What Does The Scripture Say About The Use of Alcohol?
This topic started in the FBFI Resolution thread, so let’s continue it here and explore it fully.
Some positions on this so far have been-
Mike Durning: 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.
Red Phillips: 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.
Pastor Marc Monte: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.)
Larry: I think Monte’s appeal to Prov 20:1 doesn’t actually deal with Prov 20:1. That proverb speaks to those who are deceived by it. (The word probably “led astray” and can be used in other ways such as in Prov 5:19 of a man’s satisfaction with his wife which could hardly be described as “deceived,” though the next verse uses the same word, probably in an ironic way. In Isa 28:7, it’s only other use with wine I think, it clearly means intoxicated. So in Prov 20:1, its meaning with wine is probably “intoxicated,” but I will go with the KJV on this out of deference to Monte). A great many people who drink alcohol as a beverage are not deceived by it; they are not intoxicated by it.
Monte’s case about John 2 is another classic case of bad argumentation: “It can’t be real wine because drinking is prohibited.” That’s a bad argument. It assumes that your conclusion that drinking is completely forbidden is right. And then you have to write off all evidence to the contrary as really meaning something else. I doubt many wedding parties served grape juice in the first century. It may have been diluted, but it was impressive to the people at hand. Historically total abstinence as not been the position of the church (which means little to many, particularly those who hold a particular view of the Scriptures themselves). But it is at least something to consider.
Now, let me remind you as I said recently on my blog, I think drinking alcohol as a beverage is silly. I think it is unwise. I think it is unnecessary. I say that publicly and privately. I tell people “I don’t think you should drink and here’s why.” I have told people, ‘You cannot drink and remain a member of this congregation.” But the Bible does not give a clear categorical condemnation of it, and therefore we must tread lightly. Harding’s title “The Wrath of Grapes” is apt, and should be heeded.
So I am not making a case for drinking. I don’t want to and don’t need to. I don’t think you should drink. My point is about bad arguments.
Charlie: In the first century, people drank alcoholic beverages. Many people abused them. Timothy may serve as an example of some Christians who did, to a very large extent at least, abstain from drinking. Presumably it was to maintain face. I find it most telling, though, that our Lord did not choose to model this course for his people. Not only did he create wine at Cana, he certainly drank often enough that bigoted individuals could wrongly accuse him as a drunkard. Matthew 11:18-19 18 For John came neither eating nor drinking, and they say, ‘He has a demon.’ 19 The Son of Man came eating and drinking, and they say, ‘Look at him! A glutton and a drunkard, a friend of tax collectors and sinners!’ Yet wisdom is justified by her deeds.”
I believe the Lord’s Supper provides the context for a Christian understanding of alcohol. Jews drank alcoholic beverages as part of their religious festivals, with no indication that it was a shame, a disgrace, or a little “shaky.” One can make all sorts of baseless assumptions about the nature of the “wine,” but we all know what’s strong about “strong drink.” Deuteronomy 14:24-26 24 And if the way is too long for you, so that you are not able to carry the tithe, when the LORD your God blesses you, because the place is too far from you, which the LORD your God chooses, to set his name there, 25 then you shall turn it into money and bind up the money in your hand and go to the place that the LORD your God chooses 26 and spend the money for whatever you desire- oxen or sheep or wine or strong drink, whatever your appetite craves. And you shall eat there before the LORD your God and rejoice, you and your household.
When the Lord’s Supper was instituted, Jesus certainly used real wine, keeping the Jewish tradition. The imagery of wine in connection with God’s saving work has OT roots as well. (Here again, grape juice hardly makes sense.) Zechariah 10:6-7 “I will strengthen the house of Judah, and I will save the house of Joseph. I will bring them back because I have compassion on them, and they shall be as though I had not rejected them, for I am the LORD their God and I will answer them. 7 Then Ephraim shall become like a mighty warrior, and their hearts shall be glad as with wine. Their children shall see it and be glad; their hearts shall rejoice in the LORD.
What a beautiful way to teach! In the Lord’s Supper, we learn that alcohol is a good gift from God. It is for children, it is for adults, it is for men, it is for women. It makes the heart glad. In the church, Christians can learn to use alcohol without abusing alcohol, a line that Corinth seemed not to always get just right. Yet abstinence is not Paul’s solution 1 Corinthians 11:20-21 20 When you come together, it is not the Lord’s supper that you eat. 21 For in eating, each one goes ahead with his own meal. One goes hungry, another gets drunk.
Obviously, the 19th century introduction of grape juice in the place of wine was the result of an unbiblical attitude toward alcohol. Really, it was an affront to the history and practice of the church. Alcohol is in some ways like sex; the perversions of it have often fostered a “sex is dirty” attitude in the church that is the opposite of rejoicing in God’s gift to his people, within his boundaries. The Lord’s Supper instructs us on how to receive wine as it is - God’s gift.
Note: Obviously, the Lord’s Supper is not about alcohol; it is about Christ’s work on behalf of his church. Nevertheless, I believe that reflecting on it brings insight into the Christian’s relationship with alcohol.
Bob T: First, the Hebrew scriptures portray wine in a very negative way. The warnings against wine are extremely strong and the effects of wine are seen as devastating. Abstinence is connected with special dedication and spiritual responsibility.
Prov 20:1
20:1 Wine Is a Mocker Wine is a mocker, Strong drink is a brawler, And whoever is led astray by it is not wise.
NKJVProv 20:1
20:1 Wine Is a Mocker Wine is a mocker, Strong drink is a brawler, And whoever is led astray by it is not wise.
NKJVProv 20:1
20:1 Wine Is a Mocker Wine is a mocker, Strong drink is a brawler, And whoever is led astray by it is not wise.
NKJV29 Who has woe? Who has sorrow? Who has contentions? Who has complaints? Who has wounds without cause? Who has redness of eyes?
30 Those who linger long at the wine, Those who go in search of mixed wine.
31 Do not look on the wine when it is red, When it sparkles in the cup, When it swirls around smoothly;
32 At the last it bites like a serpent, And stings like a viper.
33 Your eyes will see strange things, And your heart will utter perverse things.
34 Yes, you will be like one who lies down in the midst of the sea, Or like one who lies at the top of the mast, saying:
35 “They have struck me, but I was not hurt; They have beaten me, but I did not feel it. When shall I awake, that I may seek another drink?”
NKJV
Prov 20:1
20:1 Wine Is a Mocker Wine is a mocker, Strong drink is a brawler, And whoever is led astray by it is not wise.
