Drinking, Cheeseburgers, and Marijuana?
Again, jumping back in for a moment … First,
If the great majority of drinkers don’t get in bar fights, hit their wives or get arrested for driving while intoxicated, then it is supportive of my, and others’ assertions on this thread, that most people know their limitations. Drinking too much is a choice. I can say that no more clearly. Lack of self-control or knowledge by some is not a support of your claim that “some people don’t know.” I repeat my assertion. A person who drinks on a regular basis knows the effects of alcohol on their system. They know their limits. Those who don’t are unwise, unobservant and should not be using alcohol.
This is a total non-sequitur, isn’t it? That some people, even a majority, don’t do something that is not under discussion is not the issue. We might as well say that a majority of people who drive, don’t drive recklessly. It is equally relevant. Likewise with drinking too much being a choice. No one disputes that here. But it isn’t what is being discussed. I can stipulate everything in the first half of this paragraph and we haven’t moved ahead in the discussion.
On the other hand, to say that “lack of … knowledge is not a support of your claim that some people don’t know” is self-contradictory, isn’t it? If they lack knowledge (as you admit), then by definition, they do not know (as you deny).
In the same way “A person who drinks on a regular basis knows the effects of alcohol on their system. They know their limits. Those who don’t are unwise, unobservant and should not be using alcohol” seems self contradictory. To say that those who do something know, and then talk about those who do it and don’t [know] is attributing opposite characteristics to the same group.
But even that isn’t relevant. The question isn’t whether or not some people know, or most people know, or most people don’t know. The question is “How do they know?”
Weak willed and immature are the the ones in need of bright line rules.
I don’t think that is true at all. God gives some pretty bright line rules for us, regardless of spiritual maturity. In fact, he gives us a really bright line here as you have admitted: Don’t get drunk. The question is how does someone judge that for themselves? How do they know when they have crossed the bright line?
Evil is from the heart, not the bottle. The Bible is replete with warnings. Why is alcohol the one that gets people so riled up? If you can see the warnings, how do you miss the blessings?
But evil in the heart can be exacerbated and brought out by alcohol when it otherwise would not be, a point that the Bible clearly testifies to. It is similar with other issues, like friends. We can say that evil is in the heart, not the friends, but the Bible warns us to avoid certain kinds of friends. But I don’t know that alcohol gets people riled up, and I am not missing the blessings.
Although that raises another question: What other kinds of things does the Bible warn about like it does alcohol? (That’s not loaded; just curious.)
Larry, this is obtuse. Moderation is the answer to your question about lines. Why must we approach this topic looking for a rule book or some formula?
This just begs the question, as in, “How you do stay moderate? Moderation.” That doesn’t move us forward. The question at hand deals with defining that. We agree that God has drawn a line of drunkenness, as in don’t get drunk.
So let’s stipulate that (1) drinking is not a sin in and of itself, (2) drunkenness is a sin, and (3) that at least some people know when they cross the line of drunkenness.
Now, how do you counsel someone who agrees with (1) and (2) and wants to know how they can know when “moderation” has been left for drunkenness?
[Larry]So let’s stipulate that (1) drinking is not a sin in and of itself, (2) drunkenness is a sin, and (3) that at least some people know when they cross the line of drunkenness.
Now, how do you counsel someone who agrees with (1) and (2) and wants to know how they can know when “moderation” has been left for drunkenness?
- First of all I agree with all three of these postulates: “(1) drinking is not a sin in and of itself, (2) drunkenness is a sin, and (3) that at least some people know when they cross the line of drunkenness.”
- I advise people NOT to drink. The “not drinking” choice is the sure way to guarantee not drunkenness. It’s the safest and perhaps the wisest choice.
- The ones whom I know to drink would answer # 3 in various ways: a.) experience; b.) they only drink with a meal (kind of like if you are going to take Ibuprofen take it with a meal (to prevent stomach upset); c.) they never drink and drive (or only drink while at home). I have two close relatives who are Christians. I’ve known them as adults for 40+ years. I’ve never known them to overdrink.
My own position (from the chart above) is “If asked, I advise others not to drink; but it is a liberty issue”. The Christians whom I know who drink, I never discuss it with them.
If your friends know when to stop drinking before they are impaired from the alcohol, then why would they not drive?
