Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Other Christian Denominations' started by TaliOrlando, Aug 8, 2006.
Your thoughts!!!! Some say its not and some say it is!!!! Whats you stand on this???
You mean drinking alcohol or do you only want to know wether wine is wrong? :smilewinkgrin:
If wine is wrong then all alcohol is wrong.
No. If it is why would Paul tell Timothy to drink it for his stomach's sake. (1 Timothy 5:23) Also when talked about in Proverbs Scripture also mentions those who get drunk rather than those who drink in moderation. And in Solomon 5:1 Solomon mentions drinking wine. So to answer your question. No. There is nothing in Scripture that would indicate that drinking wine is wrong. As long as one does so in moderation.
What Nate said.
I dont think that Jesus would have turned water into wine if it was wrong. Some I have talked to say oh that was just grape juice however, John clearly states that it wasnt grapejuice
Joh 2:10 And he said to him, Every man at the beginning sets forth good wine, and when men have drunk well, then that which is worse. You have kept the good wine until now.
Jesus turned water into an alcoholic beverage called wine.
Alcohol is not a sin as some like to tell you I know my preacher lays it on thick the sin is when you do it in excess however if you do anything in excess other than looking toward Jesus it can become a sin. The only people that are required not to drink a drop of alcohol are the Elders
1Ti 3:1-3 This is a true saying, If a man desire the office of a bishop, he desireth a good work. (2) A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behavior, given to hospitality, apt to teach; (3) Not given to wine, no striker, not greedy of filthy lucre; but patient, not a brawler, not covetous;
A deacon is told not to drink much so he can have a little for his stomach sake but not much.
1Ti 3:8 Likewise must the deacons be grave, not doubletongued, not given to much wine, not greedy of filthy lucre;
This is from the bible so therefore it is my answer.
This is a problem I have with the fundamentalists. They preach that the wine mentioned in the bible is grape juice, but can you imagine any one saying: "geez, you saved the best grape juice for last"? Has any of you ever noticed any big differences in grape juice? There are however huge differences in wine, as I've drank them before, the ancients knew this. Of course a teetotaling fundamentalist wouldn't know this because they never drank the stuff, nor do they seem to realize that grape juice wouldn't last to long without refridgeration in a desert climate, or that alcohol was a necessary preservative and the water wasn't always safe to drink, or that the wine they did have was generally weaker than the type we have today and it was further weakened when it was mixed with the water in order to purify it, and that it was usually drunk with food.
They also claim that the words "new wine" in the KJV in particular mean a non-alcoholic wine, but in Acts: 2 it is quite clear that the "new wine" being referred to was an alcoholic beverage that makes people drunk.
When I argue this with them they'll say things like: "Your just trying to justify your sin" or something like that. This is very frustrating because it doesn't matter what someones personal feelings about alcohol are but what is the truth, and the truth is that most people drank wine back than without thinking twice about it. I've even had some IFB's tell me that they didn't even have fermentation until around 2000 years ago, but they obviously must not read the parts in the Bible about Noah making wine and getting drunk or of Lot's daughters getting him drunk, or that the Egyptians drank beer while building the pyramids, all before 2500 B.C.
Many fundamentalists are clearly not being taught the truth about certain things, and just because it has generally been a baptist tradition to abstain from alcohol still doesn't make it true, nor does the Bibles condemning of drunkenness and warnings of misuse give someone the license to insist that the general population abstain from it when there is nothing in the Bible clearly forbidding it.
I don't think it is wrong. The scripture stands firmly in opposition to drunkenness, not to drinking wine in moderation.
Now, hard liquor may be another issue because it's so potent that moderation is practically impossible.
And this is the point that they will seize upon, and perhaps they do have a bit of a point there.
I believe alcohol is acceptable in moderation (which I would say is the biblical view). In my understanding, the notion held by some people that alcohol is intrinsically evil derives primarily (if not solely) from the temperance and prohibition movements in the mid-1800s and onward. Several denominations, such as the Presbyterians and the Methodists (maybe even the Baptists ?), changed at that time from serving alcohol (following the implied "wine" of the biblical description) in the Lord's Supper / Communion, to grape juice, almost entirely on political grounds: they were caving in to the temperance activists, in my opinion; adapting and compromising the gospel and Christianity to the political / moral and cultural fashions of the moment.
Catholics, Lutherans and Anglicans have always used wine for Holy Communion. Neither Martin Luther (who was quite fond of wine) nor John Calvin (Institutes, 3:19:7; 4:13:9 - citing St. Augustine) opposed wine-drinking. Calvin casually assumes that wine will be used for Holy Communion (4:17:43), as it had always been used in the Church previous to that time. The third major Protestant Reformer, Zwingli, while rejecting the Real Presence altogether and adopting a purely symbolic view of the Lord's Supper, nevertheless assumed that wine had always been used in the Christian celebration of the Eucharist, and kept on using it.
Yes, but it was still a fermented alcoholic beverage that could intoxicate if enough was drunk. It was not grape juice. Grape juice will not intoxicate no matter how much you drink.
