The Founders Blog has just posted on Spurgeon's thoughts regarding Christmas.  Everytime I read Spurgeon I become more and more pleased.  Primarily on this topic because Spurgeon, I believe, reflects a biblical view of holidays (see Rom 14).  Spurgeon writes,

"We have no superstitious regard for times and seasons. Certainly we do not believe in the present ecclesiastical arrangement called Christmas. First, because we do not believe in the mass at all, but abhor it, whether it be sung in Latin or in English; and secondly, because we find no Scriptural warrant whatever for observing any day as the birthday of the Savior; and consequently, its observance is a superstition, because not of divine authority. Superstition has fixed most positively the day of our Savior's birth, although there is no possibility of discovering when it occurred. ... It was not till the middle of the third century that any part of the church celebrated the nativity of our Lord; and it was not till very long after the Western church had set the example, that the Eastern adopted it. ... Probably the fact is that the "holy" days were arranged to fit in with the heathen festivals. We venture to assert, that if there be any day in the year, of which we may be pretty sure that it was not the day on which the Savior was born, it is the twenty-fifth of December. Nevertheless since, the current of men's thoughts is led this way just now, and I see no evil in the current itself, I shall launch the bark of our discourse upon that stream, and make use of the fact, which I shall neither justify nor condemn, by endeavoring to lead your thoughts in the same direction. Since it is lawful, and even laudable, to meditate upon the incarnation of the Lord upon any day in the year, it cannot be in the power of other men's superstitions to render such a meditation improper for to-day. Regarding not the day, let us, nevertheless, give God thanks for the gift of His dear Son."

Not many Christians are going to like this.  For some reason Christians have been taught that humor and laughing is sub-Christian.  But, then, we are reminded of the great thoughts of Spurgeon.  Pyromaniac has posted some of Spurgeon's quotes here.  I hope to laugh much with Spurgeon throughout eternity.  On this topic, it is good also to consider the book authored by Douglas Wilson, The Serrated Edge.

Bob Kauflin over at worshipmatters, writes on a issue of great importance: singing to Jesus romantic songs of love.  Here is his post.  I have also attached my paper regarding this as well.

Well, the Lord smiled upon me on my hunting expedition, and I shot a fifteen point buck.  Here is a nice little pic of it.

Dear Reader,

I will be away from a computer for the next couple of days.  I will be seeking to thin the population of deer in obedience to our God, who made man to rule over his creation.  I will post pictures if we get anything.  When I return, I will turn my attention to 1 Cor 8 and 10.

Grace to you all!

This fourth part of a four part series by Wells is so far excellent.  If you have the chance, read this and read it well.

⁵ One man considers one day more sacred than another; another man considers every day alike. Each one should be fully convinced in his own mind.  ⁶ He who regards one day as special, does so to the Lord. He who eats meat, eats to the Lord, for he gives thanks to God; and he who abstains, does so to the Lord and gives thanks to God.  ⁷ For none of us lives to himself alone and none of us dies to himself alone.  ⁸ If we live, we live to the Lord; and if we die, we die to the Lord. So, whether we live or die, we belong to the Lord (Romans 14:5-8, NIV).

As I mentioned in my last post in ‘Drink to the Glory of God?’ I now what to turn to a topic even more controversial than can a Christian drink alcohol to the glory of God.  It is: should a Christian institution or denomination make rules regarding the Christian life which the Lord does not require?  The short answer, as you may guess from my earlier post, is No.  The conscience of the Christian is bound to his Lord, the Lord Jesus.  It is Jesus who dictates what a Christian should do.  It is the Risen Jesus, who determines what is right and wrong for a Christian.  We see this in Romans 14 in the verses above.  One eats to the Lord and another abstains to the Lord.  We belong to the Lord Jesus, and in matters of adiaphora, Jesus and Jesus alone is Lord of the believer’s conscience, since it is before him that we must give an account.  Thus, if the Lord does not forbid alcohol for the Christian, than the Christian institutions or denominations should not forbid it.  For institutions or denominations to forbid it is to supplant the Lordship of Jesus over the conscience with the institution or denomination.  Vos says it well,

“Let us ask ourselves in all seriousness, what right has any person or power on earth to bind the conscience of the Christian in matters in which Christ has declared that conscience to be free under God? The very heart of the Scripture teaching concerning the use of things indifferent is that the Christian is free to use or to abstain from using such things, according to his own conscience, and that for his use or abuse of this freedom he is accountable to God. The moment that specific rules are made by men concerning things indifferent, the moment that any man or body of men requires of the Christian abstinence from things indifferent for religious or moral reasons, at that moment liberty has become bondage, and the conscience, left free by God as to things indifferent, has become enslaved to the commandments of men. At that moment abstinence ceases to be voluntary and becomes obligatory, and the entire Scripture teaching on this subject is utterly perverted” (Separated Life).

