Servant54

Are you intentionally misquoting the Word? Because that ain't "it" It says that they should not be "given to much wine". That seems pretty obvious. There is no requirement that they abstain whatsoever. The only requirement is that they not be abusers of wine. that is the pot calling the kettle black, bro. No one here has ever said that you must drink alcohol. We have made no requirements upon a man's conscience. The only legalists on this subject are those who say : 21 "Do not handle, do not taste, do not touch!" 22 (which all refer to things destined to perish with use)--in accordance with the commandments and teachings of men? 23 These are matters which have, to be sure, the appearance of wisdom in self-made religion and self-abasement and severe treatment of the body, but are of no value against fleshly indulgence. Just making a point that Nazerites were respected..not sure about your hair point? I believe drink wine is abusing wine, like smoking pot is abusing drugs. Did you know alcohol is a drug? I agree there is different degrees of abuse we just disagree that drinking is abuse. If dope becomes legal will one hit be abuse or will it be ok because society says it is..will it change because of legality? Get ready, you will have to make that call in your life time believe. Ok, there are two different sets of men in the New Testament A]Elders(Bishop) and B]Deacons Elders are to abstain (they deal with spiritual matters, higher office) Deacons are not to have much wine.(they deal with mundane matters, lower office) So you ARE calling me a legalist because I do believe ""Do not handle, do not taste, do not touch!" and also do not look upon (Prov 23:31) add that one. I think you went full circle in your post. By drinking alcohol one becomes a proponent of alcohol...you say to all "it is ok to drink and everyone should do so" by your actions. When someone sees you drink from across the restaurant and does not know all your believe system they would normally believe you think it is ok for everyone to drink. Good day to you.

So what you are saying is this is not a warning about drinking or drunkeness but this is a warning about drink poison. I have heard this before and since we all know is that grape juice is not poison and finished wine is not poison I would have a hard time believing something in between is Do we know of anyone who has died from this...I thought not. Later translations? What does that mean? They say pretty much the sane thing. Maybe a little proof to back up your "fact"..I have a hard time with these statements. I believe this is totally untrue.

Thank you Smalcald, and I would have to agree with you. You come across to me as honest.

A. When it came to your uncle, you made a flat statement that has no other interpretation. Your statement from post #414 of this thread: "My uncle lost his salvation." That is not a claim, or speculation, or a guess. You are stating something as if it is fact. B. You'll have to show me some kind of evidence that a "whole generation" is going to hell. Evidently, because they drink. C. I don't make those kind of calls. I'm not qualified to, and neither are you. We don't question or speculate on people's salvation that way here. Ever. D. Proverbs 23:30-32 does not declare drinking is a sin. It is giving advice against drunkeness. Whether a person chooses to drink or not is still a matter of personal conviction, just like it was yesterday, just like it is today, and just like it will be tomorrow. Scripture prohibits drunkeness, not drinking alcohol. The problem does not come from drinking alcohol. The problem comes from people who don't know the difference between drinking and being drunk, and people who feel it's their job to bludgeon people about the head on matters of personal conviction. It's a hobby horse. Wow that really got under your skin didn't it. Ok here...I BELIEVE he did..is that better? Again, when I said that my relative did not make it to heaven rather that saying I believe he did not...I would think that would obviously be saying it was only my belief..as how would I know if he did or did not. I think your argument answers itself. My main point, which of course is not set aside by this technicality you bring up, is that people DO go to hell who die drunks..that is scripture and I quoted it . I guess from your understanding we are not allowed to put two and two together and make a judgment call on any given matter. Can I judge that Judas went to hell? Or is that against board policy? Can I add all the scriptures together and say Judas was once saved , a disciple, an Apostle of the Lamb no less, Christ personnel chose him and yet the scripture says better that this one not be born. He must have went to hell? You say.. "You'll have to show me some kind of evidence that a "whole generation" is going to hell. Evidently, because they drink" I say.. You have twisted my words, I did not say that drinkers go to hell. You have dishonestly twisted my words. Again "a whole generation going to hell" is just a generalization..I think you need to quit reading "your assumptions" into my text. There is an IF clause to any statement like this such as IF there was a major revival etc. I would not be out trying to see them chmaged if I believed they were all headed to hell...right? You say... Proverbs 23:30-32 does not declare drinking is a sin. It is giving advice against drunkeness. I say... Again I believe you are totally wrong about your interpretation of this scripture and I am totally right, so I guess I believe I have my scripture to prove we are to stay away from alcohol and not even look on it . It is a sin. To say I can not have my interpenetration of scripture sets you up to be my judge does it? You may want to rethink that. Take care.

I am not sure where you get the idea that I "unequivocally" believe what you are say. I am only making an educated guess. I believe God is for us making educated guess on matters. I have been saved 35 years and made many. The reason I have chose to ignore the scriptural verses is because of the wrong interpretation that has accompanied them, I have not ignored all of them I change my opinion on two of them..one was Jesus rejected vinegar not wine. I now believe Jesus rejected vinegar not alcoholic wine. That is why I enjoy these discussions, I am always willing to change when brought truth or I am wrong..I have nothing to loose. I understand where you are coming from being from the opposing side of the agruement..I guess we will need to agree to dis agree and leave the rest in God's hands. Amen? Peace and blessing to you also.

I Cor 5:11-13But actually, I wrote to you not to associate with any so-called brother if he is an immoral person, or covetous, or an idolater, or a reviler, or a drunkard, or a swindler-- not even to eat with such a one, For what have I to do with judging outsiders? Do you not judge those who are within the church? But those who are outside, God judges. REMOVE THE WICKED MAN FROM AMONG YOURSELVES. I Cor 6: 9-10 Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God?Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals, nor thieves, nor the covetous, NOR DRUNKARDS, nor revilers, nor swindlers, will inherit the kingdom of God. ................ It is quite clear by scripture that if alcohol becomes the lord of your life, you will die in your sins, even if at one time you were saved I do not rebut what you say to win a point...I just believe many here do not realize that DRUNKARDS will not enter the kingdom of God according to clear text of scripture. Oh that I would wish I were wrong and would see my uncle in heaven..but I am a realist and know better because of what the scripture teaches. I see a condecending tone working it's way into your posts, and I would attempt to moderate it. Please remember that you are not the final authority on this subject and no one has to accept your opinions. And so far, that's all you have given is opinions. Drinking alcohol is not a sin, and to claim such is false, and a mis-use of scripture. Nowhere does the Bible say that drinking alcohol is a sin. It says being a drunkard is a sin, and the two are not the same thing. Each time you use scripture that speaks to the abuse of alcohol, you only re-enforce the point that drinking is not a sin. This is the second time you have mentioned your uncle and claimed he was not saved. This is 100% against the TOS and I would request that you not do it again. Only God knows the man's heart and whether he is in heaven or not. You do not. You can speculate and make guesses, but you are judging his heart and you are in no position to do so. I think IF I claimed some relative died unsaved it would be a speculation or a guess would it not? Of course I am guessing or of course it is my opinion. I can not have an opinion on such things? My bible says I am to judge a tree by its fruits and if it bares good fruits then it is a good tree and if it bares the fruits of unrighteousness it is not. Judging someone probably went to hell is a whole different thing then judging someone to hell. If we are to save a generation from going to hell we better know for absolutely positively what sends them there. So IF a relative of mine was a drunk at the end of his life, drunks according to scripture shall not enter the kingdom of heaven. Your call. You say drinking alcohol is not a sin where is your scripture? I have a scripture that says it is Prov 23:31 Are you say that ONLY "being a drunkard" is a sin? That a saint can get drunk and it is not as sin as long as he does not become a drunkard? Again I apologize to anyone who feel anything I have said sounds offensive or haughty or of any unChrist like nature. It is not my intentions to break rules or any such thing.

