Is it ok to drink alcohol...?

[Guest]

The context is sexual morality, not food and drink.

Oh, so in other words it's ok to defile the temple with other things. Just as long as you don't defile it with sex. What kind of reasoning is that? What a dodge...

The text says: If any man defile the temple of God, him shall God destroy;. It doesn't say God will not destroy you for defiling the temple as long as it's not sex. It says God will destroy whoever defiles the temple. Surely you understand that you can defile the temple with much more than just sex.

I think God expects us to use our brain when reading scripture.

[JawgeFromJawja]

Originally Posted By: olger

Guy on another forum says it's ok as long as you don't get drunken ---

____________________________

---I think the bigger question is can we handle the alcohol. Will it lead some to being an alcoholic. I think there are many reasons for not drinking. I guess there are benefits and obviously risks. I think each person needs to answer this for themselves, and not have someone tell you what is right or wrong with drinking. I don't think the Bible says outright no or yes. It does give reasons for certain people not to drink. And definitely makes a difference between new wine and fermented wine. Anyway those are my thoughts. I for one will not judge those that want to drink and tell them its wrong or sinful. pk

_________________________

(composing this over a light beer)

I think it's very easy to make a Biblical case against drunkenness.

I think it's very hard to make a Biblical case for complete abstinence.

Having said that, 'everything is permissible but not everything is beneficial' (1 Corinth. 10:23

_________________________

I am back after a two weeks hiatus.

The Bible makes it certain that Jesus ate and promoted fish in the diet. Probably meat, even though that is somewhat less certain. And alcoholic grape juice, even though that is a little less certain than 100%.

As noted by others, there is no Biblical justification for abstaining from alcohol, with certain explicit qualifications, such as the priest performing sacerdotal duties. Even so, the jury is out on medical justification for use of alcohol in an otherwise healthy diet. That statement coming from a Christian physician who happens to love his afternoon Martini may be surprising. However, my liver function is excellent, and at age 72, I'm not about to stop a pleasant practice that has not been harmful to me. My opinion for over twenty years is that a nondrinker would do better not to start using alcohol.

There is no Biblical justification for vegetarianism. However, almost total abstinence from meat and / or animal products may contribute to health and longevity. This is by no means a certainty. Even so, I thank God for my Adventist wife and her mostly vegetarian cuisine. But she does not make a spiritual issue about it. As a physician, I believe that the statistical longevity of Adventists comes largely from total abstinence from smoking and illegal drugs. One thing no one can argue: a vegetarian diet is better on the pocket book if practiced properly.

JawgeFromJawja

[Bravus]

Great to see you back, George!

[Bravus]

Notice how all the beer drinkers will get so defensive and accuse those with the opposite opinion of not conducting "close honest examination of scriptures."

I made no such accusation. Please read more closely.

[Bravus]

Originally Posted By: Bravus

Close, honest study of what the Bible actually says: real study in context, not proof-texting, and not 'study' that assumes what it sets out to prove, is all I've been asking for throughout the thread.

Ok, then give a Bible text that says it's ok to put alcohol in your body. Otherwise all you're doing is arguing your opinion against texts of scripture. You say you're asking for real Bible study in context, but I have yet to see you produce one text to make me believe that it's ok to drink alcohol.

But that's not the case I'm making. You can't demand I produce evidence for an argument I'm not making. I am *not* saying 'God commands the use of alcohol'. Here is the very specific argument I am making, quoted from the first page of this thread:

Originally Posted By: Bravus

I think it's very easy to make a Biblical case against drunkenness.

I think it's very hard to make a Biblical case for complete abstinence.

Having said that, 'everything is permissible but not everything is beneficial' (1 Corinth. 10:23)

I stand by that. Every text that has been suggested so far as making the case for complete abstinence has fallen at one (or some combination) of three hurdles:

1. It has been explicitly about drunkenness rather than moderate use. I have already stipulated the strong Biblical case against drunkenness.

2. It has applied to special narrow classes of people such as kings or the Nazarites... and if the application is to spread that to all people, why not the other requirements of the Nazarites such as no shaves or haircuts?

3. It has involved circular reasoning, already assuming alcohol to be evil. The notion of the body as a temple falls into this category - drinking water does not desecrate the temple. Drinking alcohol desecrates the temple only if we assume alcohol is bad (in moderation) and that case has not been made. The same applies to the 'having a beer with Jesus' arguments - they appeal to existing assumptions rather than evidence.

