problem (like abuse in any other area) is a violation of God's holy Law. It is sin against the Most High God (in biblical terms he is a drunkard cf. 1 Cor. 5:11; 1 Cor. 6:10). His problem is not that he has developed an incurable disease (called alcoholism). His problem is that he has been convinced that he can never be completely cured ("once an alcoholic, always an alcoholic"). Thus, he is told, "Take even one sip of wine in the Lord's Supper and it might set the disease off again." The answer for the one who has abused alcoholic beverages is the same answer for all sinners: All sinful habits and sinful abuses are curable by the redemptive grace of God (once an alcoholic is not always an alcoholic for "where sin did abound, grace did much more abound" Rom. 5:20). The Bible proclaims in Romans 8:12 that all who have died with Christ are no longer debtors to the flesh (i.e. by God's grace Christians who have turned from the abuse of alcoholic beverages do not have to answer the door, when the temptation to become drunk comes knocking at the door). Furthermore, the one who was once a drunkard is no longer viewed as a drunkard after he has been washed, sanctified, and justified in the name of the Lord Jesus and by the Spirit of God (1 Cor. 6:9-11). Are the rest of the sinful abuses mentioned in 1 Corinthians 6:9-11 incurable diseases? God forbid! The gospel is the power of God unto salvation to all who believe (Rom. 1:16). Thus, one is not necessarily helping the "alcoholic" by abstaining from all drinking any more than one would be helping the glutton by abstaining from all eating.

(d) If it is true that all Christians should abstain from all alcoholic beverages for the sake of the "constitutional alcoholic", then Jesus was not wise in using wine in the presence of many "constitutional alcoholics" or potential "constitutional alcoholics" (Lk. 7:33-35) and even creating it to be used in a wedding feast where the possibility for drunkenness was certainly present (Jn 2:1-12).

(e) Researcher, John Langone, has noted:

Heredity, errors in the body's chemistry that prevent the alcoholic from using alcohol properly, brain defects, allergy, vitamin deficiency, glandular problems, a defective "thermostat" that causes an uncontrollable thirst for alcohol all have been examined by researchers. But thus far, none has been shown to be specifically responsible for alcoholism. There is no physical examination or blood test that can yet be performed to determine why a person has become an alcoholic, or whether he or she will become one; and no one has isolated a specific gene, that unit of heredity, for alcoholism (cited in The Christian And Alcoholic Beverages by Kenneth L. Gentry, p.100).

(f) Morris Chafetz, M.D., a reputable authority on the subject of alcoholism and member of the National Institute on Alcohol and Alcohol Abuse (NIAAA) has remarked, "Some say that only a hairline separates the social or moderate drinker from the alcoholic. Don't you believe it-a grand canyon separates them (cited in The Christian And Alcoholic Beverages by Kenneth L. Gentry, p.101)

(g) The abuse of alcoholic beverages is not a problem with genetics, it is a problem with sin. The answer is Christ.

c. Again the abstentionist argues, "All Christians should abstain from the alcoholic beverage because it is a drug that is harmful to one's health."

Originally Posted by SolaSaint

Nowhere in scripture is alcohol prohibited for the Christian, that I understand and don't judge anyone who does.......just curious how you justify drinking.

You answered your own question.

Do I drink? What would you call a glass of wine once a month?

Drunkeness is clearly forbidden in the Bible, but that's about as far as you can go.

I quite enjoy good beer, some mixed drinks, and red wine. You may find some useful stuff on this thread (you might not, also - only picked it cuz it's current):

Wine & Alcohol: Take Off from Alcohol Dinner Party Thread

To make the statement, "just curious how you justify drinking" implies to me that you do believe it to be wrong, yet you state nowhere is it prohibited in scripture. So then upon what do you make your case that drinking needs to be "justified"?
Certainly there is an issue to be made if the consumption of alcohol caused a weaker brother to stumble, but is there not also a case to be made that many have made alcohol consumption a sin when God does not?

Neither the psalmist nor Christ in His first miracle seem to do otherwise.