So are you telling me that, because I'm recovering and I have asked forgiveness, I am STILL going to go to hell because I'm a "drunkard"??? I don't think that's YOUR place to judge. I think that's G-d's place. I resent your innuendos and I suggest you moderate your tone a bit, sir. I find it quite insulting. a. I do not remember where I commented on your life. I was talking about my uncle, he was not "recovering", he was practicing drunkeness and loving it and bragging about it and getting others to do the same. He was a drunks drunk. You resent my innuendos because of a mistake on your part assuming I am talking about any other situation besides my uncle. Your situation sounds nothing like my uncle's situation. I love you and hope the best for you and if you are struggling with a life long habit and falling down seven times and rising back up you my friend are a righteous person and will hear "Enter thou in thy good and faithful servant" at the end of your life. There is an eternity of difference between someone practicing sin and loving it and someone falling back into sin and hating it...the difference is heaven and hell.

LadyC said.. "the families where kids grow up being taught that a drop of alcohol is a grave sin. neither of these two types of family teach the kids any respect for alcohol. either the kids are taught no self control at all, or the forbidden fruit becomes so appealing that parents don't stand much of a chance against the peer pressure their kids face." I say..... I gave my testimony and then LadyC changed her tune and corrected herself and decreased her estimate from "any respect" down 10% to " probably" 90% of the ones i've known abused alcohol at some point. Of course we all know different people and that influences what we think the rest of the world is like..all I am trying to say is your coloring every abstainer with a broad brush as some legalist who kids are going to go off the deep end for absolute sure is just not true..... its a fabrication! please Lady C...give me a break.

I Cor 5:11-13But actually, I wrote to you not to associate with any so-called brother if he is an immoral person, or covetous, or an idolater, or a reviler, or a drunkard, or a swindler-- not even to eat with such a one, For what have I to do with judging outsiders? Do you not judge those who are within the church? But those who are outside, God judges. REMOVE THE WICKED MAN FROM AMONG YOURSELVES. I Cor 6: 9-10 Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God?Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals, nor thieves, nor the covetous, NOR DRUNKARDS, nor revilers, nor swindlers, will inherit the kingdom of God. ................ It is quite clear by scripture that if alcohol becomes the lord of your life, you will die in your sins, even if at one time you were saved I do not rebut what you say to win a point...I just believe many here do not realize that DRUNKARDS will not enter the kingdom of God according to clear text of scripture. Oh that I would wish I were wrong and would see my uncle in heaven..but I am a realist and know better because of what the scripture teaches.

Lamentations 2:11-12 When little ones and infants faint In the streets of the city. They say to their mothers, "Where is grain and wine?" As they faint like a wounded man In the streets of the city, As their life is poured out On their mothers' bosom. Matt 18:14 But Jesus said, "Let the children alone, and do not hinder them from coming to Me; for the kingdom of heaven belongs to such as these If Jesus was at a childs birthday party and the wine failed would he turn the water into alcoholic wine? Just a little brain teaser.

I think that for some people that is a fact of life - but I think that is a pretty broad statement. I also see a lot of kids who were raised to be 'responsible and accountable' by devoted Christian parents - and those kids do some pretty stupid things despite their training - so to say that if they are taught accountability and respect and consequences this won't happen... is not always the case. And I'm sure you realize that. Sometimes the best parenting in the world doesn't equate to success. Good kids make mistakes and big ones and we pray - just pray that God will take care of them and that they'll get past the mistakes without too much agony. i understand what you're saying, believer, and you're right, but i think lady was talking more about society in general--which can sometimes have more influence on our kids than family can. if society didn't have this "run away from it all" mentality, it wouldn't be so very easy for kids to slip into that same kind of irresponsible lifestyle. actually, i was including christian families in my statement, as far as the teaching how to drink responsibly. the truth is, in our society it is often "all or nothing"... the worldly families where kids grow up around alcohol abusers, or the families where kids grow up being taught that a drop of alcohol is a grave sin. neither of these two types of family teach the kids any respect for alcohol. either the kids are taught no self control at all, or the forbidden fruit becomes so appealing that parents don't stand much of a chance against the peer pressure their kids face. still though, the kids brought up in a "no alcohol" christian family still have some advantages over non-christian families, because they have a foundation of faith that they will likely return to when they grow older. I can not speak for every abstinence family, but my three boys who are in college are not swayed in the least by someone who drinks..they actually are trend setters and get there friends not to drink if the friends were incorrectly taught it is ok to drink alcohol in their home. They are the ones who their peers look up to and they would not even THINK of drinking..they are like the Recabites sons of old. My kids respect alcohol that is why they do not look on it. Unless you have any documentation to back up your claims they are only hear say. You are entitled to your opinion.

