Convictions and Complexities about Drinking

JNoel,

Any scriptures you can post recognizing bigamy as a good gift from God?

Two categories are important to maintain in this discussion:

1. Use
2. Abuse

May the twain never meet.

[DavidO]

JNoel,

Any scriptures you can post recognizing bigamy as a good gift from God?

No; can you refresh my memory on scriptures that recognize consumption of alcoholic beverages to be a good gift from God?

I think Deuteronomy 14:26

but I am at work so didn’t look up….

back to work.

[JNoël]

DavidO wrote:

JNoel,

Any scriptures you can post recognizing bigamy as a good gift from God?

No; can you refresh my memory on scriptures that recognize consumption of alcoholic beverages to be a good gift from God?

Here you go.

By the way, pointing out David’s polygamy (not bigamy, that would be only two wives) is a “guilt by association” fallacy. Such “arguments” ought to have no place in theological discussions among mature believers, as they are the rhetorical equivalent of a spitball fight in junior high school.

[Dan Miller]

The phrase “connection to idolatry” is too unclear. 1 Cor 8-10 speaks of two different sorts of “idol-tainted” meat.
εἰδωλοθύτων - “idol-meat” - is meat that has been sacrificed to idols in the presence of the eater and eaten there, in the idol’s temple. That’s the stuff of 1 Cor 8-10:22.

1 Cor 10:25-30, though, is about meat from the market - much of which was leftover εἰδωλοθύτων - “idol-meat.”

Don Johnson wrote:

…If Rm 14 deals with idol meat at all, I would agree that it would be in the sense of 1 Cor 10:25-30, but not the meat of 1 Cor 8-10:22. But even in 1 Cor 10.25-30, he forbids the practice if the source is known. As noted above, Paul is here tolerating the practice. Would Paul tolerate in Romans what he would forbid in 1 Cor? I doubt it. I think we would have a serious problem with his authority if he did.
…

But Don, look at 1 for 10: 25-29

25 - go ahead and eat what is sold in the market

27 - If an unbeliever serves you meat, go ahead and eat it.

28 - BUT - if someone tells you, “This is idol-meat,” then don’t eat it for his sake.

29 - NOT for your sake. Only for the sake of the one who served it and ID’d it as idol-meat.

The fact that you know it’s idol-meat doesn’t mean you can’t eat it. It’s the fact that the other guy knows that it’s idol-meat and cares enough to say so. And it’s only for his sake that you abstain. The unbeliever is respecting the idol by telling you that the meat is idol-meat.

Dan, I am with you on the interpretation up to this point. But here is where we see it differently:

1 Corinthians 10:25 Eat anything that is sold in the meat market without asking questions for conscience’ sake;

Why no asking questions? What happens if the question is asked and you find out that in fact the meat sold in the market is idol-meat, what then? Isn’t the implication that as soon as you know it is idol-meat, it is off limits?

The way I understand 1 Cor 8-10, the bottom line is “Don’t eat idol-meat if it is identified as such” - although as meat by itself, it won’t hurt you. There are three reasons given in the passage but it all comes down to this, “don’t do it.”

In Romans, IF it is idol meat, he makes NO such prohibition. He says, “tolerate each other in your differences.” Since idol meat is prohibited in Acts 15 and related passages, since it is prohibited explicitly in 1 Cor 8-10, and also churches are condemned for allowing it in Rev 2, how can we say that Paul is now saying in Romans, “Oh, about that scruple about meat, tolerate each other.” If it is idol-meat, that is. Doesn’t make sense to me.

[Bert Perry]

By the way, pointing out David’s polygamy (not bigamy, that would be only two wives) is a “guilt by association” fallacy. Such “arguments” ought to have no place in theological discussions among mature believers, as they are the rhetorical equivalent of a spitball fight in junior high school.

Thank you for the link to the article. After clicking, I realized I read it several years ago. The fact that many minds far greater than mine continue to have the discussion reveals to me the issue is not as clear cut as the article tries to make it. I think the problem may be the apparent contradiction - if so many scriptures warn against consumption of alcohol, how does that contrast with those scriptures that apparently encourage it?

–

My point in bringing up David’s polygamy is that God didn’t deal with that sin the way I think he should have. God judged various other sins severely while seeming to ignore polygamy. But that does not mean God endorsed it. The fact that consumption of alcohol is seen in scripture does not automatically validate it. That’s all I meant by bringing up the multi-marriage comparison.

[Bert Perry]

Regarding Don’s exegesis, he’s more or less arguing that since Romans 14 doesn’t flat out state that the issue with meats and wines is idolatry, that we cannot assume that.

“more or less”? - Bert, it is a little disturbing that you don’t seem to make an effort to understand what I am saying.

[Bert Perry] In the same way, the meat & wine portions of Romans 14 have a subtext, just like any other literature. Notice that Paul does not explicitly say why one might object to eating meat or drinking wine; he simply notes that some have a scruple in this regard. This is—just like the conversation with your wife—not the place to assume that there is no subtext. It is the place to make a good analysis to figure out that that subtext might be.

And in 1 Corinthians 8-10, we have the same author writing to people from pretty much the same culture, and in this case, he mentions that temple markets are the issue for meat and wine. Now we can posit that the Romans may have had yet other reasons for disdaining meat and wine—reasons that we might deduce from a good understanding of other passages and Roman history—but that does not change the fact that there is a subtext in Roman culture that we will do well to heed.

No he doesn’t mention the temple markets except as an appendix to the main argument, meat eaten in idol temples. The markets aren’t mentioned until late in chapter 10. You need to read Gordon Fee on this, or, if you don’t have access to his commentary, read Tom Constable’s notes which rely a good deal on Fee. You can find Constable online and download his notes free.

Further, you are basing your argument on your assumption that you know what the so-called subtext is. In fact, you don’t. You are just guessing. That is called eisegesis, not exegesis. You aren’t getting it out of the text.

[Bert Perry] Now what is at stake? Simple; if indeed Romans 14:1 ‘s comment about receiving those who are weak in faith suggests that there is something bigger than mere preference/offense involved, as the 1 Corinthians parallel would suggest, then Romans 14 does not constitute permission for a believer to say that he has a problem with “behavior A” and infringe on the liberty of others. To use a picture Don used in a sermon, Romans 14 does not require the pastor to switch to a KJV to preach when he notices people he suspects are KJVO in the congregation.

Or, to use the more direct picture, if someone tells me (cue Jim’s graph) that they have a conviction against the use of alcohol, there is nothing wrong with asking them how this impacts their faith. In fact, just as most KJVO activists really need someone to ask them “what real evidence to you have that non-TR manuscripts are corrupted?”, most “Group A” people in Jim’s taxonomy of liquor need to be asked “how does the drinking of liquor affect your faith?”

As I noted before, and as Jim noted, Romans 14 serves all too often as a means for legalists to hold their brothers in Christ hostage and abridge individual soul liberty. If we take a good look at the subtext, however, we get rid of this.