Jesus turned water into wine, drank wine at the last supper and then there are the verses like:
Prov.3:9 Honor the Lord with your wealth
and with the firstfruits of all your produce;
10 then your barns will be filled with plenty,
and your vats will be bursting with wine.

Ecc9:7 Go, eat your bread with joy, and drink your wine with a merry heart, for God has already approved what you do.

1 Timothy 5:23 (No longer drink only water, but use a little wine for the sake of your stomach and your frequent ailments.)


that is how I justify it... if that's what you would call it. I drink but I don't get drunk. But thats just me. however whenever we have dinner parties and there is a guest who has a prior problem with drinking then we don't serve wine or anything else.

I used to be a fundamentalist who viewed drinking (not just drunkenness) as a sin. When I joined a Reformed church, I didn't fully quite grasp the Reformed concept which states that God alone is Lord of the conscience. I still viewed drinking as a sin when some of my Reformed brethren invited me to a gathering. I was initially shocked when I saw them drinking beer.

Now, the question then is whether such an incident caused me to stumble. The answer is that it didn't. Everybody drank in moderation and nobody urged me to drink. They also obviously did not idolize drinking which many unbelievers do. I observed that they treated it like all food products which must be consumed in moderation with thankfulness for God's providence. All kinds of food can be idolized and the excessive consumption of which is undeniably a sin: gluttony.

Thus, instead of stumbling, the good example that I witnessed helped me to mature on that point. I have gotten over my fundamentalist tendencies and I myself find it pleasurable to drink in moderation both in private and in good company.

I try to follow the commands of scripture, so I do drink. This is not a "liberty" issue, ie something dodgy that I *may* do but then again maybe not...

The scripture is clear. I would no more pretend to be a vegetarian to avoid the potential stumbling of a converted Hindu, or pretend to be unmarried to avoid the potential stumbling of a converted homosexual,, then I would pretend to be a teetotaler to avoid the potential stumbling of a converted baptist.

i honestly believe that a christian pretending not to drink is the moral equivalent of pretending not to sleep with your wife. Both are good. Both are commanded by God. Both are a point of temptation for some.

So what would you think of a man if he told you that he closed his eyes so as to never see his wifes body? Or if he claimed to sleep on the sofa to "avoid temptation"? Or what about a man that said he limited his physical relationship whith his wife to "once a month" since after all he had the "christian liberty" to do so, but because of his previous sin he "limited himself"?

You would consider him a lunitic or dualistic heretic. Or both. Quite so.

Now I understand that God has gifted the church with some (few) persons that have a gift of denial of Gods good gifts. These remain single, and live ascetic lives for the purpose of some mission that God has called them too.

However, I am also aware of our sinfull nature that tempts us to be drawn away from the Grace of God, and into the sin of righteousness. This temptation draws us into religion & away from the joys of Gods gracious creation and all of the good things God graciously gives us.

My question to all vegetarian/vegan/teetotal/voluntarily single christians is "why do you hate & despise Gods gracious, loving provisions for you?"

Don't drive after you have had a drink. I teach DUI classes for the state of Florida and have seen so many problems with impaired driving. Consider this: a bad driver runs into you, someone is killed, and you had only one glass of wine. Get a good lawyer. You can go to jail and when you get out, you cannot drive at all.

I just don't like the taste of the stuff myself. I'll stick with tea, milk, and soda.

Thanks for all the replies. I see some in here have taken what I posted too far as I thought would happen, so I'm sorry to those I may have offended. It is just my conviction that I abstain from alcohol for the one and only reason of keeping someone from stumbling. God clearly convicted me of this through a sermon and in scripture and not through any fundamental doctrine. I also think we have demonized the word "fundamental". I think it is good to be fundamental in our beliefs.

Do you suppose that abuses are eliminated by destroying the object which is abused? Men can go wrong with wine and women. Shall we then prohibit and abolish women? – Martin Luther.

I was thinking of that quote but I didn't want to slaughter it... thanks Aaron

Originally Posted by William Price

I just don't like the taste of the stuff myself. I'll stick with tea, milk, and soda.

