Is it ok to drink alcohol...?

[fccool]

Quote:

It is so easy for imbibers to use Prov 31 as a way to try and say it is OK in God's eyes to drink booze; but lets look at that passage in the clear light of other Bible passages, and stop trying to isolate it to our own pet practices.

I think it should be clear to note that outside of non-alcoholic wine, I don't drink, and that one I don't drink but maybe twice a year. I have nothing to defend here but honesty.

The argument that's being presented is from the standpoint of dogma and "potential danger of use". It's not presented from reality of ancient Israel, neither it is presented from context of self-control.

Such mentality is hypocritical, because it chooses several things to showcase around the world as "the Godly lifestyle", but it avoids the weightier matters of law... which are clearly ignored during conversations in this thread.

[doug yowell]

It's clear that this whole chapter is about false prophets, not alcohol. Micah is saying that the people would be happy with a prophet who prophesied that they would receive plenty of wine and beer.

It's possible that there is an incidental suggestion that wine and strong drink are not good things, but it's incidental, not the focus of the text.

Is it then coincidental that false prophets and the joys of alcohol consumption are connected?

[doug yowell]

So, in wrapping up this discussion, from my perspective, let me say:

Don't drink. It's healthier, better and simpler and there are lots of good reasons.

In this I think we have total agreement. As Christians I believe that we have the duty to follow the safest and best path available to us. Perhaps our difference lies in the fact that you don't believe that the Bible supports the conclusions that you've just articulated. Lots of good reasons just not Biblical ones.We accept your conclusions and claim that the Bible supports them. Strange.

[Dr. Shane]

Yes, I know what #17 says but you'll notice that the name Ellen G.White is not mentioned.

OK, Doug... If you believe the Spirit of Prophecy is one of the identifying marks of the remnant church but do not believe in the prophetic ministry of Ellen G. White, please tell us by whom (plug in name of prophet) has the Spirit of Prophecy been manifested in the end-time church?

[Dr. Shane]

If you have any slightest clue about winepressing and distribution in Ancient Israel, you would at least question how Jesus could be drinking freshly squeezed grape juice in April... 7 months after the harvest?

It was a miracle. Jesus turned water into wine. It didn't really come from real grapes. It came from water.

[doug yowell]

Thus the Church members MUST agree with the rules of the church, even thought these are loosely derived from sparse quotation of scripture with help of of Prophetic doctrine , that ironically appear after 2000 years of absence of it.

Generally speaking, members are usually members because they agree with the rules of the church.Few members of churches are born and tenured members. Most willingly (or otherwise)decide to join an organization. Even most secular clubs have bylaws and regulations for membership.What's not fair about that?

[fccool]

It was a miracle. Jesus turned water into wine. It didn't really come from real grapes. It came from water.

During the passover in the upper room?

[doug yowell]

Originally Posted By: doug yowell

Yes, I know what #17 says but you'll notice that the name Ellen G.White is not mentioned.

OK, Doug... If you believe the Spirit of Prophecy is one of the identifying marks of the remnant church but do not believe in the prophetic ministry of Ellen G. White, please tell us by whom (plug in name of prophet) has the Spirit of Prophecy been manifested in the end-time church?

I don't believe that I said that I didn't believe in the prophetic ministry of EGW. I said that neither EGW or our founders required belief in her prophetic identity as a requirement for church membership. The subtle addition of #17 seems to undermine (though not openly)their wishes.Thus one could believe that the Remnant church would be identified by the gift of prophesy (hard to miss that one)without actually identifying how that gift was manifested.

[fccool]

Generally speaking, members are usually members because they agree with the rules of the church.Few members of churches are born and tenured members. Most willingly (or otherwise)decide to join an organization. Even most secular clubs have bylaws and regulations for membership.What's not fair about that?

Yet, in this case we are not talking about any organization. I would understand if the above is talking about a Golf Club or something.

We are talking about a community of believers here that come together to worship God and to strengthen one another. It's not just another book of names that one presents in the end of the year to show how great the club that's growing.

Generally, It's very presumptious to make Adventists as the exclusive group of people who God called to spread his message. This assumption is made solely on misinterpreting what the "Spirit of Prophecy" is. Perhaps there should be a separate discussion about it, but the "Spirit of Prophecy" IS NOT A WOMAN. IT'S NOT A HUMAN BEING... and it does not manifest in one person, who is now dead.

