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
[Don Johnson]Bert Perry wrote:
Actually, that is exactly where I want to bring the discussion—well said. Romans 14 tolerance ought to be limited to things that are disputable and Biblically based. There are other provisions in Scripture for cases where two sides both agree that they, and the other, see the matter as indisputable—it is cause for hearty, but cordial, debate between the sides, and at a certain point might also be a cause for separation. I for one would not attend a church where it was preached that Jesus made unfermented grape juice at Cana, and I would guess that David would edge away from a church that preached that Christ most likely made ordinary wine with alcohol.
That is as it should be—what is at risk with the “common” view of Romans 14 is that all too often, it is used to (ironically) set a mood where Christians are almost compelled to hold to a specific cultural view that is not significantly supported in Scripture—I view this as an abuse of Christian liberty. So more and more, I would suggest that instead of simply acquiescing in the abridgement of freedom in Christ, believers ought to ask the supposed “weaker brother” what real, Biblical reasons they have for their position. It would be a lot more productive than what we have today.
Quite frankly, this is a complete misunderstanding of Romans 14. Apart from the differences between Rm14 and 1 Cor, the whole thrust of Romans 14 is not to give the strong-conscience believer to do as he pleases. In fact there are two instructions. The first is mutual toleration of each others views, the second is voluntary limitation by the strong (hold their views in private) with a view to being a blessing to the weak. They are not to try to convince the weak conscience believer of the rightness or wrongness of his views. They are simply to set the differences aside and the strong are to do everything in their power not to put a stumbling block or an enticement before the weak conscience believer while also seeking their edification.
The chapter is not about Christian liberty at all. It’s about Christian love and ministry to one another.
Don, the passage is certainly about love and ministry in the case of liberty. How else can we account for the fact that Paul clearly notes that it’s OK to observe the (presumably Jewish) holy days, or not? How else can we account for the fact that Paul clearly notes it’s OK to eat meat and drink wine, or not? Love is involved; so is liberty.
It is also crucial to remember that the passage is about disputable things related to faith—in other words, I would argue that you’ve got to have a Biblical case that the actions involved are disputable, and that the consequence of failing to love one’s brother in this disputable matter is some crisis of faith. It’s not just a way that we can point to a behavior we don’t like (drinking, dancing, wearing halter tops, going to the movie theater), use a guilt by association fallacy “argument”, and then proceed to tell the church’s kids they cannot watch “Bambi” because some things coming out of Hollyweird feature nudity and fornication.
It’s a passage where the clear requirements—disputable matters affecting faith for starters—have been horribly ignored in modern fundagelicalism. So I dare suggest that we need to start asking ourselves, when someone suggests we ought to abridge our liberties in such and such a case, to examine their logic (throw out any genetic fallacies/guilt by association) and determine whether it is truly a Romans 14 case. My gut is that in general it is not.
(there are other reasons to abstain from exercising one’s liberties, but there are also some times where we simply need to tell people to grow up and read what Scripture actually says about the matter)
Aspiring to be a stick in the mud.
[Bert Perry]…So I dare suggest that we need to start asking ourselves, when someone suggests we ought to abridge our liberties in such and such a case, to examine their logic (throw out any genetic fallacies/guilt by association) and determine whether it is truly a Romans 14 case. My gut is that in general it is not. …
Bert, am I understanding you right? You seem to be saying that if you determine that it was faulty logic that your brother used to arrive at his conviction, that makes him ineligible for the protections of Romans 14?
[Dan Miller]Bert Perry wrote:
…So I dare suggest that we need to start asking ourselves, when someone suggests we ought to abridge our liberties in such and such a case, to examine their logic (throw out any genetic fallacies/guilt by association) and determine whether it is truly a Romans 14 case. My gut is that in general it is not. …
Bert, am I understanding you right? You seem to be saying that if you determine that it was faulty logic that your brother used to arrive at his conviction, that makes him ineligible for the protections of Romans 14?
Dan, the standard I’d appeal to is not “Bert Perry”, but rather the view of an ordinary person who has learned some of the basic rules of informal logic. Sort of a theological parallel to the legal standard of the “reasonable person would believe”. Reality is that genetic fallacies (guilt by association, personal attacks, etc..) are not subtle errors. If you are saying that behavior X is wrong because it is often seen among those who practice sin Y, you are using a fallacious argument.
