Jump to content
creativemechanic

Christians and drinking

Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, Cletus said:

If The Sacrificial Lamb had spot or blemish our salvation would be a farce. 

Yes. and ??? So providing wine service is not a spot nor blemish, or Jesus did not provide wine, but instead only a super outstanding grape juice, maybe the likes of Grape Nehi eh?.

Edited by Neighbor

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Neighbor said:

Yes. and ??? So providing wine service is not a spot nor blemish, or Jesus did not provide wine, but instead only a super outstanding grape juice, maybe the likes of Grape Nehi eh?.

Let us all swear an oath now!!!  never shall we again touch that sinful grape juice to our lips again!!!  Never again shall we be defiled by taking communion.... Because grape juice is so intoxicating, giving such a sugar high if you drink to much grapey grape juice!!!  The hangover is just like it says in the bible, it biteth like an serpent and stingeth like an adder.  Oh Please God have mercy and dont strike us down for drinking that grape nehi or that purple stuff!!!  Oh woe is me for i have partaken of the mixed grape juice... grape and strawberry Oh and double woe for drinking from concentrate!!!                        :rofl:   :34: :rofl: :24::rofl: :34:  :rofl:

If you think grape juice and wine are the same you better not ever take communion again.  You may also want to warn everyone at your church!!!

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/28/2018 at 1:05 AM, The_Patriot2018 said:

well, there is a point to be made, about the perception of evil....and you know what, if your a christian and your in the bar every friday night, even if you stop at one or 2, it can give the perception of drunkeness, which is a sin. However, at least where Im at, if im at Ruby Tuesdays or buffalo wild wings, and I order a margarita or a glass of wine with my meal, the only people that will look down on me for it are other christians, and I suspect, much the same is true many other places.

I have had a couple of my non saved friends comment on it, not in a mean way...but ask why i would have that drink, because every christian they know is this "holier then thou you cant touch that vile substance" type people, and its actually led to some good, solid conversations about my faith. Now, Im NOT suggesting drinking as a form of witnessing, thats not while I drink. The reason I drink-and I dont drink much (a pint bottle of crown will typically last me a month or more) is, because quite simply, I enjoy the flavor. And thats it. I dont drink much, if were talking a stronger drink like whiskey, i dont drink it straight-always water it down, and i stop at one. if its a weaker one like mikes hard lemonade, I MIGHT have 2, but even thats rare.

More often then not, people come to Christ through relationships, not through perfectness. I find being real with people, is far more effective at winning them to Christ, then some ultra high standard of christian perfectness, because face it, no ones perfect, and theres nothing the world likes more then tearing down a hypocrit. But if they see that your a human to, just like them, only you have a reason to live, theyre far more likely to listen to what you have to say.

Hey Patriot...

That's my opinion too. I use to drink A LOT! But since I asked the Lord for help and repented and changed my want to's... I've completely abstained from all alcohol because I don't want to project any suspicion or questions. Even though a cold Samuel Adams once in awhile sounds good; I don't want to have to worry about my pastor, or anyone else for that matter seeing an empty beer bottle in the trash / frig or smelling alcohol on my breath. 

I use to drink so much my philosophy was, "I feel sorry for people who don't drink. When they get up in the morning, that's the best they are going to feel all day". That's a sad attitude isn't it? 

  • Thumbs Up 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Dennis1209 said:

Hey Patriot...

That's my opinion too. I use to drink A LOT! But since I asked the Lord for help and repented and changed my want to's... I've completely abstained from all alcohol because I don't want to project any suspicion or questions. Even though a cold Samuel Adams once in awhile sounds good; I don't want to have to worry about my pastor, or anyone else for that matter seeing an empty beer bottle in the trash / frig or smelling alcohol on my breath. 

I use to drink so much my philosophy was, "I feel sorry for people who don't drink. When they get up in the morning, that's the best they are going to feel all day". That's a sad attitude isn't it? 

