Pensees: Musings on Christian Liberty and the Wine Debate

Bob Bixby,

Nice name, by the way!

I appreciate your stress on our freedom in Christ. It truly transcends discussions like the one we are engaged in. May we grow to appreciate and savor more the beauty and glory of our Saviour and Lord Jesus Christ.

I agree that you do not require exegesis to determine for you personally whether something is unhelpful or not. To some that is TV or internet use. To others that is certain kinds of music or entertainment. Others like myself, see little helpfulness in public beaches. I’d rather be dry than be surrounded by so much display of flesh. For me it is very unhelpful.

Moderate or social drinking may be unhelpful to some and may send a dangerous message to others. This is certainly an important consideration.

For me, I have found, merely contemplating and then partaking of alcohol has been helpful. I believe it helps me enjoy things and savor the gifts God has given us more. It broadens my abilities to enjoy the glory of God. And it also allows me to exercise a Spirit-dependency which forsakes the comfort of a black and white law—abstinence. And rather, embraces the beauty of allowing the Spirit to so control me that I can master wine—redeeming that which God created for our good, and forcing it to serve me in my sanctification and that of others.

I understand the soteriological vs. ethical bit and largely agree.

But here’s what I don’t get: You would die rather than get drunk at gun point, but you wouldn’t die before you hit your wife at gun point?

Don’t you think that being forced to drink somehow falls outside the “wherein is excess” parameters? You wouldn’t be giving in to excess to get drunk once to save your life.

I agree that if merely slapping your wife would keep you alive to love an care for her, it’s probably worth it. However, I don’t see why it’s anymore worth it to abuse my wife than to get drunk.

I’m not trying to argue, I just honestly don’t understand what you could be meaning.

Keith

Keith asked:

But here’s what I don’t get: You would die rather than get drunk at gun point, but you wouldn’t die before you hit your wife at gun point?

That made me chuckle. My wife asked the same thing! But then she quickly agreed that she would want me to slap her! Slapping her when she wanted it would not be abusive! She would be ticked off at me if I let myself get shot I am relieved to say! (This has me laughing!)Besides, there is no command not to slap one’s wife… THere is a specific command not to get drunk. My point should be limited to what you already agree with: “if merely slapping your wife would keep you alive to love and care for her, it’s probably worth it.”

Honestly. If a gun were pointed at me, I’d be tempted to get drunk! Thanks for giving me the “wherein is excess” line. If I ever find myself in that situation, I’ll definitely ponder over that one. ;-)

Bob Hayton said:

For me, I have found, merely contemplating and then partaking of alcohol has been helpful. I believe it helps me enjoy things and savor the gifts God has given us more. It broadens my abilities to enjoy the glory of God. And it also allows me to exercise a Spirit-dependency which forsakes the comfort of a black and white law—abstinence. And rather, embraces the beauty of allowing the Spirit to so control me that I can master wine—redeeming that which God created for our good, and forcing it to serve me in my sanctification and that of others.

I can appreciate this. I have done the very same thing. I think that is part of “growing up” that is good — especially for people who grew up in legalism. I say, discover your freedom, then take up your cross.

I, too, find public beaches to be “unhelpful,” but I have gone and have enjoyed Spirit control. But being honest with my own weakness and knowing the weakness of many others, I voluntarily do not go. Nor can I make myself enter passionately on the side of those who are arguing for their liberty to go (even though I consent), because its “unhelpfulness” to so many is obvious. I would choose to be quiet about it lest my passionate argumentation for liberty to go to the beach cause a weak brother to justify his trip when he knows full well all he will do is lust.

This is a much better thread than the last one, IMHO. I agree with Bob Hayton’s statements, considering the greatness of the grace of God which sets us free from bondage, both legalistic and libertine. I too find that drinking alcohol in moderation is helpful for me, and enjoy what God has given for us believers when we partake of and hold to the Spirit’s control.