NKJV29 Who has woe? Who has sorrow? Who has contentions? Who has complaints? Who has wounds without cause? Who has redness of eyes?
30 Those who linger long at the wine, Those who go in search of mixed wine.
31 Do not look on the wine when it is red, When it sparkles in the cup, When it swirls around smoothly;
32 At the last it bites like a serpent, And stings like a viper.
33 Your eyes will see strange things, And your heart will utter perverse things.
34 Yes, you will be like one who lies down in the midst of the sea, Or like one who lies at the top of the mast, saying:
35 “They have struck me, but I was not hurt; They have beaten me, but I did not feel it. When shall I awake, that I may seek another drink?”
NKJV
4 It is not for kings, O Lemuel, It is not for kings to drink wine, Nor for princes intoxicating drink;
5 Lest they drink and forget the law, And pervert the justice of all the afflicted.
NKJVProv 20:1
20:1 Wine Is a Mocker Wine is a mocker, Strong drink is a brawler, And whoever is led astray by it is not wise.
NKJV29 Who has woe? Who has sorrow? Who has contentions? Who has complaints? Who has wounds without cause? Who has redness of eyes?
30 Those who linger long at the wine, Those who go in search of mixed wine.
31 Do not look on the wine when it is red, When it sparkles in the cup, When it swirls around smoothly;
32 At the last it bites like a serpent, And stings like a viper.
33 Your eyes will see strange things, And your heart will utter perverse things.
34 Yes, you will be like one who lies down in the midst of the sea, Or like one who lies at the top of the mast, saying:
35 “They have struck me, but I was not hurt; They have beaten me, but I did not feel it. When shall I awake, that I may seek another drink?”
NKJV
4 It is not for kings, O Lemuel, It is not for kings to drink wine, Nor for princes intoxicating drink;
5 Lest they drink and forget the law, And pervert the justice of all the afflicted.
NKJV15 “Woe to him who gives drink to his neighbor, Pressing him to your bottle, Even to make him drunk, That you may look on his nakedness!
16 You are filled with shame instead of glory. You also — drink! And be exposed as uncircumcised! The cup of the LORD’s right hand will be turned against you, And utter shame will be on your glory.
NKJVSpecial examples are given connecting abstanance from wine with special dedication to God.
Priests were not to drink wine when ministering in the temple (Lev. 10:9).
Daniel and his friends refused wine (Dan. 1).
Those under a Nazerite vow abstained from wine and strong drink (Num. 6:1-4)
Second, the strong warnings and restrictions in the Hebrew scriptures provide the basis for the prohibitions in the Christian scriptures.
John the Baptist, the Hebrew transition prophet, abstained from Wine and strong drink (Matt 11:18).
Church Elders were to not be given to wine (1Tim. 3:3).
Deacons were not to be given to wine (1Tim.3:8
The effects of wine are contrasted to the effects of being filled with the Holy Spirit (Eph. 5:18).
In light of the nature and severity of the warnings and examples of the Hebrew and Christian scriptures, we must consider abstinence from wine and strong drink as integral with any and all calls to spiritual commitment in the Christian church (Rom. 12:1-2).
From a life experience standpoint, as one coming from a non Christian home and lifestyle, having spent 4 years active duty in the Navy where I was converted to Christ, I cannot see the wisdom of any Christian seeking to find a place or allowance for alcoholic beverages in a Christians life. Past history of the churches, and present cultural allowances for such in Europe and other places, have been a factor in weaker testimonies and churches.
In American culture today, making allowance for alcoholic beverages can have many detrimental results. I have heard several teenagers who have made excuse for their drug use by stating that adults have a drug of their choice called alcohol. Use alcohol and you weaken the example and basis for your own children. We are asked to present our bodies as a living sacrifice at Rom. 12: 1-2. If the effects of alcohol on the body are contrasted to Spirit control at Eph. 5:18, how can we sincerely do that while seeking to ignore strong warnings of scripture regarding a thing and seeking to find the possible loopholes for that thing.
This will be SI’s One Stop Shopping for all discussions on this topic- Happy debating!
- 797 views
I checked the BJU Campus store website, and they are no longer listing it with Jaeggli’s books.
Can anyone close to the situation address this?
Just clinging to my guns and religion... www.faithbaptistavon.com
http://www.bjucampusstore.com/ePOS?store=468&listtype=begin&keytype=sku…
Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.
[Pastor Marc Monte] www.soulwinner.com/latest/drink-up-christian-it-is-okay-i-guess.htmlI continue to be fascinated by where clicking on links takes me. Clicking a link to a particular site and then clicking on links on that site can take me to unusual places.
On the above website they have a “Basic Soul Winning Demonstration Video” starring none other than the preacher who preached a famous sermon recently about boys standing up… well you can figure the rest. Surely there has to be another soul winning video they could post than his.
Anyway, this post has absolutely nothing to do with the thread topic.
CanJAmerican - my blog
CanJAmerican - my twitter
whitejumaycan - my youtube
"I pray to God this day to make me an extraordinary Christian." --Whitefield http://strengthfortoday.wordpress.com
Dear BJU alumni and friends,
In 2008 BJU Press published The Christian and Drinking: A Biblical Perspective on Moderation and Abstinence by Dr. Randy Jaeggli, professor of Old Testament at Bob Jones University Seminary. The book is part of a series of short monographs published by the Seminary to help Bible-believing Christians apply biblical principles and discernment to difficult issues. Taking an inductive approach, Dr. Jaeggli presents Scriptural, medical and cultural evidence that brings the reader to the conclusion that a Christian should totally abstain from the beverage use of alcohol.
A Problem
The sensitivity and complexity of the topic of the book, combined with the brevity (72 pp.) and inductive arrangement of it, have caused confusion for some readers. They have concluded from some select portions of the text that Dr. Jaeggli condones a Christian’s moderate use of alcohol, which is the opposite of what the book actually teaches. Articles have been written questioning Dr. Jaeggli’s research and Scriptural interpretations, Bob Jones University’s position on the use of alcohol has been questioned, and some of you—our alumni and friends—have asked for clarification.
Our Position
Let me assure you that the University’s position on alcohol has not changed throughout our history; BJU does not believe the Scripture condones the beverage use of alcohol to any degree by Bible-believing Christians. Please read our complete statement on alcohol use on our website: http://www.bju.edu/welcome/who-we-are/position-alcohol.php. All of the administration and Bible and Seminary faculty, including Dr. Jaeggli, fully support complete abstinence from alcohol and teach and preach this position.
