FBFI Resolution 09-02

This was a thoughtful and well-worded statement in many ways. Who could argue with so many of the concepts so thoroughly grounded in Scripture?

And yet, there were a few disturbing items.

[FBFI Resolution 09-02] And whereas present-day Fundamentalism has been dismissed as a product of the culture, The FBFI denies that Fundamentalism is simply a product of culture but affirms that it is the result of Biblical truth applied to culture.

In context, the resolution seems to affirm that Fundamentalism’s reactions to the culture have always been by-products of Scripture and not part of a Fundamentalist Christian sub-culture. I believe this is too strongly worded.

As far as I can see, Fundamentalism’s reactions to the culture have been partly a result of cultural considerations and partly a result of applying Scripture to culture. In fact, looking at the history of the development of Fundamentalism’s arguments against certain elements of culture, one walks away with the impression that too often we preach against the item in question first, and only later develop Scriptural arguments to explain our feelings of disdain for them.

The 2nd item that disturbed me is in this statement:

[FBFI Resolution 09-02] And whereas sins previously not named among believers such as the use of alcohol as a beverage, premarital sex, adultery, homosexuality, profanity, vulgarity, immodesty, and much more are now not only viewed unashamedly by believers as entertainment but also practiced without shame among those who name Christ,

I am unhappy with the presence of “using alcohol as a beverage” on this list.

Let me be clear. I do not drink alcohol. Never have. Never will.

I preach against it as strongly as the Scriptures permit. I wish I could find Scriptural authority for calling “using alcohol as a beverage” a sin. I believe, depending on attitude and intent, that a particular believer may be sinning by doing so, but I’m not sure there is enough Scripture to get us to calling it a sin outright.

Despite all the strong warnings in Scripture against alcohol, they generally seem to lean toward warning against abuse.

There are several troubling passages where use of it without abuse seems to be affirmed.

And, clearly, if the Lord had wanted to say “no intoxicating beverage”, He could have found some way to say so.

There are undeniably serious testimony issues that arise when a Christian consumes alcohol — enough that I think they SHOULD keep the modern Christian away from alcohol entirely. But that is a secondary consideration, and should be presented as such.

So I’m uncomfortable with the placement of “alcohol” on a list of other sins as though they are all set equal in God’s eyes.

I also might note that calling “using alcohol as a beverage” something “not named among believers” leaves out some fine Reformed Fundamentalists at the turn of the century, and much of European Fundamentalism. Does that not indicate a rather culturally reactive bent in some strictures of Fundamentalism?

Yes, the inclusion of “use of beverage alcohol” on that list really undermines the credibility of what is an otherwise reasonable and thoughtful post.

The Gerald Priest article rightly claims that fundamentalists are sometimes seen as “out of touch” kooks. But saying that “early Christians were accused of the same by Roman Hedonists” is no defense. You must stick to scripture for your defense. Claiming a blanket biblical prohibition on alcohol beverages is about as honest as claiming that the bible prohibits the use of electrical organs in church, since King David didn’t have electricity. It’s just kooky.

And for the record, I am not a hedonist either. I just think that honestly is important.

Good. I’m glad someone addressed the alcohol issue before me.

When I am in discussions with other conservative Christians, not necessarily inerrantists but people with a “high view” of Scripture, (usually Reformed, old school high church types, and traditionalist Catholics) they often bring up the absolute prohibition against alcohol among evangelicals and fundamentalists as proof that the self-proclaimed inerrantists add their own biases. Now maybe some of them have a dog in the hunt and like their alcohol a little too much, but it does make us look unserious and our inerrantists position suspect.

It is simply not credible that the Bible forbids all use of alcohol as a beverage. Alcohol was ubiquitous in the ancient world. It had to be. They had no refrigeration and didn’t always have ready access to potable water. What were they going to do? Go to their frig and get some Welch’s or go stick a few quarters in the Coke Machine? Carry a goat along to milk whenever the need arose? The new wine into old wineskins parable doesn’t make sense unless you understand fermentation was taking place. How long would fresh juice last in the hot Israel sun anyway?

This sort of obliviousness to historical reality makes us look bad. The Bible does prohibit drunkenness and in the modern age with all our alternatives it may well be wise to avoid alcohol altogether, but claiming the Bible prohibits all use of alcohol as a beverage hurts our credibility. I would not have included it in the list.

Concerning alcohol, the last stronghold state in America is compromising, starting tomorrow. :)

http://heartissuesforlds.wordpress.com/2009/06/30/july-1-cheers-utah/

And Red, some Reformed men do preach totally abstaining from alcohol - Peter Masters.