I am not sure what you mean by this last line. Romans 14 admonishes believers to be tolerant of one another over religious scruples, not over differences regarding things tainted by evil (i.e., idolatry). And more than being tolerant, it admonishes the strong to restrain their practices for the purpose of building up the spiritual life of the weak (not convincing them their scruple is wrong).

I think you misunderstand my illustration about the KJV, but I’ll leave that aside since we don’t need to sidetrack the discussion further!

[Don Johnson]

…for daily consumption as a beverage, they mixed their alcohol in such a way that it was far less potent than drinking it straight - this included Greek and Roman practices, not just Jewish practice. The alcohol they had available was in fact less potent than the alcohol available today.

Let’s examine this.

What I see today is that many abstentionists will “excuse” the consumption of alcohol in biblical times because it was mixed/diluted with water. (The presumption is that this was done because water quality was often suspect, and the alcohol in wine would purify/make safe contaminated water to drink.)

The ratio of water to wine that is typically stated is 3 parts water to 1 part wine (a 3:1 ratio). (Sometimes you’ll see claims that the ratio was as much as 20:1, but this ratio actually comes from Greek mythology: Homer’s Odyssey. In the poem, there is mention of a magical wine that was potent even at the extreme ratio of 20:1. In practice, such a dilution rate would be too weak for the alcohol to have the intended effect of purification.)

Since (non-fortified) wines are typically in the range of 8% to 14% alcohol, dilution at a ratio of 3:1 would reduce the alcohol content to, let’s say, 3% to 4% (just to round off). Compared to today’s alcoholic beverages, this would fall roughly in the range of many common beers (per Google):

3.5% Heineken Premium Light, Amstel Light
4.0% Guinness Black
4.2% Bud/Coors Light
4.6% Corona Extra
5.0% Coors/Budweiser/MGD/Stella Artois
5.0% Heineken

So at a ratio of 3:1, mixed/diluted wine in biblical times would appear to have alcohol content comparable to many of today’s common beers.

–––––––––––––—

If wine consumption in biblical times gets a pass because it was often diluted, let me present a scenario for today:

Joe B. Liever walks into a restaurant & orders a ribeye. He thinks a glass of red wine (approx. a 5.5 oz. serving) would complement the steak, so he orders one. (Let’s say its alcohol content is 14%.) As he sips the wine, he alternates sipping from a 16 oz. glass of water. The net effect of the 16 oz. of water mixing with the 5.5 oz. of wine in his stomach is a dilution of about 3:1.

Questions: Does Joe get the same pass that is afforded to wine-drinkers in biblical times? Has Joe just sinned? If not, what is the real issue behind a belief in abstentionism today?

No, Don, I understand your argument. You have argued, repeatedly, that since the word idolatry does not appear in Romans 14, that we are powerless to infer it. In other words, you are committing the logical fallacy of an argument from silence.

Sorry, but sound exegesis do take a look at parallel passages from the same author and the culture at hand. One may get it right, and one may get it wrong, but either way, there is a subtext—things that Paul did not need to say, but we need clarified. In this case, Rome and Corinth shared a common Apostle, a common language, common pagan gods, and common institutions, including temple markets where the poor could buy food cheaply. Hence it is a reasonable inference that part of what Paul was getting at—beyond Jewish traditions—was not a simple “scruple”, but rather a genuine concern over whether a believer ought to be buying meat that had been sacrificed.

And in that light, we find that a lot of the “scruples” that fundamentalists entertain—like an abhorrence of wine (but not meat of course) or the Majority Text or the Eclectic Text—are not what Paul was getting at. They need to be confronted, not coddled, because they’re really about personal preference and not any test of faith.

[JNoël]

Bert Perry wrote:

By the way, pointing out David’s polygamy (not bigamy, that would be only two wives) is a “guilt by association” fallacy. Such “arguments” ought to have no place in theological discussions among mature believers, as they are the rhetorical equivalent of a spitball fight in junior high school.

Thank you for the link to the article. After clicking, I realized I read it several years ago. The fact that many minds far greater than mine continue to have the discussion reveals to me the issue is not as clear cut as the article tries to make it. I think the problem may be the apparent contradiction - if so many scriptures warn against consumption of alcohol, how does that contrast with those scriptures that apparently encourage it?

–

My point in bringing up David’s polygamy is that God didn’t deal with that sin the way I think he should have. God judged various other sins severely while seeming to ignore polygamy. But that does not mean God endorsed it. The fact that consumption of alcohol is seen in scripture does not automatically validate it. That’s all I meant by bringing up the multi-marriage comparison.

The question, however, is not whether Scripture mentions it. It is whether Scripture mentions it as a blessing from God. I think if we’re honest, we’ve got to say that yes, God’s word emphatically describes wine as a blessing to His people—in moderation, of course, but a blessing nonetheless. Hence an appeal to the principle that “description does not equal prescription” fails for the simple reason that God’s word does not merely describe the use of wine, but rather notes that it is a blessing for God’s people.

Again, we don’t have to drink, and certainly we ought not forget the plight of the alcoholic or problem drinker. But when we take a look at Scripture as a whole, we cannot support the notion that all alcoholic beverages are evil. It simply doesn’t come from the text. Put bluntly, do we believe Sola Scriptura and the first fundamental, or do we not?

[Bert Perry]

No, Don, I understand your argument. You have argued, repeatedly, that since the word idolatry does not appear in Romans 14, that we are powerless to infer it. In other words, you are committing the logical fallacy of an argument from silence.

Ok, so from silence you are inferring that idolatry is there. Ok. have it your way. I guess your argument from silence trumps mine?

[Bert Perry] Sorry, but sound exegesis do take a look at parallel passages from the same author and the culture at hand.

Fair enough, but it is hard to imagine Paul’s prohibitions in 1 Cor turning into Paul’s permissions in Romans

[Bert Perry]

The question, however, is not whether Scripture mentions it. It is whether Scripture mentions it as a blessing from God. I think if we’re honest, we’ve got to say that yes, God’s word emphatically describes wine as a blessing to His people—in moderation, of course, but a blessing nonetheless. Hence an appeal to the principle that “description does not equal prescription” fails for the simple reason that God’s word does not merely describe the use of wine, but rather notes that it is a blessing for God’s people.

Again, we don’t have to drink, and certainly we ought not forget the plight of the alcoholic or problem drinker. But when we take a look at Scripture as a whole, we cannot support the notion that all alcoholic beverages are evil. It simply doesn’t come from the text. Put bluntly, do we believe Sola Scriptura and the first fundamental, or do we not?

Clearly, there are many who are Sola Scriptura who do not believe the Bible declares consumption of alcohol to be an encouraged Blessing From God. If it were that simple, there wouldn’t be pages of conversation from honest, careful, reasoning individuals, Aaron Blumer being the most obvious in this forum.

You can lean on calling it a Blessing From God; I’ll lean on those passages that strongly encourages avoiding it. I don’t think any less of you for your decision, and I hope you don’t think any less of me for mine.

