Approving Alcohol, Prohibiting Marijuana: An Inconsistent Position

This is the problem with your reasoning: Unless you can find a clear prohibition, you will not prohibit it. Based on that reasoning, we do not have any grounds to prohibit slavery since the Bible does not prohibit it. Prohibition of slavery is based on biblical principles, just as today’s alcohol and other issues. We do not have any Biblical grounds to prohibit an adult male from marrying a 15 yr old girl, but we prohibit it anyway. Prohibition of abortion is based on Biblical principles, since the Bible does not have any verse that specifically prohibits abortion. Your reasoning for not prohibiting today’s alcohol opens a Pandora’s Box of problems.

[WallyMorris]

Tyler: I have always understood your position/belief. What I find odd is that Christians will not equate scotch, whiskey, and brandy with the Biblical “strong drink” and are willing to leave that as a “liberty issue”, which it is not. And yes, some Christians do have a “secret fetish for alcohol”. I’ve seen it in their conversation, behavior, and bragging about alcohol. Once again: The marijuana issue will come back to haunt those who drink alcohol.

Once again, the Old Testament canon was closed about 400BC. Distillation was invented in the 1st century AD. Hence Strong’s 7941, in context, can not refer to distilled spirits. Silly, silly argument. The reason to be concerned about distilled spirits is simply because one can get very, very drunk or even dead in a hurry with them. That noted, while I am not a fan, I know many people who drink them responsibly.

Really, what we need to remember is that it’s not drinking per se that leads to alcoholism, but rather binge drinking. It’s worth noting that since Greek and Roman elites were well known for binge drinking, and Proverbs 23 and 1 Timothy 3 give hints about this. Proverbs 23 gives the result of a binge—feeling no pain, red eyes, waking up forgetting what happened, and….craving another drink. In the same way, Paul does not tell the church that a pastor must be a teetotaler, but rather that he ought not be “given” or “addicted” to wine.

This is really instructive, and we might do well, for alcohol and dope alike, reconsider what we’ve been doing because it’s simply not what the apostles, prophets, or church fathers did. When “we” push teetotaling as a requirement for fellowship, attendance at a seminary, and the like, what we’re really doing is pushing alcohol into the shadows. Now, guess what one of the chief warning signs is for alcoholism? Guess what happens when people who think they’re addicts find their way into meaningful community, or even rats?

Yeah, I’m saying that mandatory abstentionism makes the problems worse. As a friend of mine jokes, “Protestants don’t recognize the Pope, Catholics don’t recognize Westminster or Augsburg, and Baptists don’t recognize each other in the liquor store.”

One other thought is that if you want to combat something that kills a LOT of fundagelicals each year, you need to start talking about the “standard American diet” and lack of exercise, which kills far more people than alcohol and drugs combined—by a factor of five or six. Spend 5% of the energy we spend on booze and put it into rebuking people who are obviously carrying an extra 50 lbs due to too many Super Big Gulps and trips to McDonald’s and the Old Country Buffet, and you’ll do about 100x more good.

[Bert Perry]

One other thought is that if you want to combat something that kills a LOT of fundagelicals each year, you need to start talking about the “standard American diet” and lack of exercise, which kills far more people than alcohol and drugs combined—by a factor of five or six. Spend 5% of the energy we spend on booze and put it into rebuking people who are obviously carrying an extra 50 lbs due to too many Super Big Gulps and trips to McDonald’s and the Old Country Buffet, and you’ll do about 100x more good.

I agree, but I don’t think it’s either/or. Moderation is something I’d consider a command—we are not to indulge in excess, period. We are to act with thoughtful care, and an eye to the possible (if you’ll permit me to use the term) ‘butterfly effect’ of our decisions.

Whether or not you believe the recreational use of alcohol is permitted, I think the point I’m taking away from the OP is that we should consider whether or not the comparison of alcohol and marijuana is legitimate (set aside the obvious legality issues, and focusing specifically on the physical effects).

[WallyMorris]

This is the problem with your reasoning: Unless you can find a clear prohibition, you will not prohibit it. Based on that reasoning, we do not have any grounds to prohibit slavery since the Bible does not prohibit it. Prohibition of slavery is based on biblical principles, just as today’s alcohol and other issues. We do not have any Biblical grounds to prohibit an adult male from marrying a 15 yr old girl, but we prohibit it anyway. Prohibition of abortion is based on Biblical principles, since the Bible does not have any verse that specifically prohibits abortion. Your reasoning for not prohibiting today’s alcohol opens a Pandora’s Box of problems.

