It seems to me this is what will happen when we do not think through our positions biblically.

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.

I am currently listening N T Wright on Jesus:
Jesus and God
Jesus and the Cross
Jesus and the Kingdom
Jesus and the World's True Light

Listen and Enjoy!

Is there a virtue to multi-tasking?  You bet!  But what about the 'absent presence'?  Read here.

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

 

Now, I must say that I am sympathetic to what is argued here, but I do not see this as an open and shut case.  One glaring oversight, as I see it, is that this whole argument presupposes that the early church practiced some form of local church membership as we practice it.  Am I missing something, or is this not true?  That is, using the Acts 20:28 example above in #4, some form of membership is presupposed to argue for membership today.  The point is made that there were definitions and limits, but but was there an offical joining of the local church?  Or is it simply that once believers confessed Jesus as King and Savior by taking on baptism in his name, that they became members of the local church, and thus were under the jurisdiction of the pastoral team?  Does this make sense or am I seeing too much here?

 

There was a time when I was on staff part-time at a church, I submitted to the elders, gave money, attended corporate gatherings, and yet I was not a member of the local church where I was serving.  Was this unbiblical?  What more would membership have added?  Also, what, then should be the requirements for membership at a local church?  Is it sufficient to be baptized as a believer, confessing Jesus as King?  Again, more questions...But I don't think I will take this one on until I finish the other thread.  Any thoughts, though, would be very, very helpful!

 

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 brought out bread and wine.  He was priest of God Most High,  ¹⁹ and he blessed Abram, saying, "Blessed be Abram by God Most High, Creator of heaven and earth.  ²⁰ And blessed be God Most High, who delivered your enemies into your hand." Then Abram gave him a tenth of everything.

 

Here, of course, we see Melchizedek, who is a priest of the Most High God, bringing out bread and wine for a meal with Abram.

 

Genesis 27:25-28   ²⁵ Then he said, "My son, bring me some of your game to eat, so that I may give you my blessing." Jacob brought it to him and he ate; and he brought some wine and he drank.  ²⁶ Then his father Isaac said to him, "Come here, my son, and kiss me."  ²⁷ So he went to him and kissed him. When Isaac caught the smell of his clothes, he blessed him and said, "Ah, the smell of my son is like the smell of a field that the LORD has blessed.  ²⁸ May God give you of heaven's dew and of earth's richness-- an abundance of grain and new wine.

 

When Jacob deceived his father regarding the blessing of the firstborn son, Jacob served his father wine with his meal, and in the blessing of Jacob, Isaac prays that Jacob may have an abundance of grain and new wine.

 

Numbers 18:12  I give you all the finest olive oil and all the finest new wine and grain they give the LORD as the firstfruits of their harvest.

 

This verse is from a context where the Lord is describing all that belongs to Aaron to enjoy.  The offerings given to the Lord are given to Aaron.  Here specifically wine is mentioned as a gift that the Lord gives to Aaron.

 

Proverbs 3:9-10   ⁹ Honor the LORD with your wealth, with the firstfruits of all your crops;  ¹⁰ then your barns will be filled to overflowing, and your vats will brim over with new wine.

 

The reward for faithfulness to the Lord with wealth is vats that overflow with new wine.

 

Ecclesiastes 9:7-9   ⁷ Go, eat your food with gladness, and drink your wine with a joyful heart, for it is now that God favors what you do.  ⁸ Always be clothed in white, and always anoint your head with oil.  ⁹ Enjoy life with your wife, whom you love, all the days of this meaningless life that God has given you under the sun-- all your meaningless days. For this is your lot in life and in your toilsome labor under the sun.

 

Because of the shortness of life the Teacher of Ecclesiastes exhorts us to ‘drink our wine with a joyful heart’ because it is God who favors what we do.

 

Isaiah 25:6   ⁶ On this mountain the LORD Almighty will prepare a feast of rich food for all peoples, a banquet of aged wine-- the best of meats and the finest of wines.

 

The imagery used here to describe the rebuilding of Zion includes God supplying his people with a banquet of aged wine.

 

Luke 7:33-34   ³³ For John the Baptist came neither eating bread nor drinking wine and you say, 'He has a demon.'  ³⁴ The Son of Man came eating and drinking, and you say, 'Here is a glutton and a drunkard, a friend of tax collectors and "sinners."'

 

Here we see implied that Jesus drank wine, and people believed him to be a drunkard because of it.

 

John 2:3-10   ³ When the wine was gone, Jesus' mother said to him, "They have no more wine."  ⁴ "Dear woman, why do you involve me?" Jesus replied. "My time has not yet come."  ⁵ His mother said to the servants, "Do whatever he tells you."  ⁶ Nearby stood six stone water jars, the kind used by the Jews for ceremonial washing, each holding from twenty to thirty gallons.  ⁷ Jesus said to the servants, "Fill the jars with water"; so they filled them to the brim.  ⁸ Then he told them, "Now draw some out and take it to the master of the banquet." They did so,         ⁹ and the master of the banquet tasted the water that had been turned into wine.  He did not realize where it had come from, though the servants who had drawn the water knew. Then he called the bridegroom aside  ¹⁰ and said, "Everyone brings out the choice wine first and then the cheaper wine after the guests have had too much to drink; but you have saved the best till now."