Cheers!

I’d have to argue that if a person ignores either side of the equation, he doesn’t really believe in the first fundamental and Sola Scriptura. Don’t believe God gave wine for man’s blessing? Sorry, you aren’t a fundamentalist, because you’re ignoring what God said about the subject. Don’t believe God warns about the dangers of drunkenness? Sorry, you don’t believe in Sola Scriptura, either.

Really, it’s the same principle of moderation that one could apply to exercise, coffee, food, work, you name it. A cup of coffee is a blessing. A quart of espresso will put you in the hospital or kill you. And we don’t fault anyone for not drinking coffee, right?

Let’s have the same maturity regarding wine.

[Don Johnson]

… Romans 14 admonishes believers to be tolerant of one another over religious scruples, not over differences regarding things tainted by evil (i.e., idolatry). And more than being tolerant, it admonishes the strong to restrain their practices for the purpose of building up the spiritual life of the weak (not convincing them their scruple is wrong).

I think you misunderstand my illustration about the KJV, but I’ll leave that aside since we don’t need to sidetrack the discussion further!

FTR, you are correct on your discernment of the absolute prohibition of knowledgeably incorporating pollutions of idols (meat) into the church or life of the obedient believer as well as the fact that Rom. 14 is not referencing this meat (Rom. 14 applies Acts 10; I Cor. 6-10 applies Acts 15). Now I would love to hear your thoughts on the equivalency of modern beverage alcohol with the Corinthian meat.

[Don Johnson]… 1 Corinthians 10:25 Eat anything that is sold in the meat market without asking questions for conscience’ sake;

Why no asking questions? … Isn’t the implication that as soon as you know it is idol-meat, it is off limits?

No. Well, sort of. The Text says that when your unbelieving host tells you it’s idol-meat, it’s off limits.

You understand that when you find out the meat is idol-meat, then it’s off-limits.
I understand that when you find out that your host cares that the meat is idol-meat, then it’s off-limits.

That’s why Paul follows (v. 29) with “I do not mean your conscience, but his.” Your host is saying, “Good news, this has been offered to Asclepius! à votre santé!” He is respecting the idol, and so you have a chance to either join him or to not respect it. But it is for his conscience sake that you refuse, NOT yours.

[Don Johnson] The way I understand 1 Cor 8-10, the bottom line is “Don’t eat idol-meat if it is identified as such” - although as meat by itself, it won’t hurt you. There are three reasons given in the passage but it all comes down to this, “don’t do it.”

In Romans, IF it is idol meat, he makes NO such prohibition. …

––––

Time to point out a difference between Romans and 1 Corinthians.
-The Romans seem to be arguing about Market-meat. Some (Jews) think it’s wrong.
-The Corinthians are arguing about sitting in the idol’s temple and eating. For them, the lesser issue of Market-meat is practically an after thought.

The Romans have some Jews with a very strict application of idolatry avoidance (still a Biblical principle!).
The Corinthians have a bunch of gentiles with almost no application of idolatry avoidance (except, “In my mind, sitting there and eating is meaningless, so it’s fine.”).

[Don Johnson] Ok, so from silence you are inferring that idolatry is there. Ok. have it your way. I guess your argument from silence trumps mine?

The only Jewish issue that would have resulted in vegetarianism was idolatry-avoidance.

Therefore, Roman meat-eating is about idolatry-avoidance.

––—

Not air-tight, but I think a pretty compelling argument.

[Bert Perry] Don’t believe God warns about the dangers of drunkenness? Sorry, you don’t believe in Sola Scriptura, either.

Some make a point that if the Bible wanted to refer to unfermented wine, it could have used a word that only meant unfermented wine. That is to impose on the Bible a rule we never impose on ourselves.

We use imprecise language all the time:

Let’s stop at the drive-in and get a drink (even when it is a soft drink).

I sometimes say, “Who wants an ice cold nonalcoholic beverage?” People usually laugh. Why? Because we don’t normally talk that way. Yet, that is the way some insist the Bible should talk, otherwise it must have been they were talking of alcoholic wine.

On the other hand, highway signs say “Don’t drink and drive.” Imprecise language, but we all know what it means. Like the use of wine in the Bible and ancient literature, drink can be used to refer to alcoholic, or nonalcoholic drinks.

Scripture uses yayin and oinos to refer to both unfermented and fermented wine.

Oinos is used in the New Testament, in the same verse, of both unfermented and fermented wine (Matthew 9:17).

The Septuagint (LXX) used the Greek word oinos to translate wine, when it was obviously referring to unfermented wine; for example, Isaiah 16:10; Joel 2:24.

David R. Brumbelow

[JNoël]

Bert Perry wrote:

Don’t believe God warns about the dangers of drunkenness? Sorry, you don’t believe in Sola Scriptura, either.

God doesn’t warn about the dangers of drunkenness, he forbids it.

There are plenty of passages that warn about wine and strong drink without stipulating intoxication. Drunkenness is not at question - at least I don’t think anyone in this forum would claim God permits drunkenness.

Agreed 100% with the fact that God forbids drunkeness. Is not “sin” a danger along with wounds, passing out, loss of self-control, and the like? Perhaps I could be a bit clearer there, but I think you get the picture. If we neglect either the blessings of wine or the dangers/sinfulness of drunkenness, I would argue that either (a) we do not know what Scripture says about the matter or (b) we are not adhering to the 1st Fundamental or Sola Scriptura.

Yes, that is harsh, but I think it illustrates what Jim shows with his diagram; we fundamentalists tend to collapse questions, opinions, convictions, and absolutes into “all absolutes”, and the flip side of it is that we tend to lose track of what is really important. (next up, Psalms 149 & 150 and dancing )

Regarding the claim of numerous references to wine that are (a) negative and (b) do not involve drunkenness, here’s a listing of the uses of the word. My take is that if you look closely, you’ll see that the negative descriptions all involve drunkenness—when one “staggers”, “brawls”, or becomes a “hero” at mixing wine, we are talking about excess. Staggering starts, if I remember correctly, at about .20% BAC, or about 2.5 times the legal limit for driving. I’m open to being persuaded otherwise, though.

[Dan Miller]

The issue in Rome was a Jewish issue.

The only Jewish issue that would have resulted in vegetarianism was idolatry-avoidance.

[or the possibility of being seethed in its mother’s milk {think cheeseburger}; or not certifiably handled in a kosher manner {hence the little circle K on all things kosher}; or being mixed with an unclean meat; etc.]

Therefore, Roman meat-eating is about idolatry-avoidance.

––—

Not air-tight, but I think a pretty compelling argument.

Edit and emphasis mine

Lee, good point.

But it couldn’t be just “or,” right? I mean even if those things were part of why they refused all meat, in Rome 52AD, suspicion of idol-tainting would have been on their list, and probably on the top of it.

So, can a Christian drink an O’Douls?

[Dan Miller]

Lee, good point.

