Featured RC Sproul and Alcoholic Beverages

Ditto for me. I have never encountered one. Machen wasn't a Reformed Baptist (they didn't exist,as such back then). But he parted ways with Carl Mcintire when the latter made a condition of not drinking alcohol in order to be a member of the Bible Presbyterians.

 

I really don't care what reformed churches believe. They originated with the "Reformers" believe in "reformed" or revised doctrine, and I have no use for that. I don't venture there. I stick to Bible-believing churches. So don't give me that nonsense about "Reformed Churches."
Besides MacArthur is a Calvinist and I already quoted him for you.

 

I love MacArthur, but he is a weird Calvinist- very unique and though he is very popular today he is not the representative of Calvinistic peoples whether Baptist, Presbyterian or whatever.

Besides this, MacArthur is not a teetotaler- he is an abstentionist. There is a difference. A teetotaler believes it is a sin to drink any alcohol. An abstentionist simply believes that for whatever reason it is wise to abstain.

Furthermore, Bible-believing churches ARE reformed.

IFB churches are largely not Bible-believing churches. They worship traditions- and really young, silly traditions at that.

 

This is simply a false accusation. You don't know what you are talking about.
Contrasted to most reformed churches we are as non-traditional as one can get. To say that we "worship" traditions is a serious false charge. Can you back it up? (I doubt it.)
The Bible is central, and everything we do is based on the Word of God.

BTW, my wife grew up in a reformed church--Presbyterian.
It was very "traditional" or full of traditions. They recited the Lord's Prayer and even the Apostle's Creed each Sunday. Those are things we would never do. This is holding on to tradition. We don't have such traditions.
You should become a Presbyterian. It is the logical extension of both Calvinism and Reformed Theology. Why compromise? Take your theology all the way.

It was sad to see a young man leave a good Baptist church here that was not Calvinistic. He was a young Christian, but someone had convinced him (probably over the internet) of Reformed doctrine. He found a Reformed Baptist Church to go to, but that wasn't good enough. He saw the logical inconsistency. Today he is a Presbyterian.

 

The guy is a dispy...enough said there.

 

Jehovah's WITNESSES claim that.

Saying that that is the case is utterly MEANINGLESS.

Everybody in Christendom says that and it is true for a very small percentage of Christendom.

You claim to believe in the Trinity, a fundamental doctrine to you guys, which was hammered out by the Catholic church and you claim you did not come from the Catholic church.

You believe in hypostasis, the few in your ranks who are educated enough to know what that is, which you also got from Catholics and reformed peoples and deny any link to them.

Teetotalism is a young and stupid tradition that most IFB churches cling to though they have no Bible to support it.

Rabid autonomy is an ecclesiological staple of IFB and it has absolutely NO basis in Scripture.

Many IFB are KJVO (I know you are not) and no intelligent person in HISTORY has ever clung to that doctrine nor thought it had any basis in the Bible.
It is a young tradition.

Many IFB are against "rock" music and think the BIBLE teaches it is wrong and only a MORON could possibly think the Bible teaches that.

Some IFB churches believe it is sin for women to wear pants.

I could go and on...

Yes, they have BIBLICAL traditions.

The Apostle's Creed is based on the Bible.
They probably sang biblical songs too. So what is your point?

Yes, well you ought to. It would help fight against the RAMPANT ignorance that I have seen in your movement in the south.

Yes, well if William Carey had become a Presbyterian your divisive movement would not exist. J. Frank Norris would not have been a Baptist to tear apart the Baptist world.

 

I said reformed Baptist...so you don't recognize reform baptists as Baptist now?:smilewinkgrin:

 

My brother goes to an IFB in Parsippany Nj. His head pastor is a Calvinist....oh and they aren't KJVO.:smilewinkgrin:

 

Paul didn't say, if it offends my brother. He said if it makes my brother to offend.

What is he saying?

 

Independent Community Bankers of Minnesota?

Intercontinental Ballistic Missile?

 

He is saying that if the weaker brother believes it is a sin and he does it, to him it is a sin.

