Legalism in the SBC

Various authors (aggregated by Andy Naselli) stake out definitions for various (up to 4) types of legalism.

If at least a couple of them are right, then Jones’ concern may rightly be called legalism.

Remember he subscribes to the WCF, which has a very interesting chapter on liberty of conscience, the heart of Jones’ argument.

[DavidO]

Various authors (aggregated by Andy Naselli) stake out definitions for various (up to 4) types of legalism.

If at least a couple of them are right, then Jones’ concern may rightly be called legalism.

Remember he subscribes to the WCF, which has a very interesting chapter on liberty of conscience, the heart of Jones’ argument.

Did someone say France has very low rates of alcohol problems?

French Combat Youth Binge-Drinking
“In decrying the excessive alcohol consumption of their compatriots, American and British health experts have long pointed to France with special admiration. Here, they said, was a society that masters moderate drinking. In wine-sipping France, the argument went, libation is just a small part of the broad festival of life, not the mind-altering prerequisite for a good time. The French don’t wink like the English do at double-fisted drinking; they scorn people who lose control and get drunk in public. It’s a neat argument. But it sounds a little Pollyannish now that France itself is grappling with widespread binge-drinking among its youth. Worse still, fully half of 17-year-olds reported having been drunk at least once during the previous month.” -Time Magazine, July 17, 2008; quoted in “Ancient Wine and the Bible.”

See more at:

Problem Drinking Outside The USA

http://gulfcoastpastor.blogspot.com/2015/07/problem-drinking-outside-us…

David R. Brumbelow

“More precisely, legalism is the false belief that keeping certain laws - whether biblical or not - can be used as a condition for meriting God’s grace, whether for justification or sanctification (see Galatians 3:3). But one can legislate wise laws about human behavior without being legalistic in the biblical sense of the concept. Otherwise, laws against drunk driving and illegal immigration - and a host of other things beneficial to society - would be legalistic and, thereby, wrong.” -Dr. Norman L. Geisler; president, Southern Evangelical Seminary; author.

David R. Brumbelow

France has been having more of this problem over the last couple decades. It is said to be a change, but I wonder how much is due to better surveillance.

Regardless, those who take a Biblical position of allowing moderate alcohol ought to be willing to admit that it is prone to abuse and addiction with devastating results. To deny that is dangerous. To minimize it is dangerous.

The possibility of something becoming addictive and enslaving or abused and distracting from our mission doesn’t mean that thing isn’t one of God’s gifts, meant to be enjoyed in moderation. I think you could make some sort of danger-addictive argument for every pleasure.

If someone wants to avoid the dangers by total abstinence, that is fine. But it’s not ok to require it.

[WallyMorris] We can clothe our arguments with nice sounding words such as “freedom, liberty”, etc.

Wally, what do you mean by “nice sounding words”? These are Biblical teachings.

[David R. Brumbelow]

Did someone say France has very low rates of alcohol problems?

French Combat Youth Binge-Drinking
“In decrying the excessive alcohol consumption of their compatriots, American and British health experts have long pointed to France with special admiration. Here, they said, was a society that masters moderate drinking. In wine-sipping France, the argument went, libation is just a small part of the broad festival of life, not the mind-altering prerequisite for a good time. The French don’t wink like the English do at double-fisted drinking; they scorn people who lose control and get drunk in public. It’s a neat argument. But it sounds a little Pollyannish now that France itself is grappling with widespread binge-drinking among its youth. Worse still, fully half of 17-year-olds reported having been drunk at least once during the previous month.” -Time Magazine, July 17, 2008; quoted in “Ancient Wine and the Bible.”

See more at:

Problem Drinking Outside The USA

http://gulfcoastpastor.blogspot.com/2015/07/problem-drinking-outside-usa…

David R. Brumbelow

Here is a link to the article. I’m going to start by noting that the article does not mention how the data were collected; sociological data are loaded with poor methods. But even if we accept the data as is, we find that the article also states that youth in France are simply deciding that drunkenness is acceptable, which is exactly the factor I mentioned. The article also demonstrates another thing that I’ve noted; that among people without a bent to drunkenness, specifically adults in France, alcohol problems are low. So what’s the matter with youth? Well, it could be hopelessness for the future, since youth unemployment in France is about 25%, about twice that of the U.S. rate, among other factors.

In other words, nice way of demonstrating that acceptance of drunkenness, not alcohol itself, is the problem, and that if we want to deal with the problem of drunkenness and its after-effects, we have to look at the root causes, not just blame the tool people use to get drunk. Really, do we tolerate this kind of thinking when the subject is, say, firearms? Of course we don’t; we take another look at the data to see what’s going on, and point out that family breakdown seems to be creating both young criminals and young drunks. Now do we see this in France?

Yes, we do.

Honestly, we’ve got to do some better thinking on the subject (and less rather selective editing of sources) than we’ve historically done.

[David R. Brumbelow]

“More precisely, legalism is the false belief that keeping certain laws - whether biblical or not - can be used as a condition for meriting God’s grace, whether for justification or sanctification (see Galatians 3:3). But one can legislate wise laws about human behavior without being legalistic in the biblical sense of the concept. Otherwise, laws against drunk driving and illegal immigration - and a host of other things beneficial to society - would be legalistic and, thereby, wrong.” -Dr. Norman L. Geisler; president, Southern Evangelical Seminary; author.

