Drinking, Cheeseburgers, and Marijuana?

Thanks, David. Interesting and helpful thoughts.

I have no Hebrew, so I can only go by the English, but do you interpret “did not know” as “having no later memory?” I don’t. It sounds like genuine, real-time obliviousness.

I don’t think there is anything there in the Hebrew. I think it could be interpreted as you did, but I don’t think the text demands it, and I think experience and reality open up some options that are consistent with the text.

If he had a) no immoral intent, b) no ability to object or resist, and c) no reasonable way to anticipate his daughter’s actions, then I don’t think he was culpable for anything beyond the sin of drunkenness.

I wonder how far you take this. As it stands, it essentially becomes a form of Pelagianism, doesn’t it? That sin isn’t committed until someone has moral intent and ability to do otherwise. I think the Bible teaches the opposite of that, beginning with our culpability for Adam’s sin. I don’t think “I didn’t mean it” or “I couldn’t help it” is an excuse or a free pass on sin. I don’t think you would say that either. But how do you avoid it, given what you have said here?

I would be more inclined towards your view if he was incapacitated by reasons not due to his own choices, say for instance that he was in the hospital on life support, in a coma. But here you have a free moral choice to drink (assuming his daughters didn’t slip him some date rape drug that was undetectable; I am sure he knew what alcohol tasted like and knew what they were giving him). Doesn’t that, at least to some degree, make him culpable for what happens since he “knew or should have known” what the results would be?

Our own civil laws recognizes this with things like negligent homicide. It means you didn’t “mean to,” and perhaps given the circumstances “couldn’t help it,” but you were negligent at some point in the process that led to a reasonably foreseeable outcome. Again, I am not sure all the legal ins and outs, but it seems the principle at least, is a common grace/natural law kind of principle.

Larry, I think our difference hinges on “knew or should have known”. That to me is more legitimately debatable than the “perceived not”.

I don’t think mine is pelagian thinking; I’m certainly not pelagian or semi- in general. I just think the greater testimony of scripture is that victims of sexual assault, who are by definition unwilling, are not held responsible for committing an illicit sex act. I am willing to leave the reasonable foreseeability of the this particular outcome up for debate, while stipulating that if Lot could not have reasonably foreseen it (as I essentially said above) then he was not culpable.

Having thought more about this though since we started this discussion, I would add that Lot was responsible for the daughters he raised. Just days before he had offered them up to be gang raped by the men of Sodom. Ironic that he should be later serially raped by his daughters, who perhaps learned their pragmatic sexual ethics from their victim.

Thanks for talking through this with me.

Larry,

Good explanation on Lot. There is a reason that Moses in the book of Deuteronomy calls the wine of Sodom the poison of asps and the venom of snakes. It is precisely because of this shameful story of Zoar. My father came home drunk hundreds of nights while I was growing up. He often had no memory of the sinful things he did, the fights he was in, or the injuries he received. Recently, a drunken man climbed in the window of one of his neighbors’ houses, crawled in bed with the husband and wife, sexually assaulted the woman, was obviously discovered by her husband, and then fled out of the house. Fortunately for police the drunk left his wallet in the neighbor’s house and was arrested the next day. He claimed no recollection at all of what he did, but he was obviously responsible. The immoral intent of trying to preserve one’s family line or the human race through incestous relations with one’s father rests clearly with the two daughters. The names Moab “of my father” and Ben-Ammi “son of my nearest kinsman” reveals their lack of of shame for what they did. This was the rebirth of Sodom. The text indicates that Lot was not aware of what was happening, but this does not imply unconsciousness. His daughters got him drunk, but they did not force-feed him. Also, let’s not forget the shameful episode of Noah after the flood either. He was naked in his tent and asleep. His nakedness was a result of his drunkenness and made him vulnerable to the unlawful deed of Ham. The influence of alcohol is devastating even on the best of people. If it is reasonably possible to avoid it, then one should avoid it. Today we can enjoy God’s good gift of the fruit of the vine without any intoxicating influence. This goes for cider as well. Highly alcoholic beer, fortified wines, distilled liquors are human inventions not divine creations. They are not “gifts of God” per se.

I just think the greater testimony of scripture is that victims of sexual assault, who are by definition unwilling, are not held responsible for committing an illicit sex act.