It absolutely is. And while i do occasionally drink, i dont try to cover it up, but i make sure i dont in the presence of anyone who may have a problem with it, and when i do i have a strict one drink and im done rule. While i dont feel its a sin to have an occasional drink, i have no intention of becoming a stumbling block to others.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, The_Patriot2018 said:

When the ruler of the feast had tasted the water that was made wine, and knew not whence it was: (but the servants which drew the water knew;) the governor of the feast called the bridegroom,

Hello brother, so you are assuming its alcoholic wine then, I do struggle with this it does sound like it could be alcoholic & many camps are divided.                    If the people have had much to drink, are they drunk? OR is the alcohol content so low or (new wine) which fresh grape juice.                                                       To much alcohol leads to incorrect decision making & very possibly sin, which Jesus has just added to, thats the part I struggle with.

I have read on a sight, even back in Jesus day they had developed a process of non alcoholic wine, as grapes are seasonal. 

I'v enjoyed listening to all the different views. & I like to stir the pot. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, Riccardo said:

Hello brother, so you are assuming its alcoholic wine then, I do struggle with this it does sound like it could be alcoholic & many camps are divided.                    If the people have had much to drink, are they drunk? OR is the alcohol content so low or (new wine) which fresh grape juice.                                                       To much alcohol leads to incorrect decision making & very possibly sin, which Jesus has just added to, thats the part I struggle with.

I have read on a sight, even back in Jesus day they had developed a process of non alcoholic wine, as grapes are seasonal. 

I'v enjoyed listening to all the different views. & I like to stir the pot. 

 

actually, im not assuming, the wine in both cases I listed, was indeed alcoholic. It is true, that there were two forms of wine used in hebrew and greek writing, and the Jews used both alcoholic and non-alcoholic wine, and while the greek words differ, the english word is the same. The word used in timothy when Paul was addressing timothy, was the word used for alcohol, as was the word used in matthew in the marriage feast. Also, its important to note, the traditions of the time, in that a wedding was a celebration-and they used actual, alcoholic wine in it. Id have to look it up, but if memory serves me right, they would start with the non-alcoholic stuff, and work their way up to the alcoholic stuff. If they run out, it means they ran out of both the non and alcoholic drinks, and the ruler of the feast couldnt tell it wasnt water, that it was very good, every indication from the original greek, to the customs to the context indicates that Jesus first miracle was indeed, turning water into an alcoholic beverage.

Even on my missions trip in moldova, they had basically two forms-one was called Musk (not sure on the spelling) and it was non-fermented, basically grape juice. they kept it in airtight containers, and you could open it, and drink it as is, or let it ferment for a time and turn to wine. Both were very good.

And yes, the Bible has strong words against drinking to much-being drunk is very much listed as a sin and the Bible condemns drunkeness in both the old and new testaments. but nowhere, does it say drinking in moderation is a sin, and there are health benefits to certain alcoholic drinks such as wine when drank in moderation. Its like anything on this earth, everything has a "purpose" and God intended everything He made to have a good wholesome purpose, and when used to that purpose, it is good, but when it is abused, as humans are good at doing to pretty much everything, it is a bad thing.

  • Loved it! 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, Still Alive said:

Like sex, it is something that can get out of hand because it's so pleasurable (no pun intended).

I'm still having sex with my wife, though, and I enjoy a good scotch from time to time.

Are you saying ALL sex is lawful (sodomy, fornication, adultery, etc), in moderation?

Are you saying ALL speech is lawful (cursing, God's name in vain, etc), in moderation?

"All things are lawful" has a context. That context does not include *unlawful* things. Alcohol is specifically identified as unlawful, in unquestionable plain passages.

 

@The_Patriot2018 and others on John 2

In John 2 Jesus turned water into "wine" (Gk oinos, Strong 3631).  Was this alcohol or grape juice.  The same word (oinos, Strong 3631) is used in Matthew 9:17, "Neither do men put new wine into old wine-skins: else the skins burst..." See the definition of the word in Vine's Expository Dictionary:  "(Strong's #3631 — Noun Masculine — oinos — oy'-nos ) is the general word for 'wine.'"  (https://www.studylight.org/dictionaries/ved/w/wine.html)

And the bursting of the wine skins indicates fermentation. So, grape juice is called "wine" prior to fermentation.  Thus, the word absolutely allows that Jesus created grape juice.