The Solution
While our position is clear and we stand by Dr. Jaeggli’s conclusion that Christians should completely abstain from alcohol, we do not want the University to be in a position of causing confusion or misunderstanding among our Christian brethren. Therefore, we are temporarily pulling the book from distribution. Our plan is to rewrite and edit those portions of the text that have been misunderstood and reissue the book. Please understand that the revised edition, while clarifying earlier in the book that the evidence leads a Scripturally-sensitive believer to an abstinence position, will continue to approach this issue in a way that differs from some approaches of the past, which have become less tenable over time.
As alumni and friends you are a key part of the university family, and my purpose in writing this e-mail is to show you the University’s heart in this matter and to clarify our position.
Stephen Jones
President
I’m pretty sure that the revised edition will be met with the same sort of reactions, though. I doubt lack of clarity is really the problem. But my copy is (hopefully) in the mail so I can stop guessing about that.
Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.
This poses a couple questions for me. 1) Did the University used to call moderate drinking sin, like BJ, Sr. evidently did? But more importantly 2) Why is it so important that their position doesn’t change?
Shouldn’t we be willing to change based on a better understanding of Scripture? Or is it the fundamentalist thing to cling to old-fashioned standards as equal to unchanging Biblical truth?
I admit, leading an institution with alumni and other competing pulls for loyalty and support would be challenging. I can understand the reasoning here. I can also see that their position may well have not changed. But having a culturally adapted, position based on an application of Scriptural principles, is something that may well change over time. And the kind of change embodied in Reformation thought (semper reformanda) is needed.
Striving for the unity of the faith, for the glory of God ~ Eph. 4:3, 13; Rom. 15:5-7 I blog at Fundamentally Reformed. Follow me on Twitter.
[Bob Hayton] “Let me assure you that the University’s position on alcohol has not changed throughout our history…”I don’t want to be hard on BJU here. They have many unenviable tightropes to walk and this is apparently one of them (though I wouldn’t have thought so until now, really).
This poses a couple questions for me. 1) Did the University used to call moderate drinking sin, like BJ, Sr. evidently did? But more importantly 2) Why is it so important that their position doesn’t change?
Shouldn’t we be willing to change based on a better understanding of Scripture? Or is it the fundamentalist thing to cling to old-fashioned standards as equal to unchanging Biblical truth?
I admit, leading an institution with alumni and other competing pulls for loyalty and support would be challenging. I can understand the reasoning here. I can also see that their position may well have not changed. But having a culturally adapted, position based on an application of Scriptural principles, is something that may well change over time. And the kind of change embodied in Reformation thought (semper reformanda) is needed.
But there’s no question that in fundamentalism we have a strong bias toward “not changing.” That’s not all bad. But it’s sure not all good either. The trick is to maintain a proper regard for the lessons of the past and simultaneously re-examine all things and approve what is excellent.
Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.
[Aaron Blumer] I don’t want to be hard on BJU here. They have many unenviable tightropes to walk and this is apparently one of them (though I wouldn’t have thought so until now, really).I agree. Change for its own sake has little to commend it. Tradition is revered and honored in the New Testament, in one sense. But in another sense, it is denounced.
But there’s no question that in fundamentalism we have a strong bias toward “not changing.” That’s not all bad. But it’s sure not all good either. The trick is to maintain a proper regard for the lessons of the past and simultaneously re-examine all things and approve what is excellent.
Certainly in our day, change is pursued with a fervor. And refusing to change is also seen as pride or haughtiness. It may be, but doesn’t have to be.
“Prove all things, hold fast to that which is good.”
Striving for the unity of the faith, for the glory of God ~ Eph. 4:3, 13; Rom. 15:5-7 I blog at Fundamentally Reformed. Follow me on Twitter.
[Bob Hayton] Shouldn’t we be willing to change based on a better understanding of Scripture? Or is it the fundamentalist thing to cling to old-fashioned standards as equal to unchanging Biblical truth?Well, apparently it’s the latter, Bob. Foolish me.
"Our task today is to tell people — who no longer know what sin is...no longer see themselves as sinners, and no longer have room for these categories — that Christ died for sins of which they do not think they’re guilty." - David Wells
And the same folks will still be objecting to it for that reason.
But, in any case, the biblical and ancient cultures data are not going away any time soon.
Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.
The reality is that the position of the university has never changed, so far as I can tell. In 1927, their position was that a believer should not drink. In 2009, their position is that a believer should not drink.
What may have changed is the reasoning for that position. Perhaps in earlier days the reason for the position was that it was sin; now perhaps the reasoning is that it is unwise.
But some here are confusing the idea of a position with the reason for a position. This, IMO, is a little bit sloppy in thinking.
As was already said, I don’t think there is any amount of rewriting that will lead to this book being acceptable to some.
[Silverghost]Silverghost,
The John 2 passage indicates that Jesus and his Mother had been invited to the feast, that they had “well drunk” at some point, and that they had run out of wine. This would indicate that some of these celebrating had sufficient alcohol in their system….The end result would be the loss of inhibitions indicated. Maybe I should have included the rest of the verse, but it is wrong to give intoxicating drink to someone that would undoubtedly make him drunk. The Scripture does not indicate that Jesus had come “fashionably late” to the wedding, for that would be absurd. To think that the Creator of the universe could not create the exquisite tasting wine, that would not inebriate further those who were already influenced, is somehow limiting of the obvious miracle. To consider Him to have produced intoxicating beverage to give to those “well drunk,” would make Jesus suspect of contributing to the drunken state. It simply doesn’t wash, for the One of whom it is said that He “knew no sin.”
Your argument above has the following implications. Gluttony is a sin, so therefore, eating at a buffet is sinful and the people who provide them are sinners. The same goes for potluck dinners, and any meal that allows people to regulate their own intake of food. When you have company over for dinner, you must not allow them to fix their own plates, or to serve themselves seconds, lest you entice them to gluttony. Also when God fed the Israelites in the wilderness, the quail was magic quail that no one could overeat or glut oneself on. The same goes for when Jesus fed the 5000, even though there were baskets of food left over, it was impossible for anyone to sin by overeating the bread and fish. Maybe it was calorie free, or since an aspect of gluttony is the pleasure of eating, maybe it was food that was not that tasty, it was dry bread and smelly fish, that way no one would eat too much and that’s why there was so much left over.
Do you see how ridiculous this sounds?