[Larry]But evil in the heart can be exacerbated and brought out by alcohol when it otherwise would not be, a point that the Bible clearly testifies to. It is similar with other issues, like friends. We can say that evil is in the heart, not the friends, but the Bible warns us to avoid certain kinds of friends.
This just begs the question, as in, “How you do stay moderate? Moderation.” That doesn’t move us forward. The question at hand deals with defining that. We agree that God has drawn a line of drunkenness, as in don’t get drunk.
So let’s stipulate that (1) drinking is not a sin in and of itself, (2) drunkenness is a sin, and (3) that at least some people know when they cross the line of drunkenness.
Now, how do you counsel someone who agrees with (1) and (2) and wants to know how they can know when “moderation” has been left for drunkenness?
But evil in the heart can be exacerbated and brought out by guns when it otherwise would not be. To follow your logic the gun owner would not have been cocky therefore.
The Bible does not testify to alcohol exacerbating evil. The person always makes the decision whether to proceed over the moderation or wisdom “line.” That is what the Bible gives us in many places: “how” to live, wisdom.
Categories such as substances and people also should not be confused as you have done. Categories such as snake handling and alcohol consumption should not be compared either as Straub, the theologian, has done. I am not going to wrangle with anyone on this forum. If one’s bias is so strong to get in the way of one’s exegesis, you should abandon the bias (an admonition that will fall on deaf ears for some, no doubt).
"Our faith itself... is not our saviour. We have but one Saviour; and that one Saviour is Jesus Christ our Lord. B.B. Warfield
A comment on Isaiah 1:22 to an issue raised by Pastor John Smith. The issue here is injustice and fraud. Silver being turned to dross or wine being “cut” or “circumcised” (Hebrew hapax based on an Arabic root to circumcise) into water both represent the selling or trading of a product that has been greatly reduced in value. Isaiah was not addressing the issue of diluting wine in order to reduce intoxication. In fact, he condemns intoxication numerous times throughout his prophecy. In addition, the normal word for wine or strong drink is not used here, the Hebrew term employed has the etymological meaning of “dark”. It possibly could even refer to a wine concentrate created by boiling. This would make the product even less valuable, and thus more fraudulent and unjust.
Pastor Mike Harding
[Barry L.]You ask that question as if they are being entirely inconsistent by making that choice, but that’s not necessarily the case.Perhaps they choose that as their “wisdom” line that they don’t want to cross. Perhaps it also relates to testimony. If their friends know they drink, but that they never drive after having done so, they can certainly still be an example to those who misuse alcohol. Perhaps they also believe that *any* alcohol will have some effect on them (thus prohibiting their driving), but not to the point of intoxication or preventing being filled by the spirit.Probably all of us use medication that will say right on the label “Do not drive or operate heavy machinery while using this product.” We know there’s some effect there, even if that affect is not to the point of intoxication. I will definitely continue to use NyQuil when I get a bad cold, as often it’s the only product that lets me get any sleep. I’ve never had even a headache after use, let alone lost my inhibitions in front of others, but I certainly know enough not to use that medication and then go driving.All in all, their decision sounds pretty wise and consistent to me.If your friends know when to stop drinking before they are impaired from the alcohol, then why would they not drive?
Dave Barnhart
But evil in the heart can be exacerbated and brought out by guns when it otherwise would not be. To follow your logic the gun owner would not have been cocky therefore.
Guns do not get into the bloodstream and affect the body and the resulting actions. (And you warn me about confusing things???) You talk about following my logic, but bringing this in seems to indicate you don’t know what my logic is. My logic is that alcohol gets into the body and affects the body, lowering resistance and inhibitions, and making people more susceptible to express and participate in evil.
Honestly, Alex, I have never heard anyone disagree with that. That’s not even dependent on the Bible. Everyone agrees that alcohol can have this affect on people. In many cases, it’s why they do it.
The Bible does not testify to alcohol exacerbating evil.
First of all, we don’t need the Bible to testify to this. We have human experience to reveal that it does. How many times have you read or heard of a man who is calm and controlled when sober, and beats the daylights out of his family when drunk, and doesn’t remember it. Or a girl who gets drunk and ends up having sex with someone whom she didn’t intend to have sex with? These are not uncommon occurrences. The evil in the heart was clearly exacerbated by alcohol, and that is precisely why it is warned against (though not absolutely forbidden).
