Posted on 11/25/2013 9:03:35 AM PST by Laissez-faire capitalist
The Apostle Paul said to not become drunk on wine, but to be filled with the Spirit. Obviously, there is a point at which one can imbibe a certain amount of alcohol, be it from fermented grapes, fermenting honey, or whatever - and become drunk.
I imagine that some people, somewhere, can drink one beer for the first time and become drunk - a rarity indeed - but nonetheless not outside the realm of possiblity. And so, by drinking that first beer, they become drunk --- and sin. Others may say that it takes x amount (be it from wine, beer, hard liquor, etc) to become drunk (i.e. a 6 pack). Others may say that it takes x amount of the aforementioned times 1.5 (9 beers). Others may say 2 times x - a 12 pack...
Is it different for each person? .
Can some people say "I wasn't drunk, I was just slightly tipsy, or somewhat tipsy, and thus was not drunk and therefore do not need to repent of the sin of drunkenness." Who is to say? Do they alone know the truth?
The best thing to do is avoid alcohol altogether.
Now some may say that if this road is trod that it could lead to a host of "maybe I shouldn't do this or that" and thus it becomes a question of necessity.
Is clothing necessary? Yes. Is food necessary? Yes. And on and on... And so, some things in life aren't necessary. Is alcohol necessary?
Can someone become addicted to a host of things? Certainly. Some are probably addicted to social websites - how is that any different from being addicted to cigarettes? Sure, certain addiction may have different levels of consquence, but addictions of any sort aren't pleasing to God.
And, once again, I will add to this - for those who missed it the first two times:
A young man was heard accepting Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior. A few years later he went off to Bible college, graduated, and became a youth pastor not long thereafter. Around two years later he fell into sin, deep sin, whatever. Half of the church thought that he was never saved to begin with, and the other half thought that he had merely "fallen out of fellowship" with Christ, but was nonetheless still saved.
So how much bad fruit, or lack of good fruit, does one have to show in order to be classified into the "never saved" to begin with or the merely "out of fellowship with Christ"? X amount of sin? X amount plus one act of drunkenness? X amount of a particular sin, plus one act of drunkenness, plus one time of fornication to put them "over the top" and into the realm of the "never saved"? And how much of a time period must elapse between each sin(s)?
Yes, Paul the Apostle knew that certain of the Thessalonians were saved, and appaerently the Apostle John knew that certain were saved when he wrote to them, but they were writing the scriptures. The Bible says that the scriptures are God breathed, and Paul wrote that the scriptures were written when the Holy Spirit moved upon men.
And thus it wasn't Paul or John who knew who was or wasn't saved, but God alone --- He revealed this to them as they wrote the scriptures. But since there are supposedly no Apostles around anymore, who is there for God to reveal things like this to? And secondly, the canon of scripture is closed.
I believe that we know personally if our hearts are or aren't right with Jesus Christ. I know when God has pricked my heart on several occasions. As to being able to say with absolute certainty whether or not the person sitting next to me or you in the pew is or isn't saved - who is to know?
I believe that the term "out of fellowship with Christ" needs to be chunked.
If a person is in sin, claims to be saved, then someone should follow the scriptures and go to that person and tell them that they need to repent. If they refuse, then take a second person, (an elder of the church). If they refuse to repent, let the local body of believers they belong to decide to tell them that they refuse to repent and are thus disfellowshipped. Sure, they can still come to that church church, but they (as Jesus said) would be treated like a heathen man.
And so, if that youth pastor person ultimately refused to repent... in the end, was he never truly saved to begin with? And if so, how could they he duped the church for so long?
If his departure from the church was his unmasking, who is to say that he will never return and truly repent, thus showing that a declaration of him being never saved to begin with was actually premature, as they later repented, and thus showed that they were saved in the first place, and had not duped the church, but had fallen into sin?
So, once again, how can one ever differentiate here in the here and now, and at this moment b/w those who are or will be known later as the "never saved" and the "fallen out of fellowship with Christ"?
That is education at its best!
In my church, teatotalling is the rule, though half the congregation smokes,and obesity is a major problem there. I smoke a cigar every few months and have a full bar at home, but I’m not obese.
I see all of these things as moderation things and I really don’t bring the subject up at church. If it every DOES come up and someone is condemning all drinkng, I ask them what is a muslim/mormon doing going to a Christian church.
It’s fine if someone has decided for themself that they should not drink (especially an alcoholic), but to call it a sin when others drink is ridiculous and very judgemental.
Absurd.
Even after being saved, we still find ourselves having sinned. The solution to postsalvation sin is the same as presalvation sin.