I'm the same, and if only some other people I know were, their hard struggles against temptation need never have been...I see it as a blessing, and potentially a great one.
As the OP says, for me it's mostly about setting an example.
Young people in my experience (I don't mean in the Church) often just don't distinguish between drinking in moderation and the other kind. Kids I teach will tell me about their weekend drinking exploits and watch to see my reaction, and they aren't looking for a nuanced take on what is, or isn't lawful for Christians. Sometimes I can sense they are even reassured by the idea that there do exist these weirdos who, believing in God, are prepared to look like idiots and party poopers because of a belief!
If, as I pray they may, they ever go on to be converted, - if they then embraced a fundamentalist view of the issue, it might well be safer for them, if they have abused alcohol in the past. As long as anyone has a true and saving faith, I wouldn't be prepared to say that it was vitiated by an overzealous take on alcohol.

I am thankful to God that in spite of being raised in a fundamentalist background (whereby the church covenant in my previous church bans alcohol consumption and even selling it to others), I'm being taught that the most important thing at the end of the day is about control.

For myself, I don't see much of a need to drink by myself, I see it rather more app. for that to be done with others. Beer and wine I'm okay, but liquor is too strong for me (I've tried whisky but cannot stomach the taste! Rum however is good).

The best stance I believe that a church, to protect its biblical witness, should carry is an alcohol-neutral stance rather than a pro-alcohol (e.g. Bible study w/ a mug of beer?) or anti-alcohol stance (e.g. banning alcohol for members, or doing that implicitly by discouraging its usage).

For if you do the first, you risk offending ex-addicts as well as those raised in prohibitionist backgrounds. If you do the second you'll scare off many believers who drink from wanting to turn up at this church. Total abstinence to me may be easier to apply in countries with an Anglo-American cultural influence (because most pietist churches originated from Britain/US) but that's gonna make Christians stick out like a sore thumb in Conteinental Europe.

Originally Posted by SolaSaint

Thanks for all the replies. I see some in here have taken what I posted too far as I thought would happen, so I'm sorry to those I may have offended. It is just my conviction that I abstain from alcohol for the one and only reason of keeping someone from stumbling. God clearly convicted me of this through a sermon and in scripture and not through any fundamental doctrine. I also think we have demonized the word "fundamental". I think it is good to be fundamental in our beliefs.

Brother,

It is far better to disciple someone, than to leave them in their state of ignorance. To cause them to stumble would be to have someone (who is a known teetotaler) over, and serve nothing but alcohol, without leaving them options. As long as they have options, they do not stumble b/c of you. Them being mad over someone drinking, does not constitute stumbling; it is being uninformed/lacking in discipleship, or even possibly legalism. You must teach such a person...especially if they think drinking is a sin, for they then make Christ a sinner. My mother, was an absolute teetotaler. Over time, after many discussions, she still does not drink alcohol, but she no longer condemns those who do.

There are two valid options... abstain or drink moderately. I find the later far more appealing. I drink in moderation.

I'm with John Elliot, puritan missionary, who said "Wine, ’tis a noble, generous liquor, and we should be humbly thankful for it".

And Calvin: "it is lawful to use wine not only in cases of necessity, but also thereby to make us merry". He also said: "We are nowhere forbidden to laugh, or to be satisfied with food…or to be delighted with music, or to drink wine"

And Increase Mather: "Drink is in itself a good creature of God, and to be received with thankfulness".

And Abraham Kuyper: "From the chocolate kettle and the milk and water bottle arises no race of bold Calvinists".

And the Psalmist: "wine to gladden the heart of man".

And the Preacher: "drink your wine with a merry heart".

And Nehemiah: "Eat the fat and drink sweet wine"

And Jesus: "The Son of Man has come eating and drinking [wine]" and "you have kept the good wine until now"

And Paul: "use a little wine"

We need to be sensitive to people's situations and their weaknesses, but alcohol is a gift from God and to be enjoyed with thanksgiving if we wish.