There is a common misunderstanding today. An idea that comes from separating the thing that God has created from the pleasure associated with it. Have you read much of the Old Testament, how that God would command his people that they come together and eat and rejoice before the Lord? How they were commanded to come and eat before the Lord whatever their heart lusteth after. Lusteth is such an ugly word today. We wrinkle our nose when we read it, sure that it is sinful. Do you understand that when the people came together, and when they were eating and rejoicing before the Lord, the spiritual and the physical events going on were not two separate things happening, right? The physical and the spiritual made up one complete thing. In that group there were people drinking strong drink before the Lord and they were not sinning
[CharlesChurchill] Silverghost,It sounds ridiculous because it is logically ridiculous. To compare food to alcohol is like comparing bananas to a 45 Magnum weapon. :~
Your argument above has the following implications. Gluttony is a sin, so therefore, eating at a buffet is sinful and the people who provide them are sinners. The same goes for potluck dinners, and any meal that allows people to regulate their own intake of food. When you have company over for dinner, you must not allow them to fix their own plates, or to serve themselves seconds, lest you entice them to gluttony. Also when God fed the Israelites in the wilderness, the quail was magic quail that no one could overeat or glut oneself on. The same goes for when Jesus fed the 5000, even though there were baskets of food left over, it was impossible for anyone to sin by overeating the bread and fish. Maybe it was calorie free, or since an aspect of gluttony is the pleasure of eating, maybe it was food that was not that tasty, it was dry bread and smelly fish, that way no one would eat too much and that’s why there was so much left over.
Do you see how ridiculous this sounds?
There is a common misunderstanding today. An idea that comes from separating the thing that God has created from the pleasure associated with it. Have you read much of the Old Testament, how that God would command his people that they come together and eat and rejoice before the Lord? How they were commanded to come and eat before the Lord whatever their heart lusteth after. Lusteth is such an ugly word today. We wrinkle our nose when we read it, sure that it is sinful. Do you understand that when the people came together, and when they were eating and rejoicing before the Lord, the spiritual and the physical events going on were not two separate things happening, right? The physical and the spiritual made up one complete thing. In that group there were people drinking strong drink before the Lord and they were not sinning
Food is something we all need to survive. Certainly, as with many other things of life, it can be abused. But, the clear warnings of Scripture are against the intoxicating beverage which can easily addict one. The Bible speaks of feasting and fasting. It is not in the same category as drunkenness and sobriety.
The word, BTW, for “lusteth” in Duet. 14:26 is avah, which means “to desire, long, covet, lust,” the root meaning, being: “to wish for.” Because we mix up the connotations of words with today’s meanings, that doesn’t excuse poor Bible study, which amounts to eisegesis.
Open our eyes, Lord. Luke 24:31,32,45 KJV <·)}}}>< Silverghost °Ü°
My position for Christians, other than the medicinal use as Timothy was encouraged regarding dysentery or other infirmities from impure water, is that we are priests. The O.T. priest was forbidden to have alcoholic wine, while serving in the Temple. The N.T. believer has entered into a better covenant, a matter of which Christ is in our hearts. We are all the priests (and kings), a royal priesthood, whose body is the temple of God, the Holy Spirit. That is, we are serving God in His Temple. To treat the imbibing of alcohol, as a blood bought Christian, with the laxity often portrayed today, is a folly leading to disaster.
I have personally treated and counseled a number who had embarked on this dangerous path, including the ordained. Even the O.T. warns about the foolishness of being “deceived thereby.” Prov. 20:1.
Open our eyes, Lord. Luke 24:31,32,45 KJV <·)}}}>< Silverghost °Ü°
[Silverghost] …we are priests. The O.T. priest was forbidden to have alcoholic wine, while serving in the Temple.well, Leviticus 10:9 ESV fails to make any distinction about any particular kind of wine. also, there is the underlying assumption that the priests could drink wine or strong drink on any other day and that everyone else could drink on any day.
[Mike Durning] If you want to understand why abstinence was the position of Dr. Bob Jones Sr. or Billy Sunday, don’t turn to Scripture. Instead, read history books on prohibition and the birth of the abstinence movement. Understand their roots, and you’ll understand why they took the position they did. And you’ll understand that nobody needs to be outraged because some of us now take a slightly different position.Would you mind giving the history in a nutshell? I have to admit it’s a lazy man’s request, but I am interested and do believe this is a key to understanding.
[John Benzing] Would you mind giving the history in a nutshell? I have to admit it’s a lazy man’s request, but I am interested and do believe this is a key to understanding.I imagine it would probably be similar to what Rob was saying here: Some thoughts on beverage alcohol I have never studied, but that sounds plausible.
[Silverghost]…the clear warnings of Scripture are against the intoxicating beverage which can easily addict one. The Bible speaks of feasting and fasting. It is not in the same category as drunkenness and sobriety.Silverghost,
The word, BTW, for “lusteth” in Duet. 14:26 is avah, which means “to desire, long, covet, lust,” the root meaning, being: “to wish for.” Because we mix up the connotations of words with today’s meanings, that doesn’t excuse poor Bible study, which amounts to eisegesis.
Scripture does more than warn against being deceived by wine or strong drink. It praises wine as a good gift from God, and it encourages Israelites to drink wine or strong drink before the LORD in worship.
My post earlier in this thread lists several verses that put forth wine as a good gift from God. We are to drink our wine with a merry heart. Wine cheers God and man.
Your position still does not account for this positive description of wine that the OT makes abundantly clear.
Striving for the unity of the faith, for the glory of God ~ Eph. 4:3, 13; Rom. 15:5-7 I blog at Fundamentally Reformed. Follow me on Twitter.
[Bob Hayton]I had read your earlier post, Bob. It seems that you sidestep the meaning and connotation of the Hebrew .avah. Why should we be so anxious to have this O.T. pleasure, which too often was abused?[Silverghost]…the clear warnings of Scripture are against the intoxicating beverage which can easily addict one. The Bible speaks of feasting and fasting. It is not in the same category as drunkenness and sobriety.Silverghost,
The word, BTW, for “lusteth” in Duet. 14:26 is avah, which means “to desire, long, covet, lust,” the root meaning, being: “to wish for.” Because we mix up the connotations of words with today’s meanings, that doesn’t excuse poor Bible study, which amounts to eisegesis.
Scripture does more than warn against being deceived by wine or strong drink. It praises wine as a good gift from God, and it encourages Israelites to drink wine or strong drink before the LORD in worship.
My post earlier in this thread lists several verses that put forth wine as a good gift from God. We are to drink our wine with a merry heart. Wine cheers God and man.