Second, the Bible does testify to alcohol exacerbating evil. Lot had sex with his daughters probably only because they go him drunk. Whatever the precise meaning of Hab 2:15, the image of drunkenness leading to compromising positions is there as in Lam 4:21 and Rom 13:13. I highly doubt that the warnings against drunkenness are because it exacerbates righteousness.
Categories such as substances and people also should not be confused as you have done.
I have no idea what you are talking about here. If you are talking about my references to friends, I wasn’t confusing cateogories of substances and people. The comparison was influence. The reason I raised friends is because they, like alcohol, are an influence that is warned about. Do you deny that the Bible warns us about the influence of friends in passages like Psalm 1, , etc.? Do you deny that the Bible warns about about the influence of alcohol in passages like , , and ? In fact, the Bible brings them together in .
If one’s bias is so strong to get in the way of one’s exegesis, you should abandon the bias (an admonition that will fall on deaf ears for some, no doubt).
I agree. So why not exegete the passages on drunkenness for us. Tell us what they mean and how they apply.
Here’s are two statements that I invite you to interact with and demonstrate where I have let my bias interfere.
- Wine is not absolutely forbidden by the Scripture. It is presented as a drink of joy and a blessing that makes the heart glad. Someone could drink an alcoholic beverage without sinning.
- Wine and strong drink are warned about because of the effect they have on the drinker and the problems that it raises in their lives. Someone could be sinning by drinking an alcoholic beverage.
If you wish to disagree, please do so by showing the exegesis that proves either statement incorrect.
[dcbii]Barry L. wrote:
If your friends know when to stop drinking before they are impaired from the alcohol, then why would they not drive?
You ask that question as if they are being entirely inconsistent by making that choice, but that’s not necessarily the case.Perhaps they choose that as their “wisdom” line that they don’t want to cross. Perhaps it also relates to testimony. If their friends know they drink, but that they never drive after having done so, they can certainly still be an example to those who misuse alcohol. Perhaps they also believe that *any* alcohol will have some effect on them (thus prohibiting their driving), but not to the point of intoxication or preventing being filled by the spirit.
Probably all of us use medication that will say right on the label “Do not drive or operate heavy machinery while using this product.” We know there’s some effect there, even if that affect is not to the point of intoxication. I will definitely continue to use NyQuil when I get a bad cold, as often it’s the only product that lets me get any sleep. I’ve never had even a headache after use, let alone lost my inhibitions in front of others, but I certainly know enough not to use that medication and then go driving.
All in all, their decision sounds pretty wise and consistent to me.
“If their friends know they drink, but that they never drive after having done so, they can certainly still be an example to those who misuse alcohol.”
Wouldn’t refraining from alcohol be just as applicable as an example to those who misuse it? You don’t have to drive to misuse alcohol.
“Perhaps they also believe that *any* alcohol will have some effect on them (thus prohibiting their driving), but not to the point of intoxication or preventing being filled by the spirit.”
Somehow, some are distinguishing between having too much alcohol to drive with being intoxicated. The law makes no distinction. You are intoxicated at .08 alcohol level and if you choose to drive while intoxicated you are “drunk” driving. Wouldn’t a better Christian example be that if the law declares I am intoxicated at .08, then as a Christian I should avoid reaching that level whether I am in my home or not?
I take Nyquil and I could be reaching .08, but I don’t know. The Bible does give a reason, like other drugs, to take when it helps an illness. Nor is your testimony tainted because even the unsaved know that you are still a tea-totaler if you take medicine for illnesses, but don’t drink otherwise.
[Larry]But evil in the heart can be exacerbated and brought out by guns when it otherwise would not be. To follow your logic the gun owner would not have been cocky therefore.
Guns do not get into the bloodstream and affect the body and the resulting actions. (And you warn me about confusing things???) You talk about following my logic, but bringing this in seems to indicate you don’t know what my logic is. My logic is that alcohol gets into the body and affects the body, lowering resistance and inhibitions, and making people more susceptible to express and participate in evil.
Honestly, Alex, I have never heard anyone disagree with that. That’s not even dependent on the Bible. Everyone agrees that alcohol can have this affect on people. In many cases, it’s why they do it.
