Is it ok to drink alcohol...?

[fccool]

I have heard many claim they just drink it for taste, only to see them in a 12-Step meeting a few years later admitting it wasn't just for taste.

Couldn't we take anything and turn it into an issue here? Is the issue with alcohol, or self-control. You call alcohol all of these, but it's just a liquid that has no power over people who use it responsibly, just like chocolate has no power over people who can control their cravings.

With that mentality ... we should really not eat or drink anything that taste good, because it "mocks us", and it's "cunning", and it ends up putting people in rehabs

I mean, look around you... how many people in church really should be in Weight-Watchers meetings... really a food version of AA. I don't drink, but I certainly should frequent WW to get some tips.

Point is that Bible advocates self-control. Calling alcohol evil, is like calling a rock evil. Both can kill a person.

[JawgeFromJawja]

Originally Posted By: JawgeFromJawja

And no, John, I absolutely refuse to give up my pleasant afternoon martini.

Yes Jawge, but can you give it up?

Whatever we do not overcome will overcome us.

Good grief, John! I am not about to give up a pleasant daily diversion that has not harmed me or anybody else in any way. I am not a Nazarene, and cessation of any or all harmless, pleasant practices that do not hurt me and anyone else is patently ridiculous.

As far as the practice being sinful, balderdash! Show me in the New Testament. It is not there. John, we do not all have your health problems, metabolic makeup, and commitment to extraneous spiritual demands. For me, it remains sola scriptura.

Jawge

[John317]

And no, John, I absolutely refuse to give up my pleasant afternoon martini.

Originally Posted By: Gordon1

Yes Jawge, but can you give it up?

Whatever we do not overcome will overcome us.

Originally Posted By: JawgeFromJawja

Good grief, John! I am not about to give up a pleasant daily diversion that has not harmed me or anybody else in any way. I am not a Nazarene, and cessation of any or all harmless, pleasant practices that do not hurt me and anyone else is patently ridiculous.

As far as the practice being sinful, balderdash! Show me in the New Testament. It is not there. John, we do not all have your health problems, metabolic makeup, and commitment to extraneous spiritual demands. For me, it remains sola scriptura.

Jawge

As Moderator:

Jawge, please learn how to use the "Quote" buttons correctly.

You quoted Gordon1 and then made your reply so that readers could not distinguish between your original statement and Gordon1's response,, and then on top of that, you directed your answer to me instead of to Gordon1, the person who wrote the quote.

Without moderator's hat on:

I believe Gordon1 did give you a good, biblical answer. But if you choose to drink even after you've studied the NT, then that is your prerogative. Christ died in order to give us a choice between righteousness and sin.

[JawgeFromJawja]

Originally Posted By: JawgeFromJawja

Thank God for the effect of Bacchiocchi's on you. But you admit that you had a preconceived notion before reading the book, and it seems that Prof. B. also started with a preconceived notion.

Jawge

Going by your "logic" my friend; none of us will be able to discuss this topic with you again, because of your very preconceived notions here; AS ENTAILED IN YOUR ADAMANT REFUSAL to give up your daily "martini." LOL, hows that for logic? You must be one of those dudes who never drink, unless you are alone or with somebody! Cheers!

_________________________

"In the wilderness shall waters break out; and streams in the desert..." Isaiah 35:6,

Light In The Dark

Overaged, I looked up Isa 35: 6. It is totally irrelevant to our exchange. My wife is not looking over my shoulder, so I will add that use of such irrelevant references seems habitual amongst SDAs who have no concrete Scripture to back up a doctrine or an opinion. Don't be offended. I found the same ineffectual and ultimately reprehensible habits amongst my other Protestant friends. (Those friends are numerous, but not as dominant in my life as SDAs of various valid and invalid opinions.)

My adamant refusal to give up my martini? Why? I enjoy it. To whom am I refusing to implement that personal and totally unnecessary deprivation? It is not a sin if in moderation. I know God personally. God gave me a personal epiphany this past Christmas morning. God is my Saviour and my closest friend except for the wife of my youth. God endorses my personal use of such stupidity as alcohol, just as endorsing my occasional

overindulgence in gustatorial pleasures. You gonna tell me you never overindulge? Let the guiltless cast the first stone.

You gonna worry yourself to death about day to day stupidity that does not hurt anybody else? If yer gonna let such minutiae hurt you, I assure you that such is not the concern of The Savior. Finally, I'll ask you, are you certain about your salvation? If not, I feel sorry for you. God is certain about your salvation. (At least, the salvation of most Adventists, Baptists, Zen Buddhists, etc.)