None of those hurdles is 'explaining away' Scripture nor applying private interpretations. They involve looking at the actual Scriptures and what they say.

And I believe these three hurdles account for all the Scriptures offered so far in this thread. I'm prepared to examine more Scriptures, or to be shown how I'm wrong in relation to the ones already considered.

[LifeHiscost]

Originally Posted By: Bravus

"A text without context is a pretext"

That's another one of those maxims of man that makes it easier to deny another person's capacity to find Truth where he finds it, as opposed to allowing our reasoning find the freedom to use feeling for the basis of our actions, ie: "It must be love because it feels so good." That's one of those realities that enables the female of the species put so much trust in the male gender when the male gender so regularly exploits them for an uncommitted moment of pleasure.

"But the word of the LORD was to them, “ Precept upon precept, precept upon precept, Line upon line, line upon line, Here a little, there a little,” That they might go and fall backward, and be broken And snared and caught."

Isaiah 28:13 NKJV

And why would God wish us to fall backward and be broken and snared? Could it be that would reveal our innermost heart instead of permitting our outward deportment give a lie?

"...I have rejected him. The Lord doesn’t see things the way you see them. People judge by outward appearance, but the Lord looks at the heart.”1 Samuel 16:7 NLT"

God blesses!

Bump!

[JawgeFromJawja]

Can I safely assume that those who think it's ok to drink have absolutely no use for the prophet, Ellen White?

Mrs. White was definitely wrong about many things. She may have been correct about alcohol. The juries that matter on that topic are still out.

I am a close friend of an Adventist college professor, PhD, who has grave misgivings about Mrs. White as a prophetess. The professor is otherwise a devout Adventist Christian who leads and has lead many into a healthy lifestyle, a veritable missionary for God's way.

Know ye not that ye are the temple of God, and that the Spirit of God dwelleth in you?

If any man defile the temple of God, him shall God destroy; for the temple of God is holy, which temple ye are. 1Co 3:16,17

Even so, this passage says nothing about tea and coffee, both of which in moderation are pleasant and beneficial. A definite answer on any physical benefits of alcohol is not yet available.

2Ch 20:20 Believe in the LORD your God, so shall ye be established; believe his prophets, so shall ye prosper.

While this verse is oh so true, the context of its precepts is to have faith in God in life's difficulties, and be loyal to God. It has nothing to do with God's health message.

God's People Value Their Health

The health reform, I was shown, is a part of the third angel's message and is just as closely connected with it as are the arm and hand with the human body.--1T 486 (1867). {LDE 80.4}

There is no reliable comprehension of the messages of Revelation without a thorough of the entire book, and a solid background in history especially the history of the Christian Church during the first, second, and third centuries.

I suggest that we all periodically read the entire book of Revelation. Then, to understand the message of the three angels, concentrate on chapters 10 through 14 in their entirety. The message of the three angels is obviously a proclamation and celebration of the destruction of the ancient Roman empire. Babylon, in those chapters, refers to ancient Rome.

Tea, coffee, tobacco, and alcohol we must present as sinful indulgences. We cannot place on the same ground, meat, eggs, butter, cheese, and such articles placed upon the table. These are not to be borne in front, as the burden of our work. The former--tea, coffee, tobacco, beer, wine, and all spirituous liquors--are not to be taken moderately, but discarded.--3SM 287 (1881). {LDE 81.1}

Then you would judge practically all of the Adventists I personally know as willful self-indulgent sinners. This judgment is always painful to me when I hear it, for most of them are devoted Christians whose salvation is assured.

JawgeFromJawja

[Bravus]

Originally Posted By: Bravus

"A text without context is a pretext"

That's another one of those maxims of man that makes it easier to deny another person's capacity to find Truth where he finds it, as opposed to allowing our reasoning find the freedom to use feeling for the basis of our actions, ie: "It must be love because it feels so good." That's one of those realities that enables the female of the species put so much trust in the male gender when the male gender so regularly exploits them for an uncommitted moment of pleasure.

Was going to let this go by because it's a bit off the main topic, but since you've quoted it again you're apparently looking for a response. The final section is just bizarre, so I'll treat it as an illustration and leave it to the side.

The statement that I'm using this maxim as a pretext (heh!) to base doctrine on feelings instead of Scripture is a bit rich when precisely the case I'm making is that Scripture needs to be our guide, and since so many of the arguments being made by others are based on feelings - including feelings conveyed in a poem.

Context is essential in taking the Bible seriously. What was God saying and what was the writer saying? When we twist the words out of context we do violence to the message God was actually sending, for our own purposes.