I would be unmovable (as I hope I made clear above) that people who rape, regardless of the state of the victim, are responsible for that and should be punished for it. There is never an excuse or a reason for sexual assault. Period.

You could be right about the “perceived not.” I am just not sure the text is absolutely clear on that.

Having thought more about this though since we started this discussion, I would add that Lot was responsible for the daughters he raised. Just days before he had offered them up to be gang raped by the men of Sodom. Ironic that he should be later serially raped by his daughters, who perhaps learned their pragmatic sexual ethics from their victim.

Yes, good points. And perhaps the juxtaposition of these two things is part of the Art of Biblical Narrative (Robert Alter). Narrative does some very interesting things in this regard, and that may well be part of the point. I know he uses some examples from Genesis, but I don’t remember if that is one of them. Mathews (NAC) and Sailhamer (EBC) make that point.

‘Thanks for the excellent and helpful exchange.

[Barry L.]

Wouldn’t refraining from alcohol be just as applicable as an example to those who misuse it? You don’t have to drive to misuse alcohol.

Somehow, some are distinguishing between having too much alcohol to drive with being intoxicated. The law makes no distinction. You are intoxicated at .08 alcohol level and if you choose to drive while intoxicated you are “drunk” driving. Wouldn’t a better Christian example be that if the law declares I am intoxicated at .08, then as a Christian I should avoid reaching that level whether I am in my home or not?

I take Nyquil and I could be reaching .08, but I don’t know. The Bible does give a reason, like other drugs, to take when it helps an illness. Nor is your testimony tainted because even the unsaved know that you are still a tea-totaler if you take medicine for illnesses, but don’t drink otherwise.

Larry, you are emphasizing the question, “How do you KNOW that you have had too much or crossed the line?” I am not one to answer this question from experience, as I have never consumed an alcoholic beverage (and I don’t intend to, as I am an abstainer).

But in some ways I don’t understand why this question is so complicated. Scientific research would tell me that at my age and weight, I could consume X amount of alcohol and not be considered drunk or even “under the influence.” Perhaps I misunderstand you, but you are almost making it seem that from the very first sip of any kind of alcoholic beverage no one could possibly know if they have “crossed the line” or not. Yes, of course, there is a line where people cross over from being not drunk to being drunk, or from being not impaired to being impaired, and that line may be hard to determine, so it may be best to avoid the zone where that line is. But don’t you agree that with a limited amount of alcohol, one can be fairly certain they are not drunk and/or impaired?

[Greg Long]

But in some ways I don’t understand why this question is so complicated. Scientific research would tell me that at my age and weight, I could consume X amount of alcohol and not be considered drunk or even “under the influence.” Perhaps I misunderstand you, but you are almost making it seem that from the very first sip of any kind of alcoholic beverage no one could possibly know if they have “crossed the line” or not. Yes, of course, there is a line where people cross over from being not drunk to being drunk, or from being not impaired to being impaired, and that line may be hard to determine, so it may be best to avoid the zone where that line is. But don’t you agree that with a limited amount of alcohol, one can be fairly certain they are not drunk and/or impaired?

Actually, I think the blood alcohol level that is the standard for DUI charges etc is one that is somewhat arbitrary. A line has to be set somewhere for a judge to be able to make an objective judgement. Many people who are over the DUI limit think they are perfectly capable of operating a vehicle. They don’t “know” they are drunk.

I think Larry’s question still stands.

[Larry]

How do you respond to each individual point as you have done (I am not very good at formatting in these forums).

Highlight the paragraph and click on the quotes in the bar at the top of the comment box.

Now, on to the rest…

Guns might not get internally into a person, but I could argue they embolden (but the person is still responsible). I am not against guns but your argument structure is the same and I was trying to point that out.

Again, if you think this is true, then you don’t understand my argument structure. You can’t simply insert something in the place of “alcohol” and pretend it’s the same argument. What you insert has to be similar. Guns and alcohol are not similar. (That’s actually worse than guns and cheeseburgers.)

This is not scriptural and I strongly disagree. It just doesn’t work like this. The “new man” has all the spiritual resources still available until they turn to foolishness and this is not at all inevitable. To describe the struggle a Christian has while still “in the body” as you have is wrong, I believe, and doesn’t reflect knowledge of alcohol and its interaction in the life of the redeemed.