You don't vote in the church members... it's not a Biblical practice. Neither do you "transfer the membership"... by means of voting. It's not a church practice. You can only recognize the gifts and fruits of the Spirit, which is a clear indication of someone being impacted and of God. It has nothing to do with "signing agreement to be a part of the club". That was NEVER a mechanics of the church.

[doug yowell]

I now understand why some people cling so tightly to EGW. Those that believe in the above statement seem to believe that the Bible is NOT enough and Christianity continually needs a prophet. I am not sure where that belief comes from because Christ said he would send His Holy Spirit to earth after His physical presence was gone. God has never been silent, humanity has chosen not to listen or ask at times, but the God Head has always been with us through the Holy Spirit. EGW never mentions a lack of Gods presence as a reason for her writings, but rather points to humans lack of studying His Word. She was a reminder, encourager, pointer, but never anyone that claimed to be needed because God couldn't be seen or heard or found with out her.

Do we have faith strong enough to understand the Bible through the Holy Spirits guidance or are we looking for an other human to make sure we understand?

As regards the current topic...perhaps it times for everyone to step back, relax, and have a 'cold one', whatever that may be!!!

Perhaps you should read Eph.4:11-16 for an answer to your assertions. I think Richard is about to step outside and have a cold one even as we speak.

[Overaged]

quote]It is so easy for imbibers to use Prov 31 as a way to try and say it is OK in God's eyes to drink booze; but lets look at that passage in the clear light of other Bible passages, and stop trying to isolate it to our own pet practices./quote]

I think it should be clear to note that outside of non-alcoholic wine, I don't drink, and that one I don't drink but maybe twice a year. I have nothing to defend here but honesty.

The argument that's being presented is from the standpoint of dogma and "potential danger of use". It's not presented from reality of ancient Israel, neither it is presented from context of self-control.

Such mentality is hypocritical, because it chooses several things to showcase around the world as "the Godly lifestyle", but it avoids the weightier matters of law... which are clearly ignored during conversations in this thread.

Well; implied in what I said is not only "imbibers" but those who sympathize with imbibers, so that would include you. I guess what you are really saying, (being honest about) is that these "weightier matters of the law" say that it is OK to guzzle down alchol, which is nothing short of an intoxicant; one of the world's most abused drugs. It would sure be interesting to see what "law" you are talking about

[Guest]

Hear here!!

[Guest]

I think Richard is about to step outside and have a cold one even as we speak.

If I were going to have a cold one, I would stay inside where it's warm. But, thank God I won't be doing that. It took the power of God to break my addiction to alcohol, and it takes that same power to keep me from going back to it.

[doug yowell]

Originally Posted By: doug yowell

Generally speaking, members are usually members because they agree with the rules of the church.Few members of churches are born and tenured members. Most willingly (or otherwise)decide to join an organization. Even most secular clubs have bylaws and regulations for membership.What's not fair about that?

Yet, in this case we are not talking about any organization. I would understand if the above is talking about a Golf Club or something.

We are talking about a community of believers here that come together to worship God and to strengthen one another. It's not just another book of names that one presents in the end of the year to show how great the club that's growing.

Generally, It's very presumptious to make Adventists as the exclusive group of people who God called to spread his message. This assumption is made solely on misinterpreting what the "Spirit of Prophecy" is. Perhaps there should be a separate discussion about it, but the "Spirit of Prophecy" IS NOT A WOMAN. IT'S NOT A HUMAN BEING... and it does not manifest in one person, who is now dead.

You don't vote in the church members... it's not a Biblical practice. Neither do you "transfer the membership"... by means of voting. It's not a church practice. You can only recognize the gifts and fruits of the Spirit, which is a clear indication of someone being impacted and of God. It has nothing to do with "signing agreement to be a part of the club". That was NEVER a mechanics of the church.

I think you're wrong on all accounts here,cool.The Bible itself records that the church from it's earliest inception had requirements that both the leadership and the laity were required to maintain."Teaching them to observe all things..." This required that the doctrinal and lifestyle teachings of the church be maintained and defended. ..."Also from among yourselves men will rise up..." "Where two or three are gathered together..." The church is a body that must work in harmony with the principles of health (oddly) in order to function effectively. It is not made up of individual parts that work independently and often in opposition to each other. "Can two walk together if they don't agree?"

