Priest and Wine

If you check what he wrote, this was one of three hypothetical situations that he listed.

 

By not the law, you mean that nasty word "legalism" correct?
Thinkingstuff came right out and used the word:

It is a nasty word, and a word that most here don't seem to have a proper understanding of. Instead of using it in its correct Biblical usage they have taken a more modern colloquial usage, which is not correct. We call that neo-orthodoxy. That is not much different than when adisciplinedlearner redefined salvation as baptismal regeneration and expected us to accept his definition. Why should I accept your definition when it is wrong.

Here is what most think that a legalist is:
On a sliding scale of 0 to 10, 0 is grace or liberty and 10 is legalism. 0 is complete freedom to do what one wants under the flag of grace. 10 is what seems like following rules and laws that we call legalism. This has nothing to do with legalism.

_____________________________________________
0--------------------------------------------------10
Carnality------------------------------------------Holiness

Your definition of legalism is really a matter of holiness. Christians today (many of them) want the liberty to live as close to the world as possible. They want to live at #1. When they see people living at #9 or if possible #10, they call them legalists, because what they observe as rules those Christians have decided that in order to live as closely as possible to Christ there are many things in their lives that they must sacrifice: Crude language, intoxicating beverages, immodest clothing, music that is not glorifying to the Lord, etc. They ask themselves: Is this what Christ would have me to do? Am I being filled with the Holy Spirit in doing so? Do I look different than the world or the same as the world in carrying out this activity. It is not a matter of being legalistic. It is a matter of holiness. I want #10; I want to live as close to the cross of Christ as possible.

Now here is what the Bible says that legalism is.
Legalism is anything that adds to salvation.
The Judaizers were legalists? Why? Because they were demanding that circumcision and keeping of the law be required in order for Gentiles to be saved. That is what a legalist is. Adisciplined learner was a legalist inasmuch as he was adding to salvation baptism. The Church of Christ does the same thing, and many of them add many other rules, which, if you break you will lose your salvation. Legalism has only to do with salvation.

When someone makes a decision and believes that that decision will draw them closer to the Lord, don't call them legalist. Look at your own life instead.

Here is the Scripture you need to look at.

Romans 5:20-21 Moreover the law entered, that the offence might abound. But where sin abounded, grace did much more abound:
21 That as sin hath reigned unto death, even so might grace reign through righteousness unto eternal life by Jesus Christ our Lord.

Romans 6:1-2 What shall we say then? Shall we continue in sin, that grace may abound?
2 God forbid. How shall we, that are dead to sin, live any longer therein?

Many thought they had this great liberty under grace. More grace; more liberty. Paul put that idea to rest immediately. Shall we sin that grace may abound? God forbid!

Why? We are dead to sin. We must not live in sin any longer. Grace does not give one the license to sin--whether it be smoking, drinking, being clothed immodestly, etc. What will it take to live holy lives as opposed to carnal lives. Listen to the harsh words the Lord has against carnality:

James 4:4 Ye adulterers and adulteresses, know ye not that the friendship of the world is enmity with God? whosoever therefore will be a friend of the world is the enemy of God.
--He is not speaking of physical adultery, but spiritual adultery. It is spiritual adultery to be friends with the world--to go to that scale and desire #1 instead of #9 or 10. Being the friend of the world is as bad as being the enemy of God.

 

Same here. Nobody really cares.

If I know someone has an issue with drinking or they have had an addiction, I don't drink around them. It's simple courtesy, isn't it? If my mom's IFB pastor visited my house, I wouldn't offer him a beer either. Simple courtesy, since I know his stance on the issue.

 

Let me rephrase this then since you want to take this so literally. ALMOST all people I know simply don't care -- let's say around 99% plus. It is a non issue with everyone (ok again, almost everyone) that I know, that are my friends, that I work with, that I go to church with. In fact, I can't think of anyone right now that I know personally, that I interact with on a daily or weekly or even monthly basis where this is an issue. If someone wants to have a drink, fine. If they don't want to have a drink, fine. No one cares.

Out of courtesy, if I knew someone who did have an addiction (which I don't), of course I would not drink in front of them. Again, it's simple courtesy.

By the way, I doubt that my mom's IFB pastor would come to my house -- he lives 12 hours away. I was just using that an example.

 

if you want to hear a great teaching on the subject...

http://www.sermonaudio.com/sermoninfo.asp?SID=12203124227

i have listened to it more than once b/c i was a drunkard in college and after...

i wanted to know the truth. it does not matter what the baptists teach on wine... it only matters what the Bible teaches... this is a good teaching.

wine is a gift from God IF not abused. should we do it if we may stumble? no.. or help a brother stumble? no... of course not...

(some) baptists get a little carried away with this issue.

 

Has anyone ever stopped to consider that what Paul was trying to say in Romans 14 was not that Christians could drink alcohol, but rather that those who were not Christian would be judging Christians because they drank something that was not alcoholic?

Everyone wants to say it means we can drink whatever we want and not worry about being judged by others. But I have read on police blotters that just one can, while it does not make one drunk enough to constitute one being officially drunk by state definition, inhibitions are reduced and reactions are slower.

Can that truly be good?

 

Well, blow me down with a feather, we agree on something!

 

I wasn't saved until I was in my 30s so my first experience with alcohol was when I was a teenager at Passover seder. The first time I tasted the Manachevitz wine, it tasted aweful and burned my throat. I didn't touch any alcohol after that until I got married. Still couldn't stand it and could not figure why so many people drank the stuff.

I believe that Scriptures teach total abstinence from alcohol. I do not believe that the Lord Jesus Christ turned the water into alcoholic wine or drank it...but this is what I hear from alot of professing Christians.

That's my two cents!

Good thread, Steaver!

 

My grandmother always served wine with a meal and I partook from an early age (about 7 onwards, albeit in a very small glass initially); even today I consider it vulgar to not serve wine with a meal!

 

Matt...I agree & it could be a cultural thing. My relatives from Italy & France always have wine with their meals. My wifes German relatives were brewmasters in Germany and subsequently beer is always served with meals & afterwards.

Cheers

 

.....and always remember to drink upstream from the herd. Little farm humor ...:laugh: