Results 1 - 8 of 8
|
|
|||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Ordered by Verse | ||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
1 | Don't understand Jesus's view on alcohol | Prov 20:1 | John Reformed | 85165 | ||
Hi Tim, "7. Ecclesiastical Expectation. Church officers are required to use wine in moderation (I Tim. 3:8; Tit. 2:3), indicating its fermented quality and intoxicating capacity." I believe that the above point proves that MacArthur was wrong in concluding that the commonly used wine was non-alcoholic. There would have been no reason to warn against drinking to much grape juice! 1 Tim 3:8 Deacons likewise must be men of dignity, not double-tongued, or addicted to much wine or fond of sordid gain, Titus 2:3 Older women likewise are to be reverent in their behavior, not malicious gossips nor enslaved to much wine, teaching what is good, "The operation of this spirit in respect to divine truth leads, in different cases, to different and opposite results. The point of true wisdom is to make our faith the exact counterpart of God's revelations; to believe that, and only that, which He has revealed, either directly or indirectly, in the sacred scriptures. But there are many who show themselves over-wise by departing from this simple principle, and making a use of their reason in connection with God's truth, for which reason never was designed. And the result is, that some, because they find difficulties which they cannot explain, deny the divine authority of the scriptures altogether; while others darken counsel by words without knowledge, and incorporate into their creed hair breadth distinctions and metaphysical dogmas, and the result of all is, either that in attempting to explain God's truth, they have explained it all away, or else they have, in a great degree, neutralized its influence by mixing it up with the deductions of their own erring reason. It is an error to believe too little, and an error to believe too much; and he who makes himself over-wise is sure to fall into the one or the other." (From a sermon on the use of wine in the Supper Preached June 17th, 1835, in the Second Presbyterian Church in Albany, by William B. Sprague.) God Bless, John |
||||||
2 | Don't understand Jesus's view on alcohol | Prov 20:1 | Morant61 | 85174 | ||
Greetings John! I must respectfully disagree my friend! The verses you cite do not grant permission to drink alcohol. They forbid a church leader from being a drunk. But, it does not necesarily follow that means that permission is granted to use some alcohol. The sermon portion that you cite can be applied to either position. For instance, I could ask, "Where is the passage that commands or grants permission to use alcohol?" Since there isn't one for social drinking, then aren't you just as guilty of 'erring reason'? ;-) Anyway, it wasn't my intention to get into a long debate about 'wine'. I simply wanted to recommend what I felt was an excellent sermon series on the subect. I have posted my views on this issue several times, so they are quite well known. I have also made it clear that I never judge anyone else on this issue either my friend. My only concern has always been the assumption that 'wine' in the Bible always refers to alcohol (which is not true) and the assumption that anyone who believes in total abstinence must be adding to Scripture or naive (which is also not true). Beyond that, my approach as a pastor has always been to simply express my position and then encourage an individual to seek God's will for his own life. Well, I have to get some work done! I'll chat with you later my friend! Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
3 | Don't understand Jesus's view on alcohol | Prov 20:1 | John Reformed | 85190 | ||
Hi Tim, You wrote "The verses you cite do not grant permission to drink alcohol. They forbid a church leader from being a drunk. But, it does not necesarily follow that means that permission is granted to use some alcohol." Tim, you are evading the point which, as I have shown, is that the wine referred to was definitely alcoholic! The two verses (1 Tim 3:8 and Titus 2:3) clearly indicate that the wine spoken of, if taken immoderately (much wine) may lead to bondage (addiction). If it were not alcoholic no warning would have been necessary. This warning is as true today as it was 2,000 years ago, and I am in absolute agreement with it. The Scripture uses the modifier "much". My question is why? Does this not imply that alcoholic wine taken in sensible amounts is permited. John |
||||||
4 | Don't understand Jesus's view on alcohol | Prov 20:1 | Morant61 | 85199 | ||