I’m wondering if Bob Bixby’s statements on this thread are a ‘turning point’ from the (sorry to say this…) nonsense on the other ‘alcohol’ thread; it is definitely a difficult issue, not just about alcohol, but with Christian liberty in general. I still sense a legalistic bent with Bob’s last statement that he would choose to be quiet about (it) lest his passionate argument for liberty cause one to stumble. We should, as pastors (and, by the way, I’m an elder in my church) teach and train believers to become more like Christ, despite our weaknesses of the flesh, and move beyond a black-and-white ‘comfort and certainty’ of excercising our faith in Christ. We weren’t created to become legalists, but rather to be free to live in Christ, who set His elect free. In conclusion, I again draw from the thoughts of another who wrote about the weak and strong conscience, especially in regard to the issue of believers drinking alcoholic beverages (I quoted his website in the other thread: http://www.reformedpresbytery.org/books/alcoholb/alcoholb.htm). Greg Price said this, “The “weak” brother must immediately stop condemning the “strong” brother and must discontinue his attempts to impose his “weakness” upon the church (Rom. 14:3b-4). The “weak” were to outgrow their “weakness” and become mature Christians by submitting their conscience to the Word of God alone . However, it may actually be the case that a “weak” brother does outgrow his “weakness” in believing a certain practice to be sinful (e.g. drinking alcoholic beverages) and in expecting others to refrain from the practice. In such a case he becomes a “strong” believer, but for other reasons (e.g. he doesn’t care for the taste of alcoholic beverages, or he has an allergic reaction to them) he may legitimately refrain from using them in a social or private setting (in other words, the “strong” brother is not required to use alcoholic beverages privately or socially). It would hardly be an act of love for elders to leave a brother (for whom Christ died) in his weakness. To truly fulfil Matthew 7:12 (i.e. to love others as oneself) requires an elder to patiently work with a “weak” brother to overcome his “weakness.” Although the apostle Paul temporarily acted as one who was “weak” in the presence of a “weak” brother , he only did so in order to win the “weak” to the position of the “strong” (1 Cor. 9:22). This practice of “weakness” was not intended to be permanent, but rather temporary. Paul would never have permitted the position of the “weak” to become the position endorsed by the church. Paul argued from the position of the “strong” in order to bring the “weak” out of his position of “weakness.”

Sometimes my wife Carolyn will drink while she is working at American Girl just to deal with the pain she feels as so many of her prized “children” leave her.
I love her dearly, but I cannot fault her for choosing this way of dealing with such anguish.

Brent, that cracked me up. Thanks for bringing to mind a lively conversation at “American Girl and American Sucker”

Interesting post, Bob. I like your balance between liberty and glorifying God.

You brought up a key point in the self-denial of taking up the cross. Most of the time, when I hear people crying, “Christian liberty”, in order to justify what they want to do, their focus has shifted from denying self to pleasing self.

Turn your eyes upon Jesus,
Look full in His wonderful face.
And the things of earth will grow
strangely dim,
In the light of His glory and grace.

I have decided that a legalist is someone who preaches against something that I enjoy doing. ;-)

Good morning Bob,

I continue to be glad that I was able to be around you some in order to recognize continued consistency. That has not meant we have always agreed, but the biblical intergrity is always refreshing. It is something my dad’s legacy will always model for me. From a mostly-disconnected, but inexperienced, young, non-pastoring, quasi-former fundamentalist’s perspective, I agree with you. I wish more pastors would honestly approach the Scriptures in many areas to say, “you have liberty in this BUT it is not wise and I urge you against it, though it is not forbidden.” I’ve been to too many congregations where Pastors out of loving concern for their flock bend Scripture to their will so that their congregation will not sin. Thinking instead, “this is not wise, therefore Scripture must condemn it.” The same fall so many East European Pastors take denying eternal security thinking that if they accept it as true, their flock will “do whatever they want”—and laps into licentiousness. Thank you for the honesty and the integrity to say “while not forbidden in Scripture, I, personally do not think it is wise and I urge you to consider it too” Though the both of us might from time to time exercise our liberty differently, I appreciate this and once again, you. God bless Morning Star.

Bob said:

“I’ve got more to say in the alcohol discussion, but I have a trustees meeting to prepare for.”

I was LOL at that…why can’t I just study, blog and preach?!?! I don’t have time for these Sessional meetings! Thanks for the post…

Dear Pastor,
I read your other posting on this subject and attempted to read the comments to it. However, I was so frustrated by them that I was forced to join the lady mourning the loss of the American girl dolls at the bar. (Totally kidding!)

I sometimes wonder what sheltered little world some of these commentors live in. A few of them seem to spend way too much time in front of the computer. Some of them even reminded me of our reading last night in Titus.

