Legalism in the SBC
- 108 views
I haven’t cross checked the Savoy, but the WCF is really close on this.
http://www.proginosko.com/docs/wcf_lbcf.html#WCF20
Nice, Jim. hahahahaha
Colossians 3 comes to mind for me. There are any number of people out there who will tell me whether or not I can eat pork or shellfish (lots of “Christian” diet books do this), whether or not I can have a drink, whether or not I can participate in some sort of dancing, when and how I can make love to my wife, what kind of car I can drive, what kind of house I can own, whether the music I listen to can have a beat, and the like….whatever happened to freedom in Christ? We implement all these rules, and then we wonder why we all look like we were weaned on a pickle. If that’s what joy in Christ looks like, no thank you!
In other words, while I’ve got no argument that drunkenness often leads to nasty side effects (just like the other besetting sins like gluttony, covetousness, lust, etc..), the testimony of Scripture is that the church is, contra Mr. Brumbelow, not entitled to make rules willy-nilly to deal with every perceived societal problem. It’s a huge faith killer, and the way we do things often belies our professed adherence to Sola Scriptura.
Aspiring to be a stick in the mud.
Bert, you said two things I want to push against:
“extra-Biblical” and “make rules willy-nilly.”
One thing I’ve tried to do all through my series on conscience is to emphasize that applications, while personal, are to be viewed as logical, Biblical, noble ways to love and serve God.
So we need can call convictions “Biblical” without saying that they are for everyone. And we can call them logical (not willy-nilly).
The tough thing seems to be respecting the convictions of others while not universalizing them.
Regarding this statement of mine:
You cannot draw a legitimate parallel between the issues from Mark 7 (ceremonial washing, the inter-testamental prejudices against Gentiles, and the Corban rule) and the alcohol controversy. None.
Here is my reply:
- Ceremonial washing prior to meals because of fear of ritual defilement (see Mishnah, tractate Yadayim) is not in Scripture. It was a “tradition of the elders” that was completely invented whole-cloth. The tractate itself gives great insight into just how legalistic the Pharisees were, and it should make anybody who is tempted to draw a parallel between them and the SBC re-think their views.
- The Corban rule is completely extra-Scriptural
- The inter-testamental animosity towards Gentiles was completely un-Scriptural, and is against their implied missions mandate (be it passive or active) from the Old Covenant (Ex 19:1-8). This prejudice is why it took Peter so long to realize that Gentiles could actually be saved (cf. Acts 10:34-35). This prejudice is likely why John eagerly asked Christ to destroy a city of Samaria with fire from the heavens (Lk 9:51-56). This prejudice against Gentiles is reflected in the tractate Yadayim when, for example, it states that anybody who has touched a parchment containing the Aramaic words from Daniel and Ezra, written in Assyrian characters, is rendered ceremonially unclean (4.5).
You cannot legitimately draw a parallel from this foolishness to the SBC.
Tyler is a pastor in Olympia, WA and works in State government.
I am not replying to anyone’s post—just making some observations. We live in a day when folks are really quick to say the Bible is ‘silent’ on many, many things. Some even argue the Bible is silent on homosexuality. Part of this is an impatient unwillingness to dig deeply in the Word and an unwillingness to specifically apply commands that might appear to be sort of catch-all warnings for us. There is sort of a nickel-in, gumball-out approach to the Scriptures. If one doesn’t get a quick thumbs-up or thumbs-down from the Scriptures, then one is quick to declare the Bible ‘silent’ on the matter, thereby quickly enthroning his own conscience as the arbiter of what should be done, while at the same time robbing the Scriptures of their sufficiency. This in turn results in folks rushing out to high-handedly exercise their Christian liberty without having stopped to even consider what God might actually think about their behavior choices. They haven’t stopped to consider for instance, Romans 12:2 where we are commanded to renew our minds, exercise discernment and thereby arrive at what is most pleasing to God. We live in an age of discernment agnostics—those who quickly say “I don’t, can’t, or won’t know what God’s mind is on a matter, so I will decide to do what I want, and if anyone confronts me, I will slap them with the charge of legalism.”
[TylerR]Ceremonial washing … was a “tradition of the elders” that was completely invented whole-cloth …
You cannot legitimately draw a parallel from this foolishness to the SBC.
So you are saying that, per scripture and the consensus of the saints throughout church history, legislating tee-totalism is not “completely invented whole-cloth.”
I think you have lots of reading ahead of you. Enjoy.
Now, from the other side of my mouth, Darrell’s post above has much wisdom.
To appreciate my point, you need to read tractate Yadayim.
Tyler is a pastor in Olympia, WA and works in State government.
[Dan Miller]Bert, you said two things I want to push against:
“extra-Biblical” and “make rules willy-nilly.”
One thing I’ve tried to do all through my series on conscience is to emphasize that applications, while personal, are to be viewed as logical, Biblical, noble ways to love and serve God.
So we need can call convictions “Biblical” without saying that they are for everyone. And we can call them logical (not willy-nilly).