Jawge

Certain of his salvation despite being a loose living Jawja Bulldog. (This says nothing about my liver function, which remains excellent, excellent even for somebody 40 years younger.)

[John317]

Finally, I'll ask you, are you certain about your salvation? If not, I feel sorry for you. God is certain about your salvation. (At least, the salvation of most Adventists, Baptists, Zen Buddhists, etc.)

Matt. 7: 21-23 says that many people will have great confidence they will be saved, but they will be utterly lost.

Matthew 7:21-23

"Not everyone who says to me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. [22] On that day many will say to me, 'Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and cast out demons in your name, and do many mighty works in your name?' [23] And then will I declare to them, 'I never knew you; depart from me, you workers of lawlessness.'

Salvation is directly tied to "having the Son."

1 John 5:11-12

And this is the testimony, that God gave us eternal life, and this life is in his Son. [12] Whoever has the Son has life; whoever does not have the Son of God does not have life.

NOTE: The really important question is not do we have confdience that we will be saved, but do we really have the Son. People won't be saved because they have confidence that they will be saved but because they have Jesus and have Jesus' Spirit abiding in them and leading them.

Our confidence is not based on our having once accepted Christ as our Lord and Savior. Our confidence comes from Christ's continued leading in our life.

1 John 2:3

And by this we know that we have come to know him, if we keep his commandments.

1 John 4:13

By this we know that we abide in him and he in us, because he has given us of his Spirit.

1 John 5:14

And this is the confidence that we have toward him, that if we ask anything according to his will he hears us.

Here's what Paul said about having the Son and His Spirit:

Romans 8:5-14

For those who live according to the flesh set their minds on the things of the flesh, but those who live according to the Spirit set their minds on the things of the Spirit. [6] To set the mind on the flesh is death, but to set the mind on the Spirit is life and peace. [7] For the mind that is set on the flesh is hostile to God, for it does not submit to God's law; indeed, it cannot. [8] Those who are in the flesh cannot please God.

[9] You, however, are not in the flesh but in the Spirit, if in fact the Spirit of God dwells in you. Anyone who does not have the Spirit of Christ does not belong to him. [10] But if Christ is in you, although the body is dead because of sin, the Spirit is life because of righteousness. [11] If the Spirit of him who raised Jesus from the dead dwells in you, he who raised Christ Jesus from the dead will also give life to your mortal bodies through his Spirit who dwells in you.

[12] So then, brothers, we are debtors, not to the flesh, to live according to the flesh. [13] For if you live according to the flesh you will die, but if by the Spirit you put to death the deeds of the body, you will live. [14] For all who are led by the Spirit of God are sons of God.

[fccool]

John,

Basically, what you are implying by quoting this verse is that people who drink alcohol in moderation are not of God... do I understand it correctly?

[JawgeFromJawja]

Originally Posted By: JawgeFromJawja

Masculine bovine excrement.

I, for one, have many reasons for drinking.

Jawge

Are they the same as your reasons for using the verbage you've chosen here? I'm not convinced that you have many reasons for drinking. Judging by your statements I'd have to conclude that you really have only one.

If I offended you, my sincere regrets. Not my sincere apologies. The expression is a favorite one of mine that this crusty ole Georgia Bulldog ain't about to give up. Some peoples' opinions and knowledge are as valid as masculine bovine feces. No, I would hardly ever say the common words for such.

Just as Isaiah had a problem with potty mouth, so do I. God and I are working on that problem, for I am a basically refined individual despite being a Georgia Bulldog.

Jawge

[John317]

Not sure what quote from the Bible you're referring to. I've quoted a number of texts.

[John317]

As Moderator:

Jawge, please learn how to use the "Quote" buttons correctly.

You quoted Gordon1 and then made your reply so that readers could not distinguish between your original statement and Gordon1's response,, and then on top of that, you directed your answer to me instead of to Gordon1, the person who wrote the quote.

I posted this earlier, but you evidently haven't read it yet becasue you keep posting in the same way, so I'm reposting this message.

[JawgeFromJawja]

Originally Posted By: JawgeFromJawja

Finally, I'll ask you, are you certain about your salvation? If not, I feel sorry for you. God is certain about your salvation. (At least, the salvation of most Adventists, Baptists, Zen Buddhists, etc.)

Matt. 7: 21-23 says that many people will have great confidence they will be saved, but they will be uttery lost.