Regeneration does not mitigate the effects of alcohol on the body and the mind. Alcohol does the same thing to believers as it does to unbelievers. Yes, believers can stop drinking before they get drunk; but so can unbelievers (although so far no one has answered the question of how to know when that is). That’s why , written to believers, warns them about drunkenness.

Next, alcohol does not exacerbate evil. The example you gave of Lot is one who is unconscious of their actions, he had crossed the line obviously.

Why was Lot unconscious? Because he was drunk. The alcohol had that effect on him, and his daughters knew it would have that effect on him; that’s why they did it (not wholly unlike what some people try to do today). You can say that it did not exacerbate his evil , but it put him in a spot where he was not in control of his body and led him to sin. I presume you don’t want to argue that incest is not sin, and let’s stipulate that he wouldn’t have done it if he was sober. That means that he did something sinful while drunk that he wouldn’t have done sober. How did the alcohol not contribute to his sin?

To say that alcohol doesn’t exacerbate evil just flies in the face of everything we know about the effects of alcohol. Again, think of the idea of “drunken rage” or “an alcohol fueled rage.” Think of “drunk texting” or guys trying to get girls to drink because they know the effect it will have on them. As I said earlier, I had a conversation this past year with a man who greatly embarrassed himself because he had too much to drink. In his case, it exacerbated his sin. Many have had the same experience. For evidence from unbelieving pop culture, consider something like Brad Paisley’s song entitled “Alcohol.” Go ahead, look it up. It describes in a humorous mocking way the same things I am saying here. The reference to the “lamp shade on your head” or “the naked pictures of you on the beach” is a reference to the lowered inhibitions brought on by alcohol. Again, Alex, this is not disputed by anyone I know of but you.

About the friends and alcohol confusion, it is a confusion since the things are fundamentally different. Peer pressure with all its facets is incomparable with effects of alcohol despite your comparing them.

The things are fundamentally different but the influence is fundamentally the same, and the Bible warns about the influence of both things, but does not categorically condemn either. But again, how can you reject my comparison here while invoking your own comparison using guns? At least my comparison invokes Scripture on both accounts and has a similar feature (influence). By the way, my comparison also works because it is essentially the same one Paul makes in between wine and the person of the Holy Spirit.

if it is commended, why does it lower inhibitions to sin as you have maintained).

Because it does. Again, I don’t know anyone who denies that. That’s not to say that a single swallow, or even a whole glass of something will do it to a great degree. People process alcohol differently based on a lot of factors. Again, the picture of is that of getting someone drunk so you can get their clothes off of them, which you wouldn’t be able to do if they were not drunk. is the same picture. That picture works because it is true.

2. The bible does not say this the way you have expressed it. The bible warns about being circumspect when using alcohol not about its effect. If alcohol has negative effects upon the user, it is the user’s fault in using it wrongfully. If problems arise with use, it is the user or society (American or Muslim prohibition) who are at fault not the substance.

describes it very similar to how I did. It describes the affect of it and the results of it. Why not exegete that passage for us, and some of the others warning passages about alcohol. You wanted this to be about exegesis, but you haven’t offered even a single verse yet. Get more practical. If you don’t think it lowers inhibitions and creates people who have lost some control of themselves, then what does it mean to be drunk? What do you think alcohol does?

To say that “he bible warns about being circumspect when using alcohol not about its effect,” is strange. The Bible warns about being circumspect because of the effect of alcohol.

To say that the problem is the user is without dispute. Alcohol does nothing to anyone until it is used. That is the issue.

In the final analysis, the Bible warns us about alcohol because of its effects on us. If those effects weren’t sinful, or didn’t exacerbate sin, it’s hard to know why we would be warned. God doesn’t warn us away from things that make us more holy. So to see alcohol as a blessing, as some do, and drink it is moderation is one side of the equation, which you want to focus on. But you are ignoring the other side, namely, the warnings. I think that is unwise.

Last night when I got home I was going to reply but thought not since I was convinced you were “having a go at me”, you were not sincere, provoking a reaction. By your continued interaction and others, it appears you may be sincere to some degree (unrecognized bias).