We need to start calling people on this for a very simple reason; any thinking person who has learned a touch of logic will instantly recognize our use of the genetic fallacy, and from that point forward, we will have nothing to say to him. It’s a huge reason that we have so many fights in our “camp”—we have learned the use of personal attacks and guilt by association with our “mother’s milk” in church. Hence instead of appealing to Scripture, we say “Dr. Wagner has nothing to say to us because he’s on staff at Duke and is a Methodist” and the like.
Aspiring to be a stick in the mud.
Ok, Bert, I just want to express some caution because you’ll want protection from Romans 14 when they want to judge you, and I think you need to correspondingly not despise and to some degree refrain from the exersize of your freedom in order to promote fellowship.
I do think that discussion of logic and Biblical application is ok, but even that isn’t the purpose of our fellowship (Romans 14:1).
–-===–-
[Don Johnson]…Now to get to the topic of the thread, do you then see the passage being applicable to alcohol? That is, that a scruple about alcohol should be something where we can come to different conclusions and leave it at that? I ask because I would have trouble seeing how that would work, but I’ll leave the question there and perhaps say more later.
Don, I know this is an alcohol thread, so you’re within your rights to ask. However, I believe that answering the alcohol question now pointlessly adds emotion to the debate.
The real solution, as I see it, goes back to what you said 49 posts up: “the misinterpretation of Romans 14 has perpetuated a huge misunderstanding of Christian liberty amongst many believers. It hasn’t improved the life of the church at all.”
If we can arrive at a common understanding of [Rom-14, 1Cor-7-10, etc.), then we will have the tools God intended us to have to apply to such things. BUT if we cannot agree on what Romans 14 says (including what ought to be a Romans 14 issue), then how to apply it is moot.
We have nothing to call one another to except God’s Word.
Dan, I’m going to disagree with your characterization for a very simple reason; all who have learned basic tools of logic ought to be able to agree that genetic fallacies are out of bounds, rhetorically speaking, and ought to be able to recognize some of the variants easily—even when the offender is “on our own side”. If we are to be people of the logos, we need to learn some logic, and informal logic is a great place to start.
My view of desiring Romans 14 protection is about the same; there are at least two preconditions, that it must be disputable and a matter of faith, for the protection to strictly speaking qualify. Otherwise, no, I don’t want to be protected by something that does not apply, and for a very simple reason; such cases are opportunities for discussion, growth, and the like, for both the person being objected to and the objector.
Aspiring to be a stick in the mud.
[Bert Perry]So new wine is not completely fermented—that’s why it’s also called “sweet wine”—but it definitely contained alcohol. And which was better? Well, look at Luke 5:39. The ancients preferred fully fermented (“drier”) wines, according to our Savior. Part of the attraction for old wines was also that it was pretty completely fermented and would not become vinegar if exposed to air.
Hi Bert,
While generally agreeing with you, this particular point, I don’t. Again, generally, new wine was fully alcoholic. The microorganisms take about 3-5 days to completely convert the juices’ sugars to alcohol. Yes, some might even say as long as 3 weeks, but that is not my main point of contention with your statement.
The Luke passage has Jesus speaking about the New Covenant as opposed to the Old Covenant. He is not really commenting on the drinking habits of Jews. Notice the reference to old and new garments also. Jesus is cryptically speaking of the New Covenant here. He does so in a parable.
"Our faith itself... is not our saviour. We have but one Saviour; and that one Saviour is Jesus Christ our Lord. B.B. Warfield
Alex, let’s do a word picture here. Let us imagine that Christ had come to Minnesota instead of to Israel, and questioned about why His disciples did not fast, He closed with “And no one, having eaten lutefisk, immediately desires fried walleye, for he says ‘the lutefisk is better.’” Those of us who know both walleye and lutefisk would say He was nuts—the point would be completely lost.
So to convey the point Christ is trying to make, the ancients must have preferred fully fermented and somewhat aged wines. This shouldn’t surprise us, because this is exactly the same preference most wine lovers have today. So while it is not the central point of the verse, it is an inescapable conclusion from the passage. If old wine was not judged to be better by the ancients, Jesus’ main point is completely lost.
Aspiring to be a stick in the mud.