The Bible does not testify to alcohol exacerbating evil.
First of all, we don’t need the Bible to testify to this. We have human experience to reveal that it does. How many times have you read or heard of a man who is calm and controlled when sober, and beats the daylights out of his family when drunk, and doesn’t remember it. Or a girl who gets drunk and ends up having sex with someone whom she didn’t intend to have sex with? These are not uncommon occurrences. The evil in the heart was clearly exacerbated by alcohol, and that is precisely why it is warned against (though not absolutely forbidden).
Second, the Bible does testify to alcohol exacerbating evil. Lot had sex with his daughters probably only because they go him drunk. Whatever the precise meaning of , the image of drunkenness leading to compromising positions is there as in and . I highly doubt that the warnings against drunkenness are because it exacerbates righteousness.
Categories such as substances and people also should not be confused as you have done.
I have no idea what you are talking about here. If you are talking about my references to friends, I wasn’t confusing cateogories of substances and people. The comparison was influence. The reason I raised friends is because they, like alcohol, are an influence that is warned about. Do you deny that the Bible warns us about the influence of friends in passages like Psalm 1, , etc.? Do you deny that the Bible warns about about the influence of alcohol in passages like , , and ? In fact, the Bible brings them together in .
If one’s bias is so strong to get in the way of one’s exegesis, you should abandon the bias (an admonition that will fall on deaf ears for some, no doubt).
I agree. So why not exegete the passages on drunkenness for us. Tell us what they mean and how they apply.
Here’s the brief exegesis that I invite you to interact with and demonstrate where I have let my bias interfere.
- Wine is not absolutely forbidden by the Scripture. It is presented as a drink of joy and a blessing that makes the heart glad. Someone could drink an alcoholic beverage without sinning.
- Wine and strong drink are warned about because of the effect they have on the drinker and the problems that it raises in their lives. Someone could be sinning by drinking an alcoholic beverage.
If you wish to disagree with that, feel free, but please do so by showing the exegesis that proves either statement incorrect.
Hi Larry,
How do you respond to each individual point as you have done (I am not very good at formatting in these forums). I will list the disagreements in order.
Guns might not get internally into a person, but I could argue they embolden (but the person is still responsible). I am not against guns but your argument structure is the same and I was trying to point that out.
“My logic is that alcohol gets into the body and affects the body, lowering resistance and inhibitions, and making people more susceptible to express and participate in evil.”
This is not scriptural and I strongly disagree. It just doesn’t work like this. The “new man” has all the spiritual resources still available until they turn to foolishness and this is not at all inevitable. To describe the struggle a Christian has while still “in the body” as you have is wrong, I believe, and doesn’t reflect knowledge of alcohol and its interaction in the life of the redeemed.
Next, alcohol does not exacerbate evil. The example you gave of Lot is one who is unconscious of their actions, he had crossed the line obviously.
About the friends and alcohol confusion, it is a confusion since the things are fundamentally different. Peer pressure with all its facets is incomparable with effects of alcohol despite your comparing them.
About your last two points: Since you believe this (1.), it sort of destroys what you said above (the first point about God commending alcohol-if it is commended, why does it lower inhibitions to sin as you have maintained).
2. The bible does not say this the way you have expressed it. The bible warns about being circumspect when using alcohol not about its effect. If alcohol has negative effects upon the user, it is the user’s fault in using it wrongfully. If problems arise with use, it is the user or society (American or Muslim prohibition) who are at fault not the substance.
"Our faith itself... is not our saviour. We have but one Saviour; and that one Saviour is Jesus Christ our Lord. B.B. Warfield
How do you respond to each individual point as you have done (I am not very good at formatting in these forums).
Highlight the paragraph and click on the quotes in the bar at the top of the comment box.
Now, on to the rest…
Guns might not get internally into a person, but I could argue they embolden (but the person is still responsible). I am not against guns but your argument structure is the same and I was trying to point that out.
Again, if you think this is true, then you don’t understand my argument structure. You can’t simply insert something in the place of “alcohol” and pretend it’s the same argument. What you insert has to be similar. Guns and alcohol are not similar. (That’s actually worse than guns and cheeseburgers.)