It's a cliche, but:

So Judas threw the money into the temple and left. Then he went away and hanged himself. Matthew 27:5

Then said Jesus unto him, Go, and do thou likewise. Like 10:37 (second part)

Clearly this is not sound doctrine. It is arrived at by taking things out of context. This is an extreme example, but remember that the chapter and verse indications are a later addition to the Biblical text. When we take one verse out of the paragraph that contained it, it's possible to make the Word say the opposite of what it's actually saying.

[LifeHiscost]

Clearly this is not sound doctrine. It is arrived at by taking things out of context. This is an extreme example, but remember that the chapter and verse indications are a later addition to the Biblical text. When we take one verse out of the paragraph that contained it, it's possible to make the Word say the opposite of what it's actually saying.

I've never known any person moved by the Spirit of God, who has mixed the Scriptures to make the effort to force the Word to say and be understood "according to the will of man". Although I'm not above the immaturity to be tempted along those lines.

God blesses!

[Overaged]

so many of the arguments being made by others are based on feelings - including feelings conveyed in a poem.

Context is essential in taking the Bible seriously. What was God saying and what was the writer saying? When we twist the words out of context we do violence to the message God was actually sending, for our own purposes.

It's a cliche, but:

So Judas threw the money into the temple and left. Then he went away and hanged himself. Matthew 27:5

Then said Jesus unto him, Go, and do thou likewise. Like 10:37 (second part)

Clearly this is not sound doctrine. It is arrived at by taking things out of context. This is an extreme example, but remember that the chapter and verse indications are a later addition to the Biblical text. When we take one verse out of the paragraph that contained it, it's possible to make the Word say the opposite of what it's actually saying.

It was a lot more than "feelings" conveyed in that poem. How can anyone who actually read the whole thing think otherwise?

You have completely lifted both Mat 27:5 and Luke 10:37 way out of context, Jesus did not even come close to connecting those two scriptures in the rationalistic defensive way you have resorted to here.

And you have utterly failed to show "context" for scriptures involving the subject at hand. Booze is a filthy ignorant liquid that makes people do stupid and oftentimes deadly things. How can anyone say "the Bible says it's OK?" To make "Biblical" excuses for drinking such swill is outrageous. How many more lives have to be ruined and lives lost before we smarten up?

[Overaged]

Bravus; I realize now you said your use of the two texts above were "not sound doctrine;" but let me ask a question, based upon the insinuation you made with that "example:"

Just because the Bible [allegedly] nowhere prohibits drinking alcoholic beverages; why then does that have to mean that the Bible "approves" of or "encourages" use of booze? Supply those correctly contexted texts you keep talking about, that would say what you are saying.

I guess when Jesus comes; you can be the one who offers Him a shot - I mean, as long as it's "controlled" as long as it's "just one;" Jesus will "understand" and have one for the Heavenly Road with you. Right?

[Dr. Shane]

I am a close friend of an Adventist college professor, PhD, who has grave misgivings about Mrs. White as a prophetess.

How sad!

If I had grave misgivings about Mrs. White as a prophetess I don't think I would be associating myself with the Adventist church.

I believe she was a prophetess. That is why I am an Adventist. I do not believe Joseph Smith was a prophet. That is why I am not a Mormon.

While I believe she was a prophetess, she did have divine visions and dreams and spoke with angels... I don't believe everything she wrote was free from her own personal opinion. I believe she was wrong about some things. But I certainly believe she was a prophetess.

[Bravus]

It is very, very orthodox and uncontroversial SDA belief to say that all doctrine must be founded in the Bible and the Bible alone. I am not denigrating the mission and prophetic gifts of Ellen White, but doctrines that can be established only on the basis of her writings and not on the basis of Scripture are not doctrines at all. *That* is why I have avoided getting into a quote-trading war from her works: her counsel is valuable, but doctrine *must* be established from Scripture.

[doug yowell]

Having said that, 'everything is permissible but not everything is beneficial' (1 Corinth. 10:23)I stand by that. Every text that has been suggested so far as making the case for complete abstinence has fallen at one (or some combination) of three hurdles:

1. It has been explicitly about drunkenness rather than moderate use. I have already stipulated the strong Biblical case against drunkenness.

2. It has applied to special narrow classes of people such as kings or the Nazarites... and if the application is to spread that to all people, why not the other requirements of the Nazarites such as no shaves or haircuts?