Your position still does not account for this positive description of wine that the OT makes abundantly clear.
Yet, the New Testament characterizes itself as a better covenant. While the O.T. is written for our admonition and our learning, it should be obvious that we don’t follow all of it’s instructions in N.T. times. Where in the N.T. do we have the instruction, of which the O.T. instruction seems to have some so desirous to adhere? It seems more of a lackadaisical submission to “lust” in our current sense of the word, to desire the strong drink of today. Even the O.T. warns not to “Look not thou upon the wine when it is red, when it giveth his colour in the cup, when it moveth itself aright..” The whole warning of Prov. 23:29-35 is what many who started on today’s strong drinks have found themselves deeply addicted.
I have counseled many of them.
We are kings and priests. I remind you of the admonition of Prov. 31:4,5: “It is not for kings, O Lemuel, it is not for kings to drink wine; nor for princes strong drink: Lest they drink, and forget the law, and pervert the judgment of any of the afflicted.” With spiritual discernment, the N.T. application should be apparent.
Open our eyes, Lord. Luke 24:31,32,45 KJV <·)}}}>< Silverghost °Ü°
[Silverghost] We are kings and priests. I remind you of the admonition of Prov. 31:4,5: “It is not for kings, O Lemuel, it is not for kings to drink wine; nor for princes strong drink: Lest they drink, and forget the law, and pervert the judgment of any of the afflicted.” With spiritual discernment, the N.T. application should be apparent.the king of kings and our high priest had a perfect opportunity to tell the crowds in matthew 11 that he followed Proverbs 23:20 ESV completely, that he never drank anything significantly intoxicating and neither should any of his disciples; that they shouldn’t even be around those that do. instead, he criticizes them for rejecting his call for celebration and appears to make reference to the judgment in proverbs 1 against those who reject wisdom.
[Silverghost] I had read your earlier post, Bob. It seems that you sidestep the meaning and connotation of the Hebrew .avah. Why should we be so anxious to have this O.T. pleasure, which too often was abused?Silverghost, I am not advocating one position or the other, but I am very confused by your post. Initially you tell Bob that he should not be anxious to have the OT pleasure, because the NT is a better covenant. However, your entire arguments have all been centered around OT admonishment. So, which is it. You get to use the OT in your argumentation, but Bob cannot? (No disrespect intended, it just appears to be a double standard.
Yet, the New Testament characterizes itself as a better covenant. While the O.T. is written for our admonition and our learning, it should be obvious that we don’t follow all of it’s instructions in N.T. times. Where in the N.T. do we have the instruction, of which the O.T. instruction seems to have some so desirous to adhere? It seems more of a lackadaisical submission to “lust” in our current sense of the word, to desire the strong drink of today. Even the O.T. warns not to “Look not thou upon the wine when it is red, when it giveth his colour in the cup, when it moveth itself aright..” The whole warning of Prov. 23:29-35 is what many who started on today’s strong drinks have found themselves deeply addicted.
I still don’t know what you are referring to with the Hebrew word for “desire” or “lust”. Earlier Charles Churchill had basicly said that when we read “lusteth” we think “sinful” because of the words connotations today. However, the word doesn’t mean lust in the modern sense, as your own explanation seems to state. Instead it means “desire”. So God expressly commanded that they can buy any wine or strong drink that they desire. So I don’t see how I’m sidestepping the meaning. Unless you aren’t understanding it yourself. No one is advocating that the meaning in Deut. 14:26 is to get any wine you want that makes you sinfully lust. That would be absurd. God is asking them to do this, so it can’t be a sinful lust.
If you could, please explain what there is to know from the original languages which contradicts this pretty clear translation of Deut. 14:24-26 (ESV):
And if the way is too long for you, so that you are not able to carry the tithe, when the LORD your God blesses you, because the place is too far from you, which the LORD your God chooses, to set his name there, 25then you shall turn it into money and bind up the money in your hand and go to the place that the LORD your God chooses 26and spend the money for whatever you desire—oxen or sheep or wine or strong drink, whatever your appetite craves. And you shall eat there before the LORD your God and rejoice, you and your household.
One does not have liberty to pit the OT and NT against each other. The NT makes clear that drunkenness is sin, and never ever advocates that Christians refrain from any drinking of wine at all. The Deacon is told to not be given to much wine, the Elder should not be given to wine. Neither of these terms is an express command to refrain from any enjoyment of wine. The idea that wine is connected with feasting and joy is seen both by Christ’s actions (John 2) and his own statements: See Luke 5:33-39, Luke 7:33-35, Matt. 26:29.
Striving for the unity of the faith, for the glory of God ~ Eph. 4:3, 13; Rom. 15:5-7 I blog at Fundamentally Reformed. Follow me on Twitter.
[Silverghost] I had read your earlier post, Bob. It seems that you sidestep the meaning and connotation of the Hebrew .avah. Why should we be so anxious to have this O.T. pleasure, which too often was abused?Silverghost, I’m also going to object to something you have said several times here. You seem to argue that those of us who do not hold to an abstinence only position do so because we love drinking or want to get drunk. That is completely not the case at all, and I am disappointed that you believe that.
I hold to an abstinence is the wisest course of action position and belief that it is entirely possible for someone to consume alcohol within the proper parameters and guidelines [although I don’t like it]. To therefore characterize my position as being someone who is “anxious to have this pleasure” is wrong.
"Our task today is to tell people — who no longer know what sin is...no longer see themselves as sinners, and no longer have room for these categories — that Christ died for sins of which they do not think they’re guilty." - David Wells
[wbarkema] Silverghost, I am not advocating one position or the other, but I am very confused by your post. Initially you tell Bob that he should not be anxious to have the OT pleasure, because the NT is a better covenant. However, your entire arguments have all been centered around OT admonishment. So, which is it. You get to use the OT in your argumentation, but Bob cannot? (No disrespect intended, it just appears to be a double standard.I understand your perplexity, Wyn. But Paul continually used the O.T. to illustrate N.T. truth. The fact is that the O.T. has more warning about the dangers of drink, than the merriment citations. The term in use crossed over in 1 Sam.25:36 to drunkenness: “Nabal’s heart was merry within him, for he was very drunken…”
We have no N.T. instruction on the supposed dietary benefit of merriment from alcoholic beverage. Yet, drunkenness is condemned, of course. Many N.T. believers had eschewed the partaking of wine or had diluted it. The modern making of alcoholic beverages, is that strong drink after which even the O.T. warned against seeking. Yet what kind of beverage is being promoted by some on this site? I here nothing even of dilution, but plenty about merriment. Seems to be an excuse to get a little tipsy on the strong drink of today.
