Convictions and Complexities about Drinking
Image
Today I am going to take a stab at applying convictions and preferences to the subject of drinking. Let’s begin with convictions.
Convictions in General
A conviction is a belief or value we embrace as a crucial part of what we stand for and who we are. It is very different from a preference—or merely assenting to a belief or value.
For the believer, there are two levels of conviction. The first level—the deepest level—involves biblical conviction, although some deep convictions may extend beyond the Bible (e.g., a soldier surrendering his life for our country’s freedom). Our biblical convictions should be first and foremost. Where the Bible is emphatic, we must be clear and take a firm stand. This does not mean we must demand others to take that stand, but we certainly must urge fellow believers to follow what the Word actually says. This is not necessarily what we think it says, but what it actually says.
The difference between a biblical conviction and a preference is that we would suffer loss rather than disavow our biblical convictions. It may mean we lose a job, flunk a class, or be ostracized. In some nations, it means imprisonment or even death.
A preference, however, is something we prefer, but would not suffer for. For example, if we preferred to attend church Sunday mornings but lived in a culture where Friday was the national day off (as in a Muslim country), we could adjust and conduct church on Friday.
As our society becomes more aggressively anti-Christian, we are often disappointed to see supposed believers who (we thought had convictions) cave in. We discover that their “convictions” were actually preferences.
A lesser level of conviction involves beliefs that are not emphasized in the Bible; these are matters of conscience. Paul mandates we respect one another’s consciences in Romans 14:1-23 and I Corinthians 8:1-13.
Use of Alcohol, the Bible, and Evangelical/Fundamental History
Many Christians suggest that the Bible teaches moderation in drinking, while many others have concluded that the Bible teaches total abstinence. My suspicion is that the younger generations are more likely to embrace drinking, while the older generations oppose the idea.
Some of us choose to avoid alcohol—not because we believe it is wrong in moderation—but because it would be wrong for us. Take my case: I hail from a long line of alcoholics, including my father, uncles, and both grandfathers. I may have a genetic predisposition, so I am better off not getting into the habit.
How did abstinence and conservative evangelical/fundamental Christianity become paired together in the first place? In 1750, no Christians (to my knowledge) were against drinking in moderation. The Puritans, for example, would discuss theology while drinking ale. All churches used fermented wine for communion. How did things change?
Change began with the temperance movement. Evangelical Christians have a heritage of supporting the temperance movement of the early 20th century (that resulted in Prohibition). Because of the push against alcohol, a company named “Welch’s” began bottling unfermented grape juice—for communion use!
In addition, conservative evangelicals started rescue missions over 100 years ago—before the current secular “soup kitchens” caught on. People who have an alcoholic background are often brought down by just one drink, so our spiritual forefathers’ attempts at helping these people meant across-the-board abstinence for all church members. Some church covenants still require church members to totally abstain.
Today we battle all sorts of drug abuse, making substance abuse one of America’s premiere issues. Most people have concluded that Prohibition was a drastic mistake, and few of us are working with rehabilitated alcoholics. Like it or not, many Christians in America are now drinkers, at least on occasion. At the same time, we are completely free to abstain. We do not need to start drinking to prove with are with the times, free, or flexible!
When it comes to the Bible, alcohol use (in moderation) is the biblical example. The Greek word for unfermented wine (trux or trugia) is never used in the New Testament. Indeed, it is hard to imagine how someone could stumble over using grape juice (if that is what “wine” meant, as some claim) in Romans 14:21. A natural interpretation—and all Bible versions agree—tell us that Jesus turned the water to wine, not grape juice. We must pursue a biblical (rather than historical and agenda-driven) ethic.
Many Christians believe drinking alcohol is wrong, even in moderation. Others choose to abstain because of a logical argument (alcohol does more harm than good). Others take a moderation approach. But all of us need to be sensitive to others.
We do not allow alcohol at church events for good reason. Romans 14:21 (ESV) reads:
Do not, for the sake of food, destroy the work of God. Everything is indeed clean, but it is wrong for anyone to make another stumble by what he eats. It is good not to eat meat or drink wine or do anything that causes your brother to stumble.
Sometimes we need to adjust our habits based upon those around us, but only at the time. Otherwise we would all be abstainers and all vegetarians! Consideration for those who have sincere beliefs is a good thing; this is not the same as letting people with legalistic bents bully and impose their rules upon us.