Because of this, Christian schools should take note.  Denominations should take note.  Neither have the authority under God to bind the conscience concerning things which are indifferent.  Also, students who proclaim Jesus is Lord, should not give their conscience to an institution or denomination to lord it over them in matters of things indifferent.  Does this mean that schools ought have no rules regarding alcohol?  Not at all.  They are free to prohibit alcohol on their premises.  They are to preach against drunkenness, but regarding things indifferent they cannot forbid what the Lord Jesus does not forbid.  Quite frankly, this is what troubles me most about what Mohler and Moore talked about at the alcohol and ministry forum.  They too easily talked about the institution and Convention as having an authority which it does not have under God.  They are endorsing the usurping of the Lordship of Jesus over the individual conscience in matters that are indifferent.  It is akin to out-lawing the consumption of Big Mac’s simply because of their poor nutritional content.  Jesus makes no such prohibition, nor should we. 

Notice also what these ‘lifestyle statements’ do.  It is not enough for colleges, seminaries, and denominations for Jesus to dictate what a Christian should do with things indifferent, they need to ‘ensure’ that the Christian will not sin by making rules that Jesus doesn’t make.  In other words, in the truest sense of the word denominations and schools or churches that require abstinence from things indifferent are legalists.  Jesus’ lordship is not enough.  They need to police Christians in areas where Jesus is silent.  God help us!

Every now and again I may post what books I am currently reading.  When I get the time, I may even review them.  I realize this may be a bit of an arrogant thing to do, but I am not doing it to show all that I am reading.  Instead, I am using it as a list of books I recommend.  So, here goes...

1.  Because alcohol is in the category of adiaphora, Christians will until Jesus returns have differing views on it.

2.  The differing views are a result of faith.  Those who are strong of faith see alcohol as indifferent, thus they may enjoy their liberty or they may restrict their liberty, but ultimately they see alcohol as indifferent.  Those who are weak in faith see alcohol as evil in and of itself.  Thus, they see no liberty with alcohol, and see any consumption of alcohol as sin.

3.  To drink alcohol to the glory of God in Romans 14 is to drink in such a way as to not cause a brother to stumble.  This means that the strong will not flaunt his liberty in front of the weak.  This also means that the strong will be careful to know his company if he consumes alcohol in a group.  This freedom brings responsibility (i.e., Spiderman) so that the strong knows as much as possible where others are in their faith before he exercises his freedom.  Love, it seems, requires this.  Thus, in light of Jen’s question(s), I think there is caution to the strong to be careful when and how alcohol is consumed (I will speak to this a bit more, once we cover 1 Cor).  Not because the consumption is evil, but because of love for another.  As much as possible, then, I think consumption should be done in private, but not in seclusion.  Consumption in restaurants is not forbidden, but it is risky.  Again, not because the consumption is wrong, but because of love for another.

4.  The weak in faith regarding alcohol are not expected to remain weak in faith.  The weak in faith are to grow in their faith, so that they become strong.  Does this mean, that all will one day drink alcohol to show their strength?  No!  Because if we must prove our strength, then we are not strong, we are still weak.  But it does mean that as the weak grow in their faith, they will come to see alcohol as adiaphora.

5.  The freedom of the strong cannot be taken away by an institution, denomination, or church.  If a church, institution, or denomination makes a requirement of abstinence for Christians regarding alcohol, they have just replaced Christ as Lord of the conscience for the believer.  Even if they say that is not what they are doing, according to biblical teaching, teaching explicit in Romans 14, that is exactly what they are doing.  It is to this issue that I will turn next, before we move on to 1 Corinthians.