But it couldn’t be just “or,” right? I mean even if those things were part of why they refused all meat, in Rome 52AD, suspicion of idol-tainting would have been on their list, and probably on the top of it.

“Probably” is a guess—nothing more. That there are a lot of reasons a believer of devout Jewish origin would refuse anything possibly tainted as unclean practically to an extreme level (vegetarianism) is evident. That idol-tainting is probably on the list is no more or no less meaningful than any other valid reason. Having had the opportunity to travel and interact with some of devout Jewish (and other) dietary leanings it is easy for me to see extreme vegetarianism as a logical practice to assure protection from unclean/forbidden meats.

The point is that idol-tainting is no where hinted at as the reason for Rom. 14. Rome is in the relatively early stages of being repopulated with Jews, many of whom were exiled some half dozen years earlier. That some believers of the James/Jerusalem stripe (“…they are all zealous of the law…”) and others of the Peter stripe (“What God has cleansed that call not thou common…”) show up in the church in Rome is far more in keeping with the context, and is evidently what is being addressed.

Most certainly Rom. 14 is not a renouncing of the clear prohibitions of partaking of pollutions of idols found in Acts 15, I Cor. 6-10, and other places.

[Dan Miller]

Don Johnson wrote:

… 1 Corinthians 10:25 Eat anything that is sold in the meat market without asking questions for conscience’ sake;

Why no asking questions? … Isn’t the implication that as soon as you know it is idol-meat, it is off limits?

No. Well, sort of. The Text says that when your unbelieving host tells you it’s idol-meat, it’s off limits.

You understand that when you find out the meat is idol-meat, then it’s off-limits.
I understand that when you find out that your host cares that the meat is idol-meat, then it’s off-limits.

That’s why Paul follows (v. 29) with “I do not mean your conscience, but his.” Your host is saying, “Good news, this has been offered to Asclepius! à votre santé!” He is respecting the idol, and so you have a chance to either join him or to not respect it. But it is for his conscience sake that you refuse, NOT yours.

I think you are conflating two scenarios into one. Here is the passage in its entirety:

1 Corinthians 10:25 Eat anything that is sold in the meat market without asking questions for conscience’ sake; 26 FOR THE EARTH IS THE LORD’S, AND ALL IT CONTAINS. 27 If one of the unbelievers invites you and you want to go, eat anything that is set before you without asking questions for conscience’ sake. 28 But if anyone says to you, “This is meat sacrificed to idols,” do not eat it, for the sake of the one who informed you, and for conscience’ sake; 29 I mean not your own conscience, but the other man’s; for why is my freedom judged by another’s conscience? 30 If I partake with thankfulness, why am I slandered concerning that for which I give thanks? 31 Whether, then, you eat or drink or whatever you do, do all to the glory of God.

Verse 25-26 proposes one scenario: buy anything you want in the market, just don’t ask questions about it.

Verse 27-30 proposes a second scenario: eat any meal in an unbeliever’s home unless he mentions the meat is offered to idols.

In both cases, the implication is that if you know it is idol-meat, abstain.

Are you saying that the passage is describing one and only one scenario? I agree with you on most of what you say, you are correct in seeing 1cor 8.1-10.24 to be about eating meat in the idol temple.

[Dan Miller]

Don Johnson wrote:

The way I understand 1 Cor 8-10, the bottom line is “Don’t eat idol-meat if it is identified as such” - although as meat by itself, it won’t hurt you. There are three reasons given in the passage but it all comes down to this, “don’t do it.”

In Romans, IF it is idol meat, he makes NO such prohibition. …

No. Romans 14 and 1 Cor 10:25-30 treat Market-meat (note: not idol-meat of 1 Cor 8 and Acts 15) the same. If it’s ok with your conscience, go ahead. But - if it causes someone else to sin, then don’t.

––––

Time to point out a difference between Romans and 1 Corinthians.
-The Romans seem to be arguing about Market-meat. Some (Jews) think it’s wrong.
-The Corinthians are arguing about sitting in the idol’s temple and eating. For them, the lesser issue of Market-meat is practically an after thought.

The Romans have some Jews with a very strict application of idolatry avoidance (still a Biblical principle!).
The Corinthians have a bunch of gentiles with almost no application of idolatry avoidance (except, “In my mind, sitting there and eating is meaningless, so it’s fine.”).

I think it is possible that the issue in Rome is Jewish scruples, the words “clean” and “unclean” tend to point in that direction. However, I don’t think the text absolutely declares it and think that interpretations that insist on it tend to distort the impact of the passage. For us and our situations, it isn’t Jewish scruples we have to deal with amongst our brethren (or ourselves), but various scruples that have come about by various traditions and experiences. The passage is vague as to source and specific circumstances which makes it excellent for applying to any era of the church.

Anyway, I think we have pretty well worked out where we have points of difference in our interpretation. In the main, I agree with how you are taking the passages, I think.

[Jim]

…but I reject its broad-brush characterizations.

Each of the “personal practices” for the “Fundamental views” (View A & View B) presumes abstention (“I don’t drink…”).

Each of the “personal practices” for the “Evangelical views” (View C & View D) presumes consumption (“I drink in moderation…”).

Well, I know fundamentalists who consume, and evangelicals who abstain. There is often a large disconnect between what these views presume and actual practice.

[Lee]…The point is that idol-tainting is no where hinted at as the reason for Rom. 14. Rome is in the relatively early stages of being repopulated with Jews, many of whom were exiled some half dozen years earlier. That some believers of the James/Jerusalem stripe (“…they are all zealous of the law…”) and others of the Peter stripe (“What God has cleansed that call not thou common…”) show up in the church in Rome is far more in keeping with the context, and is evidently what is being addressed.

Most certainly Rom. 14 is not a renouncing of the clear prohibitions of partaking of pollutions of idols found in Acts 15, I Cor. 6-10, and other places.

I’m not so sure about “most certainly.” Let me list some things we can probably agree on:

(“Idol-tainted” here means - previously involved in idol worship and then sold in the market (away from the idol) as “meat.”)

1. IF market meat in Rome was idol-tainted, THEN that would have been a problem for Jews desiring to obey God.

2. IF market meat in Rome was NOT idol-tainted, THEN it still would likely have been problematic for Jews.

3. IF market meat in Rome was mixed and uncertain, THEN [same as #1].

4. IF Romans 14 allows idol-tainted eating, THEN Acts 15, 1 Cor 8-10a and Rev 2 probably refer to a different type of “idol-meat” than market-meat than Romans 14.

Lee and Don, have you read Ben Witherington’s work Not So Idle Thoughts About Eidolothuton (Tyndale Bulletin 44.2 (1993) 237- 254)?

I see your point about the chart. My observation is that very few self-identified (using the label) Fundamentalists drink even in moderation. I personally do not know one (I’m sure there must be one!). I have close relatives who are members of a fundamentalist-in-name church who do drink in moderation but they themselves would not self-identify with the label.

It seems to me that the fundamentalist taboo on drinking runs so deep in fundamentalist culture that it is part of fundamentalism itself. It has become a fundamental of the faith.