Paul is talking about “weaker brothers” who would not be upset they didn’t get their way—but would be truly hurt—and perhaps emboldened to do things that bothered their consciences.
Moderation and Christian Alcoholics
Alcoholism within the Christian world is a genuine problem. Some people are typically driven toward excesses. Others (like Native American Indians) have a biological factor that makes alcohol highly addictive.
Drunkenness is a sin. Ephesians 5:18 says, “And do not get drunk with wine, for that is dissipation, but be filled with the Spirit” (NASB). The problem, though, is that most alcoholics (or occasional drunks) live in denial. One time, I knew a man who became so drunk he got in a fight with a fire hydrant. He lost. But he would talk about being able to “hold his liquor” and “not being drunk a day in his life.” The denial factor is strong.
Because we seem to have two polarized camps—drinking is always wrong or drinking is okay—we have failed to give real guidance to those who do drink.
So here is my attempt to do so. If you do drink, do you have to drink every single day? Or do you generally drink more than two or three drinks in a given day, or more than ten drinks a week? Are you safely within the boundaries of moderation? (For more information on defining moderation, see www.moderatedrinking.com.)
If you have a problem, you should elicit the prayer support of discreet members of our church family (like our elders, for example). There is no shame about enrolling in a treatment program or seeking Christian counseling.
All of us have our struggles; we all need the Holy Spirit to work within us through the Word, prayer, and relational involvement with our church family. Sometimes the best way to overcome sin is to focus upon loving God and loving others.
Ed Vasicek Bio
Ed Vasicek was raised as a Roman Catholic but, during high school, Cicero (IL) Bible Church reached out to him, and he received Jesus Christ as his Savior by faith alone. Ed earned his BA at Moody Bible Institute and served as pastor for many years at Highland Park Church, where he is now pastor emeritus. Ed and his wife, Marylu, have two adult children. Ed has published over 1,000 columns for the opinion page of the Kokomo Tribune, published articles in Pulpit Helps magazine, and posted many papers which are available at edvasicek.com. Ed has also published the The Midrash Key and The Amazing Doctrines of Paul As Midrash: The Jewish Roots and Old Testament Sources for Paul's Teachings.
- 652 views
[Bert Perry]No, Don, I understand your argument. You have argued, repeatedly, that since the word idolatry does not appear in Romans 14, that we are powerless to infer it. In other words, you are committing the logical fallacy of an argument from silence.
Ok, so from silence you are inferring that idolatry is there. Ok. have it your way. I guess your argument from silence trumps mine?
[Bert Perry] Sorry, but sound exegesis do take a look at parallel passages from the same author and the culture at hand.
Fair enough, but it is hard to imagine Paul’s prohibitions in 1 Cor turning into Paul’s permissions in Romans
Maranatha!
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3
[Bert Perry]The question, however, is not whether Scripture mentions it. It is whether Scripture mentions it as a blessing from God. I think if we’re honest, we’ve got to say that yes, God’s word emphatically describes wine as a blessing to His people—in moderation, of course, but a blessing nonetheless. Hence an appeal to the principle that “description does not equal prescription” fails for the simple reason that God’s word does not merely describe the use of wine, but rather notes that it is a blessing for God’s people.
Again, we don’t have to drink, and certainly we ought not forget the plight of the alcoholic or problem drinker. But when we take a look at Scripture as a whole, we cannot support the notion that all alcoholic beverages are evil. It simply doesn’t come from the text. Put bluntly, do we believe Sola Scriptura and the first fundamental, or do we not?
Clearly, there are many who are Sola Scriptura who do not believe the Bible declares consumption of alcohol to be an encouraged Blessing From God. If it were that simple, there wouldn’t be pages of conversation from honest, careful, reasoning individuals, Aaron Blumer being the most obvious in this forum.
You can lean on calling it a Blessing From God; I’ll lean on those passages that strongly encourages avoiding it. I don’t think any less of you for your decision, and I hope you don’t think any less of me for mine.
Cheers!
Ashamed of Jesus! of that Friend On whom for heaven my hopes depend! It must not be! be this my shame, That I no more revere His name. -Joseph Grigg (1720-1768)
I’d have to argue that if a person ignores either side of the equation, he doesn’t really believe in the first fundamental and Sola Scriptura. Don’t believe God gave wine for man’s blessing? Sorry, you aren’t a fundamentalist, because you’re ignoring what God said about the subject. Don’t believe God warns about the dangers of drunkenness? Sorry, you don’t believe in Sola Scriptura, either.