Even if you are sincere, it may not always be best to interact with you from my perspective because you fail in your understanding of some things, are intransigent (not wanting to learn), and other reasons.

In general, human experience is fraught with miscommunication and misunderstanding, attending bias doesn’t help matters.

I will not interact with your last post, but, instead state some undeniable facts that were always known and then leave it alone:

1. Everything God created is good according to overt pronouncement (this includes all processes such as fermentation). To deny this would be to attribute creative powers to the enemy.

2. All cultures including the Hebrews, as soon as they found out about it, used mind-altering substances such as alcohol sometimes wisely, sometimes not.

3. God, by example of the sacrificial system and drink offerings, endorses mood enhancement with His worshippers both in votive and freewill offerings where the offerer partakes the same offerings.

4.Israeli culture featured wine making as central to preserving the summer fruits. Wine and bread were the staples of everyday sustenance.

5. Jesus turned water into alcoholic wine as one of His first overt miracles and as a result people put their faith in Him.

6. Jesus locates humanity’s need as one of internal defilement and not things from the outside whether forbidden foods or anything else external such as wine and its effects. This theological point is in contradistinction to the abstinence position. Paul says the same thing in the epistles: nothing is unclean in itself.

7. Notions such as inhibition or lack of inhibition that alcohol produces refers to the relaxed state that is achieved toward social situations (not a relaxed attitude to sinning). Alcohol does not enter the heart (not the physical organ but the seat of the will). This really, in my mind, is the crux of the issue as above. Those who want to fix the blame on substances are theologically deficient in their understanding of soteriology. If someone seeks redemption, they need to first locate the need. Those who locate the problem externally with alcohol or other things, or persons, miss what the Bible says about the Fall. “From within out of the heart of humans come evil thoughts….”

No truly learned and credible Christian will hold to general alcohol prohibition.

Larry, you are emphasizing the question, “How do you KNOW that you have had too much or crossed the line?”

I am pointing out that that was the question that was asked in the interview, that was dodged by saying, “How do you know when you have had too many cheeseburgers?” (or however it was phrased). It’s not my question, but it’s the one that is being ignored it seems.

Perhaps I misunderstand you, but you are almost making it seem that from the very first sip of any kind of alcoholic beverage no one could possibly know if they have “crossed the line” or not.

Yes, I think you misunderstand. I haven’t actually said anything about it, other than, there is a line and wondering how one could judge that. I have directly asked two people what kind of counsel they would give to someone asking them. So far, crickets.

But don’t you agree that with a limited amount of alcohol, one can be fairly certain they are not drunk and/or impaired?

Sure.

[alex o.] 1. Everything God created is good according to overt pronouncement (this includes all processes such as fermentation). To deny this would be to attribute creative powers to the enemy.

I generally take a position similar to yours. However, I wanted to interact with this one point. You (an others who emphasize this point) are correct as far as you go. However, it does not necessarily follow that what was good in creation was also good for consumption. God created venomous snakes and poisonous mushrooms as well. They were “good according to overt pronouncement.” But that does not mean God intended them to be consumed by human beings, nor does the fact that they are no intended for consumption diminish in any way the fact that they are good part of creation.

yes, of course not everything is for consumption.

but alcohol is meant for consumption most of the time. I, however, at my age can only consume 1 drink a day, it is a physiological fact of age and no way diminishes alcohol’s suitability. Alcohol might also be voluntarily “fasted” as part of a regular or Nazarite vow. The Nazarite vow I view as a voluntary fast and sometimes a family-mandated stipulation. these instances are different than saying “effects of alcohol are evil” as has been stated.

what prohibitionists have done is turned a blind eye in bias of fundamental principles and gone fishing in individual verses to make their case. General Christendom has always used alcohol both religiously in the Lord’s Supper and recreationally with control excepting individual sinning in misuse. only for about the last 150 years has this alcohol exclusion been adopted and applied erroneously.

Against my better judgment, let’s take another run at this.

I appreciate your saying that I appear to be sincere, though I suppose that is a backhanded slam of some sort. I am not sure what you mean by the rest of it, and it doesn’t seem to be a great way to have a conversation, but apparently you have given up on exchanging ideas for mutual sharpening here. I haven’t. So, while you may not answer the questions I have asked out of a desire to learn, let me address what you have said.

