Are You Drinking Too Much?

[Artfuldodger]

Jesus is being compared to John the Baptist by the Pharisees in that John ate sparingly and only things such as locust and honey and drank no wine. Jesus ate pretty much whatever he wanted to and drank wine, and was accused of gluttony and being a winebibber or drunken, because of this. They thought John the Baptist diet strange and too controlled, but when Jesus ate normally, what others ate, they condemned him for having no control. Since there was no sin attributed to food and wine, other than a practice of excess (gluttony and drunkenness), the charge was a slander. Basically they hated that he ate with sinners and publicans as well.
https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/questions/8901/did-jesus-drink-wine

 

[LittleDrummerBoy]

One final note and I'm done with this subject. It is this. In each and every instance in the NT in which wine was mentioned it was either in a context of limited portion, limited occasion, or both: a wedding, communion, as a medication.

As to the other 2 examples, they prove my point, not contradict it. If you think they condone social drinking as the term is understood today.

I thought you said you were done with this subject?

Where have I used the term "social drinking" much less condoned it in excess of Biblical guidance? I am not a fan of social drinking and the lifestyles that commonly accompany it. But I am a fan of the Biblical imperative "Do not go beyond what is written" in public ministry. I have not condoned social drinking. I have worked to stay within the Biblical guidance on what is "too much."

And let's look at one verse I quoted to support my viewpoint about "too much" and contradict the the error that "In each and every instance in the NT in which wine was mentioned it was either in a context of limited portion, limited occasion, or both: a wedding, communion, as a medication."

Titus 2:3 Likewise, teach the older women to be reverent in the way they live, not to be slanderers or addicted to much wine, but to teach what is good.

The women here need to be taught not to be "addicted to much wine." Is this a limited portion, a limited occasion, or both?" No. The portions could be generous and the occasions could be recurring as long as the quantities did not lead to addiction. This is much closer to my principle of moderation of "Is the excess compulsive?" No one in the church should be addicted to wine or alcohol in any form. PERIOD. But there is room between the errant assertion of a limited portion/occasion and ADDICTION.

 

[SemperFiDawg]

I thought you said you were done with this subject?

Where have I used the term "social drinking" much less condoned it in excess of Biblical guidance? I am not a fan of social drinking and the lifestyles that commonly accompany it. But I am a fan of the Biblical imperative "Do not go beyond what is written" in public ministry. I have not condoned social drinking. I have worked to stay within the Biblical guidance on what is "too much."

And let's look at one verse I quoted to support my viewpoint about "too much" and contradict the the error that "In each and every instance in the NT in which wine was mentioned it was either in a context of limited portion, limited occasion, or both: a wedding, communion, as a medication."

Titus 2:3 Likewise, teach the older women to be reverent in the way they live, not to be slanderers or addicted to much wine, but to teach what is good.

The women here need to be taught not to be "addicted to much wine." Is this a limited portion, a limited occasion, or both?" No. The portions could be generous and the occasions could be recurring as long as the quantities did not lead to addiction. This is much closer to my principle of moderation of "Is the excess compulsive?" No one in the church should be addicted to wine or alcohol in any form. PERIOD. But there is room between the errant assertion of a limited portion/occasion and ADDICTION.

This is much closer to my principle of moderation ]

nuff said.

 

[Artfuldodger]

I think in the terms of addiction or excess, it's different for each one of us. I really don't see anything wrong with smoking if one only does it like cigar or pipe smokers.
We had a preacher once that would smoke cigars when us Royal Ambassadors were camping. I knew that he wasn't "addicted" and I knew he wasn't over indulging. In other words his smoking didn't control him.

Addiction actually controls the person, It's what they think about going to bed and the first thing on their mind when they get up.

Each one of us does have our own principle of moderation. For me I may can drink a beer or two every night, or a pint of gin. Yet if it starts to control me. If I feel lost without it. If I can't go visit or help someone because of it. Then it is beyond my principle of moderation.

 

[Artfuldodger]

If someone can't "reel themselves back in" from overindulgence of anything, then they need to re-examine that concept. It needs to be learned, prayed upon, and ask the Holy Spirit for help.

This could be not exercising, having no willpower to do chores, eating, drinking, hunting or fishing too much, etc.

Even jogging, I knew a guy who ran so much he had stress fractures and couldn't work. His normal hobby had taken control of his mind. His flesh had consumed him.
He had to learn to "reel himself back in."