Wally, exactly how would American slavery have gotten started if , per the Torah, American authorities had punished man-stealing with death? Exactly how would it have continued if the term of slavery was the Biblical six years (for men), and exactly how many slave-owners would have bothered with the practice if “bed-wenches” were prohibited, and maiming constituted a reason to free slaves?

Besides, wine is specifically commended in Scripture—you will find no examples of our Savior making men slaves, or any Psalmist saying that slaves make glad the heart of man, will you? But you do find our Savior making wine, and you do find the Psalmist noting its benefits. Honestly, fundagelicals have got to start doing better than this.

Susan, I can see abstaining in the home if there’s a problem drinker/alcoholic, so as not to make it easy for him to get his fix, but I’ve got to reject the notion of the “butterfly effect” for two reasons. First of all, Scripture does not make it, and that should really end the discussion. Second, most men drive by several places that sell, serve, or advertise alcohol on their way to work, shop, or wherever else they go. Unless one is in a dry county or Utah, you see booze at grocery stores and gas stations, wine glasses in any kitchen store, etc.. Even in dry counties, you will see and hear advertisements for it in most any newspaper, radio broadcast, or TV broadcast.

Due to this, I am extremely skeptical of the notion that a man (or woman) can run that gauntlet without harm, but will fall off the wagon if he sees a brother buying or enjoying liquor.

I used the term ‘butterfly effect’ in concert with the idea of prudence—thinking something through thoroughly so as to be able to act in good conscience. To go further would be extreme, and contradict acting in moderation.

The “butterfly effect” is actually a way of describing inherently unstable situations where “the flapping of a butterfly’s wings” is said to cause a major disaster halfway around the world. It’s often used in the sciences to describe situations where the governing mathematics are inherently unstable—weather is one of them. That’s why tomorrow’s weather report is generally significantly off—the math is simply too volatile.

What you’re getting at is really more plausible consequences, and either alcohol or drugs appear to be, by and large, more stable, mathematically. Examples include the reality that binge drinking is really what drives alcoholism, and the fact that when the 20% of Vietnam soldiers who used heroin there came home, 95% of them did not use heroin when reunited with family support structures, and without the burden of fighting a war they knew they weren’t going to win.

I would agree, though, that much fundagelical histrionics about alcohol and drugs owes a lot to true “butterfly effect” arguments, and it’s my hope and prayer the movement can grow beyond it.

Based on the reasoning so often used in this discussion to avoid prohibiting alcohol or marijuana, the same reasoning could be used to avoid prohibiting polygamy. The Bible does not expressly prohibit polygamy, yet I would assume those involved in this discussion would not hesitate to tell someone that polygamy is wrong. Why? Because of the application of Biblical principles to the topic. Some of the reasoning used here reminds me of the all-to-common abortion comment: “I am personally against abortion, but it’s not my place to tell someone else they can’t do it.”

Bert loves to use the term “fundagelicals” in his usual way. But neither Bert nor anyone else who approves of wine or will not oppose wine (and perhaps marijuana) has faced the fact that people in Biblical times used wine differently by diluting it with water. Will you, in order to follow their example (which you seem to be determined to use as justification), state that Christians who drink wine today should dilute the wine with water? I doubt you would agree to that, even though the practice has been thoroughly documented by Geisler and Stein. Bert keeps insisting on better arguments. What he really means is agreeing with him.

The topics/issues of abortion, slavery, and polygamy are relevant to the discussion about wine/alcohol and marijuana since we must take Biblical principles and apply them to areas the Bible is silent about. To insist that we cannot prohibit something unless the Bible specifically prohibits it is narrow thinking that avoids dealing with the complexity of behavior and practice today. Honestly, people like Bert must do better in their reasoning.

As far as eating and diet, I have written about that at Proclaim and Defend.

Where in the Bible is the practice of diluting wine with water found? Just asking for a friend. I know it’s in II Maccabees but so is praying for the dead. (Smile more.)

