Is Drinking Alcohol a Sin?

I don't see that it's ill advised. There are situations where it is ill-advised, such as drinking wine in front of someone for whom it is sinful.

But I think it's incorrect to say the overall message of the Bible rules it out. For example, I believe the wine at the last supper was real wine. And appearances weren't the primary concern of Jesus, either.

 

The Bible doesn't categorize trans fats as sin, but would anyone on this board argue in favor of it?

So drinking of a 'Christ'-ian is ill advised...while drinking by Christ is OK? Luke 7:33-35 is as clear as can be.

 

Watch out with this one. People will start quoting that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit. Forget the fact that the context is strictly about joining your body (the temple) with a prostitute. I see people quoting that as a prohibition against everything from fast food to smoking.

Context is king.

 

I am appaled at the double stanardon this board. Use harsh words directed at someone in error and you are called on the carpet for it. Yet, Jesus did just that. They then say well...He is God and He can do that.

But try to say alcohol should not cross the lips of a 'christian' and we get the highlighted words of this fellow I am quoting.

"My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge."

 

Now thats an idea!

 

Maybe. Some churches need a good cleansing. Sometimes I wish I had the courage to do such a thing.

Jesus is not unique in this. Many people can drink wine without sinning. I rarely drink wine, but when I do, I drink it in moderation and do not get drunk. I can do that. Some people can't. I would never drink any wine in front of someone who did not have self control, because I would be responsible for how that affected him/her. Drinking wine is Biblical, and not drinking wine because it could cause your brother to stumble is also Biblical.

It is a given, from the context. Then read the passages about new wine in old wineskins. I don't see Jesus saying there's anything wrong with wine in those clear passages about fermentation. It seems rather odd that Jesus would choose an analogy that refers to something sinful, when there are plenty of other analogies available, including another one He used about sewing a patch.

Not from the context. The context makes it clear that the wine was alcoholic. How much alcohol there was in the wine is debatable, but that's a whole 'nother story.

You're talking about the abuse of alcohol, not the moderate consumption of wine.

It has nothing to do with alternatives. It has to do with abuse and inconsideration for a brother who could stumble vs. drinking wine NOT for drunkenness, and NOT in situations where it could make a brother stumble.

It's like sex. You can abuse sex in various different ways, and it causes the ruin of many people. But sex itself isn't a sin (the marriage bed is undefiled). I haven't counted, but I'll bet the Bible warns about sexual immorality a LOT more than it does about drunkenness. Just because it is easily (and frequently) abused, and is the ruin of many people, and because there are alternatives, there's no way you can conclude that the message of the Bible is clear in that we should never engage in sex. Furthermore, Jesus drank wine, but did not have sex. So if there's any comparison at all, we should all be wine-drinking eunuchs.

 

If they were doing what the folks were doing, I believe you would be obligated to follow His lead. You don't? Aren't you responsible, as leadership in your church, to make sure that kind of garbage is not taking place?

As a theologian you should know what wine was considered the "best". I have pointed it out already from Isaiah 25:6. Jesus made the "best" wine...well aged...old. That was the miracle in itself. Jesus could have had His disciples run into the kitchen and squeeze and stomp a bunch or grapes to produce grape juice. What miracle would that have been?

I would suggest you study the art of making wine, then. There is no doubt that the wine Jesus drank and made was alcoholic.

That's a weak argument. If someone drank a single glass of wine, the above would not be blamed on the glass of wine. That's plain silly. Would the same argument be made after I down a venti red eye from Starbucks?

 

I wasn't stating that, I was asking a question in tune of the double standards you mention.

 

BPT:
And again I say...AMEN!

 

...because we are free from legalism.

Deu 14:26 You may spend the money on anything you want: cattle, sheep, wine, beer, or anything you desire. You are to feast there in the presence of the LORD your God and rejoice with your family.

 

From http://christianrecovery.blogspot.com/2006/03/genetic-twin-studies-of-alcholism.html

Genetic twin studies of Alcholism flawed
Many peoplesay that the genetics of alcoholism have been conclusively proved by "Twin Studies". Although I dont agree with Stanton Peele on everything he does a service by pointing out some truths about these studies Here is the link below. You will notice there is speculation the results were skewed by a "unique" definition of
alcoholism, and that other data fails to support the biological inheritance of alcoholism.

