| Re: |
I respect (& appreciate) your position. I do. And if the Lord tells you to do (or not do) something, by all means, do it (or don't do it, respectively 😊). But that's different than misapplying verses to basically say any alcohol drinking is "sin" for everyone. Anything not of faith is sin. But if they drank 2% alcohol wine (history doesn't support that, but for your arguments' sake) in Bible times during holidays and festivals. If they drank a full glass of 2%, then that's like drinking 1/3 a glass today of 6%. Is that Ok? Where does such end? It ends in a matter of conscience. Follow yours. But don't try to build a doctrinal teaching of it. Against drunkeness? Yes! On following your conscience? Yes! On all the warnings of alcohol in scripture? Yes! On "Teetotaller Doctrine/Theology" with verses taken out of their original context to substantiate and prop it up? No, no & a thousand times no! God doesn't need you to go beyond what is written to protect Him and His saints. What He has actually written (in context) with the Holy Spirit is more than sufficient enough (& balanced).
| 2016/8/11 14:00|
| Re: |
I must ask why are we defending our liberty to drink? Should we not be looking for ways to crucify the lawful at the cross, particularly in this final hour of redemptive history when darkness is providing the earth. It would seem to me that we should be encouraging one another to practical biblical holiness rather than looking for ways that we can heist the stein.
I speak as one who would enjoy his burger and brew even when listening to my audio New Testament at a local sports bar. But reading this article by David Wilkerson. And getting ready to listen to brother Forest posted link. I'm coming to the conclusion that the only beer I drink is a soft root beer.
I'm not speaking this out of a legalistic bent but seeing the need that I need to be holy in this final hour of redemptive history. And I think Christ is calling for his bride to be holy in this final hour of redemptive history. We need to be holy so that we can be the light of Christ.
Instead of defending our Liberty to drink or have a brewski we should be asking what would the Holy Spirit have us do. If we clearly hear His Voice He would say that He is returning for a holy bride. As such all of our behavior and conduct should be holy as unto Christ. All of our behavior and conduct should reflect a holy Christ who dwells in US. That so we can be a witness in this dark and perverse generation.
I realize I may be one of the few dissenting voices in this thread. But at this point I can no longer defend the lawful as my Liberty and Christ. But must look for ways to crucify the lawful at the cross.
Simply my thoughts and reflections.
| 2016/8/11 14:01|
| Re: |
As with all human institutions, the institution itself becomes paramount, its own end. Any means which serves the institution becomes legitimate based on institutional need. The church is no different in the hands of men who have lost sight of Christ. It is to be expected that the church will conform to the culture as a means of preserving the institution because that's what unregenerate humans do.
Remove alcohol from the equation. The church will serve itself. If not alcohol, any and every other unclean thing is already approved somewhere in the church. The remnant is repugnant at it; acceptance or indifference marks apostasy.
People who drink are not persuaded by arguments that appeal to crucifixion of the flesh nor are they willing to agree that even modest or slight consumption is a symptom of sowing to the flesh. The discussion is largely intractable pretty quickly.
I'll say this: I do not believe, personally, that any person in this country can take a drink of alcohol without a subconscious twinge of slight naughtiness or a fleeting stubble of the thought that "this is 'adults only' behavior and it is my right to do it". It is that stubble, that vestige of the old man that satisfies its thirst in the consumption of alcohol by anyone who names Christ as Lord. If it weren't so, we would have no appeal to Scripture for total abstinence. But, we do appeal to it to this end: that I am crucified with Christ, nevertheless I live; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me, and the life that I now live in the flesh in live in the faith of the son of God who loved me and gave himself for me. As a dead man, I have no rights. As a man alive in Christ, the only right I have is to please Him and become His Son, being made like Him and conformable to the image of His death. There is nothing I do of my own pleasure that I can defend.
| 2016/8/11 14:02||Profile|
| Re: Going beyond what is written|
God doesn't need you to go beyond what is written to protect Him and His saints.
I just want to be clear, did something I write "go beyond what is written"?
| 2016/8/11 14:02||Profile|
| Re: no nudity for Christians outside the marriage bed|
Oh ok, just making sure. 😊
| 2016/8/11 14:09|
| Re: |
Abstaining from drink does not make a person more holy. There is a case for abstaining in places where one can cause another to stumble, but in the privacy of ones home then it is conscience and what God allows. There again, Paul did not insist on Timothy drinking a little wine in private though lsrael was perhaps like Germany in its attitude towards alcohol.