My life is closely intertwined with my unsaved coworkers and family members who drink. When asked about my reasoning on this issue, I usually start with, “I just find it unnecessary” and then expand with my practical and personal reasons. None of them have ever laughed at me, argued with me, or even seen a problem with my viewpoint. Amazing that its only those who want to impress me with their Christian liberty that try to violently bash me into agreeement with their reasoning. Thank you for always reminding us that we have liberty to glorify God. I enjoy using my liberty to not drink. I enjoy the peacefulness in our church on this issue. I am thankful for the unity we have in Christ and the way you have of causing us to consider each other.
Karyn

Bob Bixby: Christian liberty has no part in a discussion about whether I can or cannot do something unless that discussion is about salvation.
Christian liberty flows out of, is the product of, justification. Because I have been justified I am free from the curse of sin and the obligation of works. To view Christian liberty any other way is to miss the thrilling truth of this doctrine. Therefore, a discussion on Christian liberty must not be about what I can or cannot do. That is a discussion of ethics. Christian liberty is a soteriological matter, not an ethical matter.

Wow - this is so wrong. (Ok - fine - IMHO.) Christian liberty is about ethics. It is about what a believer can do or cannot do in faith. (What you describe is a different type of liberty - freedom from the bondage of sin.)
Romans 14:6 “He that eateth not, to the Lord he eateth not” - This is not service to other people (evangelism) it is service to the Lord.
Romans 14:14b “but to him that esteemeth any thing to be unclean, to him it is unclean.” - Christian liberty is about things being clean or unclean to particular people.

Now - I do agree that liberty is a huge tool for evangelism. According to Paul, the freedom to do something can expand your evangelistic opportunities. That is a reason to promote the existence of Christian liberty.

dan,
could you clarify—are you saying that you don’t view Christian liberty as something that factors into our relationships with other believers? from your repeated mentions of evangelism as a valid platform for the wielding of liberty, i get the idea you’re not including it as a factor in our relationships within the Body of Christ. do you think Christian liberty has nothing to do with how we relate to one another within the household of faith? it seems to me that Scripture supports a view of Christian liberty as something that frees us to relate to one another within the faith AND outside of Christ. i would not narrow it to evangelism, and i don’t understand how we could dichotomize our interactions…actually i just don’t understand, period. can you clarify your point(s)? thanks.

Absolutely, Joy. The selective use or use non-use of “Christian liberty” is important for promotion of fellowship as well.

I think that’s the point of Romans 15:1-6:
1 - We then that are strong ought to bear the infirmities of the weak…
Literally: “We then that are able ought to pick up and carry the inabilities of the non-able.”
—> Step 1 - the “strong”
2 - … for his good to edification.
4 - For … things were written aforetime were written for our learning, that we through patience and comfort of the scriptures might have hope.
—> Step 2 - everyone (weak and strong) learn more of the Word together.
6 - That ye may with one mind and one mouth glorify God, even the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ.
—> Step 3 - weak and strong glorify God together.

Togetherness of believers with differences is a huge theme in Romans. Keep reading through 16:18. Most of ch 16 is specific Jews and gentiles who are to greet each other.

—————
You say, “Scripture supports a view of Christian liberty as something that frees us to relate to one another within the faith AND outside of Christ.”
Frees us to relate…hmm. I would say that Christian liberty frees us to do things under certain circumstances. So I have “liberty to eat and drink” (1 Cor 9:4). But under certain circumstances, my liberty is not to be used. “Christian liberty,” then, is the ability to do things insofar as the issue is me glorifying God. So “Christian liberty” is really about what is right and wrong before God according to my Scripture educated and Spirit led conscience.

Above I said that increased opportunities for evangelism was one advantage of being either “able” or “unable” to do things.
Others are:
- Fellowship with more believers is possible. If I’m not able to use CCM in worship in good conscience, then my church choices are limited.
- Enjoyment of God’s good gifts. This one is tough - because we can easily put too much emphasis on this - especially as rich Americans. But it is Ok to receive God’s gifts with thankfulness (both for the gift and the God-given facilities to enjoy them).

sorry - I didn’t finish “Step 1” - should be:
—> Step 1 - the “strong” take on the limits of behavior of the “weak.”

Just a few thoughts on the interesting discussion…

Since the Bible clearly warns against the danger of drunkenness and since the line between drinking and being drunk is hazy, subjective (differs from person to person), and difficult for the drinker to realize, shouldn’t we just exercise Christian Liberty to not drink?