Self-disclosure …. I view the label “fundamentalist” of virtually void of meaning because of morphing over time. I gave up the label two years ago. My doctrinal position has remained constant over 40 years (available here). By and large I never bought into the so-called fundy-taboos; I think largely in part because I was not raised in fundamentalism and did not go to fundy-U. For example: about once a year I may attend a movie theater (but it’s been 16 months). I listen to a variety of music from classical to jazz to rock. I occasionally play cards (principally hearts with family).

Also a good point about conservative evangelicals who are total abstainers. The SBC leadership is pretty clear about the wisdom of abstinence but I don’t have a link handy.

Back in seminary (35 years ago), our Christian Reformed neighbors drank in moderation but thought it was terrible that we swam in our pool on the Sabbath. I never forced them to swim in my pool on the Sabbath and they never forced me to drink. So all was well!

The uniqueness of view A:

• This group sees that they need to prohibit others from drinking AND
• Just one drink subjects one to control
• They see no positive use of wine / the only good wine is alcohol free

I reject the A view. I was in the A position for a short time in my vocational-ministry career. I find it very flawed.

Don, Your quotes are in bold.

DON: Verse 25-26 proposes one scenario: buy anything you want in the market, just don’t ask questions about it.

I agree.

DON: Verse 27-30 proposes a second scenario: eat any meal in an unbeliever’s home unless he mentions the meat is offered to idols.

I agree. 2 scenarios.

DON: In both cases, the implication is that if you know it is idol-meat, abstain.

Here is where we differ on a slight point, but an important one.

Scenario 1: Your home

You don’t know if it’s idol-tainted. Actually , you know that some of it is - but you don’t care. Why? Because you don’t respect idols. It’s just meat.

Scenario 2: In the home of an unbelieving host

You don’t know if it’s idol-tainted; you eat [same as Scenario 1, ethically].

But IF he tells you it’s idol-tainted, then don’t eat. (Here’s where there’s two options.) WHY does his telling you it’s idol-tainted restrict you?

Option 1: YOUR knowledge, now increased, should limit YOUR conscience.

Option 2: Your HOST’S belief, now revealed, should limit HIS conscience.

Paul clears it up by saying, (v.29) “I do not mean your conscience, but his.” It’s option #2.

[Don Johnson] …I agree with you on most of what you say, you are correct in seeing 1cor 8.1-10.24 to be about eating meat in the idol temple.

…

I think it is possible that the issue in Rome is Jewish scruples, the words “clean” and “unclean” tend to point in that direction. However, I don’t think the text absolutely declares it and think that interpretations that insist on it tend to distort the impact of the passage. For us and our situations, it isn’t Jewish scruples we have to deal with amongst our brethren (or ourselves), but various scruples that have come about by various traditions and experiences. The passage is vague as to source and specific circumstances which makes it excellent for applying to any era of the church.

Anyway, I think we have pretty well worked out where we have points of difference in our interpretation. In the main, I agree with how you are taking the passages, I think.

We need to re-think what “Jewish scruples” means to us. We tend to think of Peter’s vision (“kill and eat”) and Mark 7 (“goes into…comes out of…defiles”). And we think, “Jewish scruple stuff is wrong - that’s all been changed.” But idolatry is STILL idolatry. The Old Testament might be “old,” but it’s full of principles that we should still be applying today. Rom 15:4 “For whatever was written in former days was written for our instruction, that through endurance and through the encouragement of the Scriptures we might have hope.”And all these passages make more sense when you start thinking of the guy with scruples as possibly the smart, Bible-obedient one. More on that later…

OK, quick question for those who claim that Romans 14 might not have to do with Jewish habits; if that is true, what days are being referred to in verses 5 & 6? There are only three categories; Christian holy days (the Lord’s Day, Christmas and Easter were perhaps celebrated), Jewish holy days (Shabbat, Purim, Pesach, Shavuot, Yom Kippur, etc..), and pagan holy days.

Now let’s start with something obvious; it is absurd to believe that Paul would allow the church to celebrate pagan holy days, and it is equally absurd to believe that Jewish believers would proscribe the celebration of Christian holidays. Can we imagine a Jewish believer getting all worked up about a gentile Christian celebrating Passover, or the Lord’s Day?

So we are left with what I think is a pretty airtight case that the days at issue are Jewish holidays prescribed in Scripture, and this in turn forms the context for the latter part of the chapter regarding meat and wine. The objection is clearly that the meat and wine was not kosher; also supported in Scripture, and it could mean idolatry, the wrong animal, or the wrong methods of preparation.

Now do we need to decide which this is? No, for a very simple reason; as verse 1 tells us, we are dealing with matters of faith, and the context given to us in verses 5 and 6 is that we are talking about scruples for which a clear Biblical case can be made—really about how Christians ought to apply the Law. I would argue, if pressed, that idolatry was almost certainly central, but I don’t have to right now. It is sufficient to point out that what is at stake is how Jewish believers (and believers in general) ought to approach the Torah in the Church. And Paul tells us, more or less, to stay out of pagan temples, but don’t judge someone who buys meat or wine at the market—or refuses to do so.

To wit, verse 16. Do not let that which is good be spoken of as evil. To wit, verse 14—Paul says point blank regarding foods that there is nothing unclean of itself. OK, I’m going to be blunt here; it seems to me that the “A” wing of the church isn’t cluing in here. Note again that the objection raised to these foods and drinks is that they are “unclean”—we are talking Kosher regulations, not food safety here, and the issue at hand is how do we apply the Torah in the church.

In other words, Romans 14 is not talking about whatever “scruples” we can come up with. It is about real theological positions that can be defended from the Scriptures. To reduce it to Victorian prohibitionism, KJVO, or Adventist abstentionism does a real disservice to what Paul is trying to tell us here.

[Dan Miller]

Lee and Don, have you read Ben Witherington’s work Not So Idle Thoughts About Eidolothuton (Tyndale Bulletin 44.2 (1993) 237- 254)?

Haven’t read it, but found a pdf here. Just now read through the summary, it looks very interesting. It is interesting that Paul uses hierothuton in 1 Cor 10.28 instead of eidolothuton, as in the rest of the passage. I’ll have to read Witherington to see what he says, but if the distinction mentioned in the summary of the article holds, I’d say that usage reinforces the things we have been saying about the passage. Those who try to make “market meat” the issue throughout 1 Cor 8 are way off base if this is correct.

[Dan Miller]

Here is where we differ on a slight point, but an important one.

Scenario 1: Your home

You don’t know if it’s idol-tainted. Actually , you know that some of it is - but you don’t care. Why? Because you don’t respect idols. It’s just meat.

Ok, didn’t see this post before I sent my last one. Here is the thing, what happens if I know specifically that the meat is hierothuton? In other words, I’m at the meat market, I see a good deal on lamb chops (or whatever) and inadvertantly ask the merchant, “Where did this come from?” and he says, “Oh, the temple of Diana sent this batch over this morning.” What then?