Let’s get to the point of bias. What does that mean in this context? In what sense am I biased, and how did you determine that? How do you know that you are not the one who is biased? I don’t think I have said anything here that is outside the mainstream of either theology or science on the effects of alcohol. So how am I biased?

In general, human experience is fraught with miscommunication and misunderstanding, attending bias doesn’t help matters.

This is well said. Again, how do you know yours is not the attending bias.

Now, on to your seven points. Most of them are without dispute.

1. I agree that everything God created is good. I am not sure how you concluded that fermentation is part of that, but I don’t know that it isn’t. More importantly, though, remember that creation is broken by the fall and awaiting restoration (Rom 8:19-22). How do we know that fermentation isn’t a part of the fall? The words of Scripture reveal that it’s not just people, but creation itself that is affected by sin. So the idea that everything God created is good does not mean that everything in creation should be ingested, or can be used without consequence.

2. You are correct that all cultures use mind-altering substances, sometimes wisely and sometimes not. It is the unwise use of alcohol that we are discussing here.

3. As for “mood enhancement” in worship, that needs a little more work. “Mood enhancement” is not a term that commonly shows up in worship discussions, so you would actually have to demonstrate what you mean by showing what “mood enhancement” means in biblical texts on worship, and how that plays into worship. If you mean that wine gladdens the heart, you have no dispute. But, again, that’s not the discussion going on here. This discussion is about the unwise use of alcohol, i.e., drunkenness. I can’t imagine you are saying that God endorses drunkenness in worship. If you aren’t, then this has no place in the discussion.

4. I don’t think anyone disputes that, do they? I don’t dispute it.

5. I don’t think many here dispute this, do they? I don’t dispute it.

6. Here starts some problems. Your material here is overly simplistic.

First, humanity’s need is not one of internal defilement. That is humanity’s problem. The need is redemption and transformation. Second, I haven’t argued that alcohol defiles someone. The point is that the effects of alcohol exacerbate evil. It doesn’t create evil. People are plenty evil without alcohol. But getting drunk leads people to things they would not otherwise do in most cases. That is indisputable, Alex. Again, I don’t think I have ever seen anyone, anywhere dispute that until now. Not even unbelievers dispute the effects of alcohol. So warning against the effects of alcohol is hardly some fundamentalist bias.

That is not to say that everyone who drinks any alcohol commits evil. It is to say the alcohol has effects, and the prohibition against drunkenness is obviously about the effects of alcohol when too much is ingested. This theological point, such as it is, is not in contradistinction to the abstinence position (whatever you mean by that).

7. Not just simplistic, but deficient in a number of ways.

First, if you have read anything I have said, you know that I am not fixing the blame on a substance. The problem is not the alcohol; it is the person who drinks too much and sins by getting drunk. As I made clear above, alcohol has no affects unless someone drinks it. And then it always has effects, starting with the first glass, the severity of which depend on how much is ingested relative to the person. Lest you think that is some fundamentalist bias, here’s a paragraph from the Michigan Secretary of State website (that no one has ever accused of being fundamentalist):

The effects of alcohol are the same whether you drink beer, wine, or whiskey. A 12-ounce can of beer, a 5-ounce glass of wine, and a 1.5-ounce shot of whiskey all contain the same amount of alcohol. Drink a standard serving of any of these, and the effects will be the same. Your judgment and self-control will be affected. Even one drink can impair your ability to drive, slow your reaction time, dull your concentration, and cause vision problems.

So obviously, what I am saying is not all that strange. It’s what everyone recognizes.

To say that alcohol doesn’t enter the heart as the seat of the will is true. The heart, in that sense, is not something that can be entered, so that doesn’t even really make sense. The point is that alcohol affects the body in indisputable ways, and the mind (part of the biblical heart) is affected by that. We are unity—material and immaterial. You can’t separate it that clearly. Again, no one disputes that alcohol effects the mind (for evidence, see the SOS quote above). Drunk people do things they would not otherwise do, and sometimes they don’t even remember it. Whatever you think of the discussion of Lot, it is clear that his drunkenness enabled something he would not otherwise do, and he did not remember it. The girls apparently knew they had to get him drunk to achieve their ends because he wouldn’t do it sober. Noah is another example of someone who did something drunk and didn’t know it.

You try to connect it again to soteriology. But why and how? Surely you are not claiming that believers are unable to get drunk. We know that’s not true. So everything that follows from that doesn’t actually follow. To distinguish between a relaxed attitude towards social situation and a relaxed attitude toward sin is not helpful. The effects of alcohol are such that, given enough of it, it will lead people to do things they would not other wise do. So the crux of the issue at hand in this discussion is how someone knows when they have crossed the line into Eph 5 drunkenness. You do not appear to believe that a Christian can do that. I may be reading your wrong here, but your disagreement with me leads me to conclude that you don’t believe that.

You use two terms: Abstentionist and prohibitionist. I am not sure what you mean by those, tough they are typically used differently. You seem to use them synonymously. I have made it clear that I do not think drinking alcohol is a sin, so I am not a prohibitionist. I personally abstain and when I am asked, I tell others that I think it is wise to do so. But I don’t think they have sinned if they don’t agree with me. They have sinned when they become drunk. Again, the question is, how will they know that?

In the end, most of your comments here are irrelevant to the discussion, though it introduces confusion to the issue.

Here, again, is the question: What would you tell someone who desires honestly to know when they have crossed the line into Eph 5 drunkenness?

[Larry]

Against my better judgment, let’s take another run at this.

I appreciate your saying that I appear to be sincere, though I suppose that is a backhanded slam of some sort. I am not sure what you mean by the rest of it, and it doesn’t seem to be a great way to have a conversation, but apparently you have given up on exchanging ideas for mutual sharpening here. I haven’t. So, while you may not answer the questions I have asked out of a desire to learn, let me address what you have said.

Let’s get to the point of bias. What does that mean in this context? In what sense am I biased, and how did you determine that? How do you know that you are not the one who is biased? I don’t think I have said anything here that is outside the mainstream of either theology or science on the effects of alcohol. So how am I biased?

In general, human experience is fraught with miscommunication and misunderstanding, attending bias doesn’t help matters.

This is well said. Again, how do you know yours is not the attending bias.

Now, on to your seven points. Most of them are without dispute.

1. I agree that everything God created is good. I am not sure how you concluded that fermentation is part of that, but I don’t know that it isn’t. More importantly, though, remember that creation is broken by the fall and awaiting restoration (). How do we know that fermentation isn’t a part of the fall? The words of Scripture reveal that it’s not just people, but creation itself that is affected by sin. So the idea that everything God created is good does not mean that everything in creation should be ingested, or can be used without consequence.

2. You are correct that all cultures use mind-altering substances, sometimes wisely and sometimes not. It is the unwise use of alcohol that we are discussing here.

3. As for “mood enhancement” in worship, that needs a little more work. “Mood enhancement” is not a term that commonly shows up in worship discussions, so you would actually have to demonstrate what you mean by showing what “mood enhancement” means in biblical texts on worship, and how that plays into worship. If you mean that wine gladdens the heart, you have no dispute. But, again, that’s not the discussion going on here. This discussion is about the unwise use of alcohol, i.e., drunkenness. I can’t imagine you are saying that God endorses drunkenness in worship. If you aren’t, then this has no place in the discussion.

4. I don’t think anyone disputes that, do they? I don’t dispute it.

5. I don’t think many here dispute this, do they? I don’t dispute it.

6. Here starts some problems. Your material here is overly simplistic.

First, humanity’s need is not one of internal defilement. That is humanity’s problem. The need is redemption and transformation. Second, I haven’t argued that alcohol defiles someone. The point is that the effects of alcohol exacerbate evil. It doesn’t create evil. People are plenty evil without alcohol. But getting drunk leads people to things they would not otherwise do in most cases. That is indisputable, Alex. Again, I don’t think I have ever seen anyone, anywhere dispute that until now. Not even unbelievers dispute the effects of alcohol. So warning against the effects of alcohol is hardly some fundamentalist bias.

That is not to say that everyone who drinks any alcohol commits evil. It is to say the alcohol has effects, and the prohibition against drunkenness is obviously about the effects of alcohol when too much is ingested. This theological point, such as it is, is not in contradistinction to the abstinence position (whatever you mean by that).

7. Not just simplistic, but deficient in a number of ways.

First, if you have read anything I have said, you know that I am not fixing the blame on a substance. The problem is not the alcohol; it is the person who drinks too much and sins by getting drunk. As I made clear above, alcohol has no affects unless someone drinks it. And then it always has effects, starting with the first glass, the severity of which depend on how much is ingested relative to the person. Lest you think that is some fundamentalist bias, here’s a paragraph from the Michigan Secretary of State website (that no one has ever accused of being fundamentalist):

The effects of alcohol are the same whether you drink beer, wine, or whiskey. A 12-ounce can of beer, a 5-ounce glass of wine, and a 1.5-ounce shot of whiskey all contain the same amount of alcohol. Drink a standard serving of any of these, and the effects will be the same. Your judgment and self-control will be affected. Even one drink can impair your ability to drive, slow your reaction time, dull your concentration, and cause vision problems.

So obviously, what I am saying is not all that strange. It’s what everyone recognizes.

To say that alcohol doesn’t enter the heart as the seat of the will is true. The heart, in that sense, is not something that can be entered, so that doesn’t even really make sense. The point is that alcohol affects the body in indisputable ways, and the mind (part of the biblical heart) is affected by that. We are unity—material and immaterial. You can’t separate it that clearly. Again, no one disputes that alcohol effects the mind (for evidence, see the SOS quote above). Drunk people do things they would not otherwise do, and sometimes they don’t even remember it. Whatever you think of the discussion of Lot, it is clear that his drunkenness enabled something he would not otherwise do, and he did not remember it. The girls apparently knew they had to get him drunk to achieve their ends because he wouldn’t do it sober. Noah is another example of someone who did something drunk and didn’t know it.

You try to connect it again to soteriology. But why and how? Surely you are not claiming that believers are unable to get drunk. We know that’s not true. So everything that follows from that doesn’t actually follow. To distinguish between a relaxed attitude towards social situation and a relaxed attitude toward sin is not helpful. The effects of alcohol are such that, given enough of it, it will lead people to do things they would not other wise do. So the crux of the issue at hand in this discussion is how someone knows when they have crossed the line into Eph 5 drunkenness. You do not appear to believe that a Christian can do that. I may be reading your wrong here, but your disagreement with me leads me to conclude that you don’t believe that.

You use two terms: Abstentionist and prohibitionist. I am not sure what you mean by those, tough they are typically used differently. You seem to use them synonymously. I have made it clear that I do not think drinking alcohol is a sin, so I am not a prohibitionist. I personally abstain and when I am asked, I tell others that I think it is wise to do so. But I don’t think they have sinned if they don’t agree with me. They have sinned when they become drunk. Again, the question is, how will they know that?

In the end, most of your comments here are irrelevant to the discussion, though it introduces confusion to the issue.

Here, again, is the question: What would you tell someone who desires honestly to know when they have crossed the line into Eph 5 drunkenness?

Larry, I have a medical procedure today but should be lucid sometime tonight and will consider your post.

Those who insist that Jesus served between 120 to 180 gallons of fully fermented wine to those who already had been drinking fully fermented, undiluted wine during the week long marital festival may be deficient in their Christology. As Don Carson explains in his commentary on John, it was common during the NT era for Jews and Greeks to dilute their wine between one-third and one-tenth of the original strength in order to reduce the possibility of intoxication. Also, according to Carson and Westcott, the fresh wine (a term Carson uses twice— “freshly”) more than likely had been drawn from the well directly, though it is possible that it came from the six water pots. The fresh wine had no time to go through the first fermentation. That much fully fermented wine given to those who had already been drinking for nearly a week would have contributed directly to their drunkenness in clear violation of Hab 2:15, 1 Tim 3 (“not given to wine”; “not much wine”), Paul’s instruction to Timothy to only use “a little wine” with his water, and the various commands to be sober-minded (“wineless” in its etymology) which is mentioned numerous times in the NT epistles, particularly the book of 1 Peter. The water represented the old order. It had come to completion. The Christ is now beginning his Kingdom ministry announcing something new, fresh, free from sin. What better way to symbolize the new era being announced than the fresh, fruit of the vine, with all of its nutrition and natural sweetness. Intoxication and the Kingdom of God do not mix.

Larry, I have a medical procedure today but should be lucid sometime tonight and will consider your post.

Hope you recover quickly.