If anyone wants a more extensive collection of quotes, see the following blog posts I've compiled:

http://www.allthingsexpounded.com/20...d-wine-part-1/
http://www.allthingsexpounded.com/20...nesses-part-2/
http://www.allthingsexpounded.com/20...nesses-part-3/

Early in my adult Christian walk I enjoyed the moderate use of alcohol. Shortly after I joined a church that taught against any consumption of alchohol. Although I was not convinced of Scripture, I abstained in accordance to church teaching. Later, when I left that church, I once again enjoyed the moderate use of alcohol, being never convinced by Scripture that it was wrong. Having said this, unless you are personally convinced of Scripture that it is okay, you should abstain from it. If you have doubts, it would be sin for you to drink alcohol. "And he that doubteth is damned if he eat, because he eateth not of faith: for whatsoever is not of faith is sin." (Romans 14:23)

Given it is the 21st century I tend to go by presuming the brother does drink and in rare cases where he is a weaker brother who stumbles I will not do it infront of him. But there is a double sided obligation in that he has to make his troubles known to the body of Christ so that we can respect the weaker brother and not cause him to fall.

LUKE 33 For John the Baptist has come eating no bread and drinking no wine, and you say, ‘He has a demon.’ 34 The Son of Man has come eating and drinking, and you say, ‘Look at him! A glutton and a drunkard, a friend of tax collectors and sinners!’ 35 Yet wisdom is justified by all her children.”

I drink in moderation. I do have baptist relatives who do not drink. I don't drink around them. Around those who have issues with alchohol, I don't drink.

My biggest issue is how Christians try to make the claim by scripture that drinking is a flat out sin. This is biblically unfactual. Or because it could lead to bad things we should abstain completely from it. Doesn't most anything taken to extremes become sin? Overeating leads to heart disease but I don't see too many people making an issue out of this. I understand that alcohol has devastating effects, but that in itself doesn't make it wrong. Driving a car too fast has devastating effects. That is the effect of sin on this world.

Often, drinking becomes a measure for fundamentalists on your level of commitment to Christ if you drink or not.

It is easy to cherry pick certain "issues" and make that your standard of righteousness. That is what the Pharisees did.

Originally Posted by SolaSaint

I noticed that a lot of the Presbyterians here speak of drinking and even have alcohol avatars.

I can't stand those people

Originally Posted by Tripel

Originally Posted by SolaSaint

I noticed that a lot of the Presbyterians here speak of drinking and even have alcohol avatars.

I can't stand those people

I have Lutheran roots people expect me to drink at least beer

I enjoy drinking and so does my wife. About a week ago I ran to the store simply to buy her something because she hadn't had anything while pregnant.

That said, while we like to drink, we don't do it often. I never find myself compelled to do it frequently, and niether does she. That's not to mean we don't enjoy it, we just enjoy it sporatically.

We have friends who are convicted about drinking, largely due to the husband's struggle with it pre-conversion. We don't really drink in front of them. I surmise the only time we did was at our rehersal dinner. They knew alcohol would be there and that we wouldn't abstain from serving alcohol that night. They came anyway. No big deal. We haven't done it otherwise.

If I find someone is a brother and that they feel convicted about it, then I won't do it in front of them. However, their conviction regarding that liberty does not and cannot serve to bind my conscience and restrain me from that freedom at all times. Simply because someone, somewhere, who may be a friend, thinks drinking is wrong, does not serve to bind me from it. I am free to do so, so long as I am not causing them to stumble by exercising my liberty in front of them.

Originally Posted by SolaSaint

Hi All,

OK, I'm going to open a can or worms here, but I have to know how the Presbyterian members here feel about the drinking of alcohol? I abstain from drinking, not because I'm a baptist, but because I'm convinced by scripture not to cause a brother to stumble (Romans 14:21). Nowhere in scripture is alcohol prohibited for the Christian, that I understand and don't judge anyone who does; getting drunk is another question. Before I was saved I drank a lot. I know if I was to drink I couln't stop at one or two drinks. I've seen brothers in Christ stumble over another brothers drinking to the point he would get drunk. I also have seen small group classes that serve drinks during bible study and this seems to send the wrong signal to the world outside (IMO).