Given the context, I think then I do care and I buy something else. Otherwise, though I know that probably a lot of the meat in the market is hierothuton, and I don’t ask questions, then you’re right, I don’t care. It’s just meat. Once I’ve asked the question, then what do I do if I get the wrong answer?

[Dan Miller]

…

(“Idol-tainted” here means - previously involved in idol worship and then sold in the market (away from the idol) as “meat.”)

1. IF market meat in Rome was idol-tainted, THEN that would have been a problem for Jews desiring to obey God.

[If market meat in Rome was idol-tainted, then it should be a problem for every obedient believer regardless as to whether of Jewish or Gentile heritage—to “abstain from pollutions of idols” is an absolute (I Cor. 10:20FF “I would not that ye should have fellowship with devils….ye cannot be partakers of the Lord’s table and of the table of devils….”) Romans was not written to an exclusively Jewish assembly.]

2. IF market meat in Rome was NOT idol-tainted, THEN it still would likely have been problematic for Jews. K

3. IF market meat in Rome was mixed and uncertain, THEN [same as #1]. K

4. IF Romans 14 allows idol-tainted eating, THEN Acts 15, 1 Cor 8-10a and Rev 2 probably refer to a different type of “idol-meat” than market-meat than Romans 14.

[Again, there is not the slightest indication that idol-tainted meat is what is being referenced, much less a different type of completely undefined idol-tainting than that referenced elsewhere.]

…

Edit and emphasis mine. According to almost every authority Romans is written at a later date than I Cor. although there is some disagreement on whether it was 1, 3, 5, or whatever years. Either Paul is contradicting himself and the Lord Jesus Christ (Rev. 2), or he is referencing something other than idolatry. The context drives the conclusion of “something other.” If it is contradictory, then we have an inspiration issue to work through.

Well, Lee, logically, you should be able to agree with 1 and 4. They both say IF…THEN. You can just say, “true” to the IF-THEN statement even knowing that you don’t think the IF statement is true.

I do not for a minute think that Paul in writing Romans is contradicting Jesus in Rev 2 or James, et.al. in Acts 15.

[Bert Perry]…To wit, verse 16. Do not let that which is good be spoken of as evil. To wit, verse 14—Paul says point blank regarding foods that there is nothing unclean of itself. OK, I’m going to be blunt here; it seems to me that the “A” wing of the church isn’t cluing in here. Note again that the objection raised to these foods and drinks is that they are “unclean”—we are talking Kosher regulations, not food safety here, and the issue at hand is how do we apply the Torah in the church….

1. Something to do with meat -vs- vegetarianism.
2. Something to do with treating all days the same -vs- honoring some days as special.
3. Something to do with wine or grape juice.
4. “Anything”

I think the argument that these are all Jewish scruples is compelling. I listed three reasons somewhere in these threads; there are more.

IF they were Jewish, THEN we can say a little more about them:

1a. Meat-eating -vs- vegetarianism in order to avoid unbiblical meat (whether idol-tainted, non-kosher, etc.)
2a. Sabbath observance (including holy days) -vs- not (note that many still see Sabbath observance as not done away with in the NT).
3a. Drinking -vs- Abstaining (either idol-tainted (wine) or perhaps Jewish Vow based-include all grape juice)
4a. “Anything”

Because “anything” is in there, and because the list changes in 1 Cor 6-10 (if that represents an application of the same ethical tools to other similar and dissimilar situations), we should see these lists as examples. But then, how should the list be continued? What sort of things belong in this list? What are the principles that should be used to decide if something is adiaphora?
(This is a really tough thing. For now, it’s important to note that the questions Bert, Lee, Don, and I have been discussing are so important. We must first establish what the issues were as well as we can. Then we can explore why Paul chose each of them.)

The question of what is and isn’t adiaphora is of foundational importance in applying these passages.

Let me give an example by going back to the topic of Alcohol. Consider 3a above, considered through the lens of Jewish practices. We can be pretty sure that Paul while or before writing Romans was himself under a Nazarite Vow, including grape juice abstinence. So grape juice is a very reasonable thought for oinos in Rom 14:21, if the word is used for fresh GJ. That means that we can’t say for SURE that oinos is “wine.”

This means that we include it as a Romans 14 issue on the basis of categorical inclusion (if you believe it fits in the category of adiaphora). What happens when two differ on whether the Bible forbids alcohol?
Will (wine-guy) says, “It’s adiaphora. I won’t despise; you don’t judge.”
Tom (Teetotaler) says, “No - it’s not adiaphora! The Bible says it’s wrong. I need to explain this to you because I have concern for you as a brother.”

The tools of Romans 14 (and similar) are not available to these brothers. Once he denies it’s adiaphora, Tom takes it out of the realm of passages like Romans 14.

The interesting thing is that because of this, Romans 14 never applies to anything.

If the matter has no Biblical basis, then everyone agrees it’s just human preference.

If the matter does have Biblical basis, then those who disagree with the reasoning of that basis say, “Adiaphora! Romans 14” and those who agree with the Biblical basis say, “No! Not adiaphora. Don’t try to bring up Romans 14!”

–

I do think Romans 14 applies to wine today. But not because wine is in the passage. Because the passage applies to a category of things that includes wine. There’s a lot of ground to cover to get there, though.

I am not convinced that Rm 14 is specifically Jewish scruples, especially in the light of the fact that Paul is so ready to name Jew vs. Gentile differences throughout the book. I think it is possible that Jewish scruples are involved, but I don’t see how we can be dogmatic about it. Also, I think if you assume it is so, then it colors what you think adiaphora are.

On the topic of adiaphora, I think that a thing can be adiaphora, indifferent, in its essence, but because of association it is so closely connected with evil that it becomes taboo for a Christian - i.e., 1 Cor 8-10, instead of Rm 14. Trying to think of an example… perhaps ‘grunge’ clothing? It generally covers the body, no immodesty issues, but its connection with an evil culture? (Just thinking out loud, don’t crucify me for this one!)

2006 SBC Resolution on Alcohol Use in America

http://gulfcoastpastor.blogspot.com/2011/04/2006-sbc-resolution-on-alcohol-use-in.html

David R. Brumbelow

Don, I think you and I are perhaps closer than last time we talked.

Sometime I’ll have to put my thoughts down and perhaps Aaron will put them on here. I’ll be interested in your thoughts.

[Dan Miller]

Well, Lee, logically, you should be able to agree with 1 and 4. They both say IF…THEN. You can just say, “true” to the IF-THEN statement even knowing that you don’t think the IF statement is true.

I do not for a minute think that Paul in writing Romans is contradicting Jesus in Rev 2 or James, et.al. in Acts 15.

I fully believe that you do not believe Paul is contradicting himself, James, or the Lord Jesus Christ.

A significant difference between Rom 14 and I Cor. 8-10 is that Rom 14 deals exclusively with nouns (meat, days, etc.) while I Cor. references nouns (meat) and verbs (“sit at meat”)—objects and actions, if you please.