I think the reason scripture uses food and wine so much is because people back then, and even today, are most familiar with how easy it is to overindulge those two things. What better examples for the average person?

Most people back then didn't over indulge in tobacco, sex, drugs, gambling, hobbies, etc. Food and drink were common with all.

 

[Ray357]

why would you even get on here and try to justify drinking. Because i think in your heart you know its a stumbling blocck for people and if you told the truth you know you shouldnt be doin it as you say that you are a leader of men. i personally wouldnt ever sit and listen to nothing you had to say

I don't drink. Having said that, you have to resort to extra Biblical thinking to make a case to tee total ban on alcohol. Scripture simply does not ban all alcohol consumption. Honestly, I wish it did.

 

[Artfuldodger]

I don't drink. Having said that, you have to resort to extra Biblical thinking to make a case to tee total ban on alcohol. Scripture simply does not ban all alcohol consumption. Honestly, I wish it did.

Society might be better off if scripture banned alcohol consumption instead of homosexuality.
Think of all the problems alcohol causes? Divorce, car wrecks, hungry children, violence, lack of safety, unprotected sex, adultery, fornication.

 

[SemperFiDawg]

I don't drink. Having said that, you have to resort to extra Biblical thinking to make a case to tee total ban on alcohol. Scripture simply does not ban all alcohol consumption. Honestly, I wish it did.

I think this brings up a very good point that is maybe being lost. When you state

you have to resort to extra Biblical thinking to make a case to tee total ban on alcohol

you couldn't be more correct. As believers we HAVE an "extra-Biblical" authority that we answer to that is the ultimate authority, even over that of OUR UNDERSTANDING of scripture. We have the Spirit of the Living God living inside of us. This Holy Spirit IS alive and it has guided men through the dynamic changes of societal norms down through the ages and has never once been wrong. As times changed men have undoubtedly made mistakes in enpowering THEIR UNDERSTANDING of scripture to guide/validate their behavior (slavery comes to mind). In each and every instance in which error was made, it was due to men elevating their understanding of scripture over that of the Living Holy Spirit( that they may/may not have, but that's another topic altogether) When men place the value/weight of THEIR INTERPRETATION/UNDERSTANDING of scripture over the guidance of the Living God( Pharisee comes to mind) bad outcomes are guaranteed. When you see destruction with your own eyes (be it from slavery, addiction, sexual immorality, etc). you recognize it as "bad fruit". We all do. Then you hear people validating the behavior it stems from with scripture (a good tree). Where is the error? It HAS to be in our assumption that good trees don't produce bad fruit, or in our understanding: either the fruit that we perceive as bad is not bad, the tree which we perceive as good is not good, or the reasoning of the person providing the validation is faulty. It's that simple. History has proven time and time again that when reasoning is based on OUR estimation and understanding of scripture and not the Living Holy Spirit residing in us, that is where the fault lies. Good trees don't produce bad fruit, ever, but the Life is in the Tree, not our interpretation of what's written on the paper made from it.

 

[gemcgrew]

The Holy Spirit is not Extra-Biblical.

 

[Ray357]

Society might be better off if scripture banned alcohol consumption instead of homosexuality.
Think of all the problems alcohol causes? Divorce, car wrecks, hungry children, violence, lack of safety, unprotected sex, adultery, fornication.

Abomination and perversion is far worse than alcohol.

 

[Ray357]

I think this brings up a very good point that is maybe being lost. When you state



you couldn't be more correct. As believers we HAVE an "extra-Biblical" authority that we answer to that is the ultimate authority, even over that of OUR UNDERSTANDING of scripture. We have the Spirit of the Living God living inside of us. This Holy Spirit IS alive and it has guided men through the dynamic changes of societal norms down through the ages and has never once been wrong. As times changed men have undoubtedly made mistakes in enpowering THEIR UNDERSTANDING of scripture to guide/validate their behavior (slavery comes to mind). In each and every instance in which error was made, it was due to men elevating their understanding of scripture over that of the Living Holy Spirit( that they may/may not have, but that's another topic altogether) When men place the value/weight of THEIR INTERPRETATION/UNDERSTANDING of scripture over the guidance of the Living God( Pharisee comes to mind) bad outcomes are guaranteed. When you see destruction with your own eyes (be it from slavery, addiction, sexual immorality, etc). you recognize it as "bad fruit". We all do. Then you hear people validating the behavior it stems from with scripture (a good tree). Where is the error? It HAS to be in our assumption that good trees don't produce bad fruit, or in our understanding: either the fruit that we perceive as bad is not bad, the tree which we perceive as good is not good, or the reasoning of the person providing the validation is faulty. It's that simple. History has proven time and time again that when reasoning is based on OUR estimation and understanding of scripture and not the Living Holy Spirit residing in us, that is where the fault lies. Good trees don't produce bad fruit, ever, but the Life is in the Tree, not our interpretation of what's written on the paper made from it.