Do you see a slippery slope here?
Open our eyes, Lord. Luke 24:31,32,45 KJV <·)}}}>< Silverghost °Ü°
[Jay C] Silverghost, I’m also going to object to something you have said several times here. You seem to argue that those of us who do not hold to an abstinence only position do so because we love drinking or want to get drunk. That is completely not the case at all, and I am disappointed that you believe that.Thank you, Jay. You’ve answered according to the same position, to which I adhere. It was not an accusation which I had given, but a warning. Today’s alcoholic beverages, even beer, are stronger then the wine of the early days. Yet I hear nothing of dilution of today’s wines.
I hold to an abstinence is the wisest course of action position and belief that it is entirely possible for someone to consume alcohol within the proper parameters and guidelines [although I don’t like it]. To therefore characterize my position as being someone who is “anxious to have this pleasure” is wrong.
Open our eyes, Lord. Luke 24:31,32,45 KJV <·)}}}>< Silverghost °Ü°
You continue to refuse to hear evidence against your position. The point with the phrase “merry heart” crossing over to drunkenness in 1 Sam. 25 should be clear. Scripture’s admonitions to enjoy wine’s merry heart and cheer-producing qualities should not be understood as referring to non-alcoholic wine. Otherwise the 1 Sam. 25:36 passage would not make sense. When Scripture says to enjoy wine’s joy-producing effects, it clearly is praising alcoholic wine. This is what Jesus is referring to in Luke 5:39. His statement in Luke 5:39 makes no sense if referring to grape juice only.
Once again you state strong drink is condemned in Scripture. Deut. 14:26 advocates the drinking of strong drink in worship to the LORD.
Finally, you claim that beer is stronger than the drink of Bible times. The average beer alcoholic content is between 3.2 and 5%. Assuming dilution of wine at a 4 to 1 ratio, that Dr. Robert Stein cloncluded was the most likely ratio for dilution of NT wine in a JETS article, we would have around 4% alcoholic content. This is equal to beer, not far less than beer. If alcoholic content was so low, how in the world did drunkenness become a common problem that Bible writers had to warn against?
Furthermore, there are Scriptural reasons to hold that OT drinks were not diluted, as dilution was a sign of a judgment, it was a poor quality drink one didn’t want, see Is. 1:22.
Also, if you were to truly tally up the evidence, negative references to alcohol would be fewer than positive references, although it is fairly evenly split. By no means do the warnings overwhelm the positive references. You cling to a handful of texts, all of which refer to the abuse of alcohol, not its moderate consumption.
Striving for the unity of the faith, for the glory of God ~ Eph. 4:3, 13; Rom. 15:5-7 I blog at Fundamentally Reformed. Follow me on Twitter.
[Silverghost] Today’s alcoholic beverages, even beer, are stronger then the wine of the early days. Yet I hear nothing of dilution of today’s wines.do you have some proof of this? wine with less than 9% abv requires refrigeration (see entry for alcohol in this http://www.wineplaceniagarafalls.ca/glossary.html winemaker’s glossary ).
the idea of dilution was a greek one. i haven’t seen any evidence for old testament dilution, and Isaiah 1:22 provides some evidence that dilution was frowned on.
also, there is a question of what exactly was being diluted and why. maclean shows that a sort of “wine concentrate” was diluted to produce a reconstituted wine of a normal strength and flavor instead of diluting normal wine into pink water (see pages http://quod.lib.umich.edu/cgi/t/text/pageviewer-idx?c=moajrnl;cc=moajrn…] 286-306 in McLean, John (April 1841) “Bacchus and Anti-Bacchus (part 1)”, Princeton Review, 13 (2), 267-306)
glad the archives are back up. there’s a http://20.sharperiron.org/showthread.php?t=1383] pretty good post by dan campbell from 2005 .
–-
i see Bob Hayton’s reply got in first. i’m not trying to double-team you or anything. i was still writing my reply when he finished.
Church A - The Total Abstainer Church
- In the church covenant there is the phrase - “we agree to abstain from alcohol as a beverage” (or something similar)
- Official position is that:
- Whatever Jesus created in John 2 … it certainly had no alcoholic content
- The distinction between Bishops who are not to be given to wine and Deacons who are not be be given to much wine - only applied to the first century (perhaps beyond) but certainly NOT to our day or culture.
- Whatever Jesus created in John 2 … it certainly had no alcoholic content
- Any alcohol use would be grounds for church discipline (violates the church covenant and moderation is sin)
- Official position is that:
- The text is not clear as to what Jesus created in John 2. Maybe had alcoholic content … maybe not
- It is clear that drunkenness is sin!
- It is clear that those who choose to drink must not cause brethren to stumble (the law of love from Romans 14)
- The text is not clear as to what Jesus created in John 2. Maybe had alcoholic content … maybe not
- Leaders have a higher standard (because of their position) and the abstinence is the common practice for those leaders
- Drunkenness would result in one being subject to church discipline
Striving for the unity of the faith, for the glory of God ~ Eph. 4:3, 13; Rom. 15:5-7 I blog at Fundamentally Reformed. Follow me on Twitter.
In one church, I would have to choose to refrain from drinking to be a member. In another, I would have liberty to enjoy wine prudently. That’s a big practical difference. One church augments the Bible by adding stricter rules regarding wine, the other seems to follow the spirit of Rom. 14 better. How can we forbid alcohol use and follow Rom. 14 as a church?
Striving for the unity of the faith, for the glory of God ~ Eph. 4:3, 13; Rom. 15:5-7 I blog at Fundamentally Reformed. Follow me on Twitter.
[Bob Hayton] Silverghost,I don’t know about Charles, but it sounds like your quoting my statement. I made the case for “avah, being “desire,” literally “to wish for.”
I still don’t know what you are referring to with the Hebrew word for “desire” or “lust”. Earlier Charles Churchill had basicly said that when we read “lusteth” we think “sinful” because of the words connotations today. However, the word doesn’t mean lust in the modern sense, as your own explanation seems to state. Instead it means “desire”.
