Approving Alcohol, Prohibiting Marijuana: An Inconsistent Position

Wally, I am an abstentionist, but the issues of polygamy, slavery, and abortion are really not that complicated and do not help your cause. For example, Jesus affirmed in Mt. 19 that God created marriage as between one man and one woman, so everything that falls outside of that definition including polygamy was always a distortion of God’s original design. It’s pretty cut and dry.

OK, Wally, so pointing out that it is practically speaking “very difficult” to be polygamous without wronging one’s wives, and that it bars a person from church office for this very reason, amounts to little argument against polygamy?

And pointing out that the colonists, not to mention the Royal Navy, should have been punishing slave traders with death, and that the term should have been limited, does not amount to a serious argument against slavery? Are you serious?

My first response to your slippery slope fallacy is to simply note that if you’ve got some real Biblical arguments against any of these things, have at it. But in all your writing, I have yet to see that. What I do see, rather, is a bunch of secular arguments more or less telling us to expel anyone from the church who accepts the invitation to celebrate the wedding at Cana.

What that says to me, in effect, is that Wally’s dipping his toes in the Tiber, setting up a FBFI Magisterium that he believes is capable of addressing these issues. The problem with this is that you can’t do that without fatally compromising the First Fundamental and Sola Scriptura.

And to be blunt about the matter, not only does that take the “F” out of the FBFI, but if I had to choose, I’d rather have Christians get drunk every night with three wives apiece and slaves to man (or eunuch) the harem than to jettison these critical doctrines. Not that I support drunkenness, slavery, or polygamy, but if you have Sola Scriptura, you can correct course—not so much with the BFI’s Magisterium.

Here’s a preview of the article of Norman Geisler’s that Wally has been referencing. I didn’t bother getting access to the whole thing after his horrendous eisegesis of Deuteronomy 21:20-21, where he emphasizes the notion that getting drunk was a capital crime without mentioning the real capital crime was to be an incorrigible and rebellious son—being a drunkard or glutton (Geisler has at least two chins, ahem) was merely evidence of that. Geisler also mangles Leviticus 10:8-9 by neglecting to mention that priests only needed to abstain prior to going into the Tent of Meeting.

Never mind that in the first few paragraphs, he conflates any drinking with drunkenness, which again would come as something of a surprise to the attendees of the wedding at Cana, to put it mildly. I am supposed to pay to read the whole article when the lead paragraphs are that bad? Seriously?

Again, if we want to tell the world that we value the Scriptures as our sole rule of faith and practice, we have got to stop pulling stunts like this, where it is obvious to anyone “outside the club” that the conclusion was decided before the Bible was as much as opened. Otherwise, our supposed adherence to the First Fundamental and Sola Scriptura is a farce.

This is the problem with your reasoning: Unless you can find a clear prohibition, you will not prohibit it.

Aren’t we under grace instead of law? Isn’t salvation nothing more than faith alone by grace alone? Did God save us from sin so that we could fulfill every jot and tittle of the law through the hard work of obeying the law that he gave to Israel? Isn’t it because of God’s grace to us that we model and demonstrate grace to everyone else? I mean - at the end of the day, what is your understanding of grace, and how does that apply to the Christian life?

I’m really surprised at your continued insistence that the people on SI are libertines or antinomians. Surely you can object to arguments without insisting on false motives or ill intent.

Wally wrote:

This is the problem with your reasoning: Unless you can find a clear prohibition, you will not prohibit it.

Apart from the reality that I and others did indeed respond to your test cases with evidence that clearly would have made things impossible for those to practice them, what if the default Christian approach to things where there isn’t a clear Biblical proscription is, indeed, liberty? It seems to me that Paul’s responses to those who would replace faith with rules were rather emphatic—Galatians 1:8 and Galatians 5:12 come to mind—and maybe, just maybe, this places the onus on the “one who wants a rule” to make very, very sure that his reasoning is Biblical.

And again, to be blunt about the matter, I don’t see that in what Wally and the BFI are arguing. It’s worth noting that when I looked up the other reference—Bob Stein I believe—what I found was mostly secular, pagan arguments for watering down wine. It doesn’t prove at all that ancient Hebrews did the same, just that their neighbors did. Certainly it does not prove a Biblical imperative.

11 Reasons to Not Drink Alcohol

1. God said to be sober (1 Thessalonians 5:6-8; 1 Peter 5:8; NKJV). The Greek word “nepho” literally means wineless; free from intoxicants.

2. We are to love God with all our minds (Mark 12:30). Alcohol impairs that mind.

3. It is expensive (Proverbs 23:21).

4. It makes you do foolish things you would never do in your right mind (Proverbs 23:29-35).

5. It is dangerous and addictive (Proverbs 20:1).

6. It hurts your testimony; you influence others to drink; you often harm others (Romans 14:21).

7. Drugs should not be used for recreation and pleasure.

8. Never take that first drink, and you will never become a problem drinker.

9. Drinking supports an industry that has destroyed untold thousands.

10. Not drinking is prudent and wise (Proverbs 20:1; 22:3).

11. You should rely on God, not drugs (Psalm 11:1).

http://gulfcoastpastor.blogspot.com/2017/04/11-reasons-to-not-drink-alcohol.html

These reasons also pretty well apply to the problem drugs of marijuana and opioids.