Advocating social drinking and whatnot seems to be the classic “let’s see how close to the edge of the cliff we can get without falling off.” Since we have, as Christians, both liberty and wisdom, shouldn’t we exercise both of these gifts to avoid the trap of evil?

My question to those who use “Christian Liberty” to engage in drinking is simply this: How do you know when your “Christian Liberty” has crossed over into the sin of drunkenness?

You would know when you lost your self control. For most people, that is not all that hard to determine. It is also not difficult at all to avoid.

Clearly, drinking is not wrong. If it were, Scripture would have said “don’t drink” instead of “don’t get drunk.” Clearly, Scripture does not equate teetotalism with wisdom in an absolute sense. Some people may have to exercise wisdom by staying away from the fruit of the vine altogether (because of personal weaknesses), but most don’t need to take such drastic measures. To say more is putting men’s thoughts above God’s thoughts.

Here’s another question to think about: “How do you know when your Christian liberty to eat has crossed over into the sin of gluttony?” No one says “Stop eating” just because there is no universal, objective, simple way to measure when gluttony begins. Part of the reason is that wisdom does not need such measures.

With drunkenness and gluttony, we aren’t talking about things that are like breaking a school rule and earning a demerit. We are talking about things that characterize and control a life and the punishment is in the lifestyle itself.

How interesting that a discussion dormant for 9 months is alive again! Now, as a disclaimer, I have no intention of disputing this for a year… the old adage that “A man convinced against his will is of the same opinion still” holds true, and I therefore I am trying to waste less breath (or typing energy, I suppose) than I have been known to in the past.
That said, I do not believe it is accurate to say that we know when we have lost our self control. From what I know, people often—perhaps usually—do not realize until after the fact that they have lost control. If you confronted someone who had had too much to drink about the fact that he was out of control, what are the chances that he would agree with you and modify his behavior accordingly? (Not good, I would say, or after one instance of getting drunk, no one would ever have half a glass too much again. Unless he likes the hungover feeling.) As with any area of life, the time to stop the problem is before it starts. Which, I suppose, brings us full circle to the question, again, of whether one can drink a little bit and always know when to stop AND have the willpower to do so. I believe common sense (to say nothing of auto accident statistics) already adequately answers that question. And I agree with Bob: I can appeal to fellow Christians on the basis of common sense to please, please not even start drinking. It is almost sure to take you further than you want to go.

Like you sister Prudence, I have no desire to spend a year debating this. We agree on at least one thing and that is “A man convinced against his will is of the same opinion still.”

I have no desire to convince you against your will (which as the adage indicates is no convincing at all). Of course, I think that what I am saying is true (everyone except intentional liars thinks they are speaking the truth), and therefore I would like people to be truly convinced by it.

When you say that, from what you know, people often, perhaps usually do not realize that they are losing control, what is your source of knowlede?

In almost a decade of involvement in a church in which alcoholic beverages are openly imbibed, I have not seen one instance of a person drinking so much as to lose control. Furthermore, the friends I have who drink would definitely stop if I suggested they were getting out of control. These are real world experiences not theorical “common sense” reasoning.

Of course, there are people who must avoid all drink. There are people who cannot control themselves — with or without alcohol — and they should most certainly never touch a drop. At this time of year, they should probably even stay far away from any merchant who sells alcohol, they should stay far away from parties at which alcohol is served, and they should have some friends on call to help them stay away. I will gladly drink water to help these people avoid the trajedy of drunkenness.

Furthermore, anyone who desires to live under a self-imposed prohibition will never be hassled by me — or any of my friends — to take a drink. You have no command to drink (except the Lord’s cup).

Even so, “just to be safe” reasoning is of limited value. By that reasoning, one should never open his eyes (to prevent the possibility of lusting with his eyes), one should never work hard (to prevent the possibility of the pride of life), one should cut back to the minimum number of calories for survival (to prevent the possibility of gluttony), etc. etc. etc.

Furthermore, it is absolutely and totally untrue to say that drinking is “almost sure to take you further than you want to go.” That is not a common sense statement. That is an ideological statement, and it is not a biblical ideology.

The Bible contains the best sense possible — it is better than “common sense”. And the Bible does not take the same position you do as an absolute standard of sensibleness for all people.

We are not helped by trying to be wiser than God.

I’m sorry, I guess that I was incredibly unclear on my last post. Maybe a different format will help clear up the misunderstandings.