To this point I have shown from Scripture that alcohol belongs in the category of adiaphora, which means that it is something indifferent, that is in and of itself alcohol is not evil.  Vos explains it this way,

Scripture recognizes a classification of things or actions which are commonly called adiaphora, or 'things indifferent.' This term must not be misunderstood. It does not mean that a Christian, in performing any particular act, can be regarded as himself morally neutral or indifferent, or that the Christian can at any time take a moral holiday and concern himself wholly with things morally indifferent. Man is a moral agent and is always accountable to God for the state of his heart and for his every thought, word and deed. Everything that the Christian is and does always has moral significance. This is shown by Col. 3:17 and I Cor. 10:31: 'And whatsoever ye do, in word or in deed, do all in the name of the Lord Jesus, giving thanks to God the Father through him.' 'Whether therefore ye eat, or drink, or whatsoever ye do, do all to the glory of God.'

No matter what he does, the Christian is always either living for the glory of God or else sinning against the glory of God. 'Whatsoever is not of faith is sin' (Rom. 14:23). A Christian performing any particular act under any particular set of circumstances, must be either glorifying God or else committing sin; there can be no third possibility. This does not mean that there are no adiaphora or things indifferent in themselves; it simply means that the right use of things indifferent, that is, the careful, temperate, God-fearing and conscientious use of or abstinence from them, is for the glory of God, whereas the wrong use of things indifferent, that is the abuse of them, is contrary to the glory of God and therefore sinful. But while the Christian himself is never morally neutral, still there are certain things and practices which, considered in themselves, are morally indifferent. This cannot be denied for it is clearly taught in Scripture, especially in such passages as Rom. 14:1-23, I Cor. 8:1-13 and I Cor. 10:23-32 (The Separated Life).

Now, this does not mean that one cannot abuse something that is adiaphora, for Scripture talks of the evil ways in which alcohol can be used.  But, and this is important, no where in Scripture is alcohol consumption forbidden.  In fact, at times alcohol consumption is encouraged, and the availability of it is a gift from God himself.

If it is true that alcohol is in the category of adiaphora, there are two primary passages in Scripture that deal with things indifferent.  Romans 14 and 1 Corinthians 8-10.  What we will do next, then, is look at what Romans 14 says regarding things indifferent, and begin to answer some of the questions posed in earlier posts on this subject.

Though it will make this post long I will post all of Romans 14 and then work through the argument presented by Paul.

¹ Accept him whose faith is weak, without passing judgment on disputable matters.          ² One man's faith allows him to eat everything, but another man, whose faith is weak, eats only vegetables.  ³ The man who eats everything must not look down on him who does not, and the man who does not eat everything must not condemn the man who does, for God has accepted him.  ⁴ Who are you to judge someone else's servant? To his own master he stands or falls. And he will stand, for the Lord is able to make him stand.          ⁵ One man considers one day more sacred than another; another man considers every day alike. Each one should be fully convinced in his own mind.  ⁶ He who regards one day as special, does so to the Lord. He who eats meat, eats to the Lord, for he gives thanks to God; and he who abstains, does so to the Lord and gives thanks to God.  ⁷ For none of us lives to himself alone and none of us dies to himself alone.  ⁸ If we live, we live to the Lord; and if we die, we die to the Lord. So, whether we live or die, we belong to the Lord.  ⁹ For this very reason, Christ died and returned to life so that he might be the Lord of both the dead and the living.  ¹⁰ You, then, why do you judge your brother? Or why do you look down on your brother? For we will all stand before God's judgment seat.  ¹¹ It is written: "'As surely as I live,' says the Lord, 'every knee will bow before me; every tongue will confess to God.'"  ¹² So then, each of us will give an account of himself to God.  ¹³ Therefore let us stop passing judgment on one another. Instead, make up your mind not to put any stumbling block or obstacle in your brother's way.  ¹⁴ As one who is in the Lord Jesus, I am fully convinced that no food is unclean in itself. But if anyone regards something as unclean, then for him it is unclean.  ¹⁵ If your brother is distressed because of what you eat, you are no longer acting in love. Do not by your eating destroy your brother for whom Christ died.  ¹⁶ Do not allow what you consider good to be spoken of as evil.  ¹⁷ For the kingdom of God is not a matter of eating and drinking, but of righteousness, peace and joy in the Holy Spirit,  ¹⁸ because anyone who serves Christ in this way is pleasing to God and approved by men.  ¹⁹ Let us therefore make every effort to do what leads to peace and to mutual edification.  ²⁰ Do not destroy the work of God for the sake of food. All food is clean, but it is wrong for a man to eat anything that causes someone else to stumble.  ²¹ It is better not to eat meat or drink wine or to do anything else that will cause your brother to fall.  ²² So whatever you believe about these things keep between yourself and God. Blessed is the man who does not condemn himself by what he approves.  ²³ But the man who has doubts is condemned if he eats, because his eating is not from faith; and everything that does not come from faith is sin (Romans 14:1-23, NIV).