Speaking of a Nazerite, it is interesting that they were looked up to in their society. A total abstainer looked up to. Lets see who abstained... Nazerites like Sampson and John who ministered and were used in high offices as leaders. Remember what Jesus said of John? Kings were supposed to be abstainers..they were leaders and looked up to. There were priests that were abstainers and looked up to. The Recabites were just a family that would did not drink and God honored their young men by how well they obey their father who commanded them not to Jer35. another positive view of abstainers. Then you come to the New Testament and we see elders/bishops are supposed to be abstainers and are leaders and highly looked up to. So why is it that people who desire to be abstainers seem to get no respect now a days...but are in fact mocked by many or called legalistic. Just something to ponder during commercials or waiting for the microwave to be done.

I have been asking all Muslims and Middle Easterners about wine skins seeing if they have seen them with stuff stored in them or whether there grampas have. ( I love to see if I can hear personal testimony of how things were in yester year.) They have answered that it is against their religion to drink alcohol. They also go by the OT law of clean and unclean. All moderate drinkers on this forum have assumed that OT Jews drank alcohol on a regular bases yet this off shoot of Judaism goes by the same health code yet believes that it is wrong to drink. Interesting. Is it a proof that OT Jews did not drink........... no it is not................however it is interesting to note. Realize that the Jews of today are not believers as was say Mary Jesus mother and many in Jesus day. They are all backslid and we can not observe their actions and base what OT "believing" Jews did or did not do based on what is done today. Also note that at many times in the history of Judea and Israel they were totally backslid, in fact a good portion of the time they were backslid and what they did was not necessarily what God intended for their lives. (Eating your kids kind of puts you in a bad religious light) Just some thoughts.

yes. and the whole of Scripture--not verses picked out here and there. If you are going to stick to the whole of scripture, than you have to add in grace and salvation by faith, not of works, that we are under grace and not the law. Thus, this conversation is in part moot. It seems that people to the extreme of one side or the other take the time to comment as with authority and perfect understanding on that which is a doubtful issue at best. (based on the use of good scriptures pointing to both points of view) Perhaps, somewhere in the discussion should be the truth that salvation is OF THE LORD and is a free gift. Whether one drinks and for what reason they do so is between them and their LORD. My uncle lost his salvation because he went from a moderate drinking to a drunk in the last part of his life. My father did pretty much the same however he got dementia and we TOLD his he quit drink so he did before he died. My wife's best friends pastor decided he had liberty to drink so he did for awhile..but eventually it got the best of him and he lost his ministry. We have am epidemic in our nation, our youth are dying because of this poison..and many are going to hell being mocked by it..we BETTER talk about it.

The agrument.... Why does the bible not call wine juice if that is what it is? It must be alcohol or they would have called it juice. Lets turn this argument around..what does history show? History shows many contemporaries of our Lord calling plain juice wine(and they say it is non alcoholic) ..my question to those who insist you have to have juice mentioned in the bible......... is why juice not mentioned in some history quotes..why did they call juice wine? I see abstainers on this board quoting history right and left...many quotes have been made to prove they had non alcoholic wine...where is the moderate sides historical quotes to show there was only alcoholic wine? or all wine was alcoholic. I see the moderation side blowing right by many historical proofs and then starting again with "they had no non alcoholic wine" ignore historical quotes and they will just go away I guess. I call on the moderation side to show us some historical quotes..they must be there since your idea of history is right.....show us the beef. Here is another one in passing.... Aristotle(384-322) says of sweet wine, glukus, that it would not intoxicate. And that the wine of Arcadia was so thick that it was necessary to scrape it from the SKIN bottles in which it was contained, and dissolve the scrapings in water. Nott, London Ed p 80 Bible Wines by William Patton The archeological record does not back up Mormonism or Evolution there is just no evidence of their many claims ...such is true with the moderation side of this argument they make many, many assertions and claims but have NO history written down to back up their claims. If we are to stake our salvation and others salvation on a belief system as dangerous as moderation we are going to need more then someones ideas about something. Show us the beef!