[doug yowell]

Originally Posted By: doug yowell

I think Richard is about to step outside and have a cold one even as we speak.

If I were going to have a cold one, I would stay inside where it's warm.

I was referring to the cold one that was outside. My cousin just informed me that the high in Wildwood today would be 17.I figured you'd be indulging in that one in your way to church or something.

[doug yowell]

It took the power of God to break my addiction to alcohol, and it takes that same power to keep me from going back to it.

I'm sayin amen to that!!

[Guest]

Those that believe in the above statement seem to believe that the Bible is NOT enough and Christianity continually needs a prophet. I am not sure where that belief comes from

Pro 29:18 Where there is no vision, the people perish: KJV

Pro 29:18 Where there is no prophetic vision the people cast off restraint, but blessed is he who keeps the law. ESV

[Overaged]

Micah 2:11 doesn't say what you say it says, unless perhaps you are playing version games. Here are a couple of renditions:

NIV: 11 If a liar and deceiver comes and says, ‘I will prophesy for you plenty of wine and beer,’ that would be just the prophet for this people!

KJV: 11 If a man walking in the spirit and falsehood do lie, saying, I will prophesy unto thee of wine and of strong drink; he shall even be the prophet of this people.

Here's the CEV version you cited:

11 The only prophet you want is a liar who will say, "Drink and get drunk!"

It's clear that this whole chapter is about false prophets, not alcohol. Micah is saying that the people would be happy with a prophet who prophesied that they would receive plenty of wine and beer.

It's possible that there is an incidental suggestion that wine and strong drink are not good things, but it's incidental, not the focus of the text.

The CONTEXT in which I mentioned Mic 2:11 had nothing to do with what the whole chapter was about; and what you state about "incidental" has a ring to it that says: "I don't accept that scripture." Incidental or not, it says what it says. As far as "the version game; all versions you quoted mean essentially the same thing so what's your point? I didn't say it was "the focus of that entire chapter." I didn't even hint at that. I made an entirely unrelated point.

Your question about only being able to find 6 places where Isa mentions "strong drink" instead of the eight that I alluded to is a fair one; I just double-checked that fact again, and they are there.

Bravus; I will say one thing right now - you have only managed to rationalize here; you are not "studying the Bible." Please forgive me if that offends you; it is not meant personally. You might want to consider the difference between "bible study" and "rationalizing." Both methods will result in very different conclusions. Dismissing texts as "incidental" and other such things is one way how I would prove this. Before I posted the above; I was well aware of the whole chapter and it's context; but please don't make even one verse a pretext, unless it actually is. I did not mention it out of context in any way. If you want a reason to keep drinking; you will always have one.

BTW; I have many good friends who drink and smoke. Not a one of them would ever try to use the Bible to support this.

[phkrause]

Originally Posted By: doug yowell

I think Richard is about to step outside and have a cold one even as we speak.

If I were going to have a cold one, I would stay inside where it's warm. But, thank God I won't be doing that. It took the power of God to break my addiction to alcohol, and it takes that same power to keep me from going back to it.

Praise the Lord Richard, and yes AMEN

[phkrause]

Just a tag on, not a response to Bravus....

Saw this post a few back........

Quote:

God was silent for the 1,260 years of papal darkness. He was also silent for 400 years between the New and Old Testament times. After the Dark Ages ended, God called forth a prophet for the end times.

I now understand why some people cling so tightly to EGW. Those that believe in the above statement seem to believe that the Bible is NOT enough and Christianity continually needs a prophet. I am not sure where that belief comes from because Christ said he would send His Holy Spirit to earth after His physical presence was gone. God has never been silent, humanity has chosen not to listen or ask at times, but the God Head has always been with us through the Holy Spirit. EGW never mentions a lack of Gods presence as a reason for her writings, but rather points to humans lack of studying His Word. She was a reminder, encourager, pointer, but never anyone that claimed to be needed because God couldn't be seen or heard or found with out her.

Do we have faith strong enough to understand the Bible through the Holy Spirits guidance or are we looking for an other human to make sure we understand?

As regards the current topic...perhaps it times for everyone to step back, relax, and have a 'cold one', whatever that may be!!!