1. There is a biblical mandate against being drunk. (T/F)

2. An alcohol-controlled Christian is in sin (i.e. direct disobedience of a biblical command). (T/F)

3. While drinking, every Christian has a clear sense of the boundary between sober-mindedness and control by wine. (T/F)

4. A believer could accidentally cross into the sin of drunkenness while drinking a glass of wine. (T/F)

5. A believer could accidentally cross into the sin of drunkenness while sipping a cup of Sprite. (T/F)

6. While observing a believer drinking, the observer can clearly discern the point at which the alcohol begins to control the other believer. (T/F)

7. Drinking alcoholic beverages is necessary for sustaining life. (T/F)

8. Urging someone to abstain from drinking alcoholic beverages because of the danger of drunkenness is the same as urging someone to abstain from eating due to the danger of gluttony. (T/F)

9. The sin of drunkenness is best avoided by
A. Drinking beer all night long.
B. Sipping vodkas in a crowd.
C. Secretly sucking down rubbing alcohol.
D. Drinking only non-alcoholic beverages.

10. Abstaining from drinking makes you a super saint. (T/F)

Here we go with the answers…

1. TRUE. See Eph. 5:18. Wine-control stands in complete contradiction to Spirit-control.

2. TRUE. Violation of the direct command of Eph. 5:18 is a sin (see question 1).

3. FALSE. Very few believers, if any believer at all has a complete grasp on the boundary between being sober and being controlled by alcohol even while he is sober. The line is always going to be unclear, especially while drinking. Also, the very words “controlled,” “inebriated,” and “drunk” carry with them the idea that the substance is involved in taking control and blurring the lines thereof. Next, the deceitful heart of man will not show him the danger that he is walking into (Jer. 17:9), but will let him go on his way after his lusts and fall flat on his face (I Cor. 10:12). Finally, the parallel between Spirit-control and wine control points out this fact. One knows clearly when he is setting out to walk in the Spirit, but knows no line of demarcation between walking in the Spirit and being controlled by the Spirit (the two ideas are used synonymously in Gal. 5:25). The only way the believer knows that he is controlled by the Spirit is ultimately by inspecting his fruit. In parallel, one can clearly discern the point at which he begins to drink alcohol, but knows no clear line of demarcation between drinking and drunkenness until he begins to produce the rotten fruit of the control of wine. Between the Spirit walk and the fruit of the Spirit, Spirit-control exists; between drinking and debauchery, drunkenness exists.

4. TRUE. Alcohol content in modern wines is powerful enough to cause drunkenness or loss of control to some degree fairly quickly. The standard point at which governments begin to determine that someone is drunk is at 0.2 Promile. At this point, changes of mood occur along with “decrease in control of behaviors” (http://www.trafik.gov.tr/english/traffic_safety/traffic_safety_drunk_driving.asp). The amazing fact of it all is that one bottle of beer is enough to bring the blood alcohol ratio up to this point (much less a glass of wine, which is more powerful than beer). Note: OT and NT “wine” could not have been as powerful as modern wines. The ancient wines and strong drinks did not use the modern catalysts that speed up fermentation and create artificially high ethyl alcohol ratios in the drinks. Natural fermentation cannot hold high concentrations of the alcohol, but breaks it down. Ultimately, wine could be anything from fresh grape juice to slightly fermented juice and “strong drink” was as hard core as it got, but it was still not as powerful as modern beers (Prov. 23:30, Acts 2:15, and I Thess. 5:7 indicate that drunkenness was possible, but that it was a night long process). Finally, much evidence shows that even these drinks were watered down for economic and moral purposes in the nation of Israel.

5. FALSE. Since sodas have no alcoholic content, they do not produce any danger of causing the sin of drunkenness.

6. FALSE. The outward signs of giddiness and slurred speech take place only after the alcohol has taken control of the individual. The outward signs are examples of preexisting control by alcohol.

7. FALSE. I Tim. 6:8 and common sense.

8. Uh…FALSE. You can drink other things than intoxicating drinks and survive, but can’t live without eating. Besides, a glutton is not controlled by the power of the food itself, but consumes and excess of food due to his inordinate desires. The drunk may or may not have a desire for drunkenness, but soon is overshadowed by the drug which he is consuming. If a certain food were found to have controlling effects, it should be treated in the same way (see Bob’s first essay). In fact, the same principle is the only method of effectively keeping kids from drug addictions. Complete abstinence is the only way to go in both of these cases because of the danger of outside control. One can safely assume that he is not under the control of drugs or alcohol when he is not using them (complete assurance = complete abstinence).