Wally says:

[WallyMorris]

…people in Biblical times used wine differently by diluting it with water. Will you, in order to follow their example (which you seem to be determined to use as justification), state that Christians who drink wine today should dilute the wine with water? I doubt you would agree to that, even though the practice has been thoroughly documented by Geisler and Stein.

Joe Believer sits down in a restaurant, and orders a ribeye. He also orders a glass of red wine, which he believes complements the flavor of the steak.

As Joe sips from the 6 oz. glass of wine (a typical serving), he alternates with sips from a 18 oz. glass of water on the table. At the end of the meal, Joe has finished both glasses of liquid.

Wally, previously in this thread you specified a dilution ratio of 3:1 as being common/standard/typical in biblical times. In my example above, since Joe has consumed water at a ratio of 3:1 to wine (18 oz. : 6 oz.), would Joe have met the standard you specified? Or are you aware of some physiological difference between dilution occurring pre-ingestion vs. post-ingestion?

Polygamy? Um, did Exodus 21:10 escape your mind, or Deuteronomy 17:17, Wally? Or 1 Timothy 3, or Titus 1:6? Or all the times the patriarchs learned the hard way that husbands are one thing women simply don’t share well?

On the light side, we might joke that marriage and wine are alike in that both are best enjoyed in moderation, I guess.

Seriously, though, it comes down in my mind to a simple question; does Scripture speak positively about wine in many places, or does it not? Since it clearly does, our choices, if we want to be fundamentalists, are to either (a) accept it as written or (b) come up with a “two wines” theory like the one David Brumbelow promotes. Really, anything else simply does violence to the 1st Fundamental and Sola Scriptura.

And really, the “two wines” theory does huge violence to the 1st Fundamental and Sola Scriptura simply because we wouldn’t tolerate such an opportunistic definition with any other word. It would put the guy who devised “two breads” or “two cheeses” or “two regenerations” in a position of the Magisterium/Pope.

Maybe it’s time, say, to actually read the Scripture for what it actually says, which is that wine is a good thing, but drunkenness is a sin. And maybe, when we actually apply what Scripture actually says, we’ll be able to see clearly when a guy with chronic back pain admits he’s taking dope instead of opiates to control it.

Is mentioned only once specifically in the Bible, in Isaiah 1:22, where it is part of God’s judgment that Israel’s choice wine is diluted with water. There are other references to mixing wines, but you’d have to guess at what they were mixing it with. Pagan authors do record the practice, however.

Through the centuries, mixing wines with various substances (honey, water, spices, etc..) has been done to enhance the flavor profile and quite frankly to mask the off tastes of inexpensive wines. I’d guess the wedding host in John 2 was actually preparing to make cheap wine palatable, and was shocked that he didn’t have to. Modern equivalents would include wine coolers, some mixed drinks, and sangria, and many people have learned the hard way that since it’s basically an “alco-pop”, it is quite easy to get very, very drunk on them.

And it’s also entirely irrelevant to what Wally is saying, since diluting wine 3:1 makes most wines about the same strength as beer, about which the FBFI has plenty to say.

As I try to respond to some of the convoluted thinking posted in this discussion, I’d like to say once again that I appreciate SI posting some of my articles from Proclaim and Defend. SharperIron has become somewhat boring except for the spirited discussions about certain topics. One of the more interesting aspects of SI in the past were the interviews SI did with people like Mark Minnick and Robert Delnay. Perhaps SI can do that again.

A common theme in the responses which support (or will not oppose) drinking wine and even “strong drinks” such as scotch and whiskey is “The Bible does not specifically prohibit drinking those beverages, so therefore I cannot tell someone that drinking those beverages is wrong.” That reasoning, if applied consistently and thoroughly, leads to an inability to oppose abortion, slavery, polygamy, and other practices which Christians routinely oppose.

The responses are not convincing.

