Baptist Kids Learn Exciting Account Of Jesus Turning Water Into Grape Juice

[Aaron Blumer]

He laughs but I have yet to hear a solid counterargument to the following:

• Inebriation is forbidden in Scripture (and yes, buzzed socializing is drunk socializing)
• An inebriating substance in a beverage is a defect
• Yes, wine in NT times usually had this defect (except when it was fresh out of the press—which is also called “wine,” by the way… which is grape juice, by the way)
• Jesus would not have any need to create a defective beverage

I think the argument that you made on 10/01 goes like this:

Since use of Item A (alcohol) CAUSES Sin B (drunkenness)
Then God/Jesus would never create Item A (e.g., at the wedding at Cana).

Could this logic apply to eyes and hands in Matthew 5:29-30?

That is:

Since hands and eyes CAUSE adultery/sin,
Then God/Jesus would never create hands/eyes?

Clearly non-sequitur.

How do you feel about these arguments?

1. Hands and eyes are created.
2. Hands and eyes can be used in a godly and ungodly fashion.
3. If hands and eyes perpetuate unrepentant ungodly behavior, it is better to cut them off.
4. Not everyone has to cut off their eyes and hands.

And similarly,

1. Alcohol is created.
2. Alcohol can be used in a godly or ungodly fashion.
3. If alcohol perpetuates unrepentant godly behavior, it is better to abstain from it.
4. Not everyone has to abstain from alcoholic consumption.

[David R. Brumbelow]

Suppose your teenage daughter is driving down a dark lonely two lane road after dark.

A car is coming toward her.

Would you rather that driver coming toward your daughter had just finished a chocolate bar, or a bottle of alcohol?

David R. Brumbelow

Nice dodge, David, but I was addressing the fact that you’re assuming that the recreational use of anything that affects the brain is wrong. The fact of the matter, scientifically speaking, is that various substances in our foods, not just alcohol, do affect how we think, and therefore if we speak of “recreational drug use”, we can by the same logic speak of “recreational food use”, and that very phrase, in the context of Ecclesiastes 9:7, is ludicrous, Biblically speaking.

Really, phrasing the drinking of wine as “recreational drug use” is an attempt (as you’ve done here) to lump in the person who has a glass of wine with marijuana users and heroin addicts. I think it’s safe to say that the 60% of Americans who drink alcohol without getting drunk would, if they read your comments, tell you “that’s not appreciated, Mr. Brumbelow”, in no uncertain terms. I certainly do.

And the person coming towards me, or someone I love, on the highway? Well, what is the dosage of either substance, and tell me about their age, driving record, and medical history. As I noted on the other thread, medical events do appear to kill up to 4000 people on the highways every year, so it’s not a gimme that the kid with the chocolate bar is a safer driver than the middle aged man who’s had a glass of wine with his dinner.

were regular events during the summer growing up. We’d tour the cellars and dad would stop in the tasting room. He’d try then buy some of their zinfandel. Mom of course drove home. Wine was drunk at the table as an accompaniment to Italian food, steaks, roasts, and salmon. Full glasses were not poured. Any wine remaining in the glasses at the end of the meal was poured down the kitchen sink. Why? Wine was treated as another spice not as a drug.

My father disliked drunkards and alcohol was not viewed as a relaxer.

….if we would claim that God would not have created anything that is a temptation to sin, please explain why He created pretty young women.

I mean, seriously….

Whom the Bible describes in more than one place as beautiful in face and form. Hmmm

Food or gluttony is a weak argument in favor of recreational or moderate consumption of alcohol.

You have to eat.

You do not have to drink alcohol.

Also, most who drink alcohol will admit it is for the drug effect. Otherwise, you can consume nonalcoholic drinks that are made to taste like the alcoholic drinks. But, they have never been overly popular; maybe because they don’t give you a buzz.

Be sober. -1 Peter 5:8

David R. Brumbelow

Regarding David’s claim that nonalcoholic wines are just as good: I found a review of “some of the best ones”, and this is what they warn:

If you are not expecting an exact replacement of alcoholic wines, you may be pleasantly surprised by how their non alcoholic counterparts measure up. Alcohol plays a critical part in bringing all the flavors of wine together, and when that is critical piece missing, it’s very difficult to come up with exactly the same profile.

I’m sorry, David, but wine drinkers (and craft beer drinkers) have some of the most sensitive taste buds and noses out there. They are not, as you insinuate, trying to get drunk, but they simply enjoy the taste and the experience of having a glass with friends. And there is a reason that good vintners and brewers don’t make nonalcoholic versions of their products—they would quickly trash their reputation, because the flavor profile is indeed damaged by distillation. (all those smells and tastes are volatile compounds….do the math, they go bye-bye in distillation)

Maybe…talk to someone who’s tried “near beer” or NA wine before making such absurd claims? Just a hint, brother. Or look at your Bible—“the old wine is better”.

“Since the first commercial production in 1985, ARIEL has gained recognition from the world’s leading wine critics and connoisseurs.

Before ARIEL’s debut, non-alcoholic wines were widely believed to lack the quality of traditional wines. But at the 1986 Los Angeles County Fair, ARIEL Blanc went up against wines with alcohol and was awarded the Gold Medal. Since that moment, ARIEL has gone on to earn critical acclaim and numerous awards in competitions throughout the world.

ARIEL began to see tremendous growth in the early 90’s when celebrity chef Graham Kerr, star of the hit television cooking show The Galloping Gourmet, took notice of ARIEL and called it ‘remarkable… a wine of our time, a light-hearted celebration and a gracious gift of hospitality.’”

http://www.arielvineyards.com/our_history.html

David R. Brumbelow

[David R. Brumbelow]

Also, most who drink alcohol will admit it is for the drug effect. Otherwise, you can consume nonalcoholic drinks that are made to taste like the alcoholic drinks. But, they have never been overly popular; maybe because they don’t give you a buzz.

Be sober. -1 Peter 5:8

David R. Brumbelow

David,

It’s comments like this that do not serve you well. How do you know that “most” people will admit they drink alcohol for the drug effect. Do you know that many wine drinkers? Have you done some polling and statistical analysis. Even if it were true (and it’s not) you would be hard pressed to have them “admit” it. You would be safe with “some” but when you say “most” you betray your ignorance in the matter (not that you are ignorant in all matters). I could claim that “most” wine drinkers I KNOW do not drink wine for the drug effect or at least do not admit it. But I know only a limited number of wine drinkers. I also know “some” wine drinkers who drink for the drug effect and do admit it. I’ve been their therapist. I don’t know if you ever drank wine and are speaking from past experience. If you haven’t I’m not encouraging you to try it. But you are claiming what you cannot know. You do better when you stick with your attempts at historical and biblical arguments (although I don’t find them convincing I respect you for them). There may be some non-alcoholic alternatives as you mention. I can’t imagine they compare to the great variety found in a Merlot, Cabernet Sauvignon, Bordeaux, Chianti, Montepulciano, Montalcino, etc. but I’m open to try if you would like to send me a bottle.

Steve

to know the wine used at the EC-B church I sometimes attend is too sweet fro my taste. CVome to find out, they buy kosher more than likely Mogendavid wine. Mogendavid is based on Greman desert wines. I would prefer they used a good California red table wine.

[JBL]

Aaron Blumer wrote:

He laughs but I have yet to hear a solid counterargument to the following:

• Inebriation is forbidden in Scripture (and yes, buzzed socializing is drunk socializing)
• An inebriating substance in a beverage is a defect
• Yes, wine in NT times usually had this defect (except when it was fresh out of the press—which is also called “wine,” by the way… which is grape juice, by the way)
• Jesus would not have any need to create a defective beverage

I think the argument that you made on 10/01 goes like this:

Since use of Item A (alcohol) CAUSES Sin B (drunkenness)
Then God/Jesus would never create Item A (e.g., at the wedding at Cana).

Could this logic apply to eyes and hands in Matthew 5:29-30?

That is:

Since hands and eyes CAUSE adultery/sin,
Then God/Jesus would never create hands/eyes?

Clearly non-sequitur. …

My argument is far simpler than you have tried to make it. Your analogies don’t answer the argument because they are not actually causes.

The argument is extremely simple:

Other things being equal, A is better without potentially harmful substance B included. Premise 2: Jesus would have no difficulty accomplishing the “other things being equal” and making A without B.

Probably the best question to ask is one I’ve already asked; why bother with the extra work and expense to get an inferior product? To David’s link, I’ve learned that that one ought to take a company’s own marketing materials with a grain of salt, and if the most recent accolade the company can point to is a county fair in 1986—even that for LA County—the nicest thing that can be said is that the company is pointing to rather faint praise. One decent vintage in over three decades?

And really, what’s the purpose? Really, the reason one ought to consider abstaining is that drinking might cause alcoholics to fall off the wagon—but if you share something that’s indistinguishable from the real thing until the second or third glass, you’ve done the exact same thing, really. You’ve encouraged them to drink. So it’s a solution in search of a problem.

Also, if I became aware that a church was using Mogen David (aka “Mad Dog”) wines for communion, I would send a note of concern. While I’d guess the church Ron mentions is NOT using 20/20, an infamous fortified “bum wine”, their wines are made with concord grapes and blackberries, and therefore are going to have similar smell and flavor hints as 20/20. I’m OK with real wine for communion, and think kosher wines may send a good note for the same, but using MD just really shows a lack of concern for people who struggle with alcohol.

(there are some very drinkable kosher wines out there, but as far as I know, MD does not make any of them)

[Bert Perry]

I’m OK with real wine for communion…..

While I was visiting Israel several years ago, our tour’s guide at the Garden Tomb (which is overseen by the Anglican Church) asked our group midway through our visit if we would like to take communion while there. Certainly, we all agreed; and we had three Baptist pastors among us who were happy to officiate.

After a few-minute wait at one of a few seating areas scattered within the grounds [ http://www.panoramio.com/photo/39954638 ] , our guide returned with a tray holding wafers & small communion cups for our group of 28. Also on the tray was an opened bottle, from which the communion cups had been filled.

Well, a woman near to the tray saw the label on the bottle, and burst out with this: “I’m not getting drunk!” (verbatim). I believe it happened to be a merlot. Our guide, appearing startled, and after a further exchange of words with her & others in the group (not all of which I overheard), walked away with the tray. He eventually returned with grape juice instead.

Here’s what I gathered from this incident: there apparently are abstainers and/or prohibitionists who think that any amount of alcohol consumed results in drunkenness, even the contents of a tiny plastic communion cup.

Why so many Baptists do not use fermented wine for the Lord’s Supper:

Why We Don’t Use Alcohol For The Lord’s Supper

http://gulfcoastpastor.blogspot.com/2012/01/why-we-dont-use-alcohol-for…

David R. Brumbelow

David, I was thinking of going line by line in your assertions there, but I think it’s better to ask a simple question. Given that about 60% or more of Americans have used alcohol without ever getting drunk, let alone becoming alcoholics, it’s extremely likely that people who you’ve taught are going to go on to learn that many of the things you’re teaching about alcohol are just plain false—that fermentation is not rotting, that doctors do recommend red wine for various reasons, that one sip is not intoxication, and the like.

Now if you’re repeatedly saying false (and often inflammatory) things about wine, are your hearers more, or less, likely to believe you on other topics? Like, say, the Gospel?

Lot more at stake here than just whether someone has a drink every now and then, David.