9. D. Common sense + Prov. 20:1.

10. FALSE. Jesus Christ is the sole source of righteousness for the believer. Avoiding the sin of drunkenness by not drinking (just like not looking at pornography or not doing drugs or not talking back to parents or any other good thing for that matter) can be done legalistically or done for the right reasons.
If one does it because they believe that God would be glorified by the decision, then they have made a right decision.
If one does it because they think that it will earn them favor with God, then he has sinned while abstaining from the sin of drunkenness.
If one does not do it and the action is of no moral consequence, then he may not have sinned (exception: stumbling block).
If one does not do it and falls into sin, he has erred not to legalism, but to sensuality.
A careful balance must be made between legalism and license; the Word of God stands at the fulcrum point.

Just to clarify on the ethyl alcohol content in wine, I have been talking with a chemical engineer who worked as a scientist for a large paper production plant in upstate NY and now serves as a college professor. His estimate on the standard alcohol content in OT and NT wines is between 3-4%. Modern beer is around 8% (2x the strength). Standard wine is around 15% (5x the strength). Port and other fortified wines range upwards of 18% (6x). Shots generally are around 40% (10x) ethyl alcohol content. At that time, one had to intentionally get drunk, and now one only has to drink one or two to be controlled by it.

What purpose really exists for drinking these highly intoxicating beverages? Does one drink to obtain the drug sensation of alcohol control? Why else would one drink it? We don’t need it for water purification and we don’t dilute it for lower alcohol content.

My argument, however simplistic it may be, can be entered alongside of Bob’s. Not only do I hate watching what alcohol does to people and not only do I see that drinking is stupid, but I also see that drinking modern alcoholic beverages makes avoiding drunkenness well nigh impossible, and (since being drunk is a sin) it should be avoided.

Phillip,

Just so you know, Miller Genuine Draft (which is certainly one of the top selling beers in the US) has a maximum alcohol content of 3.2%. Most beers I have seen range from 3 to 4.5% some as high as 5 or 5.5%. I have drunk many different varieties but never have I seen an 8% alcohol content. And for wine, most wines range between 11 and 14%.

Also your link you gave about .2 promile needs some clarification. The legal limit of alcohol content in Minnesota, for instance, is .08%. .02 promile is .025% alcohol blood content and .05 promile is .063%. Both .05 and .02 promile, then are not the legal limit for average people who drive in most states. There is a helpful chart that California distributes (see it here) which shows the number of drinks compared to your weight and also factors in time from first drink when considering what the probable blood alcohol level would be.

Some of what you are saying betrays an ignorance of drinking. One drink for most people in most situations does not come close to making you drunk. Yet even one drink can have relaxing and “spirit uplifting” qualities.

Scripture does more than just permit alcohol, it actually praises the “spirit uplifting” and “joy producing” qualities of the substance. For some conscientious drinkers, partaking of a drink with higher alcohol content is totally fine. They want to experience the praiseworthy effects of alcohol without imbibing lots of calories. They can judiciously enjoy the drink without indulging too much. There is a recognition of when one is becoming controlled by the substance and when one isn’t. There are many Christians who enjoy freedom in partaking of these substances without abusing the substance.

In fact statistically the vast overwhelming majority of drinkers do not abuse alcohol. To demonstrate this assertion, let me reproduce here a comment made by Frank “Centuri0n” Turk in the comments on this post.

Here is Frank’s comment in full:

_______

Listen: there were about 46,000 auto fatalities last year in the US, and about 13,000 of them were alcohol-related. That’s bad, right? about 30% were alcohol related?

Yes: it turns out that 70% were committed by sober people. Sober people were killing people with their autos at a 2-to-1 ratio to drunks. Doesn’t that make you think for a minute about what exactly that means?

“well, wait a minute, cent,” you say, “a higher percent of people driving while drunk committed vehicular homicide; the drunks were more likely to kill somebody than the non-drunks as a percentage.”

I say, “finish your argument.” See: last year, 9 million people abused alcohol. In the worst case, they all drove home drunk, and they caused all those traffic fatalities — which means that driving drunk has a higher rate of causing accidents than driving sober, but not something approaching 30% or even 25%.