[Dan Miller]If we can arrive at a common understanding of [Rom-14, 1Cor-7-10, etc.), then we will have the tools God intended us to have to apply to such things. BUT if we cannot agree on what Romans 14 says (including what ought to be a Romans 14 issue), then how to apply it is moot.
We have nothing to call one another to except God’s Word.
Hi Dan,
The quote I listed is not the one I really wanted to address from you, but it should suffice. You mentioned earlier how Daniel was blessed by not eating food offered to idols (but made no mention of the wine-that was offered to idols too). This is why Daniel didn’t drink the wine since there was no prohibition against any wine per se- just whatever was offered to idols.
Wine was central to both Jews, Greeks, and Romans as a beverage. It was so central that in some cities (such as Pergammon whose ruins have both the Greek and Roman versions of wine temples [Dionysus/Bacchus] ). The ‘Symposium’ was what Paul objected to when he said “abominable drinking parties”. Any study of the pagan rites of Dionysus should repulse a Christian.
The issue in Rom. 14 is idolatry and not about Jewish vows of abstaining from the ‘fruit of the wine’. Just as meat was offered to idols, so was wine offered to idols. The Jews historically (and scripturally) avoided any meat (even if it was lamb, beef, or goat) that was offered to an idol as well as wine offered in temples. The issue was not about alcohol at all in Rom. 14 but what was distinct. The OT Jews (in following scripture) rightly took a stand against idols and claimed correctly no gods but the One.
edit: What I mean by OT Jews (in the last sentence) were observant Jews living in Greek places (not OT Jews in Israel).
"Our faith itself... is not our saviour. We have but one Saviour; and that one Saviour is Jesus Christ our Lord. B.B. Warfield
[Bert Perry]Alex, let’s do a word picture here. Let us imagine that Christ had come to Minnesota instead of to Israel, and questioned about why His disciples did not fast, He closed with “And no one, having eaten lutefisk, immediately desires fried walleye, for he says ‘the lutefisk is better.’” Those of us who know both walleye and lutefisk would say He was nuts—the point would be completely lost.
So to convey the point Christ is trying to make, the ancients must have preferred fully fermented and somewhat aged wines. This shouldn’t surprise us, because this is exactly the same preference most wine lovers have today. So while it is not the central point of the verse, it is an inescapable conclusion from the passage. If old wine was not judged to be better by the ancients, Jesus’ main point is completely lost.
Yes, the old is preferred generally. I was mostly reacting to your characterization that Jesus expounded the Jewish wine preferences. But what if this old wine was not as good? An older wine may be worse than a new. Once the new has developed properly it may be if fact better than an older one.
Jesus is now our Passover. Shavuot was fulfilled when the Spirit was given. The OT tells use that God will do away with the fasts of the 4th, 5th, and 7th months. Jesus was not narrowly just talking about fasts from the immediate context but referencing the promised New Covenant.
After the NT scripture was fully developed (especially Hebrews), the ‘new wine’ is in fact better than the ‘old’.
"Our faith itself... is not our saviour. We have but one Saviour; and that one Saviour is Jesus Christ our Lord. B.B. Warfield
[alex o.]…
The issue in Rom. 14 is idolatry and not about Jewish vows of abstaining from the ‘fruit of the wine’. Just as meat was offered to idols, so was wine offered to idols. The Jews historically (and scripturally) avoided any meat (even if it was lamb, beef, or goat) that was offered to an idol as well as wine offered in temples. The issue was not about alcohol at all in Rom. 14 but what was distinct. The OT Jews (in following scripture) rightly took a stand against idols and claimed correctly no gods but the One.
edit: What I mean by OT Jews (in the last sentence) were observant Jews living in Greek places (not OT Jews in Israel).
I think you err when you attribute the issue with meat/beverage offered to idols as a Jewish issue. Acts 15 makes it clear that the prohibition against “pollutions of idols” was for all believers and was not just a “Law bone” being thrown to a bunch of whiny believing Jews to make them happy when circumcision was struck down as a necessity for salvation. The crux of Acts 15 is something akin to Jewish law is not necessary for salvation, but you Gentiles can’t syncretize pagan practice (idolatry; immorality; inhumanity [i.e., barbarity] into the Gospel either.