3. It has involved circular reasoning, already assuming alcohol to be evil. The notion of the body as a temple falls into this category - drinking water does not desecrate the temple. Drinking alcohol desecrates the temple only if we assume alcohol is bad (in moderation) and that case has not been made. The same applies to the 'having a beer with Jesus' arguments - they appeal to existing assumptions rather than evidence.

None of those hurdles is 'explaining away' Scripture nor applying private interpretations. They involve looking at the actual Scriptures and what they say.

And I believe these three hurdles account for all the Scriptures offered so far in this thread. I'm prepared to examine more Scriptures, or to be shown how I'm wrong in relation to the ones already considered.

1)"Wine is a mocker, Strong drink is a brawler,and whoever is led astray by it is not wise." This verse alone does not qualify for any of your hurdles. In fact, it argues against your claims.It applies itself to no special class, it mentions nothing about drunkenness, and it clearly states that the wine/strong drink is the mocker able to deceive the user. Even without this Biblical evidence science has demonstrated that even small amounts of alcohol have measureable effects on both physical reactions and moral inhibitions. You keep ignoring the physical/mental/spiritual connection while claiming that alcohol is inherently neutral.2) Alcohol use is not recommended for kings (Prov.31:4-7) and expressly forbidden for priests who minister before God (Lev.10:8-10).There is nothing mentioned about drunkenness,simply a "don't do it" admonition.That's what the Scripture SAYS.Shaves and haircuts??? Please!!If alcohol was not in and of itself evil then what would be the point of any Divine prohibition?How bout reasoning from the latest New Testament definition of Christian believers,..."and (Jesus Christ)has made US kings and priests to His God....(Rev.1:6)Now there's a narrow class of people!!

[John317]

If I had grave misgivings about Mrs. White as a prophetess I don't think I would be associating myself with the Adventist church.

I completely agree. If she was not a prophetess, she was a liar or else deceived. In any case, why would I want to be associated with a church that was co-founded and led by such a person?

Whether people want to accept it or not, Ellen White was very influencial on the doctrines of our church. The doctrines are supported by the Bible, yes, but God gave her visions during the early years-- 1848-1865-- that helped our Founding Fathers know when they had found the correct understanding of the Bible.

If those were not visions from God, they were either from the devil or from her own mind; and at any rate, if we are not following a true prophet, we are following a false one, and in that case, let us be done with her and with the church and message she help found. If she was a false prophet, it wouldn't be God, but rather his self-declared enemy, that would have been leading her. So if I believed she was not a true prophet I would be gone tonight and would encourage others to leave as well. If I was convicted of it, God would hold me responsible if I didn't.

[John317]

It is very, very orthodox and uncontroversial SDA belief to say that all doctrine must be founded in the Bible and the Bible alone.

The doctrines are certainly founded on the Bible and the Bible alone. Every one of our fundamental doctrines can be found in the Scriptures. But that doesn't mean that every detail that Ellen Write writes about must also be stated in the Bible. Tthere are many other Christians-- besides SDAs-- who believe that we ought not to drink alcohol, and they base their convictions on the Bible and not on Ellen White.

Another point is that when we say that our doctrines must be founded on the Bible, we do not mean that every person who studies them will be, or must be, convinced of the truth of the doctrine. If that were the case, no doctrine of our church would be seen as founded on the Bible, because there are doubters concerning virtually every doctrine in our church, including the Sabbath.

Quote:

I am not denigrating the mission and prophetic gifts of Ellen White, but doctrines that can be established only on the basis of her writings and not on the basis of Scripture are not doctrines at all. *That* is why I have avoided getting into a quote-trading war from her works: her counsel is valuable, but doctrine *must* be established from Scripture.

The SDA church's view of health is not only founded on the basis of Ellen White's writings.

What she says is supported by Scripture. But SDAs don't believe-- and the Bible does not teach--that every word that a prophet says must also be found elsewhere in Scripture. If that were the case, God would have no need to send additional prophets. All He would need to do is point people to various texts in the Bible and would not give any additional revelations.

Why did God inspire Ellen White with thousands of visions and dreams, and help her write thousands of pages of material-- if God didn't mean for us to study them and follow the teachings found in those books? We can be sure it wasn't in order for His people to ignore them. God means for us to read them seriously and put them into practice in our indvidual lives and as a church. The fact that the church hasn't done this is no doubt one of the major reasons for the delay in the second coming.

[Bravus]

Fair enough, but that's an easy one too. Anyone who believes that everything EGW wrote - the counsels and letters, not just the visions - is prophecy direct from God has no choice but to completely abstain from alcohol, tobacco, tea and coffee. End of story.