Remember in Revelation where Gods wrath is symbolized by the "undiluted wine flowing from the cup" indicating that it is powerful?
I hope you guys enjoy picking on the "Fundamentalists" who believe that the Bible teaches to abstain from alcohol and that those who are drink it are deceived--and one day God will laugh at their calamity. (Prov. 20:1 and Prov. 1:26).
So continue to "beat your dead horse to death".
LAMED. For ever, O LORD, thy word is settled in heaven. (Psalms 119:89)
If drinking wine is wrong, then so is eating.
Drunkeness is the sin just as gluttony is sin.
Drunkeness is drinking too much, as gluttony is eating too much.
I believe it is Paul who emphasizes moderation in all things and self control.
I personally do not drink other than for medicinal uses (I have nerve damage in my back and once or twice a year I have a wine cooler to relax the nerves, works faster than the pain meds and for me is not addicting, but boy do I get funny looks buying 1 instead of a 4 pack!).
I do not have a problem with it, I just never liked alcohol. I do like cheese cake though so that is the one i have to monitor.
The weak arguments from the Bible used by some to oppose all alcohol use whatsoever collapse upon even cursory examination, in my opinion. They try to assert that the biblical "wine" is merely unfermented grape juice. The term "strong drink, " however, in contrast to "wine," is seen, e.g., in passages such as Lev 10:9, Num 6:3, Deut 14:26, 29:6, Jud 13:4,7,14, 1 Sam 1:15, Prov 31:4, Mic 2:11 (cf. Prov 20:1, 31:6, Is 5:11,22, 24:9, 28:7, 56:12, Luke 1:15). This Hebrew word is shekar, defined by Strong's Concordance (word #7941) as "intoxicant, i.e., intensely alcoholic liquor — strong drink." Gesenius' Hebrew-Chaldee Lexicon likewise defines it as:
strong drink, intoxicating liquor, whether wine, Nu 28:7, or intoxicating drink like wine, made from barley . . ., or distilled from honey or dates. It is often distinguished from wine . . . (p. 823)
Note that God doesn't outright forbid this "strong drink" as immoral in and of itself. It may be avoided (along with wine) by some for fasting or ascetic (voluntary self-denial) purposes (as in Lev 10:9, Num 6:3, and Deut 29:6), but that is not a sweeping prohibition. In fact, in Deut 14:26, Moses (see Deut 1:1) says in so many words that it is perfectly acceptable to drink it. The writer of Proverbs advises giving "strong drink" to the dying, and "wine to those in bitter distress; let them drink and forget their poverty, and remember their misery no more" (31:6-7; NRSV). This is similar to the Apostle Paul's suggestion to "take a little wine for the sake of your stomach and your frequent ailments" (1 Timothy 5:23; NRSV).
Yes, and it was almost entirely an American phenomena, especially in the South.
Fundamentalists have always been good at preaching socio-political issues.
Some would cite what you said above as all the more reason to abstain from alcohol. After all, if all those terrible Catholics, Lutherans, etc., drank wine than it must be evil right?
Yeah, but they're trying to forbid people today from drinking alcohol, so if the alcohol we have today is all stronger than the fermented juice they had in the Bible (especially with all the processing probably done to it, and many alcohols aren't even based on grapes like the Bible, such as beer, and I think the hard liquors, rums, etc), then we shouldn't drink this alcohol.
OH NO! UNDILUTED WELCH'S!!!!! :laugh:
This is the problem with fundamentalists on this issue that I was talking about. How dare they assume that everyone that drinks any amount of alcohol is an unstable, raging lunatic who is deceived?
And Linda64, your Bible verses are taken out of context. Gods laughing at calamity in Prov. 1:26 has nothing to do with alcohol, and Prov. 20:1 says ...and whosoever is deceived by them (wine/strong drink) is not wise, implying that some people are not deceived by them, and nowhere does it say in that verse that he's laughing at them.
I'm not picking on you Linda64 dear, just telling the truth about alcohol. Put aside your personal feelings about it, and if anybody has made this issue a "hobby horse" that's been beaten to death it's fundamentalists. Many other Christians don't even think twice about alcohol being a problem for them.
In many of these passages, it is implied, however, that excessive drinking of this intoxicant, or drunkenness, is a bad thing, characteristic of the wicked. Thus, the Bible condemns drunkenness, but not all use of alcohol or wine (e.g., Deut 21:20, Prov 20:1, 21:17, 23:20-21,29-35, 26:9, Is 5:11-12, Rom 13:13, 1 Cor 5:11, 6:10, Gal 5:21, 1 Tim 3:3,8, Titus 1:7, 2:3, 1 Peter 4:3).
Many OT passages praise wine (e.g., Jud 9:13, Ps 104:15). Having "plenty" of wine is a divine blessing (Gen 27:28). Wine was used at the ancient Jewish festivals (Passover, Pentecost, Tabernacles), and on the Sabbath, and was offered as a libation in Jewish rituals (Ex 29:40, 1 Sam 1:24), which may account for its later use in the Passover Seder. The Talmud called for red wine to be used. The Last Supper was a Jewish Passover (see Mt 26:17 ff., Mk 14:12 ff., Lk 22:15 ff., Jn 13:1 ff.); hence Jesus undeniably used wine as the example of what was to become the Christian Eucharist.