Scripture explicitly permits some consumption of alcohol. If The Holy Spirit supposedly tells you something different, it was not Him talking.

 

[LittleDrummerBoy]

The Holy Spirit is God. His words have authority.

When He tells you to take better care of your wife, spend more time with your children or mow your neighbor's grass, YOU need to do that, or YOU are sinning.

But when the Holy Spirit speaks to YOU, those words are for YOU.

I don't need to take better care of your wife, spend more time with your kids, or mow YOUR neithbor's grass.

The Holy Spirit is not telling YOU new rules for other Christians. If he is speaking to YOU, then his words are for YOU.

That's what it means to have a PERSONAL relationship with Christ. Christ is YOUR boss. He is not making YOU boss of your brothers.

 

[SemperFiDawg]

The Holy Spirit is God. His words have authority.

When He tells you to take better care of your wife, spend more time with your children or mow your neighbor's grass, YOU need to do that, or YOU are sinning.

But when the Holy Spirit speaks to YOU, those words are for YOU.

I don't need to take better care of your wife, spend more time with your kids, or mow YOUR neithbor's grass.

The Holy Spirit is not telling YOU new rules for other Christians. If he is speaking to YOU, then his words are for YOU.

That's what it means to have a PERSONAL relationship with Christ. Christ is YOUR boss. He is not making YOU boss of your brothers.

But when the Holy Spirit speaks to YOU, those words are for YOU.

That's what it means to have a PERSONAL relationship with Christ. Christ is YOUR boss. He is not making YOU boss of your brothers.

We are in 100% agreement on both of these statements. MY issue with your "sermons" is that you point to scripture as the ultimate authority whereas I would direct the person to personally seek the Holy Spirit's guidance. To some people alcohol is a deadly toxin, so making the blanket dictum that "alcohol in moderation" is OK based on scripture is destructive and NOT in keeping with the Spirit of God nor what scripture teaches. If each person were pointed to establishing a living relationship with God instead of "what scripture says" we would have a lot healthier Church instead of one that is a mirror reflection of the world. It's a fact people have a history of interpreting scripture based on their personal desires. As to the Holy Spirit leading someone to make a blanket statement to others it's OK to engage in destructive behavior, well I'll just say that is not in keeping with my understanding of God nor his desire for us.

 

[Artfuldodger]

I think what was meant though is the Holy Spirit is not going to tell me different scripture than another person. Personal guidance yes, not the meaning a bible verses though.

 

[Ray357]

We are in 100% agreement on both of these statements. MY issue with your "sermons" is that you point to scripture as the ultimate authority whereas I would direct the person to personally seek the Holy Spirit's guidance. To some people alcohol is a deadly toxin, so making the blanket dictum that "alcohol in moderation" is OK based on scripture is destructive and NOT in keeping with the Spirit of God nor what scripture teaches. If each person were pointed to establishing a living relationship with God instead of "what scripture says" we would have a lot healthier Church instead of one that is a mirror reflection of the world. It's a fact people have a history of interpreting scripture based on their personal desires. As to the Holy Spirit leading someone to make a blanket statement to others it's OK to engage in destructive behavior, well I'll just say that is not in keeping with my understanding of God nor his desire for us.

Heresy is birthed in ANNYTHING OTHER THAN SCRIPTURE being used as final authority. God, who inerrantly inspired Scripture WILL NOT contradict Himself in any new revelation.

Is alcohol in moderation destructive behavior?

 

[Israel]

Is there any other way to learn what is expedient but by embracing liberty?

 

[SemperFiDawg]

Heresy is birthed in ANNYTHING OTHER THAN SCRIPTURE being used as final authority. God, who inerrantly inspired Scripture WILL NOT contradict Himself in any new revelation.

Is alcohol in moderation destructive behavior?

If you will notice, I'm not arguing that scripture is in error, but people's interpretation of it. Big difference. People become dogmatic that scripture is the final authority, when what they are really saying is that their understanding of scripture is the final authority. It's not, but the same mentality was used to crucify Christ, justify the slaughter of people down through the ages and pretty much any other atrocity committed in the name of Christ. What's the common denominator: people being led by pride in their reading comprehension instead of their humility by the Holy Spirit.