The tough thing seems to be respecting the convictions of others while not universalizing them.
Dan, I know where you’re going, but the fact of the matter here is that the SBC used a passage that clearly describes the effects of drunkenness—over twice the legal limit for driving—as an excuse for prohibiting all in their association from attending the wedding at Cana. That’s nothing like the Romans 14 issue of “all the wine and meat in this city is offered to Zeus, so I won’t partake” or “I don’t drink because the liquor store in town makes its profits selling forties to homeless alcoholics”. It’s rather pastors and other church leaders totally failing to exegete a passage responsibly, and then using that flawed exegesis to willy-nilly impose burdens on their congregants.
When Peter did this by refusing to eat with Gentiles, Paul called him on it, no? Does not Scripture warn that those who teach will be judged more strictly? Judging by the number of books I’ve thrown away or sidelined because of egregious errors like this, I’d have to say it’s long past time to start calling them on more or less dereliction of duty.
Aspiring to be a stick in the mud.
Maybe I’ve missed it, but no one has mentioned that today’s alcoholic drinks are much different than OT & NT alcoholic drinks. The alcohol content is much higher in most of today’s drinks, which would seem to make today’s alcoholic drinks much more dangerous. So the justification that “Jesus did, so we can too” seems an invalid comparison. Additionally, if someone wishes to justify drinking alcoholic beverages because Biblical people did, then he has to dilute the drink with water as Biblical people did, usually 2 or 3 parts water to 1 part alcoholic beverage. People who not dilute their wine were considered barbarians. But I doubt anyone will dilute their drink. So all the talk about our “freedom” seems to be a not quite exact comparison.
Wally Morris
Huntington, IN
[WallyMorris]Maybe I’ve missed it, but no one has mentioned that today’s alcoholic drinks are much different than OT & NT alcoholic drinks. The alcohol content is much higher in most of today’s drinks, which would seem to make today’s alcoholic drinks much more dangerous. So the justification that “Jesus did, so we can too” seems an invalid comparison. Additionally, if someone wishes to justify drinking alcoholic beverages because Biblical people did, then he has to dilute the drink with water as Biblical people did, usually 2 or 3 parts water to 1 part alcoholic beverage. People who not dilute their wine were considered barbarians. But I doubt anyone will dilute their drink. So all the talk about our “freedom” seems to be a not quite exact comparison.
Wally, wine’s been about the same strength ever since ancient days because fermentation stops when the yeast runs out of sugar or dies. Hence wines, beers, sake, and other undistilled drink max out at about 20% alcohol. Want something that’s diluted 3:1 from that? It’s called a “wine cooler”, and they sell billions of ‘em every year. Most mass market beer is about the same strength, and you need that strength to kill the creepy crawlies you often found in water at the time. This effect is one reason the Pilgrims landed in MA—they were running out of beer and would have had to drink brackish water on the Mayflower.
You could point to distilled spirits (whiskey, vodka, brandy), and such, but even today, most liquor drunk is beer or wine. So it’s really about the same as it ever has been for most drinkers.
Plus, look up and see how much full strength wine it takes to get an average man drunk. To get a 200lb man drunk by the standards of Proverbs 23, we’re talking close to 1.5 liters (two full bottles) of the stuff. A glass or two over dinner simply does not get you anywhere near there. The reason you’d call someone a barbarian back in the day for drinking wine full strength is because it was assumed he’d be getting a lot of his water from it, and then he would be getting drunk.
Put gently, try to get to .2% BAC or so with a drink at 5% or less alcohol, and you’re going to risk your kidneys and your electrolyte balance more than you are going to risk the adverse consequences of drunkenness.
Aspiring to be a stick in the mud.
For those who may not know, the 2006 SBC Resolution against alcohol is nothing new. Southern Baptists have opposed beverage alcohol since at least the 1880s. Through the decades they have passed over 40 resolutions on alcohol; all against it.
David R. Brumbelow
Here is an excerpt from the sample covenant from J. Newton Brown’s The Baptist Church Manual. I daresay this excerpt may be in many Baptist church’s constitutions even today:
We also engage to maintain family and private devotions; to religiously educate our children; to
seek the salvation of our kindred, acquaintances, and all others; to walk circumspectly in the
world; to be just in our dealings, faithful to our engagements, and exemplary in our deportment;
to avoid all tattling, backbiting. and excessive anger; to abstain from the sale and use of
intoxicating drinks as a beverage; and to be zealous in our efforts to advance the kingdom of
our Savior.
Tyler is a pastor in Olympia, WA and works in State government.
The only point Bert has demonstrated is that Christians can drink wine coolers since they are “diluted”. Otherwise, you still have to dilute wine to compare to Biblical times. And one reason people were referred to as barbarians was because they purposely didn’t dilute their drink in order to get drunk. Christians today who wish to let others think they are following Biblical examples must dilute their wine or other “mild” drink, or else they are just using the Biblical examples as an excuse to drink alcohol.
Wally Morris
Huntington, IN
Discussion