John, I am not going to try to convince you of my salvation. That's between me and God. I feel more comfortable in my relationship with God than with any mortal. But overall, you are saying that if my faith and behavior do not conform to yours and your expected behavior, then my salvation is in question.

Thank God that My Savior is my Judge, not you.

Answer me yes or no, are you saved? Don't give me a dozen references from either Scripture or Mrs. White. Are you saved?

Matthew 7:21-23

"Not everyone who says to me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. [22] On that day many will say to me, 'Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and cast out demons in your name, and do many mighty works in your name?' [23] And then will I declare to them, 'I never knew you; depart from me, you workers of lawlessness.'

Salvation is directly tied to "having the Son."

Same question, John. ARE YOU SAVED?

1 John 5:11-12

And this is the testimony, that God gave us eternal life, and this life is in his Son. [12] Whoever has the Son has life; whoever does not have the Son of God does not have life.

Here's what Paul said about having the Son and His Spirit:

Romans 8:5-14

For those who live according to the flesh set their minds on the things of the flesh, but those who live according to the Spirit set their minds on the things of the Spirit. [6] To set the mind on the flesh is death, but to set the mind on the Spirit is life and peace. [7] For the mind that is set on the flesh is hostile to God, for it does not submit to God's law; indeed, it cannot. [8] Those who are in the flesh cannot please God.

[9] You, however, are not in the flesh but in the Spirit, if in fact the Spirit of God dwells in you. Anyone who does not have the Spirit of Christ does not belong to him. [10] But if Christ is in you, although the body is dead because of sin, the Spirit is life because of righteousness. [11] If the Spirit of him who raised Jesus from the dead dwells in you, he who raised Christ Jesus from the dead will also give life to your mortal bodies through his Spirit who dwells in you.

[12] So then, brothers, we are debtors, not to the flesh, to live according to the flesh. [13] For if you live according to the flesh you will die, but if by the Spirit you put to death the deeds of the body, you will live. [14] For all who are led by the Spirit of God are sons of God.

_________________________

John 3:16-17

For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. [17] For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him.

Same question, John. Yes or no. ARE YOU SAVED?

[John317]

As Moderator:

Jawge, please learn how to use the "Quote" buttons correctly.

You quoted Gordon1 and then made your reply so that readers could not distinguish between your original statement and Gordon1's response,, and then on top of that, you directed your answer to me instead of to Gordon1, the person who wrote the quote.

I posted this earlier, but you evidently haven't read it yet becasue you keep posting in the same way, so I'm reposting this message.

Your next post will be deleted if you continue to post in this same way, Jawge. I've asked you about this many times before. If you need help in doing it, let me know. I've explained it before to you, so I'm assuming you know how.

[Bravus]

George, hitting the 'Quote' link on the post you're replying to and then (if necessary) editing what's between the {quote} and {/quote} tags (the real ones have square instead of curly brackets) is the best way to quote text from others' posts and respond to it. It takes a little practice to do well but it's worthwhile learning.

[John317]

The way the Bible puts it is that people are "being saved," not that we are already saved. When the apostles preached in the book of Acts, they said, "Keep believing on the Lord Jesus Christ and you will be saved."

You'll notice in the Bible, no ones says, "I am [already] saved."

There are some people who shouldn't have confidence that they are saved. There's such a thing as "false confidence." Jesus Himself indicated in Matt. 7: 21-23 that there will be many sad and tragic surprises.

Read 1 John 3: 1-10;

See what kind of love the Father has given to us, that we should be called children of God; and so we are. The reason why the world does not know us is that it did not know him. [2] Beloved, we are God's children now, and what we will be has not yet appeared; but we know that when he appears we shall be like him, because we shall see him as he is. [3] And everyone who thus hopes in him purifies himself as he is pure.

[4] Everyone who makes a practice of sinning also practices lawlessness; sin is lawlessness. [5] You know that he appeared to take away sins, and in him there is no sin. [6] No one who abides in him keeps on sinning; no one who keeps on sinning has either seen him or known him. [7] Little children, let no one deceive you. Whoever practices righteousness is righteous, as he is righteous. [8] Whoever makes a practice of sinning is of the devil, for the devil has been sinning from the beginning. The reason the Son of God appeared was to destroy the works of the devil. [9] No one born of God makes a practice of sinning, for God's seed abides in him, and he cannot keep on sinning because he has been born of God. [10] By this it is evident who are the children of God, and who are the children of the devil: whoever does not practice righteousness is not of God, nor is the one who does not love his brother.