Now, as you reduce the number of drunk drivers to get to the higher percentage of accidents to try to make that point, you have another statistic evolving: the number of people who can be “UI” and have the sense not to “D”. That is: the ability of men to exercise self-control. If you get the drunks-to-accidents ratio inside the 6:1 or 5:1 range, you wind up with something like 138:1 who are able and willing to exercise self control.

That means 99% of all people who drink are drinking responsibly. How can you justify prohibition under those circumstances? You can’t.

[end of comment]
__________

Please keep these facts in mind when recommending a complete avoidance of the substance.

God bless,

Bob Hayton

Philip,

1. True — there is a biblical madate against being drunk.

2. True — a Christian controlled by anything other than the Holy Spirit is in sin.

3. False — Of course you’ve rigged the question by including the word “every”. Every Christian doesn’t have a clear sense of when he’s working too much, when he’s eating too much, when he’s sleeping too much, when he’s reading the Bible too much, or a whole host of other things. However, if you had asked, “A Christian who is walking in the Spirit can have a clear sense of the boundary between sober-mindedness and control by wine,” the answer would be a resounding TRUE.

4. False — Drunkenness isn’t binary. You aren’t sober until some magic and unknowable drink number at which point you are drunk. To argue otherwise reveals complete ignorance of the nature of God’s good gift of wine.

5. False — Obviously one won’t become drunk on Sprite. Of course, one could still become sinfully controlled by Sprite. And, again, one cannot “accidentally cross into the sin of drunkenness.”

6. True — An observer can clearly discern when someone has lost control of himself.

7. False — One can survive physically without drinking alcoholic beverages. Of course, one can also survive physically without drinking Sprite, without eating fried chicken, and without a whole host of things.

8. False — not the same but very similar.

9. The sin of drunkenness is best avoided by being filled with the Spirit. Your choices are riduculous and far from exhaustive. They represent a classic example of bifurcation.

10. It all depends. If there is such a thing as a super saint, then some super saints are teetotalers and some are winebibbers.

Regarding your answers:
3. I’m not sure I understand what you are saying, but I think that I completely disagree. Walking in the Spirit is being controlled by the Spirit and being drunk is being debauched.

4. It is absolutely meaningless that “their wine had less alcohol than our wine.” Their wine had enough alcohol to enable drunkenness, so they were told to not get drunk. Our wine has enough alcohol to enable drunkenness, and we are told to not get drunk. Perhaps they could drink 12 glasses on a regular basis and we can only drink 1, but so what?

6. Who told you this? And, why does it matter? Plenty of Christians are giddy without taking a drink. And as far as slurred speech — responsible drinkers don’t drink to that point. And they KNOW how to avoid doing so.

7. Glad to see some common sense.

8. Where did you get such assurance that a drunk is controlled by wine but a glutton is controlled by his sinful desires? This is a distinction without a difference. An alcoholic/drunk desires to be drunk. His sinful desires cause him to abuse a good thing. A glutton desires to taste and eat too much. His sinful desires cause him to abuse a good thing. Have you ever had a drink? Drinking one glass of wine does not make you want to drink two. On the other hand, certain foods do have controlling affects. Ever heard of the after turkey nap? Ever heard of caffeine addiction?

My point in comparing gluttony to drunkenness was not intended to argue that one must drink as one must eat. Clearly, wine is not necessary for survival. My point was (and I believe it is still valid) that the possibility of abuse does not establish the need for abstinence.

9. Your answer to 9 is not common sense it is bifurcation and it was not the answer used by Jesus.

10. I don’t think I’ve said anything about legalism. And, I’ll gladly follow the Scriture’s teaching on wine. For most people, most of the time, it says to drink wine, but not to get drunk. If you don’t want to — for whatever reasone — fine with me, but don’t tell me that your standard is the biblical one or the common sense one.

Peace

Two Corrections I needed to make:
1. My apologies for the incorrect percentage on beer. I was not aware of the percentage in all the different beers. All of the information I have found placed the percentage around 8; however, I digress.
2. I had a typo on the OT and NT wine percentage. It was 2-3% (assuming full fermentation).