I agree with your take that Rom. 14 is primarily (I would say exclusively) dealing with a biblical change of status of those nouns: meat declared under inspiration to be “unclean” is now determined under inspiration to be clean (Acts 10); days which were declared to be “holy” are now determined to be common. I could even see where Rom. 14 references the traditional practices of orthodox Jews which have no basis in the Law (Purim; the holy days referenced in Zech. 7, for example) as also receiving a change of status as per Acts 10. Or even other changes of status within the body of believers that may be received with skepticism. In any case, the status of these nouns has changed from biblically unacceptable to biblically acceptable, but not biblically mandated (there is no biblical mandate that states you must eat pork, or meat at all for that matter [it is alright, but dumb IMHO, to be a vegetarian] ).

Frankly, in this day the issue isn’t likely to be clean and unclean meats, or which day the church assembles, etc. I do think a significant issue that has been and will continue to be faced is the tainting of any given culture’s idolatry on an object (“meat” if you please) that, because of a change in the idolatry of the culture, the passage of time, or other factors, is no longer a pollution of an idol but just an object. No modern culture has any significant worship of Aphrodite any more, so a scallop shell necklace, earrings of kissing swans, or whatever is no longer an identification with the worship of Aphrodite. Now, there was a day when a girl in the youth group of Corinth Baptist Church showing up and sporting those would have, and should have, been an issue in the church. The rejection of those idol-tainted objects was an absolute imperative as per I Cor. 8-10. Somewhere along the line the worship and culture of Corinth died out and that idolatrous status changed—it was no longer idol-tainted! There were likely some in the assembly whose granddaddy’s granddaddy had communicated down the family tree the evils of all associated with the worship of Aphrodite. Individuals, believers in the assembly, who may have retained “doubts” as to the veracity of that change of status could very likely have issues with the liberty of others to utilize whatever objects may have been involved. If you are looking for application of Rom. 14 to idol-tainted meat this or similar scenarios could be it.

However, there is no indication that approving idol-tainted meat/days/drink as a liberty issue is the goal.

Let’s face the facts, idolatry ruins my ability to partake of things (objects or actions) that I might otherwise legitimately enjoy if I am to be obedient to Scripture. Back to the subject that began this thread, is modern beverage alcohol one of those things ruined by the idolatry of this culture?

Don, given that the only “days” that make sense in the first half of Romans 14 are the Jewish holy days, and given that the food is spoken of as “unclean”, I’d be very surprised to find that Jewish religion wasn’t the central issue here. You’re going to have to work to convince me that there is an alternate explanation.

But that said, if we agree that it is matters of faith and disputable matters, we arrive at almost exactly the same point. That is, Romans 14 tolerance has an entry point—that the matter is significant in faith and disputable Biblically—and an exit point where the matter is no longer reasonably disputable. Dan describes the exit point well, that of where the matter is indisputably sin, but there is also an entry point, and we do ourselves a huge injustice if we don’t heed it.

Let’s use your example of grunge clothing as a way of testing this. If someone comes in wearing loose, dirty, unkempt clothes, is that a matter that threatens our faith? Well, let’s take a look at James 2—um, “grunge” is exactly what James is talking about, so it’s pretty indisputable what our attitude ought to be—love for the brother in poor clothes. Not a Romans 14 issue.

Plus, if we proscribe every kind of clothing associated with grievous sin, we’d better get a Biblical defense of nudism ready and move south of the Mason-Dixon Line, don’t you think? Guilt by association is seriously bad logic and should be expelled from the church.

(things I’d include in Romans 14; what ought the length of our hair be per 1 Corinthians 11? What kind of movies ought we watch per the “uncover nakedness” in Lev. 18, that kind of thing)

Bringing it back to wine, let’s ask ourselves whether the realities of wine are disputable. Is it disputable that the Bible has a lot of passages describing wine as a blessing and commending the moderate use of it? Is it disputable that the Bible has many passages describing drunkenness as sin? Now we can hem and haw about it, but reality is that for the honest reader, the answers are “no” and “no”. Not disputable, you can’t point to it as a matter of faith since the Bible doesn’t say anything bad about moderate drinking, hence not Romans 14.

Really, Christian arguments against moderate drinking fall into two main categories:

• practical issues (cost, likelihood of becoming dependent, etc..)
• twisting of text—“if it takes six drinks to get drunk, the person who has a drink is one sixth drunk”

Neither is a Romans 14 issue. Now we ought to agree that a person can abstain from anything if he so desires and it does not cause him to sin, but that, again, is not a Romans 14 issue, and the person who abstains from meat/bread/wine/whatever then has no right to ask others to abstain from their disdained substance.

(which is what I was getting at above when I mentioned that many mis-use Romans 14 to more or less hold others hostage to their preferred lifestyle)

[Don Johnson] … Haven’t read it, but found a pdf here. Just now read through the summary, it looks very interesting. It is interesting that Paul uses hierothuton in 1 Cor 10.28 instead of eidolothuton, as in the rest of the passage. I’ll have to read Witherington to see what he says, but if the distinction mentioned in the summary of the article holds, I’d say that usage reinforces the things we have been saying about the passage. Those who try to make “market meat” the issue throughout 1 Cor 8 are way off base if this is correct.

Right. Very interesting. Just to round out your knowledge on this point - in case you haven’t checked yet, if you look as various available Greek texts of 1Cor10:28 (bottom of this page), W&H, Nestle GNT, and Tishendorf say ἱερόθυτόν. TR and Byzantine say εἰδωλόθυτόν.

[Bert Perry]… That is, Romans 14 tolerance has an entry point—that the matter is significant in faith and disputable Biblically—and an exit point where the matter is no longer reasonably disputable. ...

If “not reasonably disputable” is the bound of Romans 14, then you and David Brumbelow are not going to agree on whether the matter is reasonably disputable. For him, it’s not reasonable to dispute the Biblical grounds, so he’s going to say, “Ok - beyond the bounds of Romans 14.”

[Dan Miller]

Bert Perry wrote:

… That is, Romans 14 tolerance has an entry point—that the matter is significant in faith and disputable Biblically—and an exit point where the matter is no longer reasonably disputable. …

Bert, I know I’ve only quoted one little part of your post. But this is the core of that post and I think it will fail - so long as the common understanding of Romans 14 prevails.

If “not reasonably disputable” is the bound of Romans 14, then you and David Brumbelow are not going to agree on whether the matter is reasonably disputable. For him, it’s not reasonable to dispute the Biblical grounds, so he’s going to say, “Ok - beyond the bounds of Romans 14.”

Actually, that is exactly where I want to bring the discussion—well said. Romans 14 tolerance ought to be limited to things that are disputable and Biblically based. There are other provisions in Scripture for cases where two sides both agree that they, and the other, see the matter as indisputable—it is cause for hearty, but cordial, debate between the sides, and at a certain point might also be a cause for separation. I for one would not attend a church where it was preached that Jesus made unfermented grape juice at Cana, and I would guess that David would edge away from a church that preached that Christ most likely made ordinary wine with alcohol.