This is not scriptural and I strongly disagree. It just doesn’t work like this. The “new man” has all the spiritual resources still available until they turn to foolishness and this is not at all inevitable. To describe the struggle a Christian has while still “in the body” as you have is wrong, I believe, and doesn’t reflect knowledge of alcohol and its interaction in the life of the redeemed.
Regeneration does not mitigate the effects of alcohol on the body and the mind. Alcohol does the same thing to believers as it does to unbelievers. Yes, believers can stop drinking before they get drunk; but so can unbelievers (although so far no one has answered the question of how to know when that is). That’s why , written to believers, warns them about drunkenness.
Next, alcohol does not exacerbate evil. The example you gave of Lot is one who is unconscious of their actions, he had crossed the line obviously.
Why was Lot unconscious? Because he was drunk. The alcohol had that effect on him, and his daughters knew it would have that effect on him; that’s why they did it (not wholly unlike what some people try to do today). You can say that it did not exacerbate his evil , but it put him in a spot where he was not in control of his body and led him to sin. I presume you don’t want to argue that incest is not sin, and let’s stipulate that he wouldn’t have done it if he was sober. That means that he did something sinful while drunk that he wouldn’t have done sober. How did the alcohol not contribute to his sin?
To say that alcohol doesn’t exacerbate evil just flies in the face of everything we know about the effects of alcohol. Again, think of the idea of “drunken rage” or “an alcohol fueled rage.” Think of “drunk texting” or guys trying to get girls to drink because they know the effect it will have on them. As I said earlier, I had a conversation this past year with a man who greatly embarrassed himself because he had too much to drink. In his case, it exacerbated his sin. Many have had the same experience. For evidence from unbelieving pop culture, consider something like Brad Paisley’s song entitled “Alcohol.” Go ahead, look it up. It describes in a humorous mocking way the same things I am saying here. The reference to the “lamp shade on your head” or “the naked pictures of you on the beach” is a reference to the lowered inhibitions brought on by alcohol. Again, Alex, this is not disputed by anyone I know of but you.
About the friends and alcohol confusion, it is a confusion since the things are fundamentally different. Peer pressure with all its facets is incomparable with effects of alcohol despite your comparing them.
The things are fundamentally different but the influence is fundamentally the same, and the Bible warns about the influence of both things, but does not categorically condemn either. But again, how can you reject my comparison here while invoking your own comparison using guns? At least my comparison invokes Scripture on both accounts and has a similar feature (influence). By the way, my comparison also works because it is essentially the same one Paul makes in between wine and the person of the Holy Spirit.
if it is commended, why does it lower inhibitions to sin as you have maintained).
Because it does. Again, I don’t know anyone who denies that. That’s not to say that a single swallow, or even a whole glass of something will do it to a great degree. People process alcohol differently based on a lot of factors. Again, the picture of Hab 2:15 is that of getting someone drunk so you can get their clothes off of them, which you wouldn’t be able to do if they were not drunk. Lam 4:21 is the same picture. That picture works because it is true.
2. The bible does not say this the way you have expressed it. The bible warns about being circumspect when using alcohol not about its effect. If alcohol has negative effects upon the user, it is the user’s fault in using it wrongfully. If problems arise with use, it is the user or society (American or Muslim prohibition) who are at fault not the substance.
Prov 23:29-35describes it very similar to how I did. It describes the affect of it and the results of it. Why not exegete that passage for us, and some of the others warning passages about alcohol. You wanted this to be about exegesis, but you haven’t offered even a single verse yet. Get more practical. If you don’t think it lowers inhibitions and creates people who have lost some control of themselves, then what does it mean to be drunk? What do you think alcohol does?
To say that “he bible warns about being circumspect when using alcohol not about its effect,” is strange. The Bible warns about being circumspect because of the effect of alcohol.
To say that the problem is the user is without dispute. Alcohol does nothing to anyone until it is used. That is the issue.
In the final analysis, the Bible warns us about alcohol because of its effects on us. If those effects weren’t sinful, or didn’t exacerbate sin, it’s hard to know why we would be warned. God doesn’t warn us away from things that make us more holy. So to see alcohol as a blessing, as some do, and drink it is moderation is one side of the equation, which you want to focus on. But you are ignoring the other side, namely, the warnings. I think that is unwise.