 

Now consider the context of John 2. People had already consumed what was there. Jesus provided ~180 gallons more to consume. IF this passage is Jesus turning water to alcohol, then Jesus is approving of and even supplying a large quantity to be consumed... not just a little moderate drinking!

BUT, the immediate context shows the ruler of the feast said this "wine" was the best.  Step away from modern thoughts when you read this.  Modern thought is: more alcohol = best.  While in Bible times, more alcohol also meant more vinegar (since distillation was not known in Bible times/lands at this point).  The higher the alcohol content, the worst it tasted!  Yet, fresh grape juice would be sweet and tasty.  So, better tasting was fresh juice.

Also, considering the remote context (the word of Christ through the Spirit to the apostles), Eph 5:18 literally says do not begin the process of drinking wine wherein is riot, 1 Pet 4:7 saying to be sober (literally free from the influence of intoxicants), and others... what would Jesus have created then?  Would Jesus contradict His own instructions to others? Was Jesus a hypocrite? Certainly not.

 

Regarding 1 Timothy 5:23

Be no longer a drinker of water, but use a little wine for thy stomach’s sake and thine often infirmities.

The text shows Timothy was an abstainer.  Paul had to give him instructions for genuine medical purposes before Timothy would drink any alcohol.  And note the quantity, "a little". Not until you "feel good" or "socially" or "to relax".  It was due to genuine illness.

When traveling and preaching you find water to be a challenge.  Stomach issues will frequently arise.  How much alcohol does it take to address this & purify the water?  Not much.  The old folks crossing with wagons into the west used to bring alcohol with them for this very purpose - purify the water. They would add a ladle of alcohol to a full barrel of water. You would never get drunk from this, but the water would be purified.

TLDR:

There is no reason to think that Timothy was allowed or encouraged to practice what is elsewhere, plainly forbidden.

There is no reason to think that Jesus provided intoxicants in large quantities.

And, the Bible does say drinking in moderation is a sin. Eph 5:18, 1 Pet. 4:17, and more plain verses exist if you need them.

 

-----------------

Regarding spirit vs letter of the law:

The Bible directs us to approach it in a certain way.  We must not assume permission, we must look for permission being granted by God first.  1 Corinthians 4:6 "...that you may learn by us not to go beyond what is written..." and Hebrews 7:14 (as just 2 examples) show that when God does not authorize, there is no permission.

Thus, applying "spirit" and "letter" of the law (Romans 2) in a way that allows people to do something there is no authority for, would not be correct.

Even the context of Romans 2 bears this out.

Romans 2:25 the context is contrasting Jews (those with the Old Law who disobeyed it) & Gentiles (those who did not have the Old Law yet obeyed it).  Again, the Jews had "the letter" of the law yet transgressed (2:27)!  The letter was not indicating from the heart obedience, it was indicating those who had been given instruction yet disobeyed!

In contrast, Romans 2:28 "For he is not a Jew who is one outwardly; neither is that circumcision which is outward in the flesh: 29 but he is a Jew who is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit not in the letter; whose praise is not of men, but of God."

Inward, from the heart obedience to God is not condemned here. It is held up as the role model, as God approved.  The letter is outward only, not from the heart.  So, the contrast is not between obeying God strictly being wrong and obeying God loosely being alright. Rather, spirit vs letter means that outward forms only is disobedience and obeying from the heart (in faith!) is right!

Edited by DWH2003

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, DWH2003 said:

Are you saying ALL sex is lawful (sodomy, fornication, adultery, etc), in moderation?

No. That's why I said "with my wife". I was trying to make it crystal clear and remove all doubt.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, DWH2003 said:

@The_Patriot2018 and others on John 2

In John 2 Jesus turned water into "wine" (Gk oinos, Strong 3631).  Was this alcohol or grape juice.  The same word (oinos, Strong 3631) is used in Matthew 9:17, "Neither do men put new wine into old wine-skins: else the skins burst..." See the definition of the word in Vine's Expository Dictionary:  "(Strong's #3631 — Noun Masculine — oinos — oy'-nos ) is the general word for 'wine.'"  (https://www.studylight.org/dictionaries/ved/w/wine.html)

And the bursting of the wine skins indicates fermentation. So, grape juice is called "wine" prior to fermentation.  Thus, the word absolutely allows that Jesus created grape juice.