I do agree with most of your post CoAspen, but I do believe that we needed a prophet to get the church going in the right direction. Don't forget at the time of her calling, I believe, the SDA church was not yet formed! She got the than believers to see the Sabbath and other doctrines that were not yet formed. So in a sense we did need someone to pull the church together. In that respect we did need her advice.

[JawgeFromJawja]

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?

John, Bravus suggested that I had gone off course in my needlings. In retrospect, he is right.

Use or non-use of alcohol is not a pre-requisite or requisite for salvation. Sabbath observance or non-Sabbath observance (whatever that is) is not a requisite or pre-requisite for salvation.

The GOSPEL is a simple, comforting, light, easy to understand, uncomplicated, covenant between individuals and God. The Gospel informs us that we have only to "believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and you shall be saved."

You or others can modify, add to, complicate, or try to negate the Gospel. In so doing, you add unnecessary burdens to the requirement for salvation, which is "believe in the Lord Jesus Christ, and you will be saved, along with everyone in your household."

So simple. So God-like. So comforting. So reassuring.

This ole Jawja Bulldog rests his case. John317, are you saved?

I know you are. But what matters is whether you know you are.

And it does not even matter to God. God knows you are saved.

Once more, John317, are you saved?

If this ole Jawja Bulldog can figure out the intricacies of this forum, this discussion will continue in a new topic, "Are You Saved?"

Jawge

[fccool]

I still would like to know how could people of Israel enjoy unfermented grape juice in April, as Jesus and disciples would during the discourse in the upper room?

[fccool]

Quote:

I think you're wrong on all accounts here,cool.The Bible itself records that the church from it's earliest inception had requirements that both the leadership and the laity were required to maintain."Teaching them to observe all things..." This required that the doctrinal and lifestyle teachings of the church be maintained and defended. ..."Also from among yourselves men will rise up..." "Where two or three are gathered together..." The church is a body that must work in harmony with the principles of health (oddly) in order to function effectively. It is not made up of individual parts that work independently and often in opposition to each other. "Can two walk together if they don't agree?"

I do agree with you in part. I don't think it's unreasonable to promote abstinence from alcohol. Yet, I do seem it unreasonable to make it look like even mild consumption will lead one to life of alcoholism. It's dishonest.

In times of Jesus, lightly fermented grape juice was as common as water. Otherwise the warning against drunkenness would not make any sense. After all, Israel was a holy nation with a very strict set of health and ceremonial cleanliness laws. Menstruating women would be considered unclean... yet fermented grape juice was not cast in such category.

[Dr. Shane]

Quote:

God was silent for the 1,260 years of papal darkness. He was also silent for 400 years between the New and Old Testament times. After the Dark Ages ended, God called forth a prophet for the end times.

I now understand why some people cling so tightly to EGW. Those that believe in the above statement seem to believe that the Bible is NOT enough and Christianity continually needs a prophet.

God has, at times, chosen to speak through prophets. The periods of time when He is not speaking through a prophet is referred to by theologians as Him being silent. Of course, God has always used the Holy Spirit but during certain times He calls forth a prophet.

God called forth Noah at a special time with a special message.

God called forth Moses at a special time with a special message.

God called forth Jeremiah at a special time with a special message.

God called forth John the Baptist at a special time with a special message.

God called forth the Apostle Paul at a special time with a special message.

The issue isn't whether or not the Bible is enough. The issue is whether or not God called an end-time prophet to guide the church in the final days of history. If He did, what should are reaction be to the instruction of such a prophet?

[Woody]

Quote:

EGW never mentions a lack of Gods presence as a reason for her writings, but rather points to humans lack of studying His Word.

We can agree that the reason for her writings was to go back to the Bible, true? If so, do we continue down the path before her reminding people of returning to the Bible, or do we go to the Bible and the Holy Spirit? Are we stuck in the past or learn from that mistake and grow into a better relationship with the God of the Bible. Do we continue to use her as a crutch for lack of our own commitment to learn more from God?

Any passerby, SDA or not, would believe that some posters could not have a theology with out EGW. I argue, move on, establish a faith and theology based on the Bible. That does not do away with her, just shows we are following her guidance and growing up.

Okay, back to the booze topic!!!!

Can go on without stopping to say what an excellent synopsis this is.