Jesus partook of wine and was absurdly accused by His critics of being a drunkard (Matt 11:19, Lk 7:33). He turned water into wine (not grape juice), in His first miracle (Jn 2:1 ff.). Jesus drank wine on the cross: A jar full of sour wine was standing there. So they put a sponge full of the wine on a branch of hyssop and held it to his mouth. When Jesus had received the wine, he said, 'It is finished.' Then he bowed his head and gave up his spirit. (John 19:29-30; cf. Mt 27:48, Mk 15:36; NRSV)
This word, oxos in Greek, is translated as "vinegar" in the King James Version. Thayer's Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament defines it (Strong's word #3690) as follows:
. . . used in the NT for Latin 'posca,' i.e., the mixture of sour wine or vinegar and water which the Roman soldiers were accustomed to drink. (p. 449)
In fact, the Roman soldiers offered this drink to Jesus before the crucifixion, and He refused (Mt 27:34, Lk 23:36, Mk 15:23). But the interesting thing is that the best texts of Mt 27:34 have the NT word for "wine," oinos (Strong's #3631), rather than oxos, thus strongly inferring that what Jesus was given on the cross was indeed wine, not vinegar. Likewise, even the KJV manuscripts (older and now outdated) have oinos at Mk 15:23: And they gave him to drink wine [oinos] mingled with myrhh: but he received it not. (KJV)
Jesus refused this drink because it contained myrhh, which - combined with alcohol - would have had a narcotic effect. But he accepted this same drink without the myrhh on the cross, just before He died (John 19:29-30; cf. Mt 27:48, Mk 15:36). Some might still dispute that it was (or contained wine, with alcohol), but several modern translations render oxos at John 19:29-30, Mt 27:48, and Mk 15:36 as "wine," "sour wine," or similar description:
John 19:29-30: "sour wine" (NASB, Living, Phillips, NEB, NRSV, NKJV, REB, Wuest, Goodspeed, Beck, Williams),
"cheap wine" (TEV), "wine vinegar" (NIV),
"vinegar (a sour wine)" (Amplified),
"bitter wine" (Barclay),
"common wine" (Confraternity, NAB)
Matthew 27:48: "sour wine" (NASB, Living, NEB, NRSV, NKJV, REB, Wuest, Goodspeed, Beck), "cheap wine" (TEV, NAB),
"wine vinegar" (NIV),
"vinegar [a sour wine]" (Amplified),
"common wine" (Confraternity)
Mark 15:36: "sour wine" (NASB, Living, NEB, NRSV, NKJV, REB, Wuest, NAB, Beck),
"cheap wine" (TEV),
"wine vinegar" (NIV),
"vinegar [a mixture of sour wine and water]" (Amplified),
"common wine" (Goodspeed, Confraternity)
The conclusion is overwhelming: Jesus drank wine on the cross. It was the last thing He did before He died. Even modern revisions of the KJV and RSV change the "vinegar" to "wine" (e.g., NRSV, NKJV, NASB). Perhaps this was in part due to the sort of cross-referencing just examined.
The NT oinos ["wine"] was a fermented drink, though probably less strong than our current wine. Fermentation is implied, e.g., in the mention of the bursting of the wineskins (Matt 9:17, Mark 2:22, Luke 5:37). Eph 5:18 states that one can theoretically get "drunk with wine" and Paul commands us not to do that (cf. Jn 2:10). Wine is to be avoided if it stumbles a brother (Rom 14:21).
This is the biblical teaching on wine and alcohol. There is no biblical evidence whatsoever that unfermented grape juice was ever considered as "wine" (see, e.g., Gen 40:11-12). No amount of wishful thinking or Puritanistic moralizing can change that fact (and the others above).
Another good point. You never hear Fundamentalists preaching against obesity, which can be just as damaging as alcohol can, and I saw a lot of huge butts staring up at me from the altar at the IFB church that I used to attend, and a lot of sick people on their prayer lists. As a matter of fact, they encourged the obesity by always having the typical bad processed foods and sweets at their functions.
Scripture teaches that our bodies are like a Holy Temple for the indwelling spirit, and if the preacher isn't going to say anything to the 350 lb guy coming back with his 5th plate of food at the buffet, than don't dare tell me I can't have a beer!
Keep on trying to justify drinking alcohol--go ahead and accuse "Fundamentalists" of taking scripture out of context--doesn't bother me. God is my Judge.
What I say does not come from "personal feelings"--it comes from Holy Spirit conviction and the Word of God. This topic has been hashed over and re-hashed and re-re-hashed and it's a "dead horse".
Therefore thou art inexcusable, O man, whosoever thou art that judgest: for wherein thou judgest another, thou condemnest thyself; for thou that judgest doest the same things. (Romans 2:1)
BTW, Chris L., don't call me "dear"--thanks!