Really, it’s the same principle of moderation that one could apply to exercise, coffee, food, work, you name it. A cup of coffee is a blessing. A quart of espresso will put you in the hospital or kill you. And we don’t fault anyone for not drinking coffee, right?
Let’s have the same maturity regarding wine.
Aspiring to be a stick in the mud.
[Don Johnson]… Romans 14 admonishes believers to be tolerant of one another over religious scruples, not over differences regarding things tainted by evil (i.e., idolatry). And more than being tolerant, it admonishes the strong to restrain their practices for the purpose of building up the spiritual life of the weak (not convincing them their scruple is wrong).
I think you misunderstand my illustration about the KJV, but I’ll leave that aside since we don’t need to sidetrack the discussion further!
FTR, you are correct on your discernment of the absolute prohibition of knowledgeably incorporating pollutions of idols (meat) into the church or life of the obedient believer as well as the fact that Rom. 14 is not referencing this meat (Rom. 14 applies Acts 10; I Cor. 6-10 applies Acts 15). Now I would love to hear your thoughts on the equivalency of modern beverage alcohol with the Corinthian meat.
Lee
[Don Johnson]… 1 Corinthians 10:25 Eat anything that is sold in the meat market without asking questions for conscience’ sake;Why no asking questions? … Isn’t the implication that as soon as you know it is idol-meat, it is off limits?
No. Well, sort of. The Text says that when your unbelieving host tells you it’s idol-meat, it’s off limits.
You understand that when you find out the meat is idol-meat, then it’s off-limits.
I understand that when you find out that your host cares that the meat is idol-meat, then it’s off-limits.
That’s why Paul follows (v. 29) with “I do not mean your conscience, but his.” Your host is saying, “Good news, this has been offered to Asclepius! à votre santé!” He is respecting the idol, and so you have a chance to either join him or to not respect it. But it is for his conscience sake that you refuse, NOT yours.
[Don Johnson] The way I understand 1 Cor 8-10, the bottom line is “Don’t eat idol-meat if it is identified as such” - although as meat by itself, it won’t hurt you. There are three reasons given in the passage but it all comes down to this, “don’t do it.”No. Romans 14 and 1 Cor 10:25-30 treat Market-meat (note: not idol-meat of 1 Cor 8 and Acts 15) the same. If it’s ok with your conscience, go ahead. But - if it causes someone else to sin, then don’t.In Romans, IF it is idol meat, he makes NO such prohibition. …
––––
Time to point out a difference between Romans and 1 Corinthians.
-The Romans seem to be arguing about Market-meat. Some (Jews) think it’s wrong.
-The Corinthians are arguing about sitting in the idol’s temple and eating. For them, the lesser issue of Market-meat is practically an after thought.
The Romans have some Jews with a very strict application of idolatry avoidance (still a Biblical principle!).
The Corinthians have a bunch of gentiles with almost no application of idolatry avoidance (except, “In my mind, sitting there and eating is meaningless, so it’s fine.”).
[Don Johnson] Ok, so from silence you are inferring that idolatry is there. Ok. have it your way. I guess your argument from silence trumps mine?The issue in Rome was a Jewish issue.
The only Jewish issue that would have resulted in vegetarianism was idolatry-avoidance.
Therefore, Roman meat-eating is about idolatry-avoidance.
––—
Not air-tight, but I think a pretty compelling argument.
[Bert Perry] Don’t believe God warns about the dangers of drunkenness? Sorry, you don’t believe in Sola Scriptura, either.God doesn’t warn about the dangers of drunkenness, he forbids it.
There are plenty of passages that warn about wine and strong drink without stipulating intoxication. Drunkenness is not at question - at least I don’t think anyone in this forum would claim God permits drunkenness.
Ashamed of Jesus! of that Friend On whom for heaven my hopes depend! It must not be! be this my shame, That I no more revere His name. -Joseph Grigg (1720-1768)
Some make a point that if the Bible wanted to refer to unfermented wine, it could have used a word that only meant unfermented wine. That is to impose on the Bible a rule we never impose on ourselves.
We use imprecise language all the time:
Let’s stop at the drive-in and get a drink (even when it is a soft drink).