[Bravus]

So, no further comments on Proverbs 31? I've stated that it does not explicitly give permission to drink, but that since it is (explicitly) focused on kings and issues of justice and (implicitly) addressing drunkenness it also does not constitute a solid condemnation of moderate use. Others will disagree, but I think at least we've looked at it in some detail, and hopefully I've clarified my claim somewhat.

I'm happy to move on to Cana if there's no further discussion on this passage.

[Bravus]

The 'assurance of salvation' issue is, IMO, well off topic for this thread and should be continued in a new thread if it's to be pursued.

[John317]

Yes, it is, but I'll decide that. The way I moderate, I allow for some side-issues for awhile if they come up,

[John317]

OK, let's look at Cana. Always an interesting topic. Did Jesus by God's power perform a miracle to make over 120 gallons of alcohol?

[Bravus]

Here's the story from the KJV:

John 2

1 And the third day there was a marriage in Cana of Galilee; and the mother of Jesus was there: 2 And both Jesus was called, and his disciples, to the marriage. 3 And when they wanted wine, the mother of Jesus saith unto him, They have no wine. 4 Jesus saith unto her, Woman, what have I to do with thee? mine hour is not yet come. 5 His mother saith unto the servants, Whatsoever he saith unto you, do it. 6 And there were set there six waterpots of stone, after the manner of the purifying of the Jews, containing two or three firkins apiece. 7 Jesus saith unto them, Fill the waterpots with water. And they filled them up to the brim. 8 And he saith unto them, Draw out now, and bear unto the governor of the feast. And they bare it. 9 When the ruler of the feast had tasted the water that was made wine, and knew not whence it was: (but the servants which drew the water knew;) the governor of the feast called the bridegroom, 10 And saith unto him, Every man at the beginning doth set forth good wine; and when men have well drunk, then that which is worse: but thou hast kept the good wine until now. 11 This beginning of miracles did Jesus in Cana of Galilee, and manifested forth his glory; and his disciples believed on him.

I'm no Greek scholar, but I've read up on this passage, and apparently the Greek word used for 'wine' was used for both fermented and unfermented grape juice, so there's no direct evidence there either way.

That means that most studies of this issue that I've seen have used circumstantial evidence, or else been examples of circular reasoning where the conclusion was already assumed at the start. That is, most are of the form '(alcoholic) wine is bad, Jesus wouldn't make bad stuff, therefore what Jesus made was not (alcoholic) wine'. In a study where we are hoping to *find out* what the Bible says about wine, bringing a premade conclusion is poor practice.

I'll be interested in any good interpretations of this Scripture that can make the case that the wine Jesus made was not fermented *without* using that presupposition.

As a counterpoint, let me offer some circumstantial speculation in the opposite direction (while being aware that's what it is): Grape juice is grape juice is grape juice - it all tastes pretty much the same, without much subtlety or complexity of flavour. The fact that the 'ruler of the feast' was so struck by the quality of the wine Jesus made suggests to me it was 'real' (fermented) wine, which has a much more complex array of flavours and is more easily discerned.

As I say, just speculative. The conclusion of the matter, unless someone can bring new evidence, is that this passage is not conclusive either way.

[John317]

John,

Basically, what you are implying by quoting this verse is that people who drink alcohol in moderation are not of God... do I understand it correctly?

No, I am not saying that people who drink some alcohol in moderation are necessarily not of God. But it depends on a persons convictions and knowledge. The Bible teaches that whatsoever is not from faith is sin. Therefore, if a person is convicted that it may be wrong or that it is wrong to drink alcohol, and yet he goes ahead and drinks it, it is a sin. 1 John 3: 1-10 makes it very clear that people who have God's seed or God's Spirit don't keep on practicing sin. Therefore, if a person is convicted that drinking alcohol is a sin but he keeps on drinking it anyway, then it is proof that he is not being led of God and does not have God's seed in Him. Believers do sin but they don't keep practicing sin when the Holy Spirit makes them aware of it. Instead they do what 1 John 1: 5 to 2: 6 says. They repent and confess.

Martin Luther got drunk sometimes, but he didn't have all the light that we have today. People aren't judged according to the light that other people have in different times. God judges us according to the knoweldge we have and according to the knowledge we could have if we wanted to know the truth and sought for it.

[John317]

...I'm no Greek scholar, but I've read up on this passage, and apparently the Greek word used for 'wine' was used for both fermented and unfermented grape juice, so there's no direct evidence there either way.

That's right-- there's no way to decide the issue here simply on the basis of the word "wine."

The question has to be decided on what else the Bible says about alcohol and about Christ.