The including of the alcohol issue (a historically questionable issue between good men) as the same level of violation as unquestionable issues (homosexuality and such) was the only negative of the article in my opinion.

By the way, this is why dear friend Mike Durning says what he says about the FBFI kind of groups and their positions coming from a sub-culture as well as Scripture. The drink issue is a great example. Clearly from the text one can see wine and alcohol being used in the early NT church. You have to change the meaning of the text to say otherwise. Of course the Scriptures also teach the danger of wine. It teaches the sin of drunkenness. I think it even implies warnings on the use of wine. To say that it teaches total abstinence is to bring into the text elements that have been taken from outside the Scriptures - i.e. culture or sub-culture (which are applicable in the discussions of application….but not in the source of the immediate meaning and internal authority of the text for Christian living).

To my friends in the FBFI who want to throw the brick at me…..go ahead, draw a picture of little chubby man and throw the brick. You’ll feel better. But after you get that out of your system please listen to me. For nearly 2000 years in the Church of Jesus Christ (the real one….not the one from Salt Lake City), the overwhelming position has been that a believer can partake in some alcohol without violating his character or the character of His Lord. That has been the major view. It’s fine if you don’t agree with that…..please understand that many men who are as committed to the authority of Scripture do not, have not and will not take the abstinence view…..

A friendly challenge,

jt

PS - I don’t drink by the way…..so I’m not motivated to defend this thing from anything other than a loyalty to the text of the Bible.

Straight Ahead!

jt

And now you have to bring church history into this, Joel? (chuckling)

The alcohol issue reminds me of my infamous SI article of bygonne days on food, wine, and sex.

I had to share the full article back in March with all my friends of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints:

http://heartissuesforlds.wordpress.com/2009/03/17/big-love-big-sex-and-…

from the nondrinker in Idaho,

et

But I would like to purchase Randy’s latest book on this heart issue:

http://www.bjucampusstore.com/ePOS/form=robots/item.html&item_number=28…

Seems like an instance of believers trying to raise God’s bar of holiness. There were those in Jesus’ day that attempted to be holier than He was too.

[Joel Tetreau] For nearly 2000 years in the Church of Jesus Christ (the real one….not the one from Salt Lake City), the overwhelming position has been that a believer can partake in some alcohol without violating his character or the character of His Lord.

I’ll take it one step further. For most of church history, an obedient believer had to drink wine. What was in the communion cup? Only in the 19th century was “unfermented wine” (aka grape juice) invented by Thomas Welch for use in communion. It’s hard to deny that believers can “drink in moderation” when they are doing just that in corporate worship on Sunday.

Count me in with the “kooky” fundamentalists who believe consuming alcohol as a beverage is a sin. I still believe Proverbs 20:1, just as it appears in the KJV. The issue stems from whether you take a “one wine” or “two wine” position. One wine people see all wine in the Bible as alcoholic. Two wine people see some as alcoholic and some as grape juice—depending on words and context. I take the two wine view.

As for Randy Jaeggli’s book, “The Christian and Drinking,” I believe it is poorly written, confusing, and is a poor argument for abstinence. In fact, his argument for abstinence is so weak that—in my view—it actually supports the arguments of those who use alcohol in moderation. I have approached BJU about withdrawing the book, but they have refused to do so thus far.

As an example of Randy’s audacity, he claims that the wine made by Jesus at Cana was full strength, alcoholic wine. Even John MacArthur denies that! (If Jesus made and distributed full strength alcoholic wine, you have NO argument for abstinence—at least from the Bible.)

Some months ago I wrote a review of Jaeggli’s book. I have my review in both printed and e-mail form. I would be glad to send an e-mail copy to any who desire it. Just contact me at preacher@faithbaptistavon.com.

[Pastor Marc Monte] Count me in with the “kooky” fundamentalists who believe consuming alcohol as a beverage is a sin. I still believe Proverbs 20:1, just as it appears in the KJV. The issue stems from whether you take a “one wine” or “two wine” position. One wine people see all wine in the Bible as alcoholic. Two wine people see some as alcoholic and some as grape juice—depending on words and context. I take the two wine view.

Perhaps we should start a new thread about this issue, since nobody at SI has ever debated it (ha!).

I am somewhat sympathetic with the two wine view. The idea of “grape juice” or “intoxicating wine” both being possible meanings for some words standardly rendered with the English “wine” is a certainty. But that certainty has a trap in it.