I noticed that a lot of the Presbyterians here speak of drinking and even have alcohol avatars. Do you all not see any problem with drinking as a a follower of Christ in that it may cause another to stumble or give the appearance of evil to your Christian reputation? I don't feel I'm being legalistic in asking, just curious how you justify drinking.

I have drank a lot in the past and some have even called me a Scotch Whisky connoisseur, but I don't drink at all anymore, and haven't had a sip of alcohol for over a year.

1. It's not safe. It's bad for the body and is easy to develop a lifestyle around.
2. I believe the scriptures condemn drunkenness. I define drunkenness as drinking with the intent to get a buzz feeling from an alcoholic beverage. The problem with alcoholic beverages is that most people get a buzzed feeling after just one drink, so I think it is better left alone. That being said, my wife doesn't share my convictions in that regard and thinks that a couple of glasses of wine is ok.

As for me, I will never drink again. I think life is far better without that in it. I will not attend any church functions where drinking alcohol is the norm, because I believe that it has no place around a community of faith. (I exclude communion wine, of course, luckily our church uses grape juice anyway).

As for going to other peoples houses where there is drinking, I must. I don't know of anyone I know except my Southern Baptist grandparents and my mother who do not drink regularly. That is actually a very attractive thing about the Southern Baptists to me.

Matthew 11:19 "The Son of Man came eating and drinking, and they say, ‘Look at him! A glutton and a drunkard, a friend of tax collectors and sinners!’"

Jesus drank, and it caused others to stumble. Go therefore and do likewise. (Stay away from tax collectors though.)

Originally Posted by BobVigneault

Matthew 11:19 "The Son of Man came eating and drinking, and they say, ‘Look at him! A glutton and a drunkard, a friend of tax collectors and sinners!’"

Jesus drank, and it caused others to stumble. Go therefore and do likewise. (Stay away from tax collectors though.)

I don't believe that Jesus ever got drunk because that is a sin. I think it was simply the mistaken perception of others about where he was visiting that is recorded here. Jesus visited others who lived like that, so people placed him in the birds of a feather flock together catagory. That verse in no way proves that Jesus drank liquor.

Originally Posted by BobVigneault

Matthew 11:19 "The Son of Man came eating and drinking, and they say, ‘Look at him! A glutton and a drunkard, a friend of tax collectors and sinners!’"

Jesus drank, and it caused others to stumble. Go therefore and do likewise. (Stay away from tax collectors though.)

don't forget the rest of the text!

Friends, did Jesus partake of the passover? The last supper? Then he drank. The Bible not only doesn't condemn wine, but it also commends it. It says that God has given wine to gladden the hearts of men. For those who wish to abstain, great! But please, please, PLEASE, do not bind others' consciences and act as if abstinence makes you wiser, holier, or better. It doesn't. You cannot be holier than God. It's impossible, since He's the very epitome of holy.

Here's a good quote from Matthew Henry:

Those who are strict in restraining their own liberty yet ought not to impose those restraints upon the liberties of others, nor to judge of them accordingly. We must not make ourselves the standard to measure others by. A good man will deny himself that liberty which he will not deny another, contrary to the practice of the Pharisees.

BTW, I'm moving this to the Law of God forum. If someone wants to call the consumption of alcohol sinful, he/she must do so by appealing to the Law of God, the standard of measuring what is right/wrong.

Originally Posted by DD2009

Originally Posted by BobVigneault

Matthew 11:19 "The Son of Man came eating and drinking, and they say, ‘Look at him! A glutton and a drunkard, a friend of tax collectors and sinners!’"

Jesus drank, and it caused others to stumble. Go therefore and do likewise. (Stay away from tax collectors though.)

I don't believe that Jesus ever got drunk because that is a sin. I think it was simply the mistaken perception of others about where he was visiting that is recorded here. Jesus visited others who lived like that, so people placed him in the birds of a feather flock together catagory. That verse in no way proves that Jesus drank liquor.