This passage is directed initially at the strong.  For they are to welcome those who are weak in conscience (v. 1).  This, incidentally, is a bit different than today, where it is the weak who will not associate with the strong.  Because of the strength of one’s faith, one eats all foods and the other only eats vegetables.  Paul admits that because of the strength of one’s faith in matters of indifference there are going to be varying positions.  This is the way it is.  We are commanded in matters of sin to flee from them, and that even putting ourselves into temptation is sinful, yet with matters of indifference, which we have already from Scripture shown alcohol to be, there will be varying practices.  Because of this Paul commands that those who are strong must not look down on the one who cannot because of weak faith do all that the strong is able to do.  The weak on the other hand must not condemn those who are strong, because even though they may think the strong are sinning, they are not sinning, and because God has accepted them.  The weak should not condemn the strong, because the matter at hand, that is things indifferent, are matters which are private, and are between the Christian and his Lord.  If the Lord does not condemn the practice of his servant, who does the weak brother think himself to be in that he condemns where God vindicates.

Now we get even more interesting, because unlike many in the Evangelical world Paul has a category for being convinced in one’s own mind, when dealing with things indifferent.  Because of this, each Christian is to be convinced in his own mind as to the significance of days or non-significance (Here is the connection to Halloween I mentioned in an earlier post), the propriety of eating meat or being a vegetarian.  The point in matters of indifference is to do all with thanksgiving and honor to Jesus our Lord.  Here Paul reminds us as well that it is not simply a matter of opinion, our conscience is bound to the Lord and the Lord Jesus alone.  Thus, it is not simply about what I want to do and when I want to do it, all must be done to the Lord.  We will all give an account for what we do, and what we do with things indifferent is between the Christian and his Lord, no one else may make claims to the conscience in matters indifferent.

If the weak are not to condemn, then the strong are not to flaunt their freedom before the weak.  Though things indifferent by definition are not sinful in themselves, the weak believe the thing indifferent to be sinful.  Thus, to them it is sinful.  Thus, what can happen is that the strong flaunt their liberty in public and in doing so vex the weak and tempt them to possibly act contrary to their conscience.  The weak can reason thus, if Bill can eat meat and drink beer, then so can I.  But the weak one not being convinced in his own mind, but simply following the example of Bill, the strong one, will act contrary to his conscience, which still believes that meat and beer are sinful in themselves, and thus his conscience will condemn him, and he will stumble and stumble hard.

Because of this it is good to use one’s liberty in private not in public.  Not because the thing eaten or drunk is evil, but because of love, love for the weaker one, lest they fall.  Thus, the strong one is do enjoy his freedom in private, to keep these things between himself and God (v.22).  This of course does not mean that we should be silent about these things, and not let our convictions be known for the purpose of building one another up, so that the weak will become strong, because this is exactly what Paul is doing in chapter 14.  In fact, he tips his hand in verse 14 saying, “As one who is in the Lord Jesus, I am fully convinced that no food is unclean in itself.”

So from this passage let me summarize a few things pertaining to things indifferent.

1.  There is a category of things indifferent, and what God has not called evil we cannot call evil.

2.  With things indifferent there will be varying positions on these things in the Church of Jesus.

3.  Those who are more restricted are weak and those who are free are strong.

4.  The strong should not mock or look down on the weak and the weak ought not condemn those whom Jesus vindicates.

5.  The weak faith of the weak does not make the indifferent thing unclean, but to the weak one it is as if it is unclean, thus for him to violate his conscience is for him to stumble and fall under his conscience’s condemnation.

6.  The strong are not in anyway prohibited from exercising their freedom in private, but they should live in love not liberty in public, lest the weaker brother stumbles because of the freedom of the strong.

James Jordan on the history of Halloween.  Just thought it would be good to get this up here, since I referenced Challies blog about it.

Challies discusses Halloween a bit.  I am not going to get into this here, but for the attentive reader, one will see a link between how I discuss alcohol as adiaphora and the Christian's participation in Halloween.  Here is a text I will be going to very soon in my discussion of alcohol.  See if you can see the link!