I sometimes say, “Who wants an ice cold nonalcoholic beverage?” People usually laugh. Why? Because we don’t normally talk that way. Yet, that is the way some insist the Bible should talk, otherwise it must have been they were talking of alcoholic wine.
On the other hand, highway signs say “Don’t drink and drive.” Imprecise language, but we all know what it means. Like the use of wine in the Bible and ancient literature, drink can be used to refer to alcoholic, or nonalcoholic drinks.
Scripture uses yayin and oinos to refer to both unfermented and fermented wine.
Oinos is used in the New Testament, in the same verse, of both unfermented and fermented wine (Matthew 9:17).
The Septuagint (LXX) used the Greek word oinos to translate wine, when it was obviously referring to unfermented wine; for example, Isaiah 16:10; Joel 2:24.
David R. Brumbelow
[JNoël]Bert Perry wrote:
Don’t believe God warns about the dangers of drunkenness? Sorry, you don’t believe in Sola Scriptura, either.God doesn’t warn about the dangers of drunkenness, he forbids it.
There are plenty of passages that warn about wine and strong drink without stipulating intoxication. Drunkenness is not at question - at least I don’t think anyone in this forum would claim God permits drunkenness.
Agreed 100% with the fact that God forbids drunkeness. Is not “sin” a danger along with wounds, passing out, loss of self-control, and the like? Perhaps I could be a bit clearer there, but I think you get the picture. If we neglect either the blessings of wine or the dangers/sinfulness of drunkenness, I would argue that either (a) we do not know what Scripture says about the matter or (b) we are not adhering to the 1st Fundamental or Sola Scriptura.
Yes, that is harsh, but I think it illustrates what Jim shows with his diagram; we fundamentalists tend to collapse questions, opinions, convictions, and absolutes into “all absolutes”, and the flip side of it is that we tend to lose track of what is really important. (next up, Psalms 149 & 150 and dancing )
Regarding the claim of numerous references to wine that are (a) negative and (b) do not involve drunkenness, here’s a listing of the uses of the word. My take is that if you look closely, you’ll see that the negative descriptions all involve drunkenness—when one “staggers”, “brawls”, or becomes a “hero” at mixing wine, we are talking about excess. Staggering starts, if I remember correctly, at about .20% BAC, or about 2.5 times the legal limit for driving. I’m open to being persuaded otherwise, though.
Aspiring to be a stick in the mud.
[Dan Miller]The issue in Rome was a Jewish issue.
The only Jewish issue that would have resulted in vegetarianism was idolatry-avoidance.
[or the possibility of being seethed in its mother’s milk {think cheeseburger}; or not certifiably handled in a kosher manner {hence the little circle K on all things kosher}; or being mixed with an unclean meat; etc.]
Therefore, Roman meat-eating is about idolatry-avoidance.
––—
Not air-tight, but I think a pretty compelling argument.
Edit and emphasis mine
Lee
Lee, good point.
But it couldn’t be just “or,” right? I mean even if those things were part of why they refused all meat, in Rome 52AD, suspicion of idol-tainting would have been on their list, and probably on the top of it.
So, can a Christian drink an O’Douls?
"Some things are of that nature as to make one's fancy chuckle, while his heart doth ache." John Bunyan
[Dan Miller]Lee, good point.
But it couldn’t be just “or,” right? I mean even if those things were part of why they refused all meat, in Rome 52AD, suspicion of idol-tainting would have been on their list, and probably on the top of it.
“Probably” is a guess—nothing more. That there are a lot of reasons a believer of devout Jewish origin would refuse anything possibly tainted as unclean practically to an extreme level (vegetarianism) is evident. That idol-tainting is probably on the list is no more or no less meaningful than any other valid reason. Having had the opportunity to travel and interact with some of devout Jewish (and other) dietary leanings it is easy for me to see extreme vegetarianism as a logical practice to assure protection from unclean/forbidden meats.
The point is that idol-tainting is no where hinted at as the reason for Rom. 14. Rome is in the relatively early stages of being repopulated with Jews, many of whom were exiled some half dozen years earlier. That some believers of the James/Jerusalem stripe (“…they are all zealous of the law…”) and others of the Peter stripe (“What God has cleansed that call not thou common…”) show up in the church in Rome is far more in keeping with the context, and is evidently what is being addressed.