 

In this passage it is clear that Jesus makes wine from water, showing that he was not opposed to the drinking of wine.  Though this is true it must be remembered that this miracle like the other miracles of Jesus are intended to point beyond themselves to who Jesus is and his mission.  With the best wine being given last, we are to understand something of Jesus ministry.  God has saved his best for last.  Jesus is the best of all that God has done and given.

 

1 Timothy 5:23   ²³ Stop drinking only water, and use a little wine because of your stomach and your frequent illnesses.

 

Paul encourages Timothy to drink wine instead of only water for the benefit of his stomach and frequent illnesses.

Before reading Reformissionary's blog, I thought I may have missed the boat, and that McCoy would have said most of what I wanted to say.  But now that I have read his post and the comments to his post I see a few things missing that I will be able to add to the discussion.  I agree with much of McCoy's responses to the Mohler/Moore forum, but there is a great theme which I find missing from the critiques.  For McCoy and other commentators a good portion of the error has roots in legalism.  Now legalism may have a part of it, since there is a requirement to abstain from something which Jesus does not forbid.  But I think there is even a larger issue, one to which legalism is associated.  The larger issue?  The lordship of Jesus over the conscience.  I will post on this very, very soon.  This is one area, which I find neglected, which is essential for schools, churches, and denominations to understand before they forbid what Jesus does not forbid.

Steve McCoy (aka reformissionary) is doing something similar to me regarding 'Drink to the glory of God?'.  Here is his post.

 

HT: Pat

After listening to the audio from the Forum on Alcohol and Ministry, I highly recommend reading the following article by Johannes G. Vos entitled The Separated Life.  This a wonderful essay that has shaped a good deal of my thinking regarding adiaphora, or 'things indifferent', that is things which God does not call evil.  Here is a link to this important essay.  In posts to come I will be working with this article.

I don't want to do this, but I think I am going to attempt it.  Why don't I want to do it?  Well, because it is a bit

controversial.  Because it is controversial it will require time, it will require patience, it will require understanding.  Also, because of the side I will take on the issue, I may also be maligned, mocked, called an unbeliever, etc.  Why?  Why would I want to put myself through such an ordeal?  Why would I invite such frustration?  Why would I attempt to do something that may make others mad at me?  Why would I take something on, which may create an environment where others may misunderstand me? 

 

Ultimately, sometimes I do not know the answers to these questions.  I don’t know why I willingly take things on that upset others, that get me ‘in trouble’.  But the answer that keeps coming back to me is that I want Christians to be thinking rightly in all things for the honor of Jesus and the joy of his people.   I want people to be free from slavery and to enjoy all of the beauty of God’s beautiful and cursed earth.  In short I want to obey God with my thoughts and live in accordance with him by his grace.

 

What am I taking on?  Well, I am taking on required abstinence from alcohol as the proper stance of the Christian.  Why am I taking this on?  Well, primarily I am taking this on at this time because of the public stance of The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary.  Now, I am not trying to take on Southern.  I rejoice over Southern.  Rather, I am tackling a position that they recently, publicly articulated.  So again I want to say that I am taking on a position that is the position of teetotalism as the right response of Christians to alcohol.  With this I will also talk about the dangers, etc. of requiring abstinence from alcohol like many Christian colleges and seminaries do. 

 

So, here I go.  I do not know what will take place.  But I think it will be an interesting adventure.  I pray God will be in it helping us to think his thoughts after him, that he would be honored in our thoughts and our lives.

 

So to begin with you can listen to the audio of the forum on 'Alcohol and Ministry' at Southern Baptist Theological Seminary.  Again, I am not specifically taking them on.  I am using this to begin the long road ahead of thinking through these issues.  Also, from now on all the posts related to this topic will be listed under the category 'Drink to the Glory of God?'.

 

The category is named this because I want to investigate the claim of whether a Christian can drink alcohol to the glory of God.  That is why there is a quesiton mark.  Immediately, of course, as soon as you read the question (Can a Christian drink alcohol to the glory of God?) you thought 'Yes' or 'No'.  Some of you may have thought 'I don't know, good question'.  But most of you, I would guess have a firm position on this.  This is what makes the discussion so difficult.  Anyway, now I am beginning to ramble, maybe I am just a bit intimidated to post this note.  Well, I refuse to give in to intimidation, so I am posting now...

This looks very interesting.

A carnival, as they call it, of theist and atheists talking about theological issues.  The first topic is sin.

This is good, really good.

http://www.bethinking.org/index.php

 

This should be logged under the category of 'You cannot make it up fast enough'.

http://video.msn.com/v/us/v.htm?g=1268892f-d3f0-4842-9790-b15043000413,2a67866b-6131-45a7-8879-f8ed8f33013f,13b3dede-2ba9-4e77-bed0-2c390b747f4f&p=News_NBC%20News&f=http://www.msn.com/

Last week, in light of the biblical phrase 'The Lord of Host' or the 'The Lord of War', I recommended to my Bethlehem Institute students a book by Tremper Longman III entitled, God is a Warrior.

 

Here is an article by Longman summerizing the argument of his book.

http://www.beginningwithmoses.org/articles/divinewarrior.htm 

This book is a good antidote to Greg Boyd's warfare theology.