Who told us it is a Sin to Drink?

Doing anything with a "more than we need" mentality is gluttony regardless of what it is.

 

Our church came out of the Church of God 7-Day. The COG7D rejected the visions and teachings of Ellen White. Our church was called Worldwide Church of God. Some call it Armstrongism.

 

Yes, liquor and wine were used in the worship of God. They drink it during the three festival seasons and on the weekly festival as well. The NTBMO was a very festive night as well as Sukkot.

 

With respect to Timothy, there is no question that he abstained for any alcohol and almost all scholars and commentators I have looked through agree to this fact, based on Paul speaking to Timothy in the epistle of 1 Timothy.
The ones I looked at were:
John MacArthur, Barnes, Clarke, Vincent Word Studies, Robertson Word Pictures, Wesley, Matthew Henry, JFB (Jamison, Fausette Brown - sp?).

Barnes makes some interesting observations (quotes these same observations from Clarke's commentary on the passage) and there are others who agree as to these observations of the passage regarding Timothy and his not drinking alcohol.

With respect to Paul, first I never stated that Paul didn't drink however I 'do' believe we have ample evidence in scripture to support that it was most likely a view he held to. Not because it was a sin to drink, but because if a weaker brother thought it was a sin. We also can with some measure of accuracy state that 'he' didn't drink anymore than he continued to eat meats offered to idols. This is knowable because of Paul's own declaration both of and to those believers who believed it 'was' sin as here:

 

Not being rude but you do realize Armstrongism was and is considered to be a cult?

I don't know if you knew that or not, I'm just setting it out there.

 

Allan, I don't think it can be proven that Timothy was a teetotaler by Paul giving him advice. That would be like my wife telling me to take advil when I have a headache. I already do this, but the advice was still given out of care from one person to another.

Paul abstaining from eating meat was a spiritual matter, not physical. The meat had been offered to false gods. His example to do nothing included wine, and that is probably due to the fact wine was also used as an offering in pagan rituals.

I think it's a stretch to use those passages to prove that 2 full blooded Jews would have abstained from Jewish customs. We do know that Paul would have no part in meat or wine offered to false gods as to not offend another brother, I don't think we can conclude that Paul never ate meat again or drank wine again from that. I think Clarke's commentary has much speculation in it outside of context.

 

EGAD!!! We have an accord!! Ahhhh... Isn't that nice. Let's just enjoy being on the same side for a moment......................................................................................................................................................................................................................

OK. Meet me back on the spiritually dead thread and let me get you as straight on that as you already are on this.:thumbs:

 

I'll drink to that....LOL.... No really there is a great micro brew down the corner & its almost lunch time....an Autumn Amber Lager :smilewinkgrin:

PS....what the heck is EGAD???

 

:laugh:...now just apply this same hermeneutic to soteriology! :thumbs:

 

Why dont you guys just meet & have a virtual beer together?

Start a Virtual "Cheer's" room in here. Bet youd solve alot of the worlds virtual problems with a virtual bar with a tap or two.

 

Hmmm.. you're the only one I can find who makes such a statement among Greek scholars and/or Commentators.
The sentence structure itself, even according to Greek scholars, lends enormous credible weight to the fact that Timothy would not drink wine at all.

Please show some commentators or especially Greek Scholars who hold to your claim to Timothy would need to be encouraged by Paul to drink a little wine for his stomachs sake, when Timothy was 'already' drinking wine.

No.. I was showing the issue in BOTH instances (one with the meat AND wine, and the other with just the meat) were spiritual issues based upon the physical actions one believed was a sin.. It is noted that both yielded the same type of language about the attitude and action the mature brother in Christ should be conveying, regarding self sacrifice of those things for the weaker brothers sake. Not slowing down or doing it in private but for their spiritual growth, faith, and maturing.. the mature brother abstains for their sakes.

Again.. for the record.. I'm not saying it is sin.. However the question was posed said drinking was a sin and in the thread it is alluded to be a new thing.
I am correcting the historical fact that it was an issue the apostle Paul dealt with (as seen in 1 Cor 14 and 1 Timothy 5) back then. Yet unlike believers today who will not set aside their pleasures Paul encourages believers to just the opposite... TO set them aside for their sakes (1 Cor 15)

No stretch to it.. the scripture states it in no uncertain terms.
I have yet to find any Greek scholars or commentators state your view.. but maybe you can point me to some.

Additionally, Timothy was not a full blooded Jew but half Jew and half Greek. And being that his father was Greek, he would have been raised primarily under that cultural view point while being taught the Jewish ones as well by his mother and grandmother.

Paul however states unequivocally that he would/will NOT do anything in which another brother, within his direct sphere of influence, considers a sin. The duration of his vow.. is not till they go home.. he is alone.. but till the world ends.

Yes we do.. He states states it unequivocally. There is no other way to take his statement unless we are to believe he was exaggerating for oratory effect. We can know he never did such again, without question, because he tells us the brother who DOES continue to do such ,when they KNOW another brother in their direct sphere of influence, they then sin not only against THAT brother but ALSO Christ.
The one who continues in their liberty becomes a sinner against his brother and his Lord when he KNOWs it causes his brother to stumble because to that brother it is sin.