Proof that "Alcoholism" is genetic does not yet exist. People that say it
does do so because 1) they are possibly ignorant and bought into a something that isnt true or 2) they want to believe it regardless of how many facts are presented to them.

After all its easier to believe there is something wrong with your body rather than there is something wrong with your soul, isnt it?


http://www.peele.net/lib/genetics.html Genetics of Alcoholism


"Other data fail to support biological inheritance of alcoholism.
Gurling et al. (1981), when comparing MZ and DZ twins, found that the
nonidentical pairs showed a higher pairwise concordance rate for
alcohol dependence. This British group has also presented a
comprehensive critique of the twin and adoption studies (Murray et al.,
1983). Regarding Goodwin and his colleagues' (1973) seminal discovery
of an alcoholism inheritance among adoptees, Murray et al. noted that
the investigators' definition of alcoholism was unique, including a low
cutoff in the amount of consumption (daily drinking, with six or more
drinks consumed 2 or 3 times a month) combined with reported loss of
control. The definitions in Goodwin et al.'s study are crucial since
control adoptees (those without biological-alcoholic relatives) were
more often problem drinkers than were index adoptees (those with
biological-alcoholic relatives)--a finding which was reversed for
subjects identified as alcoholics. Murray et al. commented: "Could it
be that Goodwin's findings are simply an artifact produced by the
threshold for alcoholism accidentally dividing heavy drinkers in the
index and control groups unevenly?" (p. 42)."

That is NOT what the Bible means by "appearance of evil". If this is the case, Christ certainly did no such thing, and your accusations count against Him.

 

I just did a little research.
There are at present 219 threads about drinking wine on this board.
I think all of our time would be better spent discussing something else.
The line has been drawn in the sand many times.
I see no hope of either side crossing over to the other side.
219!!!

 

Just for kicks this time, let me repeat one thing. It is God's law which defines sin. Paul mentions this several times.

There is no law against drinking. There are strong warnings against too much/dependency/drunkeness.

But until there is anyone here who can show me what passage I must have missed saying something to the effect that "Thou shalt not consume any alcoholic beverage", those who say it is a sin are adding to the law, which is exactly what Jesus was so angry about in Matthew 23 and other places.

 

BP/T,

You hit the nail on the head with one little word in a post above...

"selfish".

People want to satisfy flesh. That is the reason they argue that it is ok to drink alcoholic beverage.

 

Proverbs 23:31 Helen. But then again, your mind is blinded to the truth in that verse.

 

you, my friend, are dishonest. I take it you have no preference for any food, drink, music, clothes, cars, etc. If you do, by your own definition you are selfish, and you are being a hypocrite...an actor, remember?

 

Wrong, Standing Firm. Absolutely wrong.

Unless, of course, you are willing to say that driving a car instead of walking (wastes resources, makes you fat), using a vacuum instead of a broom (wastes resources, etc.), fixing food to be appealing instead of simply eating boiled meat, raw vegetables, plain bread, etc. and other such are also simply to satisfy the flesh and therefore are bad witnesses and wrong and sinful.

Don't add to the law. That is a very dangerous thing to do or to teach.

 

Nice try, but hardly close. For fun let's see what this is talking about...in context.

Pro 23:29 Who has woe? Who has sorrow? Who has conflicts? Who has complaints? Who has wounds for no reason? Who has red eyes?
Pro 23:30 Those who linger over wine, those who go looking for mixed wine.
Pro 23:31 Don't gaze at wine when it is red, when it gleams in the cup and goes down smoothly.
Pro 23:32 In the end it bites like a snake and stings like a viper.
Pro 23:33 Your eyes will see strange things, and you will say absurd things.
Pro 23:34 You'll be like someone sleeping out at sea or lying down on the top of a ship's mast.
Pro 23:35 "They struck me, but I feel no pain! They beat me, but I didn't know it! When will I wake up? I'll look for another drink."

Pro 23:20 Don't associate with those who drink too much wine, or with those who gorge themselves on meat.
Pro 23:21 For the drunkard and the glutton will become poor, and grogginess will clothe them in rags.

Yep, sounds like someone who has a glass of wine to me!