That is as it should be—what is at risk with the “common” view of Romans 14 is that all too often, it is used to (ironically) set a mood where Christians are almost compelled to hold to a specific cultural view that is not significantly supported in Scripture—I view this as an abuse of Christian liberty. So more and more, I would suggest that instead of simply acquiescing in the abridgement of freedom in Christ, believers ought to ask the supposed “weaker brother” what real, Biblical reasons they have for their position. It would be a lot more productive than what we have today.

[Bert Perry]

Actually, that is exactly where I want to bring the discussion—well said. Romans 14 tolerance ought to be limited to things that are disputable and Biblically based. There are other provisions in Scripture for cases where two sides both agree that they, and the other, see the matter as indisputable—it is cause for hearty, but cordial, debate between the sides, and at a certain point might also be a cause for separation. I for one would not attend a church where it was preached that Jesus made unfermented grape juice at Cana, and I would guess that David would edge away from a church that preached that Christ most likely made ordinary wine with alcohol.

That is as it should be—what is at risk with the “common” view of Romans 14 is that all too often, it is used to (ironically) set a mood where Christians are almost compelled to hold to a specific cultural view that is not significantly supported in Scripture—I view this as an abuse of Christian liberty. So more and more, I would suggest that instead of simply acquiescing in the abridgement of freedom in Christ, believers ought to ask the supposed “weaker brother” what real, Biblical reasons they have for their position. It would be a lot more productive than what we have today.

Quite frankly, this is a complete misunderstanding of Romans 14. Apart from the differences between Rm14 and 1 Cor, the whole thrust of Romans 14 is not to give the strong-conscience believer to do as he pleases. In fact there are two instructions. The first is mutual toleration of each others views, the second is voluntary limitation by the strong (hold their views in private) with a view to being a blessing to the weak. They are not to try to convince the weak conscience believer of the rightness or wrongness of his views. They are simply to set the differences aside and the strong are to do everything in their power not to put a stumbling block or an enticement before the weak conscience believer while also seeking their edification.

The chapter is not about Christian liberty at all. It’s about Christian love and ministry to one another.

As I said before, Don, you and I seem surprisingly similar so far.

Except your last sentence. If you’re using hyperbole to say that love and fellowship are Paul’s focus by far over establishing liberty, then yes, I agree. But Paul does take time in both passages to establish the liberty of the fully convinced one who gives thanks to God. There’s a set of messages for each brother.

[Dan Miller]

As I said before, Don, you and I seem surprisingly similar so far.

Except your last sentence. If you’re using hyperbole to say that love and fellowship are Paul’s focus by far over establishing liberty, then yes, I agree. But Paul does take time in both passages to establish the liberty of the fully convinced one who gives thanks to God. There’s a set of messages for each brother.

What I mean by saying the passage isn’t about liberty is that the point of the passage is not to affirm the unrestrained exercise of the liberty of the strong. Paul agrees that no meat is unclean of itself, the Christian has perfect liberty to eat any kind of meat (not that anyone should ever want to eat, say, liver, etc!!!). But the strong is not to despise the weak who thinks pork, for example, or meat in general, for another example. And the strong is to focus his attention on building up the faith of the weak, not doing anything to tempt the weak to act against his conscience. This includes to a measure keeping one’s opinions about your liberty to eat pork (for example) to yourself. (Rm 14.22). That doesn’t mean, I think, necessarily keeping it a secret, so that the weak would never know, but rather restraining your practices so that you never place the weak into a difficult situation.

Usually the way Rm 14 is taught is to focus on the first 12 verses and say, “See, you are not to judge me for my strong conscience, I won’t despise you for your weak one, and I’ll do what I want” That spirit is entirely contrary to the whole passage. It is usually the way the pro-alcohol crowd approaches the passage. If we concede that alcohol is adiaphora, that is, covered by this passage, then this attitude is entirely contradictory to the passage. (I don’t concede that, BTW, I think alcohol is in some measure covered [by application] by 1 Cor 8-10, but also by many other passages. I don’t see it as a matter of indifference. No one, I think, is saying “I am drinking alcohol to the Lord” (Rm 14.6) If they are, they have a bigger problem than they think they do.)

I hope that helps. Perhaps if I am still unclear you could point specifically to something I am saying here so I can think about it.

I am off for the rest of the day and won’t be able to respond… and tomorrow, of course, doesn’t look much better!

[Ed Vasicek]

Those of you who live outside the US and are not from the US…

What is the stance of conservatives in your country about alcohol? Do indigenous believers there espouse the grape juice theory?

And Spurgeon fans — there was an attempted movement toward prohibition in the UK, but it was unsuccessful. Did Spurgeon comment on this? Where did he stand?

Ed,

I’ve not entered this discussion mostly because it rehashes the same arguments and rarely any new contributions. But since you asked - we lived overseas for several years in France and Romania.

In Romania, Christians were mostly abstinent when it came to alcoholic beverages except they did serve wine (often homemade) at the Lord’s Supper. With the arrival of American missionaries after the ‘89 revolution some churches planted jointly by Americans and Romanians used grape juice when it became available. However in the villages it was not uncommon to find believers who used tuica (spirits from plums) although I can’t say how widespread it was. We lived in Romania for 5 years and I took the wine with Lord’s Supper. We would warn visiting American pastors of the custom and many of them chose to abstain from observing the Lord’s Supper.

In France where we lived for about 9 years over two different periods wine was used widely by Christians especially at meals. Wine, cheese, and bread are staples. There were some French Christians who did not drink wine for different reasons but I don’t recall any who did it out of a biblical conviction or thought that when wine was mentioned positively in the Bible it was grape juice unless they had been influenced by American missionaries. I’m sure there are some exceptions. The last time we were in France 2006-2008 we helped plant a church in the Paris suburbs where there was wine at church dinners and no one ever raised an eyebrow (maybe because we were the only Americans in the church) and I never saw anyone leave tipsy (including myself). I remember fondly the time my wife and I were invited to dinner at the home of a student couple from one of the most conservative Bible institutes in France and had several varieties of wine for the meal and with dessert. Often meals in homes with guests lasted for several hours with several courses and different wines. It is a thing of beauty.

In the interest of transparency I am now bi-vocational in Philadelphia working as a certified drug and alcohol addictions therapist. Without getting into a long discussion about the causes of addiction (biological, psychological, social) I think there are some people who should not drink or ever drink again. I wish I could know who they were before they fall into addiction. Yet I still maintain that the Scripture teaches that wine is one of God’s gifts and I am grateful God allowed me to live outside the US for years. Like many of His gifts there is abuse; however the abuse by some does not require abstinence by all. To those who abstain, they do well. To those who appreciate God’s gift and enjoy it in gratitude, they do well also. I condemn neither.

Steve Davis

of the former Soviet Union are abstainers (though not prohibitionists). Though, they do serve wine at the Lord’s Supper.