The ancients were not chemists. While there were ways to prevent fermentation known in the ancient world, juices were likely to ferment in that pre-refrigeration culture. The reason why words like “oinos” refer to both is because fermentation is a process. Pure grape juice with 0% alcohol is the beginning. I’m told that given conditions in the Holy Land, the maximum likely amount of alcohol in grape juice prior to distillation was about 12%. So my juice is sitting in a wineskin or a stone vat somewhere. I call it “oinos”. I call it “oinos” when it is trampled out of my grapes, with 0% alcohol. I call it “oinos” the next day. I call it “oinos” the day after. I call it “oinos” when it has 12% alcohol in it.

So you see the problem. Context may tell me that it is intoxicating, as in “He got drunk on the oinos”. Or it may tell me it it non-intoxicating, as in “He just squeezed the oinos out of the grapes”. But any context that is less informative than these two examples or something like them gives me NO information on whether it is intoxicating. All I know is that it may be potentially intoxicating.

This is the beginning of the interpretive problem surrounding this issue.

[Pastor Marc Monte] Count me in with the “kooky” fundamentalists who believe consuming alcohol as a beverage is a sin. I still believe Proverbs 20:1, just as it appears in the KJV.

I think everyone here would agree that we believe in Proverbs 20:1, but not all of us in the way you seem to be taking it.

Pastor, I have complete respect for an abstinence position based on other biblical principles or conscience. But if moderate consumption were sin, we wouldn’t have to find it in the Proverbs. It would be prominent in the Law and the New Testament. But on the contrary, rather than consumption being the issue there, drunkenness is. What’s more, the benefits of wine are observed and the consumption of strong drink is even advocated in the Pentateuch.

Furthermore, if the 2 wines idea were valid, it would be needless to admonish church leadership not to linger; they couldn’t become drunken no matter how much juice they consumed.

I’ll have to try again to get his material here at SI, but Mike Harding has done a very thorough study on the topic and did an excellent presentation on it at the Conference on the Church for God’s Glory in ‘08. His paper was called “The Wrath of Grapes.”

I don’t recall specifically… seemed more than two wines are involved. Will have to dig it up. But he talked about spring wine vs. later and fresh vs. aged, etc. Mixing with water was quite common and skipping the mixing when you wanted to get drunk was also common.

The thing with Proverbs is that they always have to be interpreted in view of what a proverb is… very, very compressed generalization. They are brief so as to be poignant and memorable. But, being generalizations, there are always conditions and qualificaitons that are not stated. This is easy to see when reading, for example, the many Proverbial promises regarding wealth and prosperity (Proverbs 22:4 for example). Jesus met the stated conditions but “had no place to lay His head.” So there would have to be other conditions that sometimes apply.

That said, the Proverbs that warn about intoxication are not unclear. The intent is to say “the stuff is trouble.” But they should not be construed to say something so precise as “any liquid containing any amount of alcohol is a sin to consume as a beverage under any circumstances.”

To me, the best case that can be made is probably the one in Jaegeli’s book (not sure, haven’t read it)… i.e., (1) we simply do not need to have alcohol in our beverages today. It’s easily avoided and there is nothing to gain from drinking it yet risk in drinking it. (2) It’s a fabulous opportunity to “not conform” and take the high ground in reference to something that has destroyed so, so many lives.

[Aaron Blumer] To me, the best case that can be made is probably the one in Jaegeli’s book (not sure, haven’t read it)… i.e., (1) we simply do not need to have alcohol in our beverages today. It’s easily avoided and there is nothing to gain from drinking it yet risk in drinking it. (2) It’s a fabulous opportunity to “not conform” and take the high ground in reference to something that has destroyed so, so many lives.

I’ve heard the same arguments offered for why we should not own guns. Don’t need ‘em and they’ve destroyed so many lives.

Actually, alcohol doesn’t destroy lives; choices do. And the same is true with guns.

BTW, I am not advocating alcohol use or gun control … just pointing out some inconsistencies in Jaegeli’s arguments. I’ve been told it’s my spiritual gift! :D

There is a surface similarity to these arguments, but it doesn’t go very deep.

Nobody is addicted to guns. The use of a gun doesn’t attract anyone to a chemical dependency on guns. Though some may claim otherwise, having or using a gun does not in itself impair the judgment of its owner… even if he shoots it alot.

And guns are extremely useful for disposing of invaders who intend harm to your family or yourself, etc.

Not mention that there are no biblical warnings against the dangers of weapons (except maybe “he who lives by the sword will die by the sword” … but context is key there).

It’s true, though, that alcohol does not do the destroying without people making choices. But it’s a bit of a technicality. We’re still talking about a substance that does nothing good (that cannot be achieved in better ways) and which time immemorial has shown to be a snare to vast numbers.

As for Jaeggli’s book, I don’t really know if he makes these arguments.

Some interesting material on the book here: http://www.jonathantaylor.eu/jat/2009/05/review-the-christian-drinkig-b…