Jesus said,

But I say to you, I will not drink of this fruit of the vine from now on until that day when I drink it new with you in My Father’s kingdom. -Matthew 26:29; also Mark 14:25

Fruit of the vine in no way only refers to alcohol; it most naturally refers to fresh, new, nonalcoholic wine or grape juice. The word wine is not even used here, although if it were, wine is used in the Bible and ancient literature to refer to both alcoholic and nonalcoholic wine. Notice Jesus also said He would drink it new. In Matthew 9:17 Jesus referred to new wine and that had not fermented. Of course, ancients knew and practiced multiple ways of preventing fermentation.

David R. Brumbelow

1. They have no nutritional value.

2. They lead to obesity which is the predominant cause of cardiovascular disease.

3. They are addictive.

4. It’s a waste of God’s money to purchase something that gives you nothing but fleshly pleasure.

5. They hinder your personal testimony if you’re already overweight.

6. They are associated with indulgence of the flesh.

7. Their primary ingredients (refined sugar and white flour) are distortions of foods used in the Bible.

8. They contain leaven which is always a symbol of sin.

[Ron Bean]

1. They have no nutritional value.

2. They lead to obesity which is the predominant cause of cardiovascular disease.

3. They are addictive.

4. It’s a waste of God’s money to purchase something that gives you nothing but fleshly pleasure.

5. They hinder your personal testimony if you’re already overweight.

6. They are associated with indulgence of the flesh.

7. Their primary ingredients (refined sugar and white flour) are distortions of foods used in the Bible.

8. They contain leaven which is always a symbol of sin.

Andrew, take heart—you can have them in moderation, just like marriage or wine! Yes, the “Standard American Diet” (and lack of exercise) kills at least 5-6x more people than do alcohol and all illegal drugs combined, but that doesn’t mean one cannot enjoy a bit of sugar from time to time. Proverbs 25:16.

And more seriously, if anyone is inclined to believe David’s ideas about how the ancients could have preserved grape juice without fermentation, keep in mind that two of the methods he proposes—boiling it in a lead pot or preserving it with salt—would be injurious or even lethal if done to any significant extent. Others, like putting it in a sealed pot underwater in a cool place, wouldn’t stop fermentation. Take it from a guy who lets bread rise in the fridge—40F does NOT stop fermentation, and it doesn’t get nearly that cool in Israel, even underground.

There are great reasons to enjoy God’s good gift of wine, and there are great reasons many abstain, but David’s work undermines the doctrines of Sola Scriptura and the First Fundamental by imposing nonsensical structures on the Biblical words for wine, and moreover suggests some quite frankly dangerous and ineffective methods for food preservation.

Pardon me if this has already been discussed in this thread, but I’m curious about one application of this discussion in local church membership. I’m sure most of the churches represented here are autonomous / independent. But I wonder about churches that have covenant statements which prevent members from consuming alcoholic beverages under any circumstance and how that’s enforced? I know such statements are often found on church websites under “What We Believe” etc.

I understand covenant statements on alcohol used to be more common than it is now. I know my home church’s covenant back in the 90’s had a statement like “We agree not to partake in the consumption of beverage alcohol including buying or selling alcoholic beverages.” Or something like that. Thus if a member violates this it is a plausible discipline action. (Now I don’t recall church discipline over this, but I know it happens). Also, a bigger question for me is that these statements prevent those from joining who believe they have such liberty in the utmost moderation of course. That’s the rub—how this statement is taken as—“Sorry, but you’re not welcome here” for those people who otherwise would or could join that church. I suppose the answer is that those who hold the liberty of moderation, to sideline that to fellowship with and hold accountability to Christ’s body which is the greater need / good? I say that assuming there are no other churches of like faith & practice nearby.

My hunch is that Pastors Brumbelow and Morris have church covenant statements like this. Maybe not. But if so, these are definitely prohibitionist rules for all members, not merely “abstentionist” principles for individuals.

Also, I understand churches have published bylaws which hold officers (pastors/elders and deacons) to a higher standard. I get that, but I’m more interested in the wisdom (or not) for specific covenant statements for all members.

SMB

It appears that the addition of a prohibitionist statement in church covenants became more prominent in the early 20th Century. (Beer was a staple for the Pilgrims but I’m sticking with turkey.) The prohibition statement has been a “you’re not welcome here” from a lot of churches to a question-asking younger generation as well as “how we dress” and “conservative music” declarations.

Scott, that’s a great point, though I’d state things a little bit differently. You are certainly right that it’s a prohibitionist statement, that it’s a discipline action, and that it says to many (not just young people) that they’re not welcome.

Reality is far worse, though. Since there are numerous places where wine is spoken of positively in Scripture, it also says that when push comes to shove, culture wins out over Scripture. You get a similar effect, but not as emphatically, with requirements for conservative music and attire—and it is only not as emphatic, really, because the Scripture never says outright that blue jeans and the 12 bar blues are good.

Gentlemen and the rest,

Whatever our views on wine and alcohol are, surely we can agree that coffee and donuts are not in the same category. That’s not the say that there should be unwise use of either. But they are simply not the same. I can’t imagine that would have to be said but it sounds like some are actually treating that like a serious comparison.

Let’s do a little better than that.