[fccool]

Let me show you where it goes south...

God is not going to tell people everything they should do or not do. He gives us principles and then leaves it up to us to use our reasoning as to whether we will do what He has told us. ...

The reason God raised up Ellen White as His last-day prophet was in order to give us the truth in a way that would leave us without an excuse not to follow God's word. The only way that anyone can deny it is to reject what she wrote, because her words about it leave no doubt.

Here's the problem. You are saying that God is not going to tell people everything... i.e. he did not tell them everything, UNTIL E.G.White came up on the scene. Then details were revealed through her.

Why?

[fccool]

Fair enough, but that's an easy one too. Anyone who believes that everything EGW wrote - the counsels and letters, not just the visions - is prophecy direct from God has no choice but to completely abstain from alcohol, tobacco, tea and coffee. End of story.

Or rationalize the other counsel that they don't follow as "our of context of the time"

( I do agree that many of it is... yet things like abstaining from refined sugar are clearly not being followed, or followed very loosely)

[Woody]

Originally Posted By: Bravus

Fair enough, but that's an easy one too. Anyone who believes that everything EGW wrote - the counsels and letters, not just the visions - is prophecy direct from God has no choice but to completely abstain from alcohol, tobacco, tea and coffee. End of story.

Or rationalize the other counsel that they don't follow as "our of context of the time"

( I do agree that many of it is... yet things like abstaining from refined sugar are clearly not being followed, or followed very loosely)

Those that support EGW blindly ... do not follow her. They pick and choose what they want to follow. I have yet to meet ANY SDA who follows ALL of her writings and instructions. They may 'claim' they do but the truth is they change meanings and context to excuse themselves from not following her. Then they claim they support all she says.

[Overaged]

Woody; I am not saying anything about you; but I was just thinking that it is too bad that this thread has been hi-jacked by the booze drinkers on this thread to yet another "contest" between Ellen White and The Bible. They are lovin every minute of this "argument" because then no one has to face the truth that it's not OK to drink such swill; and that NO ONE can "control" it the way they think they can. And that's whether or not the Bible explititly says so. I don't know how anyone can justify drinking such abominations.

[Woody]

Quote:

I don't know how anyone can justify drinking such abominations.

I guess if you are truly interested in knowing how someone could possibly disagree with you and have different beliefs .... listen carefully and respectfully ... I am sure you will be able to learn.

(By the way ... I've never had a drop of alcohol and I am a former Alcohol and Drug Counselor.)

But I do know that we need to be good at listening and trying to understand.

[Overaged]

Yes, you are quite right - but I have seen too many die or be permanently maimed while I was busy "listening." What is there to "understand?"

[fccool]

Woody; I am not saying anything about you; but I was just thinking that it is too bad that this thread has been hi-jacked by the booze drinkers on this thread to yet another "contest" between Ellen White and The Bible. They are lovin every minute of this "argument" because then no one has to face the truth that it's not OK to drink such swill; and that NO ONE can "control" it the way they think they can. And that's whether or not the Bible explititly says so. I don't know how anyone can justify drinking such abominations.

First of all, I don't drink... and have not been drinking since I was a kid... growing up in nation where people drink since they are 7-8.

Second of all, please don't portray people who drink very little for taste as consumers of abomination. It's certainly uncalled for.

Thirdly, neither I... not Bravus dragged E.G. White in this thread. I'm simply addressing it when people start justifying abstinence because of her advice. I'm simply showing that it's inconsistent to follow and believe one, and then blatantly disregard other.

What I hear a lot on this thread is "I choose to abstain from ALL harmful substances"...

It echoes a lot to me of "All that Lord asks of us we will do... now sprinkle us with some blood please and tell us how we are more special than other nations around us".

[Bravus]

Indeed: I've tried very hard to keep EGW out of the thread - it's John317 who keeps dragging her in. Then, once she was in, I immediately conceded that it's easy to make a watertight case for abstinence based on her writings.

Look, Overaged, I definitely understand your very strong feelings on the topic, and the reasons for those feelings. I did not at all mean to minimize or denigrate the feelings and the facts presented in your poem, which was very powerful. I have a zero tolerance view in relation to drink-driving and am horrified by the carnage it causes.

You need to be able to separate out different topics and arguments in order to argue a case clearly, however. I've said clearly that the church ought to be free to advocate abstinence with all its might.

What it should not be free to do is claim the Bible requires it.

Telling the truth about what the Bible says is important.