 

Now consider the context of John 2. People had already consumed what was there. Jesus provided ~180 gallons more to consume. IF this passage is Jesus turning water to alcohol, then Jesus is approving of and even supplying a large quantity to be consumed... not just a little moderate drinking!

BUT, the immediate context shows the ruler of the feast said this "wine" was the best.  Step away from modern thoughts when you read this.  Modern thought is: more alcohol = best.  While in Bible times, more alcohol also meant more vinegar (since distillation was not known in Bible times/lands at this point).  The higher the alcohol content, the worst it tasted!  Yet, fresh grape juice would be sweet and tasty.  So, better tasting was fresh juice.

Also, considering the remote context (the word of Christ through the Spirit to the apostles), Eph 5:18 literally says do not begin the process of drinking wine wherein is riot, 1 Pet 4:7 saying to be sober (literally free from the influence of intoxicants), and others... what would Jesus have created then?  Would Jesus contradict His own instructions to others? Was Jesus a hypocrite? Certainly not.

 

Regarding 1 Timothy 5:23

Be no longer a drinker of water, but use a little wine for thy stomach’s sake and thine often infirmities.

The text shows Timothy was an abstainer.  Paul had to give him instructions for genuine medical purposes before Timothy would drink any alcohol.  And note the quantity, "a little". Not until you "feel good" or "socially" or "to relax".  It was due to genuine illness.

When traveling and preaching you find water to be a challenge.  Stomach issues will frequently arise.  How much alcohol does it take to address this & purify the water?  Not much.  The old folks crossing with wagons into the west used to bring alcohol with them for this very purpose - purify the water. They would add a ladle of alcohol to a full barrel of water. You would never get drunk from this, but the water would be purified.

TLDR:

There is no reason to think that Timothy was allowed or encouraged to practice what is elsewhere, plainly forbidden.

There is no reason to think that Jesus provided intoxicants in large quantities.

And, the Bible does say drinking in moderation is a sin. Eph 5:18, 1 Pet. 4:17, and more plain verses exist if you need them.

 

-----------------

Regarding spirit vs letter of the law:

The Bible directs us to approach it in a certain way.  We must not assume permission, we must look for permission being granted by God first.  1 Corinthians 4:6 "...that you may learn by us not to go beyond what is written..." and Hebrews 7:14 (as just 2 examples) show that when God does not authorize, there is no permission.

Thus, applying "spirit" and "letter" of the law (Romans 2) in a way that allows people to do something there is no authority for, would not be correct.

Even the context of Romans 2 bears this out.

Romans 2:25 the context is contrasting Jews (those with the Old Law who disobeyed it) & Gentiles (those who did not have the Old Law yet obeyed it).  Again, the Jews had "the letter" of the law yet transgressed (2:27)!  The letter was not indicating from the heart obedience, it was indicating those who had been given instruction yet disobeyed!

In contrast, Romans 2:28 "For he is not a Jew who is one outwardly; neither is that circumcision which is outward in the flesh: 29 but he is a Jew who is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit not in the letter; whose praise is not of men, but of God."

Inward, from the heart obedience to God is not condemned here. It is held up as the role model, as God approved.  The letter is outward only, not from the heart.  So, the contrast is not between obeying God strictly being wrong and obeying God loosely being alright. Rather, spirit vs letter means that outward forms only is disobedience and obeying from the heart (in faith!) is right!

I'm both in agreement and disagree with the content of your "bible study in a post".

I agree that we need to remove 21st century sensibilities from this issue and focus on the culture contemporaneous with the events  in the bible. This is where we agree.

Where we disagree is that I'm a big fan of the phrase "times change, people don't". So, I know what most people in a culture that did not forbid intoxicating drink would consider "good" wine. I also understand that wine goes rapidly from grape juice to alcoholic. And then - eventually - to vinegar. You'd want to grab it before it got to that point to get the "best" that "made mans heart glad" as it says in Psalms.

I'm trying not to "over-spiritualize" what is being communicated in the bible and apply a "rubber meets the road" perspective regarding the heart of man and God saying that what he created is good.

 

And creating a reality where the grapes have sugar and they are coated with yeast is pure genius!

Edited by Still Alive

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×