Rom. 14 is referencing objects of biblical mandate (meat—holy days) that have undergone a change of status initially communicated to the apostles/elders by the Holy Spirit for the good of the church. That some are having a hard time believing that that status has actually changed after 1500 years of inspired law and rabbinical interpretation/application s not only likely, but expected.
At best pollutions of idols are peripheral. At best.
Where I think we are with the matter of modern alcoholic beverage as per this discussion is to answer this question: is modern beverage alcohol a pollution of the defining idolatry of the western culture, particularly American culture? If the answer is yes then I Cor. 8-10 has definitively given the conclusion—“…eat not!”
Lee
Hi Dan
I agree with what you say in this post, quoted below. You are quite aware, I am sure, that your non-answer to my question could be taken as a dodge. If we can’t make a specific application at some point, we are just talking theories.
[Dan Miller]Don Johnson wrote:
…Now to get to the topic of the thread, do you then see the passage being applicable to alcohol? That is, that a scruple about alcohol should be something where we can come to different conclusions and leave it at that? I ask because I would have trouble seeing how that would work, but I’ll leave the question there and perhaps say more later.
Don, I know this is an alcohol thread, so you’re within your rights to ask. However, I believe that answering the alcohol question now pointlessly adds emotion to the debate.
The real solution, as I see it, goes back to what you said 49 posts up: “the misinterpretation of Romans 14 has perpetuated a huge misunderstanding of Christian liberty amongst many believers. It hasn’t improved the life of the church at all.”
If we can arrive at a common understanding of [Rom-14, 1Cor-7-10, etc.), then we will have the tools God intended us to have to apply to such things. BUT if we cannot agree on what Romans 14 says (including what ought to be a Romans 14 issue), then how to apply it is moot.
We have nothing to call one another to except God’s Word.
As I see it, the key distinction between Romans and Corinthians in terms of what is under discussion is this: Romans is talking about religious scruples, conscientious attempts to please God by avoidance of things or actions in order to promote holiness (meat in general or inappropriate activity on a holy day), whereas Corinthians is talking about conscientious horror at betraying God by dalliance with idolatry (meat clearly connected with idol worship).
To my mind, a Christian conscience against alcohol is not held as a means of promoting holiness, but as a means of avoiding unholiness. Thus if either passage applies to alcohol, it would be the Corinthian passage.
I wonder if that is clear enough. One thing I find with posts like these is that we are writing and thinking quickly and don’t take the time to craft our words as carefully as we probably should in order to make ourselves clear. I’ve tried to take extra time with this one, but who knows? Communication is a frightful beast.
Maranatha!
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3
[Lee]I think you err when you attribute the issue with meat/beverage offered to idols as a Jewish issue. Acts 15 makes it clear that the prohibition against “pollutions of idols” was for all believers and was not just a “Law bone” being thrown to a bunch of whiny believing Jews to make them happy when circumcision was struck down as a necessity for salvation. The crux of Acts 15 is something akin to Jewish law is not necessary for salvation, but you Gentiles can’t syncretize pagan practice (idolatry; immorality; inhumanity [i.e., barbarity] into the Gospel either.
Rom. 14 is referencing objects of biblical mandate (meat—holy days) that have undergone a change of status initially communicated to the apostles/elders by the Holy Spirit for the good of the church. That some are having a hard time believing that that status has actually changed after 1500 years of inspired law and rabbinical interpretation/application s not only likely, but expected.
At best pollutions of idols are peripheral. At best.
Where I think we are with the matter of modern alcoholic beverage as per this discussion is to answer this question: is modern beverage alcohol a pollution of the defining idolatry of the western culture, particularly American culture? If the answer is yes then I Cor. 8-10 has definitively given the conclusion—“…eat not!”
Your analysis is hardly convincing.
Take note of these issues in Rom. 14:
1. In 13.13 Paul commands not to carouse and and be drunken. He does not command total abstinence there so why does he say in Rom. 14 it is good not to drink wine because of a weaker believer? You have to have consistency between these two references. It would only make sense that the wine to abstain from is ‘idol wine’.
2. In the huge city of Rome other meats were available that Jews could eat, therefore the vegetable eater had other issues with the meats and wines.