The term red denotes that the wine has been fermented with the skin..that is the only way it becomes red...so red denotes fermented.( I looked this up the other day) .......................... If Christians are drunk, would you trust the type of wine they chose for the Lord's supper?..I think they came to church drunk if I am not mistaken so them drinking alcohol has nothing to do with what wine they used for the Lord's supper. Either way here again you have a huge bridge of assumption. ........................... Smalcald, don't look on the wine,the first thing or at last your eyes will see strange things. (Note the action of drinking the wine is mentioned in the verse..not just looking at it....... it goes down smoothly) There is your commandment. Prov.23;31

A]Well yes moderation and control in how we use our sexual urges, it would certainly apply. The whole passage is about how to live our lives in a way of moderation and control which is pleasing to Christ. B]Why did you not want to address the passage which says not to drink too much? Your whole idea seems to come from the comment about not gazing on wine when it is red and goes down smoothly? I don't know, when we look at scripture and deal with it in a straightforward way the case I am making is simply the clearer reading. The case I am making by the way is that Christians are not to be drunkards or hang out with drunkards or abuse any substance such as food, wine or sex. I think when we have these disagreements we can look to how most Christians throughout most of our history have read and understood scripture, after all are we the first to pick up a bible? I encourage people to read about how most Christians since the Apostles have understood how we are to handle alcohol. A]No we do not view a harlot with moderation....nice hat dance We only sip on a harlot we do not have more than on glass of her lest we fall into sin. Does not fit sorry. B] I did about twenty pages ago. Abstinence is not a requirement for salvation, very worldly people coming into the church, they have requirements to not have too much wine if becoming a deacon..their wine was obviously watered down in that you had to drink too much to become .08 right or buzzed? So God allowed them space to end up like an elder NO WINE. The moderation argument falls apart if they compare today's wine with the wine of yester year as that wine took "too much" to get you buzzed and today's wine you are buzzed with one or two drinks which is not much. Why was Timothy abstaining from the wine even though he had a health problem that the wine could help?..this is what we need to be asking this should be our heart..would Timothy have abstained his whole life if it were not for his stomach?? :::::::::::: You still need to answer why the son is NOT TO LOOK ON WINE in Proverbs 23:31. I agree at last it makes you drunk, but I am not talking about the last I am talking about the first when you look on it and there is that DO NOT again. Off to work..blessings on you.

I did repost the address but it does not go through like it is being shut down ..just Google Jack Van Impe and go to his book section and order. I see he has DVD also. This book did not deal with scripture a lot but dealt with external evidence and stories as I remember..if you are on a budget I would for go this book and get the other two first. I skipped a lot of this book and read only certain sections but they really showed things you normally do not think of. A few of his facts were worth the price of his book.

The problem with the Seven Day Adventist is that are more legalistic then they should be. I have studied many of the Adventist beliefs and even have some as family and friends. They do not see the freedom Christ has given us in scripture to be acceptable and are works based in many ways. It was a fabulous book..the best out there. I actually do not know if the man was 7th Day Adventist, but I would suppose it by what he said. It is a must for those wanting to convince someone what the bible really teaches..this man gets deep into each argument and he knows what he is talking about. (click on the address and read a little) I am sure anyone that wants to continue drinking and believing that the bible teaches it is ok to will not want to buy the book and dissuade people from doing so by discrediting the authors. I expected as much when I posted said information. If you are going to debate the subject later in life to prove moderation you should buy the book so you know the best of the best arguments that abstainers will throw at you. I know of no better book. 'OneLight' said.. "The problem with the Seven Day Adventist is that are more legalistic then they should be. " I say.... Totally conjecture based on your own personal view of the subject. +++++ Always question when someone wants to keep you away from information on any given subject..unless you are very weak minded and might not be able to read a book without getting sucked into false ideologies. Then Onelight is right..do not buy..do not read.