Most certainly Rom. 14 is not a renouncing of the clear prohibitions of partaking of pollutions of idols found in Acts 15, I Cor. 6-10, and other places.
Lee
[Dan Miller]Don Johnson wrote:
… 1 Corinthians 10:25 Eat anything that is sold in the meat market without asking questions for conscience’ sake;Why no asking questions? … Isn’t the implication that as soon as you know it is idol-meat, it is off limits?
No. Well, sort of. The Text says that when your unbelieving host tells you it’s idol-meat, it’s off limits.
You understand that when you find out the meat is idol-meat, then it’s off-limits.
I understand that when you find out that your host cares that the meat is idol-meat, then it’s off-limits.That’s why Paul follows (v. 29) with “I do not mean your conscience, but his.” Your host is saying, “Good news, this has been offered to Asclepius! à votre santé!” He is respecting the idol, and so you have a chance to either join him or to not respect it. But it is for his conscience sake that you refuse, NOT yours.
I think you are conflating two scenarios into one. Here is the passage in its entirety:
1 Corinthians 10:25 Eat anything that is sold in the meat market without asking questions for conscience’ sake; 26 FOR THE EARTH IS THE LORD’S, AND ALL IT CONTAINS. 27 If one of the unbelievers invites you and you want to go, eat anything that is set before you without asking questions for conscience’ sake. 28 But if anyone says to you, “This is meat sacrificed to idols,” do not eat it, for the sake of the one who informed you, and for conscience’ sake; 29 I mean not your own conscience, but the other man’s; for why is my freedom judged by another’s conscience? 30 If I partake with thankfulness, why am I slandered concerning that for which I give thanks? 31 Whether, then, you eat or drink or whatever you do, do all to the glory of God.
Verse 25-26 proposes one scenario: buy anything you want in the market, just don’t ask questions about it.
Verse 27-30 proposes a second scenario: eat any meal in an unbeliever’s home unless he mentions the meat is offered to idols.
In both cases, the implication is that if you know it is idol-meat, abstain.
Are you saying that the passage is describing one and only one scenario? I agree with you on most of what you say, you are correct in seeing 1cor 8.1-10.24 to be about eating meat in the idol temple.
[Dan Miller]Don Johnson wrote:
The way I understand 1 Cor 8-10, the bottom line is “Don’t eat idol-meat if it is identified as such” - although as meat by itself, it won’t hurt you. There are three reasons given in the passage but it all comes down to this, “don’t do it.”In Romans, IF it is idol meat, he makes NO such prohibition. …
No. Romans 14 and 1 Cor 10:25-30 treat Market-meat (note: not idol-meat of 1 Cor 8 and Acts 15) the same. If it’s ok with your conscience, go ahead. But - if it causes someone else to sin, then don’t.
––––
Time to point out a difference between Romans and 1 Corinthians.
-The Romans seem to be arguing about Market-meat. Some (Jews) think it’s wrong.
-The Corinthians are arguing about sitting in the idol’s temple and eating. For them, the lesser issue of Market-meat is practically an after thought.The Romans have some Jews with a very strict application of idolatry avoidance (still a Biblical principle!).
The Corinthians have a bunch of gentiles with almost no application of idolatry avoidance (except, “In my mind, sitting there and eating is meaningless, so it’s fine.”).
I think it is possible that the issue in Rome is Jewish scruples, the words “clean” and “unclean” tend to point in that direction. However, I don’t think the text absolutely declares it and think that interpretations that insist on it tend to distort the impact of the passage. For us and our situations, it isn’t Jewish scruples we have to deal with amongst our brethren (or ourselves), but various scruples that have come about by various traditions and experiences. The passage is vague as to source and specific circumstances which makes it excellent for applying to any era of the church.
Anyway, I think we have pretty well worked out where we have points of difference in our interpretation. In the main, I agree with how you are taking the passages, I think.
Maranatha!
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3
[Jim]
…but I reject its broad-brush characterizations.
Each of the “personal practices” for the “Fundamental views” (View A & View B) presumes abstention (“I don’t drink…”).
Each of the “personal practices” for the “Evangelical views” (View C & View D) presumes consumption (“I drink in moderation…”).
Well, I know fundamentalists who consume, and evangelicals who abstain. There is often a large disconnect between what these views presume and actual practice.
Discussion