3. The whole of the book and especially this section is about Jewish/Gentile Christian relations. Yes, Sabbath keeping and type of food (such as pork) are also included. However, another issue besides the type of foods was food offered to idols which observant Jews clearly knew was wrong. The observant Jews living in Rome had historically avoided idol food. Now mostly Gentiles (it seems) were continuing to eat their regular fare which included meat and wine offered to idols. One almost has to include this category or parts of the chapter make no sense.
Paul says that it was o.k. to eat them and that they were not to be judged for eating those foods. The Jewish Christians had to realize God accepted the eater or non-Sabbath keeper. It would be wrong for Jewish Christians to abrogate grace to the Gentile and continue traditions that were designed only for a time. Yet the mutual building up and deference should rule. Also, one had to be fully convinced and eat in faith.
As for Acts 15, only one of these prohibitions is enduring: abstinence from immorality. In 1Cor. 10 Paul says to eat unless someone else is conscience stricken. So, eating idol food is not absolutely prohibited. Should Christians avoid blood sausages and road kill?
"Our faith itself... is not our saviour. We have but one Saviour; and that one Saviour is Jesus Christ our Lord. B.B. Warfield
Am I dodging? Are you using a preferred conclusion to select meaning in the Text?
I know that sounds accusatory. Sorry about that.
I owe responses to Alex, Bert, and Lee…
[alex o.] Hi Dan,It probably would be best just to say that you’re right. I believe it is extremely unlikely that the Vow theory is correct. After all, if the issue in Rome was about Jewish Vows, then they would NOT have been judging over it. They would have known and easily communicated that it was a personal vow ONLY and not for others.The quote I listed is not the one I really wanted to address from you, but it should suffice. You mentioned earlier how Daniel was blessed by not eating food offered to idols (but made no mention of the wine-that was offered to idols too). This is why Daniel didn’t drink the wine since there was no prohibition against any wine per se- just whatever was offered to idols.
Wine was central to both Jews, Greeks, and Romans as a beverage. It was so central that in some cities (such as Pergammon whose ruins have both the Greek and Roman versions of wine temples [Dionysus/Bacchus] ). The ‘Symposium’ was what Paul objected to when he said “abominable drinking parties”. Any study of the pagan rites of Dionysus should repulse a Christian.
The issue in Rom. 14 is idolatry and not about Jewish vows of abstaining from the ‘fruit of the wine’. …
I would say Jewish objection to market-level-idol-tainted meat is the OBVIOUS understanding of Romans 14. Now, I have to be fair to Don and Lee, who have been reluctant to agree with that. We interpret Scripture by Scripture. That means that we will sometimes discard an obvious understanding of a passage if another passage forces us to.
Acts 15 prohibits idol-meat. Some say that was a temporary command and is no longer in effect by the time Romans and 1 Cor are written. (An attempt to understand Scripture by Scripture). But then what of Rev 2, which also condemns idol-meat?
The answer is that either there are two levels of idol-meat:
1. eidolothuton - Temple-Idol-Meat (referred to in Acts, 1 Cor 8-10a, and Rev 2)
2. hierothuton - Market-Idol?-Meat (referred to in Romans 14 and 1 Cor 10b)
( - or - Romans 14 isn’t about idol-meat at all - but that’s a last resort position
Bert,
You call for logic and while I agree with teaching logic, I don’t agree with excluding illogical convictions from Romans 14. I understand that desire. I think the fallacy of the undistributed middle is incredibly common in conviction-making. And it makes it just that much tougher to tolerate the convictions of others when it seems that their own reasons don’t make sense.
I still caution against it. (Though, again, there’s nothing wrong with teaching logic.)
There are times when people apply principles differently, even though they are both being logical. And the central issue of these passages is how to deal with differences. NOT how to use logic to solve them. In fact, Paul clearly assumes that Romans 14 will not solve the differences, but help people live in fellowship with them.
—> “Help them be more logical” is just not in Romans 14.
On the subject of logic and convictions, I wrote a paper a long time ago that might help with what I mean by people coming to different convictions, even though they both are Biblical and logical: Paul and Logic: Grace-Gifts
[Dan Miller]Am I dodging? Are you using a preferred conclusion to select meaning in the Text?
Touche!
Well, I am interested in fully understanding the text. I am also a strong opponent of drinking alcohol in almost every context. Can’t think of a modern context where it really is a legit option. But I don’t want to read my opinions into the text either. I would be interested in further discussion as you have time.
Maranatha!
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3
Discussion