Also I am not arguing that alcohol is forbidden by scripture. It most certainly is not. What I'm arguing is that alcohol can be and is destructive and for anyone, even a Non-Christian, to come out and make the blanket statement that it's OK in moderation(whatever that is) is wrong-headed. Even an atheist who couldn't hit his butt with both hands tied behind his back knows better.

Is alcohol in moderation destructive behavior?

Define moderation. Pretty much every alcoholic I know says their drinking started "in moderation" and went something along the lines of
1 then
1,2 then
1,2,3 then
1,2,3,4 then
1,2,10 then
1, oblivion.

So to answer your question. Is alcohol in moderation destructive behavior? If I take that to mean 1 at communion, another 1 or 2 at a wedding, 1 at Christmas, then No. Listening to the video in the thread starter that was broadcast to the public, you tell me if that's what most take his meaning of "moderation" to mean? Furthermore do you think that's how he mean it, or instead as social drinking? I would argue if it was meant in the former context there would be no point in addressing it to start with as the whole notion would be absurd. It would be akin to a "sermon" on "Is eating birthday cake a sin?" Given he's addressed the issues of Are you fishing too much?, Are you eating too much?, Are you drinking too much?, Is your wife spending too much money? etc. that may be next. Who knows? Apparently the subject of these sermons are only limited by his ability to apply his interpretation of scripture to others and their perceived problems. There hasn't been one yet that was entitled "Am I ________________ too much?" His magnifying glass only looks outward, not reflecting inward. What's the difference? It's the difference between pride and humility, comprehension and wisdom, hypocrisy and self-application, and alienation as opposed to compassion. There's an old adage that goes something along the lines of "Don't point out, but instead identify with."

 

[Ray357]

If you will notice, I'm not arguing that scripture is in error, but people's interpretation of it. Big difference. People become dogmatic that scripture is the final authority, when what they are really saying is that their understanding of scripture is the final authority. It's not, but the same mentality was used to crucify Christ, justify the slaughter of people down through the ages and pretty much any other atrocity committed in the name of Christ. What's the common denominator: people being led by pride in their reading comprehension instead of their humility by the Holy Spirit.

Also I am not arguing that alcohol is forbidden by scripture. It most certainly is not. What I'm arguing is that alcohol can be and is destructive and for anyone, even a Non-Christian, to come out and make the blanket statement that it's OK in moderation(whatever that is) is wrong-headed. Even an atheist who couldn't hit his butt with both hands tied behind his back knows better.



Define moderation. Pretty much every alcoholic I know says their drinking started "in moderation" and went something along the lines of
1 then
1,2 then
1,2,3 then
1,2,3,4 then
1,2,10 then
1, oblivion.

So to answer your question. Is alcohol in moderation destructive behavior? If I take that to mean 1 at communion, another 1 or 2 at a wedding, 1 at Christmas, then No. Listening to the video in the thread starter that was broadcast to the public, you tell me if that's what most take his meaning of "moderation" to mean? Furthermore do you think that's how he mean it, or instead as social drinking? I would argue if it was meant in the former context there would be no point in addressing it to start with as the whole notion would be absurd. It would be akin to a "sermon" on "Is eating birthday cake a sin?" Given he's addressed the issues of Are you fishing too much?, Are you eating too much?, Are you drinking too much?, Is your wife spending too much money? etc. that may be next. Who knows? Apparently the subject of these sermons are only limited by his ability to apply his interpretation of scripture to others and their perceived problems. There hasn't been one yet that was entitled "Am I ________________ too much?" His magnifying glass only looks outward, not reflecting inward. What's the difference? It's the difference between pride and humility, comprehension and wisdom, hypocrisy and self-application, and alienation as opposed to compassion. There's an old adage that goes something along the lines of "Don't point out, but instead identify with."

Interpretation of Scripture can be flawed. Your explanation of it is the Classical liberal theology argument. Since you like slippery slopes, the conclusion of that argument is that Scripture is non-authorative because our interpretation may be flawed.

 

[gemcgrew]

Is there any other way to learn what is expedient but by embracing liberty?

You reckon the believer is free to drink as much as he wants to?

Of course!

 

[Ray357]

Romans 6:15

Is there any other way to learn what is expedient but by embracing liberty?