Romans 14:5-6 ⁵ One man considers one day more sacred than another; another man considers every day alike. Each one should be fully convinced in his own mind. ⁶ He who regards one day as special, does so to the Lord. He who eats meat, eats to the Lord, for he gives thanks to God; and he who abstains, does so to the Lord and gives thanks to God.

Maybe I am a product of my times, and I don't like committment, etc., but I am still struggling over the biblical nature of local church membership.  I do not think that local church membership is unbiblical, for I am a member of my local church.  But I am suspicious of the biblical arguments used to support membership.  I think that membership is important for the local church, it is a way to protect against the church going of course in the future, but aside from this I am not sure of its importance.  This issue has resurfaced for me becuase I have been listening to Mark Dever's sermon/lectures on 9 Marks.  But it has also come up because of what is going on a Bethlehem Baptist in Minneapolis regarding their proposal for membership.  I am not going to speak to this, but rather to a recent Bethlehem Star article, where Pastor Piper argued for the importance of local church membership.  You can view the Star here.  But for the sake of my readers, I will post it here.

More Clarifications on the Baptism and Membership Issue:

How Important Is Church Membership?

To help you keep thinking and praying about your vote on December 18 at the Annual All-Church Strategy Meeting concerning the Elder proposal on Baptism and Church Membership, here are a few more clarifying thoughts. Recall that the proposal is that some rare exceptions be made to allow some truly regenerate persons to be members of the church who are not baptized by immersion. (See the entire proposal at www.BBCMPLS.org).

One of the key convictions behind the elder proposal is that excluding from membership a truly regenerate person who gives credible evidence of his saving faith is a more serious mistake than viewing the time and mode of baptism as essential to the qualifications for membership. But that assumes church membership is really important, so that excluding a person from it is very serious. So one of the arguments against the elder proposal is that membership in a local church like Bethlehem does not matter very much because a non-member can worship and take the Lord’s Supper and go to Sunday School and be a part of a small group and be visited by a pastor in the hospital, etc.

So if membership is not that important, then excluding someone from membership will not seem a serious problem. That would mean that the elders are trying to solve a problem that doesn’t really exist. This is one of the most crucial issues you will need to settle in your own mind: How serious is it to say to a regenerate person: “You may not be a member of this church”?

The force of the elders’ concern and the weight of their arguments will not be felt by those who do not see the crucial importance of local church membership in the New Testament. So consider some of the biblical support. I will point to four strands of evidence. Each of these reveals something in the New Testament which would be minimized or denied if there were no definable local church membership.

1) Governing powers of the church (voting). Consider the implication of Matthew 18:15-17 where “the church” (ekklesia) appears to be the final court of appeal in matters of church authority as it relates to membership.

If your brother sins against you, go and tell him his fault, between you and him alone. If he listens to you, you have gained your brother. 16 But if he does not listen, take one or two others along with you, that every charge may be established by the evidence of two or three witnesses. 17 If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church. And if he refuses to listen even to the church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector.

If there is no church membership, how can you define the group that will take up this sensitive and weighty matter of exhorting the unrepentant person, and finally rendering a judgment about his standing in the community? It is hard to believe that just anyone who showed up claiming to be a Christian could be a part of that gathering. Surely “the church” must be a definable group to handle such a weighty matter.

2) Being excluded from the church (excommunication). There is another implication from Matthew 18:15-17, namely, that the unrepentant person is accountable to a group of people. This is an amazing event: formally excluding a person from “the church” so that he becomes to you “as a Gentile and a tax collector”—that is an unbeliever. The same kind of exclusion is found in 1 Corinthians 5:1-5. How is this possible if the person is not considered a member of something from which he can be excluded? So both the person’s liability to excommunication and the involvement of “the church” in the process imply that the one being charged is a member and the group settling the matter are members.

3) A commitment to be held accountable by a Council of Elders to believe a basic affirmation and to live a basic covenant. The point here is that without membership, who is it that the New Testament says must submit to leaders? Some kind of expressed willingness or covenant or agreement or commitment must precede submission. Consider the way the New Testament talks about the relationship of the church to her leaders.

Hebrews 13:17 Obey your leaders and submit to them, for they are keeping watch over your souls, as those who will have to give an account.

1 Thessalonians 5:12-13 We ask you, brothers, to respect those who labor among you and are over you (proistamenous humon) in the Lord and admonish you, and to esteem them very highly in love because of their work

1 Timothy 5:17 Let the elders who rule well (Hoi kalos proestotes

presbuteroi) be considered worthy of double honor, especially those who labor in preaching and teaching.

How is this leadership and this submission to function where there is no membership defining who has made the commitment to be led and who has been chosen as leaders? If we downplay the importance of membership, it is difficult to see how we could take these commands seriously and practically.

4) The privilege of being cared for with the primacy and special benefit of a local covenant family of believers. When the pastors and elders extend their care beyond the membership, it does not mean that there is no primacy to members. Consider Acts 20:28 where Paul tells the elders how to care for their flock.

Pay careful attention to yourselves and to all the flock, in which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers, to care for the church of God, which he obtained with his own blood.

This verse does not say elders cannot visit unbelievers or those who are not yet members. But it does make clear that their first responsibility is to a particular flock. Does it not make sense that this flock would have definition and limits? Who are we as elders and pastors responsible for? For whom will we give an account to God?

This last point especially, but all four points together, have raised the crucial importance of membership in our minds. We believe it is a biblical implication that there be such a thing as a definable membership in a local church. It is not a matter of indifference, therefore, when a person chooses to attend a church’s functions but not to make the commitment to become a covenant member. It is a serious shortcoming. One of the effects of the proposal of the elders is to raise the crucial importance of membership and therefore to heighten the seriousness of turning away from membership truly regenerate people who give good evidence of saving faith.

Thanks for praying and thinking with us toward the mind of Christ,

Pastor John

At this point I think I need to just summarize a little bit, and then answer a couple of questions which were posed to an earlier post.  First the summary.  We can see from the biblical evidence that what Dr. Mohler called the historic position on alcohol is clearly represented.  What is the historical position?  It is simply that alcohol is no where forbidden by Scripture, and in fact it is even spoken of positively, yet drunkenness is a sin, which most likely will beget many other sins, and thus drunkenness not alcohol itself is to be avoided at all costs.  Thus, alcohol fits into the category of adiaphora, because the Bible no where condemns it.

This summary brings about many questions that have yet to be answered?  Why is it that some Christians believe alcohol itself to be sinful?  Does this mean that all Christians should drink alcohol?  What should we do in the Church today with regard to the fact that some Christians believe alcohol to be a sin?  How should the Church respond to those who have been enslaved to alcohol?  Should Christians require total abstinence from alcohol in the ministry?  Should Christians submit to total abstinence in the local church or Christian school?  These are questions which I will be tackling in future posts.

Until then, let me see if I can answer a couple of questions that were asked by Jeff and Ardel.  Jeff asked about the alcohol content of the wine, which was drunk in the Bible.  It seems to me that from the texts I gave in the post on the goodness of wine and the post on flee from drunkenness that the biblical authors were able to distinguish between wine and non-fermented grape juice.  This is seen in the requirements for the Nazirite vow.  Also, it is clear from the biblical passages that even if the alcohol content of the wine of that time was lower than the content in contemporary wines that there was still alcohol in it, and when enough of it was consumed one would be drunk.  So the argument that the wine in biblical times was less alcoholic does not prove anything.  There was still alcohol in it. 

Ardel asked regarding the mixing of water with wine or wine with water.  That is, was wine mixed with water to dilute the alcohol content, and thus make it more like grape juice or what water mixed with wine to kill the bacteria, etc in polluted water.  Regarding this, I am not sure which is true.  Maybe both are true in that depending upon the region and the water source either one could work.  Either way to me this argument is like the previous one.  Regardless of the mixing the point is that there was still alcohol in it.  So because of this when Jesus drank wine at the last supper, he was drinking alcohol.  What was the proof?  We don’t know, but there was alcohol in it.  It may have been mixed but at least as I see it, that doesn’t matter.  This seems to me to be a distinction without a difference.  It is almost like those who drink Odoule’s out of a conviction that they should not drink beer, because of the alcohol.  No doubt you have known people who have signed lifestyle statements agreeing to never drink alcohol, yet they find it alright to consume and Odoule’s.  What is the difference between the Odoule’s and a light beer?  Only the amount of alcohol content.  Though the amount of alcohol in Odoule’s is minimal, there is still alcohol in it.  From what I understand it would still take a great deal of consumption to become intoxicated, but there is still alcohol in it.  But I digress!