David R. Brumbelow

Legalism involves teaching as doctrines the commandments of men. State laws don’t pretend to be God’s laws. And obeying laws about drunk driving or the speed limit, etc. are not intended to be means of sanctification or justification.

“The Milan city council unveiled a study that showed that 34% of 11-year-olds have “problems with alcohol” (without specifying what those problems are). In June the Alcohol Observatory of the Italian National Health Institute found that 63% of youths under 18 get drunk on weekends, with boys consuming an average of four drinks per drinking session and girls consuming six.”

-Time.com, Italy Starts Cracking Down on Underage Drinking; July 29, 2009.

And the list could go on, and on, and on.

David R. Brumbelow

My apologies for suggesting in my initial comment that David had selectively edited things. I was wrong.

That said, here is the link, and let’s parse this quote out:

the Milan city council unveiled a study that showed that 34% of 11-year-olds have “problems with alcohol” (without specifying what those problems are).

Emphasis mine. Now is the problem really that all those 11 year olds are drunks, or is the problem busybody city council members with an agenda to push? The full quote leaves that question very open, and the article as a whole, again, demonstrates that the acceptance of drunkenness is the issue, not alcohol itself. The article states that young people are asking bartenders to “make something strong”—in other words, mixed drinks heavy on the hard liquor. For whatever reason, kids in Italy want to get drunk—I’m guessing it might, in part, have something to do with their 44% youth unemployment rate and imploding family structure. Yes, I looked it up.

Really, having been a young skull full of mush a few moons ago, I seem to remember that parties with alcohol and dope seemed to happen when mom and dad were out of town, or were hosted by the burnouts themselves.

No bones about it; drunkenness is an issue, and that’s something the Bible, and science, make very clear. Drunkenness does lead to the consequences described in Proverbs 23, as well as the ravages of alcoholism. Hard liquor, with typical alcohol percentages twice to five times that of wine, also makes it easy to get drunk. But please; let’s not confuse drunkenness with moderate use of alcohol. The Bible does not, science does not, and hence we should not.

Back to the subject, it almost seems that we need at least two words for legalism, one to describe the soteriological version where we say that if someone does not follow X rule, they are not saved, and one for law-making with a judgment on sanctification—though I’d have to admit they often overlap. It would have been interesting to see whether the wordsmiths of the SBC declaration to which I heartily object had to work hard to remove both from the draft resolution to avoid these. If they did not, kudos to the SBC for having delegates with at least that level of maturity.

Pastor Brumbelow,

So it was ok for the Pharisees to legislate “washing with the fist?” Jesus didn’t seem to think so.

This, to me (and Jones), is the fundamental error. Individuals may sometimes need to impose “safe harbor” standards on themselves due to weakness, etc. Individuals may never impose extra-biblical standards on others, period. This is a yoke of bondage not to be tolerated.

Jesus is Lord of the conscience, not the SBC delegates, or the FBFI board, or the Bible college faculty.

Having said that, Dan is right. It does no good to minimize the dangers of alcohol. My own father (whose death is at least partially attributable to alcohol abuse) demonstrated to me the destruction abuse can wreak in one’s life. Strict personal standards regarding alcohol are wise.

[DavidO]

Pastor Brumbelow,

So it was ok for the Pharisees to legislate “washing with the fist?” Jesus didn’t seem to think so.

This, to me (and Jones), is the fundamental error. Individuals may sometimes need to impose “safe harbor” standards on themselves due to weakness, etc. Individuals may never impose extra-biblical standards on others, period. This is a yoke of bondage not to be tolerated.

Jesus is Lord of the conscience, not the SBC delegates, or the FBFI board, or the Bible college faculty.

Having said that, Dan is right. It does no good to minimize the dangers of alcohol. My own father (whose death is at least partially attributable to alcohol abuse) demonstrated to me the destruction abuse can wreak in one’s life. Strict personal standards regarding alcohol are wise.

Tyler, please explain why. Somewhere above I was certain Pastor Brumbelow stated one may “legislate extra-biblical standards” for another/others, although I cannot find it now (edit?).

But what the SBC is doing is essentially what the Pharisiees were doing. In order to keep people from crossing an explicit Biblical line (drunkenness, in this case), they have legislated an extra-biblical line to which they would hold people strictly acountable (tee-totalism). How is this different from the Pharisees drawing fence lines to pull people up short of violating God’s actual laws? Do tell.

[DavidO]

On the other hand, I am disappointed (and somewhat intrigued) by the fact that the LBC2 does not include the 4th paragraph of WCF’s liberty of conscience chapter, the rest of which they cribbed nearly verbatim. This is the point of love and mutual submission in the local church. If one goes to a church which has proscribed alcohol, love constrains one not to disturb that peace.

But do you see the difference there? The voluntary laying down of liberty out of love for another vs. the tyranny of the demanding others conform to the dictates of one’s own conscience?