Christ died on the Cross for all the sins of the entire world. Sin has already been judged, but forgiveness doesn’t occur until we face God, turn in our thinking back towards Him, THROUGH faith in Christ (what He provided on the Cross), and by confessing our sins to Him,( while in faith in Christ and the Cross), then we are forgiven those sins.
The reason we repent and confess our sins, is so we are back in fellowship with Him. Then we are able to grow by His work in us as we study His Word. Until then, we aren’t receptive to the spiritual life.
Oh heck! That was a worm?
***12-18 yo single malt…..in small, slow amounts…..***
Like the slow setting on the IV drip?
maybe not THAT slow…..:)
To the meat of the question...
All of our walk is focused upon our thinking, though the body and flesh are involved in how He has made us a Temple for Him.
The first problem with alcohol and drunkenness, is our ability to perceive and then to discern our state of intoxication is the first thing impaired by drunkenness.
The work of God in us thrives on our ability in the human spirit and our soul to think through faith in Him.
When we imbibe to the pint of drunkenness, we fail to place our faith on Him and how He has made us, but instead upon ourselves and our work independent of Him.
There also are admonishments for preaching while intoxicated.
This is about 2,000 years from Roman controlled territory?
There was “must” which had little alcohol
Then there was the custom of watering down the wine by half for women and half again for children (water was not often purified in those days) when they weren’t just given juice or something.
Best counter I’ve seen was the remark in Scripture of the guest at the wedding who exclaimed, Why did you hide the best wine until last? Custom was for the best wine to be served first, then after people had a few drinks, imbibed, and not quite as discerning, feed them the lesser wine and nobody would know the difference.
IMHO, while daily consumption may have been a grape juice, when they sat and imbibed with wine,...it was probably a better wine than we drink today.
You bring up a good point regarding overweight believers.
On the contrary, what blood sugar level would be considered sinful?
Many with either too low or too high of blood sugar levels tend to lose their patience and are moody. Is it sinful? Known sin or an unknown sin?
Could apply to diabetics. Even the thin ones.
Cracker Barrel bump!
“The best thing to do is avoid alcohol altogether.”
Jesus didn’t think so. He drank wine & made large quantities for already-inebriated partygoers.
It’s really not that hard to know where your own intoxication line is, and to choose to not go over it.
Not at all...You had to add all kinds of philosophical human reasoning behind your conclusion...John the Baptist didn't touch strong drink...
Why would God get drunk, or condone drunkenness which is a pretty good breeder for sin???
Tell it to Jesus, who turned water into wine at a wedding.
Anything else is legalism.
And they are clearly wrong.
Usually when you see the word “drunk” in this context in the bible a better translation would be “drunkard”. It is almost always in a continuing, persistent tense.
From a legal standpoint, it begins when you take the first sip of an alcoholic beverage. Its unacceptability on the highway, for most states, is when imbibing brings the BAC to 0.08%; for most the equivalent of one bottle of beer, glass of wine, or shot of distilled liquor.
When it causes an inability to serve others and oneself according to the will of God.
That means at any point, when one is setting an example. Avoid the appearance of evil = God's will.
IMHO
(from one once classified 23 years as a habitual heavy drinker, now abstinent for 28 years)
Tithes
22 Be sure to set aside a tenth of all that your fields produce each year.
23 Eat the tithe of your grain, new wine and oil, and the firstborn of your herds and flocks in the presence of the LORD your God at the place he will choose as a dwelling for his Name, so that you may learn to revere the LORD your God always.
24 But if that place is too distant and you have been blessed by the LORD your God and cannot carry your tithe (because the place where the LORD will choose to put his Name is so far away),
25 then exchange your tithe for silver, and take the silver with you and go to the place the LORD your God will choose.
26 Use the silver to buy whatever you like: cattle, sheep, wine or other fermented drink, or anything you wish. Then you and your household shall eat there in the presence of the LORD your God and rejoice. Deuteronomy 14:26
We’re not talking about John the Baptist. Abstinence was his own choice.
We’re talking about Jesus the Worker of miracles Who changed water into wine at Cana. If some believe the guests were getting inebriated on grape juice, so be it.
My Calvinist coworkers try to insist that wherever the term “new wine” appears in Scripture, it refers to grape juice. IIRC, teetotalling abstinence as Christian doctrine really didn’t appear until the 19th century, in America.
Mary the mother of Jesus did not say, “Son, they have no grape juice.”
And if the chief steward had sampled grape juice instead of wine, he would said “I quit!!” and stormed out.
;^)
Agree.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.