So God expressly commanded that they can buy any wine or strong drink that they desire. So I don’t see how I’m sidestepping the meaning. Unless you aren’t understanding it yourself. No one is advocating that the meaning in Deut. 14:26 is to get any wine you want that makes you sinfully lust. That would be absurd. God is asking them to do this, so it can’t be a sinful lust.It was not leading to “sinful lust,” just as you maintain. There is nothing I’ve said to indicate this. They were purchasing victuals, instead of going to the Temple with their tithe, “if the way be too long for thee, so that thou art not able to carry it.”
Then they were to worship in a more convenient appointed place, “And thou shalt bestow that money for whatsoever thy soul lusteth after, for oxen, or for sheep, or for wine, or for strong drink, or for whatsoever thy soul desireth: and thou shalt eat there before the LORD thy God, and thou shalt rejoice, thou, and thine household.” The second word, “desireth,” (Hebrew: sha’al, to ask, inquire, request, desire) clarifies the first, avah. There were other items to desire besides the drink. I would remind you also that Moses allowed divorce, “because of the hardness of your hearts suffered you,” whereas Christ had clearly indicated that it is not God’s will, to which we should adhere today.. The N. T. is a better covenant.
One does not have liberty to pit the OT and NT against each other. The NT makes clear that drunkenness is sin, and never ever advocates that Christians refrain from any drinking of wine at all. The Deacon is told to not be given to much wine, the Elder should not be given to wine. Neither of these terms is an express command to refrain from any enjoyment of wine. The idea that wine is connected with feasting and joy is seen both by Christ’s actions (John 2) and his own statements: See Luke 5:33-39, Luke 7:33-35, Matt. 26:29.There is no pitting of “the OT and NT against each other.” Yet, the new covenant is certainly better, in that we have the promised Messiah. But, as Moses “was faithful in all his house, as a servant,” yet it says: “Christ as a son over his own house; whose house are we…” Heb. 3:5,6.
The instructions for the deacons and elders are to keep purity in service, with the danger of the relatively weak wine to corrupt. What are we doing with the strong drink of today? If you have counseled, as I, the number who have been caught in this dangerous vortex, then it should give extreme pause to the way you present this supposed “freedom.”
BTW, you have no evidence as to the nature of the “fruit of the vine” to which Christ refers in Matt. 26:29.
Open our eyes, Lord. Luke 24:31,32,45 KJV <·)}}}>< Silverghost °Ü°
1) Jesus says he will drink this “fruit of the vine” new in the kingdom. And per Is. 25:6-9 with many other passages, feasting in the kingdom of Christ will include the best wine.
2) The “fruit of the vine” is what was supposed to be drunk, and from 1 Cor. 11:21, it is clear that this drink was alcoholic enough to be making some of the Corinthians drunk. (Interestingly, Paul doesn’t forbid the use of alcoholic wine at the Lord’s table, instead he attacks the drunkenness and inconsideration of the erring Christians).
Finally, you are totally ignoring Deut. 14 because it doesn’t suit you. You just write it off as Mosaic. This is not a careful use of the OT. The NT has not specifically abrogated this passage in Deut. It has much to say on this issue, and as Scripture demands that we submit our views to it. If this isn’t pitting the NT against the OT, I don’t know what else would be.
Striving for the unity of the faith, for the glory of God ~ Eph. 4:3, 13; Rom. 15:5-7 I blog at Fundamentally Reformed. Follow me on Twitter.
[Silverghost]I have no idea what point you are trying to make that is different from the point I was making…
The word, BTW, for “lusteth” in Duet. 14:26 is avah, which means “to desire, long, covet, lust,” the root meaning, being: “to wish for.” Because we mix up the connotations of words with today’s meanings, that doesn’t excuse poor Bible study, which amounts to eisegesis.
I also have no idea why you think it would help your argument against alcohol to argue that it was good and glorious for Jews to take their tithe money and bring it to Jerusalem and buy strong drink with it to drink it before the Almighty God of Heaven as an offering of praise to Him. This is the God who killed Aaron’s sons for offering fire that He didn’t tell them to offer. The same God who doesn’t allow bastards to enter into the temple, even to the tenth generation. The God who doesn’t let one little piece of sin enter into the practice of worshiping Him. Amidst all His warnings to His people about alcohol, it was good and it brought Him glory (just like sex and money - you should read all the warnings about money - and food and friendship and every other good thing He made)
Your arguments against alcohol are all over the place. First drinking is wrong in the Old Testament, then when that is clearly shown to be false, it was allowed in the Old Testament, but the New Testament is a better covenant and because of it we have to give up some things (like divorce). Except Jesus took the law and applied it to our hearts and by doing so, he pretty much knocked out divorce (which of you has never lusted in his heart? Let that one accuse his wife of failure).But he didn’t do that with alcohol. What other unwritten laws are there that we have to keep? You say that we are priests, but you know that we are not priests after the order of Levi, but of Melchizedek, who when he met Abraham gave him bread and, wait for it, wine, and after Christ, who the scripture records came eating and drinking (and Christ’s eating and drinking are contrasted specifically with John the Baptist who was not allowed to drink wine or strong drink Matt 11:18-19).
It is a serious thing to teach that which Scripture does not teach. I am 34 years old and I have never drunk wine or beer or any other alcoholic beverage (save Nyquil or some such). I am trying to determine what is best for me to do to honor my father and my mother and the way that they have taught me and the way to raise my children in this world. I am cautious, and I pray that I will remain so, but I can not condemn my brother for drinking, nor teach him that God condemns anything except abuse.
I hope you continue to wrestle with these things,
Charles
[Jim Peet] I wonder if there would be any real difference between these two churches:The difference is that church A is a good, solid, bible expositing Fundamental Church and church B is a compromising, backslidden, new evangelical [or Young Fundamentalist] church. :p
Church A - The Total Abstainer ChurchChurch B - The Moderate-use-permitted Church
- In the church covenant there is the phrase - “we agree to abstain from alcohol as a beverage” (or something similar)
- Official position is that:
- Whatever Jesus created in John 2 … it certainly had no alcoholic content
- The distinction between Bishops who are not to be given to wine and Deacons who are not be be given to much wine - only applied to the first century (perhaps beyond) but certainly NOT to our day or culture.
- Any alcohol use would be grounds for church discipline (violates the church covenant and moderation is sin)
My question is this … assuming both Churches have a high view of Scripture and basically are alike in every other way, what is the functional difference between these two churches (if any)?
- Official position is that:
- The text is not clear as to what Jesus created in John 2. Maybe had alcoholic content … maybe not
- It is clear that drunkenness is sin!