The verses Bert uses for his argument against polygamy do not specifically prohibit polygamy for the average person. Exodus 21:10 only requires a man who takes another wife to make sure that he provides for the first wife properly. Deut 17:17 specifically focuses on the “king” which Israel will have one day. The verse prohibits the king from “multiplying wives for himself”, which prohibits many wives (such as Solomon did) and, in context, only applies to the king. The verse does not actually prohibit having a couple of wives, only “multiplying”. 1 Timothy 3 applies specifically to pastors and deacons, and Titus 1 applies to pastors. If this is all Bert has to justify prohibiting polygamy, he doesn’t have much of an argument. Bert is actually taking some specific Biblical teaching and making broader application. And this illustrates the problem I pointed out in my article. Those who will not make broader applications of the Biblical teaching and principles about wine and strong drink will find it difficult to criticize other behaviors and practices. Can a Biblical argument be made against polygamy? Of course. Bert hints at that argument when he mentions how men learned “the hard way” about polygamy. (Much more can be said than that, of course.)

What about abortion? What Bible verse specifically prohibits abortion? In fact, on several occasions, the Lord told (or it’s implied in the account) Israel to kill everyone in certain cities, including children, which would include babies. Think of Jericho, Ai, Makkedah, Libnah, and more. Now, before you think of “Thou shalt not kill (murder)” and apply that commandment to abortion, you have to establish that an unborn baby is a human being who can be protected by that commandment. In order to do that, you have to use Biblical teaching and principles which would apply to this topic and use, to some degree, science to demonstrate that the unborn baby, even only a few days old, is a human being. My point is that, in opposing abortion, you have to go beyond whether or not the Bible specifically prohibits or allows something and apply Biblical principles to the topic. That is called wisdom. Which brings me back to the alcohol/marijuana issue. What is the wise choice to make? Should people who make such foolish choices be teaching in our Sunday Schools, Christian colleges, and seminaries?

As far as beer, wine, and water dilution: I raised that point to demonstrate that Christians who drink wine and even stronger alcoholic drinks do not dilute their drink, even though they insist on using Biblical example for their justification. That is inconsistency. If someone were to dilute their wine with water, as per Biblical/ancient practice, I could respect that more (though still question why they would insist on drinking wine when other, safer beverages are available) than a Christian who never dilutes and drinks such strong alcoholic beverages. I just find it odd that Christians insist on drinking something with such dangerous potential. Such practice is characteristic of the foolishness which Proverbs warns about. The continual use of the positive Biblical mentions of wine as justification seem hollow when we have a multitude of safer beverage choices today. That is what causes me to question a person’s reasons for using wine. And, again: If today’s wine is not the same as ancient wine, then the justification argument fails.

The responses concerning slavery have missed my point completely. Slavery was practiced in NT times and never specifically prohibited. Paul did give instruction to slaves and masters who were Christians, but he never prohibited the practice. So: Why do we say that slavery is wrong if the Bible does not specifically prohibit slavery? The answer: The application of Biblical principles to the topic. Biblical Teaching leads to Biblical Principles which lead to Biblical Convictions which lead to Biblical Standards. We have a Standard of not practicing slavery because we have Convictions that slavery is wrong because we have Principles concerning human beings based on Biblical Teaching. Slavery is wrong even though the Bible does not have a single verse specifically stating that slavery is wrong. Yet those who insist on not prohibiting consumption of alcoholic beverages because the Bible never prohibits that consumption, if they are consistent, will have a difficult time prohibiting slavery or polygamy.

The only response they can offer is that the Bible speaks of wine in positive ways, which, at times, it does. But the assumption is that today’s wine is the same. Is it? Read Geisler’s article Bibliotheca Sacra, Jan-March 1982, pp46-56. Some of the responses make me wonder if they have bothered to read the articles by Geisler and Stein. Dilution of wine is an historical fact, found in several ancient sources. The Bible doesn’t mention the practice probably because there wasn’t need to mention it since it was a common and expected practice. Read the articles and learn.

So much of what Christians do today has more to do with the “religion of me” than anything else. The “religion of me” focuses on me, myself, and what I want to do, can do, and how far I can go without sinning. The “religion of me” says that if the Bible doesn’t prohibit it, then I can do and no one can tell me otherwise. No wonder Evangelicalism and Fundamentalism seem powerless to give a gospel witness.

Is there not anyone in this discussion who has argued in favor of drinking wine who will say that drinking scotch, brandy, whiskey, etc is wrong? Have we come to point where we are so “nuanced” and “erudite” that we will not oppose these hard liquors any longer? If not, then you also will have great difficulty consistently opposing slavery, polygamy, and, yes, marijuana.

(Unfortunately, this is all the time I have for this discussion now. I’ll leave the topic for others.)