QUALIFIER - when I state 'direct sphere of influence' I am referring not that they know someone who knows someone who believes such.. but that there is someone in their direct influential circle whom they know (and know what they believe).

Actually it was Barnes, who quotes a portion of Clarke, in the first section. You can note that many others also share the same views but Barnes was the one who speaks of them more as observations from the text and culture during that time.

 

Allan, we do not know why Paul told Timothy to drink a little wine for his stomach ailment. All of the scholars and historians can guess as to why, but the text in itself does not prove anything. It could be Timothy started to drink only water at some point (perhaps recently to Paul's letter) as to not offend those by drinking wine offered to idols and developed a stomach ailment due to the bacteria in the water. We don't know how long he had this ailment, or when he got it. That is why it is pure speculation by the scholars.

Also, you are correct, I used "full blooded" a little too loosely. I forgot about his father, but I don't think either greek nor jew were teetotalers and no reason why Timothy would have been one (except to not offend a brother).

We don't know if Paul only refrained from meat and wine around those who were offended only, it wouldn't make much sense to never eat meat again or drink wine again in the presence of those who were not offended. I will not drink in front of my father who is a recovering alcoholic, but I have no problem drinking in front of my wife and family who does not have a problem with it. We are commanded not to offend another, not abstain totally. In fact, if he partook of the Lord's Supper he would have used wine.

 

I understand what you are saying.. however the usage of the phrase 'water only' establishes a current and continuous stance. I agree with your statement in questioning as to 'when' he might have ceased.. but my point was when Paul wrote.. Timothy had already begun abstaining and yes.. it was affecting an apparent malady he already had, or at least got while knowing Paul. If you will note the post I made of Barnes in section 2 it states that Timothy was not in the 'habit' of drinking 'often'. He doesn't actually say he didn't drink at all.. otherwise why would Paul encourage a 'little' bit for his health sake. However the phrasing tells us he abstained from drinking for personal or pleasurable reasons.

Also I agree that it would make no sense for Paul to never eat meat again, yet the context isn't about meat in and of itself.. but meat sacrificed to idols that was being bought at a cheaper price and eaten. However it DOES make perfect sense to abstain totally for 3 reasons:
1. example he gives is Christ 1 Cor 15 (but it begins at the later part of chapter 14)
2. To not be a stumbling block at any time
3. To continue in your liberty, knowing it is a stumbling block, makes your actions if liberty now a sin against both that brother and our Lord as well.

He wouldn't know when that person might see him, or 'hear' of him doing those things, of which him and Paul already discussed as it being sin (to him). Otherwise how would Paul know it is his stumbling block.

Remember the entire reason for abstaining.. And I am referring here to personal pleasure.. is so the weaker brother can grow and mature in his faith. That is the epitome of why one 'should' abstain.

Again, I am not against drinking in moderation, but there are other factors that come first in my determining factors as to whether or not I 'should' do them.. and not so much if I 'can' do them and that I believe was Paul's reasoning as well.

 

I'd love to join, as long as it's not an ale. Ale tastes like soap.

 

Well not if you put a virtual shot in it....since its inspired by K, we use virtual Kentucky Bourbon (ole Granddad) 2 virtual fingers of course!

coupla those, I can serve soap as appetizers & you wouldn't care....virtual of coarse! God is Good

Color format look like anyone you know? LOL

 

No offense taken. Indeed it was a cult. However, it has been transformed by Christ and has repented and changed. That is an amazing thing for a cult to do. Read article in Christianity Today: From the Fringe to the Fold.

:jesus:

 

Generally, if a child has a Jewish mother they are considered Jewish. Jews are still required to obey the Laws of Moses and Jewish customs. This was established in the NT.

Act 21:21 They have been told that you have been teaching all the Jews who live in Gentile countries to abandon the Law of Moses, telling them not to circumcise their children or follow the Jewish customs.

Act 21:24 Go along with them and join them in the ceremony of purification and pay their expenses; then they will be able to shave their heads. In this way everyone will know that there is no truth in any of the things that they have been told about you, but that you yourself live in accordance with the Law of Moses.

 

So if a child had a Jewish Father they are 'not' considered Jewish.. uh-huh.

The nationality of a child is historically understood to be designated by or through the Father and not the mother. We see this played out in the scripture regarding Timothy as well because he was not circumcised till Paul did it. Therefore we know that he did not participate in the Jewish customs which would have identified him to the community as being Jewish. However once the father is dead or the son is of responsible age 'he' may choose to continue in the nationality of his father, his mother, or both but the both aspect is rarely successfully done.

Paul allowed Timothy to be circumcised in order to over come the distrust of the Jewish Christians would have had and thus, who would otherwise have caused even more trouble. This would have weakened Timothy's position and his work as a preacher of the gospel. If his mother had not been a Jewess then Paul would have forbade him to be circumcised like he did with Titus.

Also.. We know from scripture that it IS true that Paul preached the abrogation of the law of Moses, taught them that it was impossible to be justified by it, and therefore we are not bound up any longer to the observance of it. However what they false Jewish zealots were trying to 'tack on' was the false notion that he taught them to forsake Moses;