LUKE 33 For John the Baptist has come eating no bread and drinking no wine, and you say, ‘He has a demon.’ 34 The Son of Man has come eating and drinking, and you say, ‘Look at him! A glutton and a drunkard, a friend of tax collectors and sinners!’ 35 Yet wisdom is justified by all her children.”

I would contend that many verses, especially this one I referenced clearly points to Jesus drinking alcohol. The verse clearly makes the connection between Jesus "eating and drinking" and people calling him a "glutton and a drunkard". You only call someone a drunkard if they are drinking alcohol, not if he is simply hanging around those who drank.

This is a good article I found which traces alcohol in the Bible.

The Bible And Alcoholic Beverages



It makes a good point that those who have the prohibitionist position have the following reasoning:

(a) Scripture condemns drunkenness.

(b) Drinking alcoholic beverages can lead to drunkenness.

(c) Therefore, Scripture condemns the drinking of alcoholic beverages.

However, following the same line of reasoning, Christians would also be forced to conclude the following:

(a) Scripture condemns gluttony.

(b) Eating food can lead to gluttony.

(c) Therefore, Scripture condemns all eating of food.

Or the following:

(a) Scripture condemns murder.

(b) Owning a gun can lead to murder.

(c) Therefore, Scripture condemns the owning of all guns.

One really needs to study the origin of the temperance movement in the United States of America. It went against the thrust of church history with alcohol and Christians. Fundamentalist revivalist preachers would wale against the use of alcohol and this became one of the banners the fundamentalists would wave in the name of Christianity. Abstinence from alcohol is not a distinctly reformed thought, but spawned out of the revivalist fundamentalist era in the early 1800s as America was forming it's identity.

Preachers like Finney believed in Christianity's link to social reform, and temperance was a main area of emphasis.
http://www.gospeltruth.net/1849-51Pe...abstinence.htm

I don't drink much. But I've found a glass of beer or wine to often be a help in witnessing to the gospel, not a hinderance. It's a signal to my non-Christian friends that my faith is not about following certain religious rules better than they do, but rather something more freeing.

Some non-Christian friends have been pleasantly surprised that I seem very serious about my faith yet I'm willing to have a beer with them. It defies the holier-than-thou stereotype they have of a believer. For those of us blessed with the grace to drink responsibly, I'd suggest we hone the art of alcohol evangelism.

Originally Posted by Joshua

Friends, did Jesus partake of the passover? The last supper? Then he drank. The Bible not only doesn't condemn wine, but it also commends it. It says that God has given wine to gladden the hearts of men. For those who wish to abstain, great! But please, please, PLEASE, do not bind others' consciences and act as if abstinence makes you wiser, holier, or better. It doesn't. You cannot be holier than God. It's impossible, since He's the very epitome of holy.

Here's a good quote from Matthew Henry:

Those who are strict in restraining their own liberty yet ought not to impose those restraints upon the liberties of others, nor to judge of them accordingly. We must not make ourselves the standard to measure others by. A good man will deny himself that liberty which he will not deny another, contrary to the practice of the Pharisees.

BTW, I'm moving this to the Law of God forum. If someone wants to call the consumption of alcohol sinful, he/she must do so by appealing to the Law of God, the standard of measuring what is right/wrong.

1 Corinthians 6:9-10 KJV
[9] Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind,
[10] Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God.

1 Corinthians 6:9-10 ESV
9 Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality, 10 nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.

The bible says that drunkards will not inherit the kingdom of God. It places drunkards on the same plane with homosexuals, fornicators, idolaters, and thieves. How do you define a drunkard then? I define it as one who drinks alcohol to put themselves into a different perceptual state than what is defined as natural sobriety.

The bible nowhere says that Jesus was a drinker. It indicates that others thought he was because he was hanging out with drunkards witnessing to the truth to them.

Paul, the same apostle who wrote the above text under the inspiration of God, urged Timothy to use a little wine for his stomach 1 Timothy 5:23. Is Paul telling Timothy to pour a full glass of wine and tip it until its empty? No. This verse indicates to me that Timothy was being told to mix a little wine with his water! Not, that he should put down water and pick up wine.

1 Timothy 5:23 KJV
[23] Drink no longer water, but use a little wine for thy stomach's sake and thine often infirmities.

1 Timothy 5:23 ESV
23 (No longer drink only water, but use a little wine for the sake of your stomach and your frequent ailments.)

Your problem, Friend, is that you're equating drinkers with drunks. That's a large leap. That's like saying eaters = gluttons. Again, you cannot be holier than God. Jesus drank at the passover, at the last supper, etc. You have yet to show anything from Scripture that drinking, in and of itself, is sinful. And you won't be able to find it, because no prohibition thereof exists, only the prohibition of drunkenness.

Originally Posted by SolaSaint

Do you all not see any problem with drinking as a a follower of Christ in that it may cause another to stumble or give the appearance of evil to your Christian reputation?

1) I'm curious what you think constitutes "causing another to stumble". It's not about offending someone.

2) Drinking alcohol doesn't have anything to do with the "appearance of evil". It's not evil to drink alcohol. If someone sees me drinking alcohol and believes I am doing something evil, that is their problem for having a false understanding of Scripture.

-----Added 11/20/2009 at 10:18:47 EST-----

Originally Posted by DD2009

How do you define a drunkard then? I define it as one who drinks alcohol to put themselves into a different perceptual state than what is defined as natural sobriety.

I define it as someone who drinks too much, or more specifically, who drinks away all of their clarity and inhibitions. That is a far cry from having a couple drinks.

What do you think Scripture means when it says that alcohol "makes the heart glad"? I drink 1) because I like beer/wine, and 2) because I like to have a glad heart.

Originally Posted by Soonerborn

Originally Posted by DD2009

Originally Posted by BobVigneault

Matthew 11:19 "The Son of Man came eating and drinking, and they say, ‘Look at him! A glutton and a drunkard, a friend of tax collectors and sinners!’"

Jesus drank, and it caused others to stumble. Go therefore and do likewise. (Stay away from tax collectors though.)

I don't believe that Jesus ever got drunk because that is a sin. I think it was simply the mistaken perception of others about where he was visiting that is recorded here. Jesus visited others who lived like that, so people placed him in the birds of a feather flock together catagory. That verse in no way proves that Jesus drank liquor.

LUKE 33 For John the Baptist has come eating no bread and drinking no wine, and you say, ‘He has a demon.’ 34 The Son of Man has come eating and drinking, and you say, ‘Look at him! A glutton and a drunkard, a friend of tax collectors and sinners!’ 35 Yet wisdom is justified by all her children.”

I would contend that many verses, especially this one I referenced clearly points to Jesus drinking alcohol. The verse clearly makes the connection between Jesus "eating and drinking" and people calling him a "glutton and a drunkard".

I would contend that that verse only indicates that people thought Jesus was a drunk because of the company he kept, not because he actually was a drunk. I think he kept the company of drunkards to witness to them because he came to heal the broken hearted. Hard hearted people didn't understand that and labled the master a drunk.

Luke 4:18 KJV
[18] The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he hath anointed me to preach the gospel to the poor; he hath sent me to heal the brokenhearted, to preach deliverance to the captives, and recovering of sight to the blind, to set at liberty them that are bruised,

So, he kept company of those who were in the above catagory. This tells me that drunkenness leads to a broken heart if not the master would have spent his time elsewhere.

-----Added 11/20/2009 at 10:22:02 EST-----

Originally Posted by Joshua

Your problem, Friend, is that you're equating drinkers with drunks. That's a large leap. That's like saying eaters = gluttons. Again, you cannot be holier than God. Jesus drank at the passover, at the last supper, etc. You have yet to show anything from Scripture that drinking, in and of itself, is sinful. And you won't be able to find it, because no prohibition thereof exists, only the prohibition of drunkenness.

Why does the drinker drink? Does it put his mind out of the state of sobriety? If he does it for this reason he is a drunk. We are told to be sober and vigilant.

1 Peter 5:8 KJV
[8] Be sober, be vigilant; because your adversary the devil, as a roaring lion, walketh about, seeking whom he may devour: