Study: Most churchgoers still abstain from alcohol

[dcbii]

Bert Perry wrote:

Once again, what I’m saying is that that everyone should drink, but rather that those who say that it is in general wiser not to drink simply do not have Biblical support for their position.

I assume there was supposed to be a not in place of the first that in your sentence?

Nope. What I’m saying is that if indeed Scripture sometimes speaks of wine as a blessing—and it emphatically does—and if indeed Scripture indicates our Lord both created and partook of it—and it does—who are we to decide that it is wiser for all Christians to abstain? You can really only sustain such an argument if one demonstrates that wine in the Bible was totally different than wine today, and given that Alexander the Great basically drank himself to death, and that other Greek writings indicate that alcohol-induced comas were well known in areas with stronger wine, you simply cannot sustain that notion.

(one other possibility; that we’re somehow being wiser than Christ, but let’s discard that, because that’s blasphemy)

Warn caution? I’m with you, especially vis-a-vis hard liquor. Requirement to partake? Absolutely not. Can a group decide (per Mark’s comment) not to allow it at certain events? Absolutely, especially if they don’t know how to handle it safely and well. (same thing with BBQ, really)

I simply don’t think that, in light of the Biblical evidence, you can support a contention that it is “wiser” for all Christians not to drink.

Did I say that it was wiser for all Christians to abstain? Did you miss my saying that if I were a missionary in Italy I would partake in certain circumstances? Mehinks you are promoting your position a bit too vigerously.

And I quote:

However, there is nothing in Scripture that requires that I partake, and much to require that I warn others about the dangers of alcohol. Wine is clearly a mocker, and far too many are deceived by it, including a fair share of Bible believing Christians who have been encouraged by a lopsided view of Christian liberty. It’s cool, but it’s not very wise.

Now I’ll grant that you granted an Italian exception, but I specifically acknowledged that when I pointed out that, in effect, you were saying that those in North America and the non-Latin-speaking regions of Europe ought to abstain.

Moreover, when you declare your view to tell others that it’s wisest to abstain, you are implicitly arguing that for the generic person not in Italy, France, or Spain, that they ought to abstain. And even for those regions of Europe, you conditioned your allowance as such:

I think its wisest in our current American cultural setting, but I would take a different direction if I were a missionary in, say, Italy. There, to refuse a glass of wine in someone’s home is often considered insulting, especially if they made it themselves, which is often the case. In that situation, I would graciously partake to avoid creating a barrier for the gospel.

Notice here that what you’ve done is not to say that it’s not unwise to drink; you’re effectively saying that you would accept a bit of foolishness for the sake of the Gospel. As such, I am very comfortable saying that you’re making a fairly general case that it is not wise to partake of God’s good gift of wine. See what I’m getting at?

[Bert Perry]

dcbii wrote:

Bert Perry wrote:

Once again, what I’m saying is that that everyone should drink, but rather that those who say that it is in general wiser not to drink simply do not have Biblical support for their position.

I assume there was supposed to be a not in place of the first that in your sentence?

Nope.

I’m not addressing your contention about wisdom, positive or negative. It was about the first part of that sentence. Read more closely. So without that not I suggested, your contention is that “everyone should drink.” I suspect that’s incorrect (if not, you can correct me again), but that’s the way this clause reads (albeit awkwardly with the double “that”):

“Once again, what I’m saying is that that everyone should drink…”

I was just trying to clarify to be sure I understood you.

Dave, yes, you are correct. I confess that I was looking in the wrong place due to the bolding. Thank you, belatedly, for that.

[Bert Perry]

Dave, yes, you are correct. I confess that I was looking in the wrong place due to the bolding. Thank you, belatedly, for that.

No worries. Partially my fault. I probably should have changed your bolding and marked your quote as edited, but I didn’t realize that leaving it as it was could be misunderstood.

I was reasonably certain I understood what you were saying, but just wanted to be certain. With any topic like this where the participants disagree, and where we really need exactness to be correctly understood, it’s way too easy for us to either read past what the other is saying or take the wrong thing from it.

With regard to “wisdom,” I would agree that we do need to be careful not to declare our own convictions to be wisdom in general without a clear Biblical mandate, or to be wisdom for others except in special circumstances (like, e.g. for those who have a problem with drunkenness).

The Bible encourages us to enjoy the good blessings of meat. And yet the Apostle Paul declared that he was ready to forego meat if it would cause a brother to stumble. Was Paul wrong to say this? Did he not know the wonderful benefits of meat? Did he ignore the requirement to keep his personal opinion to himself about this important matter?

To partake or not to partake of wine is a Christian Liberty issue. To choose to abstain is a legitimate position, and it is not wrong to state that position and the reasons for it. It appears that some who enthusiastically promote wine-drinking do not well understand the principles of Christian Liberty. It’s your liberty to partake. It’s mine to abstain. It’s your liberty to explain why you choose to partake. It’s mine to explain why I choose to abstain.

A guy in my church admitted … [came out at a men’s Bible study]… that he drinks beer.

Our pastor was there .. our deacon (we only have one) … and two retired pastors (me and another) were there.

No one blinked. A #nothingburger

Thanks, Jim, for sharing this. That would be our response as well. But I do not apologize for issuing an occasional pulpit warning against the dangers of abuse. When partakers are so sensitive that they object to such statements, which are entirely Biblical, it makes me wonder if their conscience is not as settled on this issue as they want us to believe.

[G. N. Barkman] I do not apologize for issuing an occasional pulpit warning against the dangers of abuse.

As an elder should!

My approach too!