It is however, very unholy to tell others to do what their conscience alone should tell them.
| 2016/8/11 14:12|
| Re: Brenda |
Sister respectfully our lives are not compartmentalized. The test of character is what we do in private will be with others see in public. Also it is not our conscience that is our guide. It is the Holy Spirit.
Being holy is a state of what the Holy Spirit wraughts in our heart. The outward abstension of alcohol without a heart conviction in Christ will not make one holy.
But seeing that the world is ever increasing moving toward darkness until he returns. I am seeing that He's calling for a bride to be holy with His life dwelling within them. Our life should reflect the reality of a holy Christ that dwells within them. Thus it would seem we should be encouraging one another more to a walk of holiness. Rather than encouraging one another to indulge their Liberty in drinking.
I realize I am one of the dissenting voices in this thread that holds this position. But the darkness of the age and the conviction of the Holy Spirit will not allow me to take another position. Even to say that we have the Liberty to drink.
| 2016/8/11 14:20|
| Re: |
This is why I said I was responding like a snail knowing mischaracterizations would follow. 😊
I'm not "defending the freedom to drink" as much as slowing the tendency to say "sipping saints are sinful" as a broadbrush of teetotalism. That as some applied doctrine to everyone is what is "Going beyond what is written". Please, everyone on here, don't drink! Ever, at all! But I'm not going to accuse you of sin (& I have heard David's message on "Sippin saints" & that's essentially exactly what he does - and I LOVED David Wilkerson profusely!). I know David struggled with some borderline legalistic & hard ways early on and later admitted such. I never doubted his heart on it though.
Forgive me Greg if I misunderstood you, but when you wrote:
"Some of the early Church fathers would some allow for very small quantities but with great warnings of the dangers of drinking.
In the end the allowance in evangelical, spirit-filled circles of drinking socially or privately is a new occurrence especially since the 1980's. So we have to question is this the right thing?
Along with this divorce and remarriage has changed, head-coverings lost and many other strong views on Scripture. Is it not possible that the Church is slipping from its sure place into apostasy as even homosexuality is allowed in many churches and acceptance or (not judging) is condoned in many seemingly biblical churches?"
You certainly seem to be making a quick connection and lumping those who might occasionally enjoy a glass of beer or wine in with adulterers, homosexuals, unsubmissive rebellious feminists, etc. That to me is too far. The scriptures stick "drunkards" in that mix, but don't teach "teetotalism" as doctrine or scripture (or early church practice - why would the apostles in Acts 2 have even been accused of drinking too much wine if the power to do it wasn't in the wine they were serving? Or how could those in 1 Corinthians who were taking the Lord's Supper unworthily (& were judged for it, some dying) have been getting drunk on 1% wine? That's nonsensical. By drinking a 5-gallon bucket? No.
This is why I didn't I honestly didn't really want to respond, but in my 18.5 years of walking with the Lord in many circles, I have learned to be aware of "cheap grace" apostate doctrines and "legalism" doctrines that add to the Word and Both are equally as dangerous in how we study and teach the Word of God IMHO. I'm not saying that's anyone's intent. If you now think I'm some apostate, cheap grace, worldly kind of person, then you didn't read (or believe) what I wrote & you just are in a certain place on it, and that's fine. Praise God! I will praise God for your celibacy too! And your living on the streets with nowhere to lay your head! And your tithing even from your garden herbs (that was a loving & harmless joke, you can laugh 😊), but don't try to teach it as a requirement for everyone or I will resist it. With context, scripture, history, balance & experience all in concert together.
I'm out. God Bless!
| 2016/8/11 14:23|
| Re: |
Follow your conscience and what you feel the Holy Spirit is telling you brother. You have my support in that. 100%. Just be careful & make sure in that you don't judge those who occasionally have a small drink outside of environments where people could stumble because of it. If you accuse them of sin, you're accusing Jesus, The apostles, the early church (who all did have "a sip" from time to time - fact that scripture & history backs), much of the church in the rest of the world (not just the false church either - but some of the remnant who don't have your "issue of conscience" as the scriptures specifically put such things). I respect your not drinking. Do it as unto the Lord! Praise God!
| 2016/8/11 14:30|
| Re: |
Blaine l meant the Holy Spirit speaking to our conscience.
Jeff has absolutely nailed it and shown up the legalism of those who deny that wine in those days was not that less alcoholic than it is today, the weaker variety that is, not 16% wine. It had to be to keep without contamination.
Your comment says it all Blaine. Nobody is encouraging anyone to drink. When people are being irrational, then it is time to stop.
| 2016/8/11 14:33|