This will be my final comment on the blog because it is obvious to me that there are those here who are only interested in the parts of Scripture that speak well of generally sub-alcoholic wine and are not interested in hearing all the Scriptures that present clear warnings against the sin of drunkenness. My point was not to say that I have an airtight case for what I say including black and white Scripture. My point was to show how one Christian brother came to his own decision on the matter and to open the door to my line of reasoning. My point was not to say anything about the legal point of drunkenness (which I well know is usually .5 or .8 - unless you’re in the Czech Republic, its .2 there). My point was to raise the awareness of the low point at which alcohol begins to take control of a person (around .2). I am well aware that those who disagree with me will always find a way to go as far as they can go towards a specific sin and claim never to have crossed the line. You may not have crossed the line; I don’t know. I don’t want to come near the line at all. I’ve counseled teens who think that just because they have not actually had sex with their girlfriends (although they have done just about everything else), they have not committed fornication. I’ve told them that although they have not crossed into the sin of fornication in the technical sense, they are walking in a way that is surely not in line with the Biblical concept of purity. What about the teens I’ve talked to about sexual fantasy? I can’t find a direct biblical command against it, but I can tell them about the dangers of the road that they’re traveling. The point that I stress with my teens and the point that I will stress here is that the rules (whether fornication, drug use, or drunkenness) are not to be the entire focus of the believer. If one lives their life driving on the edge of a cliff with no guardrails, they are in for a big fall. Many teens have told me that the Spirit is their guardrail, but most use this as an excuse to live how they want. Although those who walk in the Spirit will in no way fulfill the lusts of the flesh, no believer can say that he always lives a Spirit-controlled life. In other words, there are times in life when the guardrail will simply be a paint line. Eventually, the teen who lives his life with the passenger door pressed up against the guardrail will go over the edge. I see this attitude among more and more Christian teens and college students. Moral safeguards are not a bad thing. A teen who does not do drugs can’t become an addict. Someone who avoids sexual fantasy will not fall prey to immorality easily. A person who sets good boundaries before marriage is sure to be pleasing to God in that respect. An individual who avoids alcohol is sure to avoid drunkenness. Although I am sure that analogies of what I’m saying will be made (i.e. not eating for the sake of gluttony), I have tried to clarify why drinking is different. It’s taken a long time to realize that I am not responsible for the decisions of my teens, and it took me a few days to realize that I’m not responsible the choices that anyone on this blog makes. Thank you for the discussion and the time. I have learned much from this dialogue.

Your brother in Christ,
Philip Thompson

Philip,

Maybe I can write more at some later time. Right now, all I have time to say is that I am very interested in hearing and learning to understand all that the Bible has to say about everything. Nothing I have written defends drunkenness. Drukenness is wrong, plain and simple. Don’t become a drunk.

Beyond that, I’d encourage you to think more about your categories and analogies. Sexual fantasy IS wrong. Jesus clearly said so — if a man even LOOKS at a woman with lust, he has committed adultery. Teenagers doing “everything but intercourse” are committing fornication — the Bible’s definition of fornication is not as narrow as that of hormone hyper teenagers.

On the other hand, it is not wrong to think about eating or drinking. It is also not wrong to drink a little — the way it is wrong to “pet” a little.

Philip,

I would agree with Keith in much of his arguments, but I would like to add two more things.

1) As has been argued above (and in a post in my blog here), Scripture does more than just “speak well” of wine. It praises wine for its spirit-uplifting, joy-producing qualities. These are qualities directly tied to the presence of alcohol in the drink. [By the way, there is some evidence that drinks were not watered down in Bible times. And even when they were, the standard ratio was 4 parts to 1 which would put the alcohol content at closer to today’s wine than today’s beer.] Scripture doesn’t say its okay to drink a little, it goes out of its way to praise wine and connect wine with joy. Again see the article I linked to at the start of this point for abundant Scriptural evidence for this assertion.

2) Scripture teaches that man-derived rules “touch not, taste not, handle not” are of no value in curbing the flesh. (Col. 2:21)

Therefore, someone who desires to take all of the Bible seriously, when he comes across passages condemning and warning against drunkenness will also be sure to keep in mind the Scriptural teaching of points 1 and 2 above. Such a person will likely conclude that the best way to avoid drunkenness is NOT total abstinence. I might recommend that for some people, but cannot in good conscience declare that such is the wisest choice.

So please understand that I do not in any way discount Scripture. I desire to uphold it and follow it in every area in my life. And therefore I will seek to avoid drunkenness while still partaking of God’s good gift of wine.

Blessings in Christ,

Bob