- It is clear that those who choose to drink must not cause brethren to stumble (the law of love from Romans 14)
- Leaders have a higher standard (because of their position) and the abstinence is the common practice for those leaders
- Drunkenness would result in one being subject to church discipline
"Our task today is to tell people — who no longer know what sin is...no longer see themselves as sinners, and no longer have room for these categories — that Christ died for sins of which they do not think they’re guilty." - David Wells
[John Benzing]John,[Mike Durning] If you want to understand why abstinence was the position of Dr. Bob Jones Sr. or Billy Sunday, don’t turn to Scripture. Instead, read history books on prohibition and the birth of the abstinence movement. Understand their roots, and you’ll understand why they took the position they did. And you’ll understand that nobody needs to be outraged because some of us now take a slightly different position.Would you mind giving the history in a nutshell? I have to admit it’s a lazy man’s request, but I am interested and do believe this is a key to understanding.
I’m so sorry. I kind of lost interest in the thread and didn’t even notice your request until today. I will assemble some material and post a reply in the next day or two.
Mike D
________________
The Temperance Movement, as a movement supporting total abstinence from all alcoholic beverages, had its birth in the mid 1820’s under the influence of Pastor Lyman Beecher, a Connecticut Minister, and others like him. In 1826, the American Temperance Union – the first such national organization to support total abstinence – was formed. The American Temperance Union rode a powerful wave of religious support and interest at the time, gaining 1.5 million members in the first few years. The issue became inextricably interwoven with religion – and in particular Revivalism. But lurking beneath it all was an American movement now known as Progressivism.
The belief of Progressivism was that it was possible for man to better himself and society through wisdom, technology, and education. It properly belonged to the political left of the time, which, unlike today, had great support in conservative Christian circles. It is viewed by sociologists as a response to the changes in culture and frustrations brought about by the Industrial Revolution. It taught that by law and reform, the social evils that rose to the surface during the Industrial Revolution could be overcome.
This Progressivism movement marched arm-in-arm with a great change in American religion. As Revivalism, particularly in the style of Charles Finney, unseated from favor the Calvinism that had characterized earlier spiritual awakenings, the belief among most Bible believers was that social change would better society as the gospel transformed the hearts of individuals.
Revivalism was, in the mid to late 1800’s, concerned with externals. As Douglas Frank puts it in his great book Less Than Conquerors: How Evangelical Entered the 20th Century, “…revivalism is closely associated with an inordinate attention to appearances. A revival is the most visible and obvious and seemingly irrefutable outcropping of a spiritual reality. In revivals men and women may actually see God at work, may quantify and gauge that work empirically.” Marsden observes “the revivalist particularly centered their attacks on…visible sins and demanded strict abstinence from them as evidence of conversion. Prohibitions on all sorts of observable activities such as drinking, smoking, dancing, Sabbath-breaking, card-playing, and theater attendance thus became indelibly associated with Protestantism in this tradition.”
Most Abstentionist preachers would drink heavily from both Revivalist and Progressivist streams. Drinking was both sinful and destructive to society. It was both wrong and irrational.
The movement for abstinence gained ground for nearly a century before Prohibition. Various denominations abandoned fermented drink for communion (thanks to the science and marketing of Thomas Welch – that’s right, of Welch’s Grape Juice fame)*. Individual states and communities adopted regional abstinence ordinances. Mandatory public school teaching against alcohol and its dangers was mandated in every U.S. state and territory, under the influence of the Women’s Christian Temperance Union.
Out of these social streams came the preaching of revivalists such as Billy Sunday and Bob Jones Sr., who could preach on one night an entire sermon against alcoholic consumption of any kind (based almost entirely on Progressivistic arguments that drinking created poverty, child abuse, crime, etc.), and then preach a strong gospel appeal the next night based upon the Scriptures. A simple survey of the sermons of Billy Sunday against drink, or the political friends of Dr. Bob Jones Sr., reveals their tight ideological and social connections with the Progressivist movement and the Abstention-teaching Temperance Movement in particular. Sunday’s sermons against drink are particularly notable for a near total lack of meaningful Scripture use – and in some cases use no Scripture at all! Each sermon is built around Progressive Movement propaganda.
The link between religious Abstinence teaching and Progressivism is best demonstrated by the famous Billy Sunday quote on the night that Prohibition was finally passed: “The reign of tears is over,” he asserted. “The slums will soon be only a memory. We will turn our prisons into factories and our jails into storehouses and corncribs.” Note that the issue to him is not the glorifying of God, but the reformation of society. In fact, many towns believed similarly, selling their jails or converting them to other uses – but only for the first few weeks of Prohibition. Within a few years, many of the same towns would need still bigger jails.
________
* Spend some time studying the Welch’s marketing campaign among American Methodists and you’ll see where the “two wines” view really gains ascendancy. It was actually marketed as “Biblical Wine”. But I have never found any support for this view prior to the marketing campaign by Welch’s.
Interesting article at http://www2.potsdam.edu/hansondj/Controversies/1091124904.html
[Mike Durning] The link between religious Abstinence teaching and Progressivism is best demonstrated by the famous Billy Sunday quote on the night that Prohibition was finally passed: “The reign of tears is over,” he asserted. “The slums will soon be only a memory. We will turn our prisons into factories and our jails into storehouses and corncribs.” Note that the issue to him is not the glorifying of God, but the reformation of society. In fact, many towns believed similarly, selling their jails or converting them to other uses – but only for the first few weeks of Prohibition. Within a few years, many of the same towns would need still bigger jails.Thanks Mike. That’s great information. The paragraph I quoted above is especially insightful. The driving assumption of prohibition is obviously flawed. The gospel changes hearts, not a mandated moralism.
For anyone interested on a collection of some links on Charles Welch and prohibition history, I did a post on it a while back entitled:
Welch’s Grape Juice, Worldly Wisdom, and Wine
Thanks again, Mike.
Striving for the unity of the faith, for the glory of God ~ Eph. 4:3, 13; Rom. 15:5-7 I blog at Fundamentally Reformed. Follow me on Twitter.
[Mike Durning] Here’s the requested info. SNIPThe thread’s purpose is to deal with this question from a historical perspective.
Thank you in advance. :)
Hoping to shed more light than heat..
[Rob Fall] Could you post this to this SI thread http://sharperiron.org/forum/thread-some-thoughts-beverage-alcohol ?Done. Thanks for the pointer to the other thread.[Mike Durning] Here’s the requested info. SNIPThe thread’s purpose is to deal with this question from a historical perspective.
Thank you in advance. :)
Mike D
Discussion