It was Christ who inspired the Bible writers to write what they did about alcohol and about health.

It was Christ who inspired Ellen White to write what she did about the topic of health and alcohol.

Ellen White, who Seventy-day Adventists accept as God's last-day prophet, wrote that the wine served at Cana was grape juice, and as you pointed out, the original language does definitely allow for this understanding.

I find it very difficult to believe that after Christ inspired all the warnings about alcohol consumption, He would have used the power of God to make over 120 gallons of alcohol. We all know what 120 gallons of alcholol would do to people. No doubt, if it was alcohol, there would have been some drunk people at the wedding feast, and many others "high." (I know because I would get high on a glass of wine.)

I understand that some people have no problem with that, but I certainly do. Everyone must make up his own mind.

[fccool]

Here's what to say on the topic...

“We must not…reject [or] condemn anything because it is abused. This would result in utter confusion. God has commanded us in Deut. 4 not to lift up our eyes to the sun (and the moon and the stars), etc., that we may not worship them, for they are created to serve all nations. But there are many people who worship the sun and the stars. Therefore we propose to rush in and pull the sun and stars from the skies. No, we had better let it be. Again, wine and women bring many a man to misery and make a fool of him (Ecclus. 19:2; 31:30); so we kill all the women and pour out all the wine. Again, gold and silver cause much evil, so we condemn them. Indeed, if we want to drive away our worst enemy, the one who does us the most harm, we shall have to kill ourselves, for we have no greater enemy than our own heart, as the prophet, Jer. 17, says, “The heart of man is crooked,” or, as I take the meaning, “always twisting to one side.” And so on – what would we not do?”

[John317]

....As a counterpoint, let me offer some circumstantial speculation in the opposite direction (while being aware that's what it is): Grape juice is grape juice is grape juice - it all tastes pretty much the same, without much subtlety or complexity of flavour. The fact that the 'ruler of the feast' was so struck by the quality of the wine Jesus made suggests to me it was 'real' (fermented) wine, which has a much more complex array of flavours and is more easily discerned.

I'm not sure that this is true, particulary in the time of Christ. There are ancient writers from that day who wrote about the various kinds of non-alcoholic juices, and they indicate that not all grape juice and other juices were equally good or tasteful.

If you've read Bacchiocchi's book, you must have noticed he deals with this issue on pages 136-144 in the chapter on Jesus and Wine. He produces very good evidence there that disputes your contention that all grape juice tastes the same. He quotes ancient writers, such as Pliny, Plutarch, and Horace, on the tastes of unfermentated grape juice and other juices.

[Bravus]

Something I deliberately described as 'circumstantial speculation' is hardly a 'contention'.

The bottom line is that on the basis of the Biblical text there is no strong argument either way in the story of the wedding at Cana in relation to the issue of moderate use of alcohol.

That being the case, we may as well move on with the study.

Perhaps the texts used to support consumption of alcohol might as well be exhausted, so let's move on to Timothy and 'a little wine for your stomach's sake'.

[fccool]

I doubt you can make a solid argument based on Timothy. Let me break down the argument for you:

1) God has a certain plan/law for humanity

2) It would not make sense for God to act in discord to that law

3) Thus, any passages that may seem otherwise MUST be interpreted according to #1 and #2

That's the mechanics of such arguments. I.E. as John pointed out that Jesus is the one inspired the warnings against alcohol, and he obviously inspired all of E.G. White's writings... so because of that, he obviously would not turn the water into wine because that would be contradicting Himself.

What such arguments neglect is the fact that God indeed would give people what they wanted on numerous occasions in His infinite wisdom.

Example:

"And I gave thee thy master's house, and thy master's wives into thy bosom, and gave thee the house of Israel and of Judah; and if that had been too little, I would moreover have given unto thee such and such things."

2 Samuel 12:8

Didn't God/Jesus know the damage it would do to the idea of marriage for him to give David multiple wives? Why would He do that?

[Bravus]

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

I think this one is also pretty easily disposed of as a command *to* drink alcohol. Whether or not the 'wine' in the verse is alcoholic (I believe the Greek word is the same one used in John 2), this is talking about medicinal rather than recreational use. Many medications contain alcohol, and SDAs tend not to abstain from those. The medicinal use of alcohol (if that's what it was) is not justification for the recreational use of same.

Plus, the relevant medicinal virtues probably *were* those of the grape juice rather than the alcohol itself: if the wine *was* alcoholic, that was probably a peripheral issue rather than a central one.

It isn't a slamdunk case *for* or *against* alcohol use.