Regarding mixing itself, the Bible does reveal an understanding of the differences between mixed and unmixed wine, for God’s wrath in Revelation 14:10 is described in terms of the full potency of wine. 

Well, we still have a great deal of ground to cover as I mentioned above.  Thanks to Jeff and Ardel with their great questions!  I will keep plugging away at this.  Next stop will be to talk about why there are different views regarding the consumption of alcohol and how do we live as Christians with this different views.  The first question will not be a historical account (e.g., We have the views today, because of the temperance movement.), rather I will look biblically at why we have differing views today.

In this second step to determining alcohol as adiaphora, we will look at what the Bible says against the consumption of alcoholic beverages.

Genesis 9:20-23   ²⁰ Noah, a man of the soil, proceeded to plant a vineyard.      ²¹ When he drank some of its wine, he became drunk and lay uncovered inside his tent.  ²² Ham, the father of Canaan, saw his father's nakedness and told his two brothers outside.  ²³ But Shem and Japheth took a garment and laid it across their shoulders; then they walked in backward and covered their father's nakedness. Their faces were turned the other way so that they would not see their father's nakedness.

In this passage we see that the wine which Noah drank, was not simply grape juice, but alcoholic.  The alcoholic content is not known, but we do know from this that Noah drank enough of the wine to pass out.  This drunkenness was shameful to Noah, hence the mention of his nakedness (cf. Genesis 2-3).  Though Noah did all which God commanded him to do regarding the building of the ark, etc. (contrary to Adam), we see that Noah is not the promised redeemer of Genesis 3:15, for Noah sins against God by drunkenness.

Genesis 19:32-38   ³² Let's get our father to drink wine and then lie with him and preserve our family line through our father."  ³³ That night they got their father to drink wine, and the older daughter went in and lay with him. He was not aware of it when she lay down or when she got up.  ³⁴ The next day the older daughter said to the younger, "Last night I lay with my father. Let's get him to drink wine again tonight, and you go in and lie with him so we can preserve our family line through our father."  ³⁵ So they got their father to drink wine that night also, and the younger daughter went and lay with him. Again he was not aware of it when she lay down or when she got up.  ³⁶ So both of Lot's daughters became pregnant by their father.  ³⁷ The older daughter had a son, and she named him Moab; he is the father of the Moabites of today.  ³⁸ The younger daughter also had a son, and she named him Ben-Ammi; he is the father of the Ammonites of today.

In this passage we see how wine drunk to excess is used as a means of incest.  This is disgusting on many levels.

Leviticus 10:8-11   ⁸ Then the LORD said to Aaron,  ⁹ "You and your sons are not to drink wine or other fermented drink whenever you go into the Tent of Meeting, or you will die. This is a lasting ordinance for the generations to come.  ¹⁰ You must distinguish between the holy and the common, between the unclean and the clean,  ¹¹ and you must teach the Israelites all the decrees the LORD has given them through Moses."

Here Aaron and his sons are prohibited from drinking wine or other fermented drink when they go to the Tent of Meeting.  It is assumed from this, though, that other times it was expected that they would drink wine or fermented drink, especially in light of Numbers 18:12.

Numbers 6:2-4   ² "Speak to the Israelites and say to them: 'If a man or woman wants to make a special vow, a vow of separation to the LORD as a Nazirite,  ³ he must abstain from wine and other fermented drink and must not drink vinegar made from wine or from other fermented drink. He must not drink grape juice or eat grapes or raisins.  ⁴ As long as he is a Nazirite, he must not eat anything that comes from the grapevine, not even the seeds or skins.

Specifically referring to a Nazirite vow (this is also what Samson was to do) during the time of the vow nothing from a grape vine is to be consumed.

Proverbs 20:1  Wine is a mocker and beer a brawler; whoever is led astray by them is not wise.

Here we see specifically that wine and beer lead to strife, and one that is led away by wine or beer or is consumed by them is a fool.

Proverbs 21:17   ¹⁷ He who loves pleasure will become poor; whoever loves wine and oil will never be rich.

If wine becomes the object of one’s affections, he will never become rich.

Proverbs 23:20-21   ²⁰ Do not join those who drink too much wine or gorge themselves on meat,  ²¹ for drunkards and gluttons become poor, and drowsiness clothes them in rags.