To All..... Here is a great book on the subject...it is written by a Seventh Day Adventist man. I bought it and read it because I heard everyone on line referring to it. Five stars http://www.biblicalperspectives.com/books/...he_bible/1.html Jack Van Impe has a book out I read also..it deal mostly with social facts rather than bible facts..a real eye opener. Three stars https://ww2.micahtek.com/nexolive/nShop_Sto...FTOKEN=19138700 And then there is the old stand by.. Bible Wines by William Patton Four Stars In print and available from Tabernacle Baptist Church Po box 3100 1911 34th Lubbock Tx 70452 http://www.tbaptist.com/pages/booklist.html#h

Wow, you really must have it in for me, I share my life to show I am human and it is used as a weapon against me. Amazing. You totally mischaracterized me. I am not like the gal on wife Swap......I saw that a year ago or so. I am a normal Christian trying the best I can. Please stick on topic rather than name calling.. again I ask kindly. Thank You.

Smalcald....... Proverbs 23 3 Do not crave his delicacies, 4 Do not wear yourself out to get rich; 6 Do not eat the food of a stingy man, 9 Do not speak to a fool, for he will scorn the wisdom of your words. 10 Do not move an ancient boundary stone or encroach on the fields of the fatherless, 13 Do not withhold discipline from a child; if you punish him with the rod, he will not die. 17 Do not let your heart envy sinners, but always be zealous for the fear of the LORD. 20 Do not join those who drink too much wine or gorge themselves on meat, 31 Do not gaze at wine when it is red, when it sparkles in the cup, when it goes down smoothly! Here are the DO NOT scriptures of Proverbs 23, can you show me which ones are ok to DO with moderation?

Smalcald, I can see why you left out the passages about avoiding the harlot..".So the message of moderation is clear"

Who are you saying is not supposed to gaze on the wine? It is the son correct? He is not to gaze on it his father says. Correct? Remember...... this is not an admonishment to drunks or gluttons but to the son who has never drank by the sound of it. He has not had a problem as you are saying as drunks do.... so why is the father admonishing him about this? Your interpretation does not make sense. There are several admonishments in the chapter like against seeking riches.. VRS 4 "SET NOT YOUR EYES ON THAT WHICH IS NOT?" is the son not to set his eyes or is this just talking about how those seeking riches set their eyes. Keep reading the chapter and read the other chapters about harlots, sinners, and evil men and how the son is NOT to "look" ",lust", "envy".and all sorts of other things..these are commandments from his father and these are commandments from our Father. Read Proverbs 2:1 TREASURE MY COMMANDMENTS , Proverbs 3:1 My son. do not forget my law, but let your heart KEEP MY COMMANDMENTS. Proverbs 4:2 I GIVE YOU GOOD DOCTRINE I am trying to pin you on this text because it is important to see the correct interpretation of it so God can then work on the truth that has come forth. I do not do this to be mean or "win" some prize I honestly believe if people will be honest with the text that this verse will change their whole way of thinking about alcohol. How many verse do we need to teach being Born Again? Well we have one Jn 3:3 Lest Ye be Born Again and maybe one more. Almost everyone here says you must be born again based on that ONE scripture..why do we need a whole bunch of scriptures to say DO NOT LOOK ON WINE..one should be enough. Yes it is so true once you get into Proverbs you will be pulled in..I have been there for about three years and just said to myself the other day...Joel you need to quit rereading and rereading Proverbs. It has changed my life though....and not anything about alcohol..just the scriptures on how to act.... like He who answers a matter before he hears it or the discretion of a man makes him slow to anger.......it has totally changed how I debate/converse over the internet..I realize I need to be kind, etc. It has made me anew! Ok on we go..blessings..ya should have left when you could have