Larry, are you saying Lot was at fault in the rape his daughters perpetrated on him? Wasn’t he genuinely unaware of what they had done?
Larry, are you saying Lot was at fault in the rape his daughters perpetrated on him? Wasn’t he genuinely unaware of what they had done?
I think the question you are asking is this: Is someone responsible for what they do or what happens when they place themselves in an intoxicated state? If a man goes and gets drunk, gets in a car, and then causes an accident and kills someone, is he responsible for that? I would say yes. I imagine you would agree. I further imagine you would say that it is not enough for him simply to have not driven. He should not have been drunk to begin with. It was sin for him to be drunk and he is responsible for what he does or participates in or causes subsequent to that. Our own law recognizes that, in that DUI/DWI/OWI/OWVI types of offenses are judged more harshly than similar offenses if one is not intoxicated. In fact, you don’t even have to cause an accident to be charged with DUI type of offenses. It is simply enough to be DUI, DWI, OWVI, OWI. Our law recognizes that when a man (or woman) gets drunk and beat someone up, they are responsible for that, even though they were drunk.
The complicated part is that Lot did not know what had happened. But I am not sure that tells us that he was passive in the situation. It is not uncommon for someone who is very drunk that have no memory of what happened, even though they were not completely passed out. So it may be that Lot was awake, but was so drunk that did not recall it. To be dogmatic on that seems to go beyond the text, and in fact, seems to be answering a question the text does not purport to answer.
So in reference to Lot, while I am open to further interaction and correction on this, I would say that Lot was, at the very least, culpable. What other options are there? Is getting drunk a free pass for whatever happens later? We can say, “Well he was drunk and didn’t know.” But he, as an adult, allowed himself to be put in a situation where he no longer was in control of his faculties. This is, in fact, part of the very warnings the Bible gives against drunkenness. One of the legal phrases, I believe, is “knew or should have known.” Lot “knew or should have known” what the effects of alcohol were and should have stopped short of being so intoxicated that he did not know. So at the very least, it was sinful for him to be drunk.
I would say that we should not lose the concept of shared responsibility. Guilt and culpability, in many cases, is not either/or, but both/and. It is possible for more than on party to be guilty and responsible for some sinful activity.
In the light, regardless of Lot’s culpability, this, in no way, for any possible reason that one can imagine (or just plain make up out of thin air), excuses his daughters. Their actions were sinful and without excuse. They were absolutely and unequivocally wrong to do what they did. Rapists are not guiltless in rape, regardless of the state of their victims. Let no one misunderstand or misrepresent (or lie) about what I am saying. A person (man or woman) who rapes a person who is drunk or not in full control of themselves is absolutely guilty, and in fact, is more culpable in some sense because they failed to watch out for and protect someone who was vulnerable. Those who intentionally get someone drunk to take advantage of them are even more guilty.
Again, I welcome input on this and sharpening, so please give some feedback.
Sure it was sinful for him to be drunk. To be drunk and do something (drive, commit adultry, assault someone) is one thing. To be drunk, pass out (he didn’t know when either of them lay* down or got up), and have automatic physiological reactions to uninvited stimuli is quite another.
That’s my only point.
*sorry if my lay/lie useage is wrong here, I’m terrible with those two words.
Sure it was sinful for him to be drunk. To be drunk and do something (drive, commit adultry, assault someone) is one thing. To be drunk, pass out (he didn’t know when either of them lay* down or got up), and have automatic physiological reactions to uninvited stimuli is quite another.
And as I said, I am not sure the text demands that he was passed out. But do you believe there is any sense in which he is culpable for his actions, given that he placed himself in that state?
I think it is possible for someone to freely participate in something under the influence of which they have no later memory. What is the distinction you would make between “one thing” and “quite another” in your above paragraph?
The difference is awareness and intent. I have no Hebrew, so I can only go by the English, but do you interpret “did not know” as “having no later memory?” I don’t. It sounds like genuine, real-time obliviousness. If he had a) no immoral intent, b) no ability to object or resist, and c) no reasonable way to anticipate his daughter’s actions, then I don’t think he was culpable for anything beyond the sin of drunkenness.
But I too am open to reasonable arguments to the contrary.
Discussion