So the key is to strengthen the weaker brother so that the is NOT a weaker brother anymore.

But until he is strong, you do not influence him to partake in something he believes it is wrong to partake in.

 

Perhaps the weaker brother is you. Take a look in Ephesians 4:11ff.
You need to sit under pastors and teachers more.

Ephesians 4:14 That we henceforth be no more children, tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men, and cunning craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive;
15 But speaking the truth in love, may grow up into him in all things, which is the head, even Christ:

It always isn't a matter of Christian liberty, but also a matter of holiness. When others are doing their utmost to live as close to God as possible; as far apart from the world as possible, they get criticized by "the world" for being "legalistic," which is an unfair criticism.

The history of the Baptist movement throughout the ages has been one of separation--separation for the reason of holiness. If one is to be criticized by the "Christian world" because of their desire to live a holy life, then something is terribly wrong.

 

No sir, you do. Through attending two different bible colleges and a seminary I have sat under dozens of different teachers. And that is not all of the teachers I have sat under.

That is what you need and it is obvious to all.

Yes, and here is the ignorance and tradition rampant in IFB that I speak of.

If you think it is remotely holy to abide by some standard which has NO BASIS WHATSOEVER in the Scripture, then you unequivocally prove my point and bolster the case against IFB.

Wrong. Baptists were drinkers until the temperance movement of the mid 19th century.

It is UNHOLY to teach and live by traditions like teetotalism which have no root in Scripture.

It is wickedness to assert that God is against something that God never said he is against. It is the heart of Phariseeism and all who stubbornly embrace it are evil.

 

If you really believe what you posted I challenge you to go through these links and see if you are correct in your assertions. The fact is, you are not.

The last link is particularly thorough and quotes authorities which have already been quoted on this thread.

[FONT=&quot]http://www.eaec.org/bibleanswers/alcohol.htm[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]http://www.calvaryprophecy.com/q130.html[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]http://www.babylonfalls.org/forchristians/christandalcohol2sep06.html[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]http://bible-christian.org/alcohol.html[/FONT]

 

I was a backwards fundamentalist for years. I've read this hayseed, pseudo-scholarly mess before.

Before I was educated I made the exact same arguments you do. I read the same backwards sites you quote from. I used to preach against alcohol by the barrel and by the thimble-full. Billy Sunday used to be my favorite preacher.

Then the scales fell off, I learned that IFB is a new movement- YOUNGER THAN THE PENTECOSTAL MOVEMENT FOR HEAVEN'S SAKE!!!- and that its champions like J. Frank Norris were ignorant trouble-makers, and that Christians for thousands of years did not believe this kind of nonsense.

I am telling you that NO REAL BIBLE SCHOLAR argues for teetotalism.

Some are abstentionists, but only redneck, hayseed, backwater fundies and Pentecostals and the like preach teetotalism.

Teetotalism is as unbiblical and backwards as KJVO- or worse.

 

Insufferable something or another

 

He said I will eat no meat while the world standeth lest I make my brother to offend.

I understand your issue with this. I really do, because great love requires sacrifice, a laying down of one's life, for his friends.

What you do is of no concern to me. You can get falling down drunk and wake up in your own vomit for all that it will affect me or anyone within the scope of my influence. What "everyone" reading this thread thinks of my position is of no concern to me.

What is a concern to me is the Scriptures and what they are saying, and nothing you've posted in this thread comes even close.

This is what he said:

If by my behavior in matters of meat and drink one who looks up to me is emboldened to do something he does not have the faith to do, then I will abstain from indulging my fleshly appetites for his sake till the end of time. I do not want to be responsible for tripping him up. (1 cor. 8:13)​

 

Oh no....LOL.... Its love power! :laugh:

My favorite movie "The Producers" sums this whole stinkin conversation up nicely (if not hilariously):love2:.....here is the clip & at the end good old Zero gets to stamp his whole personality into it with "THATS OUR HITLA".....:smilewinkgrin: :godisgood:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8ni_RtKMpak

 

No matter how you slice it, that's what Paul said. Your argument is with him, and Jesus.