Slavery to wine or food will result in poverty and destitution.

Proverbs 23:29-35   ²⁹ Who has woe? Who has sorrow? Who has strife? Who has complaints? Who has needless bruises? Who has bloodshot eyes?  ³⁰ Those who linger over wine, who go to sample bowls of mixed wine.  ³¹ Do not gaze at wine when it is red, when it sparkles in the cup, when it goes down smoothly!  ³² In the end it bites like a snake and poisons like a viper.  ³³ Your eyes will see strange sights and your mind imagine confusing things.  ³⁴ You will be like one sleeping on the high seas, lying on top of the rigging.  ³⁵ "They hit me," you will say, "but I'm not hurt! They beat me, but I don't feel it! When will I wake up so I can find another drink?"

Again, slavery to wine is seen as absolutely foolish.  It brings about woe, sorrow, strife, bruises, and bloodshot eyes.

Proverbs 31:4-7   ⁴ "It is not for kings, O Lemuel-- not for kings to drink wine, not for rulers to crave beer,  ⁵ lest they drink and forget what the law decrees, and deprive all the oppressed of their rights.  ⁶ Give beer to those who are perishing, wine to those who are in anguish;  ⁷ let them drink and forget their poverty and remember their misery no more.

When a king craves beer or wine, he will do injustice, but for those in pain alcohol can aid them in their misery.

Isaiah 5:22   ²² Woe to those who are heroes at drinking wine and champions at mixing drinks…

Every university student should hear this.  Cursed is anyone who is a hero at drinking.

Romans 14:21   ²¹ It is better not to eat meat or drink wine or to do anything else that will cause your brother to fall.

Here it is better not to exercise one’s right to food and wine than to cause a brother to fall.

Ephesians 5:18   ¹⁸ Do not get drunk on wine which leads to debauchery. Instead, be filled with the Spirit.

Or my translation:  Do not get drunk by wine, which is debauchery.  But be brought to completion in the realm of the Spirit.  See http://alreadynotyet.blogware.com/_attachments/458858/Thoughts%20on%20Ephesians%205.pdf for a defense of this translation.

Here drunkenness is forbidden, and is antithetical to being brought to completion in the Spirit.

1 Timothy 3:2-3   ² Now the overseer must be above reproach, the husband of but one wife, temperate, self-controlled, respectable, hospitable, able to teach,  ³ not given to drunkenness, not violent but gentle, not quarrelsome, not a lover of money.

The overseer must not be given to drunkenness.

1 Timothy 3:8   ⁸ Deacons, likewise, are to be men worthy of respect, sincere, not indulging in much wine and not pursuing dishonest gain.

Deacon are not to be given to much wine, which means that they are not to be drunkards.

Titus 2:3   ³ Likewise, teach the older women to be reverent in the way they live, not to be slanderers or addicted to much wine, but to teach what is good.

Just like deacons, the older women in the church should not be drunkards.

A post by Steve Weaver with resources for raising godly children.

The Lord's Day Observance Society.  Something here is not right.  They write:

The Divine Authority and perpetual Obligation of the Christian Sabbath or Lord's Day, and that in asserting the obligation of the Lord's Day, the gospel of the Grace of God through Christ Jesus should be proclaimed 

Hear is my take on it (Yes, I intended to write 'hear' not 'here').  Click the link and you will know why.

The first step I would like to take in the adventure regarding ‘Drink to the Glory of God?’ is to show that alcohol does really belong in the category of adiaphora.  Adiaphora is the Greek word referring to ‘things indifferent’.  What this means is that there are things and activities in this world which God has not forbidden.  The idea, then, is that if God has not forbidden it, then it is up to the individual Christian conscience as to whether or not one should or would partake of or participate in the adiaphora.  This step needs to be taken for two reasons.  One, many Christians simply believe because of tradition, etc., that alcohol in and of itself is evil, and thus to have any association with it is to sin.  The other reason is that there are many Christians who drink alcohol, and believe it to be okay, but have no idea what the Bible actually says about alcohol.

So is alcohol in the category of adiaphora?  Yes!  What is the evidence?  We will look in the post at how the Bible assumes the normalcy of drinking wine and also encourages it.  In a later post we will see what the Bible speaks against wine.

Genesis 14:18-20   ¹⁸ Then Melchizedek king of Salem