Greetings John! My friend, apparently you have been missing my point! ;-) I never denied that some words always refer to alcohol and that some words CAN refer to alcohol. My point has always been that some words (like 'oinos' and 'yayin') can be used either way, and do not ALWAYS refer to alcohol. In terms of the 'much wine', that is just another way of saying a 'drunkard'. One cannot imply from that saying that 'a little wine' is okay. If this were the case, where is the statement in Scripture either commands or gives permission to partake in alcohol? Neither is there a clear statement forbiding the drinking of alcohol. That is why I liked MacArthur's sermon series on this. He asks a series of questions which must be answered. He raises a series of concerns which must be addressed. That is what I have personally done. My position is that there is no reason to partake. It can do far more harm, and no good. It can definitely serve as a stumbling block to both believers and unbelievers. So, why do it? Now, I would never force my personal decision on anyone else my friend. But, I would hold it out as a better choice, otherwise, I would hold to it myself! ;-) p.s. - By the way, didn't the sermon you quoted make the case that we should use reason on this issue? So, should we base our decisions on implications? ;-) Is there a clear statement in Scripture which permits the drinking of alcohol? Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
5 | Don't understand Jesus's view on alcohol | Prov 20:1 | John Reformed | 85234 | ||
Dear Tim, The point is that many in the church claim that the partaking of alcoholic beveridges is SIN! When in fact, the Lord chose alcoholic wine as a symbol of His blood,and, It may even be argued that it is sin to substitute grapejuice for wine when there is no biblical support for doing so. I must admit that the church at which I partake in the Lord's Supper uses grapejuice. But it came about as a concession to the culture rather than from scriptural teaching or exegesis of the text. I disagree with my church on this issue and believe it is a case of being wise beyond what is written; a big mistake! Is there a clear statement in Scripture which permits the drinking of alcohol? Yes, many. It becomes obvious when we stop reading into verses the erroneous idea that wine was non-alcoholic (as 1 Tim 3:8 clearly proves). I must confess Brother Tim, I am not one who is satisfied to agree to disagree on the truth of the God's Word. Until I am satisfied by Scripture, I must keep on digging. Your Brother, John |
||||||
6 | Don't understand Jesus's view on alcohol | Prov 20:1 | Morant61 | 85236 | ||
Greetings John! My friend, the fact that one verse uses a word in the sense of alcohol does not mean that the word ALWAYS means that same thing. That is the point that I have been making. Just because one verse refers to alcohol does not necessarily mean that every word translated as 'wine' means alcohol as well. Now, you also mentioned communion. Which verse states that an alcoholic beverage was used to symbolize the blood of Christ? If I recall correctly, the communion cup is never referred to as 'wine' in any of it's forms, but is called the 'fruit of the vine'. Is the fruit of the vine always fermented? It maybe or it may not be! ;-) But seriously, why is it always the people who refrain from drinking who are accused of going beyond the text, when there aren't any texts which explicitly command or permit drinking either? Implications can be drawn either way, but there are not any explicit commands either way. Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
7 | Don't understand Jesus's view on alcohol | Prov 20:1 | Earnest | 85242 | ||
Hello Tim and John, Interesting discussion and points on both sides. QUOTE "But seriously, why is it always the people who refrain from drinking who are accused of going beyond the text, when there aren't any texts which explicitly command or permit drinking either? Implications can be drawn either way, but there are not any explicit commands either way./END QUOTE Tim I agree with that. Neither view should be held as going beyond the text. Personally though, I share John's view that it might be taken to be something of an inference that from the scriptures quoted, some alcoholic drinking was permitted if not encouraged. I would say that is the natural logic of the statements made. However on your following qu. QUOTE Now, you also mentioned communion. Which verse states that an alcoholic beverage was used to symbolize the blood of Christ?/END QUOTE Alcohol was definitely used as an anology to the Holy Spirit. The natural beverage that causes "joy" is alcoholic in nature. The spiritual drink that causes real JOY is the Holy Spirit... so might it not follow that the wine of communion may have been alcoholic and not just grape juice? |
||||||
8 | Don't understand Jesus's view on alcohol | Prov 20:1 | Earnest | 85244 | ||
addendum... True... it's an analogy upon which we are warned to refrain from EXCESS... but an analogy to the effects upon the participator none-the-less. Grape juice as part of the communion element would hold no such natural parallel to the spiritual truth. Paul warned that before participating in communion that people eat at home to avoid the sin of gluttony (re: the bread). Likewise it might be inferred that if one partook excessively of the cup it would lead to drunkeness. |
||||||