Hi Ginny,You wrote:"The carnal mind can say that if God made these things and that he gives us all things to enjoy we are at liberty to do so. But it is like a lot of other things he made: they are to be used with discretion and moderation."This is a classic tactic, respectfully and humbly disagree with a person and you are carnal and immature.I read the whole article and MacArthur comes across as smug, arrogant, and condescending. It certainly wasn't written in humility and grace like Paul wrote to Timothy.While I agree with most of the points that he made regarding the use of alcohol at church events(alcohol free) it seems like he writes the way that he does in order to provoke people to anger. Then when he gets the response that he hoped to get he's 'absolutely shocked' by the response.The golden rule is: "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you" that's what Jesus said. Speak down to your audience, letting them know how 'childish and immature they are' then expect a response, it's simple cause and effect.What I would like to hear is a 'sola scriptura' response regarding what the Word says about alcohol, not what historians and forensic anthropologists have to say about it. It's funny how he uses 'well some people believe that wine was mixed with water, blah, blah...' to justify his opinions (religious traditions). The Word speaks for itself you don't come into studying the Word with your own preconceived notions and try to use the Word to back up your traditions, that's deception.The issue here is not alcohol, it's judgement and self-righteousness.
The Word speaks for itself you don't come into studying the Word with your own preconceived notions and try to use the Word to back up your traditions, that's deception.
Brother I don't think you are going to find a specific 'sola scrptura' verse that says thou shalt not drink. At least under the new covenant. But please consider these verses. Let me apologize upfront they are taken from the NIV.......... Everything is permissble, but not everything is beneficial. Everything is permissible, but not everything is constructive (1 Cor.10:23).It would seem in those area of question such as the drinking of liquor, movies, martial arts, television, etc, two questions emerge from the above verses. Is it beneficial and is it constructive. If believers would prayerfuy ask these two questions in light of questionable activities, God would give much wisdom by the Spirit. This my brother is the wisdom of the new covenant regarding freedom in Christ.Submitted by Blaine Scogin
Hi Krispy,You are free to say whatever you want about me and my response will always be the same as Jesus on the cross.
I'm not putting MacArthur on a pedastol, but when you have spent half as much time studying the Word as MacArthur has in his life... then maybe you can offer him advice on how to study the Word.
Hi Learjet and others.Learjet, about this:"Why are you mixing secular definitions regarding what constitutes 'impairment' with biblical truth? There is no confusion in the scripture concerning this, it's very easy to spot someone who is drunk, there's no ambiguity whatsoever."I'm not mixing anything. The word in the greek language according to the dictionary means 'to intoxicate.'. It is not always easy to spot people that are INTOXICATED. And there are varying degrees of intoxication.Some people hold their drink better than others, and can also conceal their drunkeness. Even from their co-workers. They may even deny it to themselves and get behind the wheel of a car. How many hundreds of thousands have lost their lives on highways for that very thing.They can also hide when they've got a slight buzz or even a strong one.If an example from ordinary life holds true, is sound in reason and judgment, it is worth considering, whether it is found word for word in the Bible or not(Tit 1:12-13). All truth belongs to God, whether it is common to man or a special revelation from Scripture.
_________________Christopher Joel Dandrow
Learjet, also about this:"In 1 Timothy 3 Paul gives the 3 different standards that Christians fall into one way or the other, here they are:"I don't see the third set of standards in the passage. Because the group you suggested 'the everyone else' is not mentioned, or given a standard for leadership, doesn't mean they fall into their own group by default, and are somehow outside those standards. The particulars of the list are qualifications for leadership, not standards of conduct that apply only to those seeking leadership. It is conspicous that Paul mentions the use of wine in both cases. About Paul's instructions to Timothy for the medicinal use of wine:Take a little, as Ginnyrose pointed out.At issue here is not whether alchohol can ever be consumed or even if someone can drink it for their own personal reasons.The issue here as it came up in this thread is the use of alcohol and other things as a sort of symbol for being redeemed and free.
"One more thing, you wrote:"However, for a person in the modern World, there is no normal nescessity to drink alchol of any kind, except by choice."Nor was there any "normal necessity" to drink wine at the wedding where Jesus turned the water into wine. It was already pure water, He's so wonderful."Actually there was, it was an occasion for celebration, and wine makes men's hearts glad(Psalm 104:14-15).But as I said, this particular occasion, a wedding, is not perscriptive for recreation. A wedding celebreation is not perscriptive of RECREATION in general and it has nothing to say or do of how Christians are to conduct their gatherings, or to celebrate among themselves or among unbelievers. We are supposed to have joy from the Holy Spirit of God.As I've tried to make clear several times, at issue here is not whether individuals can ever have wine or other alcohol with freedom of conscience.It's whether that personal freedom of conscience should be made a public debate, contended about, or even a show of at Christian gatherings.
learjet,Did you read carefully everything I wrote on this subject? EVERYTHING?ginnyrose
"We must however, be very careful that we do not set about composing rules of conduct which usurp the Spirits work and in turn fan the flames of dead works. This poses an even greater danger than the abuse of liberty and we should be most careful to not have part in it's cultivation."Hi lyewise.I think you put some things well in your post about using or not using "liberty".If I could suggest, I think the scripture indicates that harming the 'weak in faith' can be just as damaging.Paul uses very strong language in the Romans passage, saying "But if thy brother be grieved with thy meat, now walkest thou not charitably. Destroy not him with thy meat, for whom Christ died'And also...For meat destroy not the work of God. All things indeed are pure; but it is evil for that man who eateth with offence. According to Strong's the word destroy can be translated to loosen down (disintegrate), that is, (by implication) to demolish (literally or figuratively).Demolishing the work of God.If drinking alcohol is pure to the one drinking it with a clear conscience, then it is evil for the one who drinks it against his conscience, emboldened and encouraged to do so by those who he regards as mature.Alchohol and beer have tremendous stigma attached to them and for good reason, because they have been a huge catalyst for societal decay and have caused untold misery, pain, and loss of life.I've spoken to maybe hudreds of people over the years who were buried in misery by beer and alchohol and I've brought them to Church who went 'home' to abandonded homes to sleep in their own urine. Sleep after they sipped or guzzeled their way into the only rest they knew and only relief from their pain.Encouraging people to drink in Church.Childish?I can't fathom how anyone could call it something so trivial.
Hasn't this issue been turned over enough times on this forum? And by many of the same people? Pertaining to alcohol, it seems that, with the freedom given in Christ, a godly, well-intentioned person could privately enjoy an alcoholic beverage, being sensitive to the objections of others and the potential to sin against one's brother, not publicly shaming the name of Christ, without sinning, if this person's God-given and Spirit-breathed conscience allows. It also seems that mature and intelligent people should be able to peacefully discuss the issue without offense being given or taken.Missionary drinking is, of course, offensively absurd, but so are many strategies that evangelicals have used to try trick people into listening to their message.Risking the accusation of being a troll, may I recommend that, for the sake of the discussion and discourse, that we all tone down the drama? It is clearly a more serious matter for some than for others, according to our respective experiences and traditions, but no one will be convinced to change their attitude here. It seems that we have to respectfully disagree. At best we can all express our opinions and comment on each other's words lovingly.for what it's worth.