If you are new here, you might want to run through these previous posts: Drinking with Jesus, and Akin on Alcohol.
This should be my last post on the alcohol issue for a while. This is simply not an issue for our church or family. In both we have those who abstain and those who enjoy in moderation and there is no drama. But before I move on I wanted to speak to the issues of abstinence and wisdom.
In and of itself, abstinence is not a virtue. In fact, this is something the Bible makes plain.
“Now the Spirit expressly says that in later times some will depart from the faith by devoting themselves to deceitful spirits and teachings of demons, through the insincerity of liars whose consciences are seared, who forbid marriage and require abstinence from foods that God created to be received with thanksgiving by those who believe and know the truth. For everything created by God is good, and nothing is to be rejected if it is received with thanksgiving, for it is made holy by the word of God and prayer.”
1 Tim 4:1-5“If with Christ you died to the elemental spirits of the world, why, as if you were still alive in the world, do you submit to regulations— “Do not handle, Do not taste, Do not touch” (referring to things that all perish as they are used)—according to human precepts and teachings? These have indeed an appearance of wisdom in promoting self-made religion and asceticism and severity to the body, but they are of no value in stopping the indulgence of the flesh.”
Colossians 2:20-23
When one abstains for the wrong reasons, and seeks to bind the consciences of others, abstinence is both unbiblical and counterproductive to edification. Both passages quoted above warn against the danger of asceticism, proto-gnosticism, and their accompanying rejection of God’s gifts (marriage and food). Abstaining from such things in order to merit the favor of God, purify ourselves before him, and attain personal holiness is sin. But this does not mean that abstinence is always a bad policy. In fact, I believe wisdom allows for abstinence.
Abstinence from lawful things can be good when it is done for the right reasons. In Scripture we have the temporal Nazirite vow, which in some cases could become a lifelong practice. We have the example of the Rechabites who abstained from wine and a few other things as well. Paul says there is a time to abstain from sexual relations with our spouses. He encourages some to abstain from eating meat sacrificed to an idol for the sake of the weaker brother who may be encouraged to go against his own conscience when eating with those who understand their liberty. Of course the one who cannot eat such meat with a clear conscience should abstain. Abstinence is the wise choice for many people. We just need to be honest – abstinence (especially from alcohol) was not the norm, it was the exception, in Scripture and the history of the church. Moderation was the norm.
Moderation is good because it recognizes wine to be the gift of God, a blessing to his people that makes their hearts glad. Moderation is always a good example because it tells the world that we are a slave to nothing and to no one but Jesus Christ. It says that there is a way to enjoy God’s gifts without abusing them. It demonstrates the fruit of the Spirit (self-control) in a way that abstinence does not. Moderation is the wise choice for many people.
In the end we have two excellent examples for both those who abstain, and those who enjoy alcohol in moderation; John the Baptist and Jesus.
For John the Baptist has come eating no bread and drinking no wine, and you say, ‘He has a demon.’ The Son of Man has come eating and drinking, and you say, ‘Look at him! A glutton and a drunkard, a friend of tax collectors and sinners!’ Yet wisdom is justified by all her children.
Luke 7:33-35
This is extremely important. There were means of abstaining from alcohol in the first century. John the Baptist did not drink wine. He was a teetotaler. Jesus could have abstained, but he chose not to. He was aware of John the Baptist’s practice, but did not follow his example. Though he was aware of the problem of drunkennes in his culture he chose to drink openly with his disciples.
So what is the wise thing to do? In light of all of the biblical evidence, I believe full wisdom, 100 Proof wisdom, allows for abstinence and moderation and calls for tolerance among all.
I am the Lead Pastor of Redeemer Fellowship; husband to Jen; Dad to Katherine, Elias, Madeline, and Kilian. If you're in town you can probably find me in the local coffee house or running through the neighborhoods.
{ 61 comments }
Excellent words. Thanks for your brief series on the alcohol and the issues underlying it.
You have probably been encouraged enough already in what you have written in this series… however, I could not help myself. You have taken this problem and approached it in a biblical manner and remained logically consistent. You have been able expose the appropriateness of moderation and abstinence. Thanks for the time that you put into constructing these posts… they were very refreshing for this pastor to read.
I especially like the 100 proof wisdom statement…nice.
Well said.
I’d just like to say that the whole exercise of keeping up with this issue has been great for me. It seems that most Baptist preachers are simply afraid to address this from any perspective that deviates from toe-the-line SBC Dogma–regardless of what the Bible says. And we know where fear comes from. Very good posts, very consistent and Godly even in the face of hit and run flamers.
May God continue to bless you as you “rightly divide” his Word.
Josh
*chuckles* 100 proof wisdom…
Do you mean 200 proof wisdom? 100 proof wisdom would only be 50% wisdom.
Very well done. I feel comfortable directing people to your posts for a balanced overview of The Alcohol Question.
Pastor Thorn, I have quick question about cooperation.
You have made your position perfectly clear on this issue. And, as you well know, there are a number of us who disagree with your position. If you’ll forgive me, I’m not going to take the time here to give my full view (you probably can guess most of it anyway). Another time, another place. But, if you don’t mind, I was wondering more about how you think we should speak about one another? Do all those who agree with a position similar to the one put forth in Dr. Akin’s article and held by Dr. Frank Page, forfeit their right to say, with any legitimacy, that they believe in the sufficiency of Scripture? Are all of these people Pharisees? Or is there room inside the “sufficiency of Scripture, non-pharsaical crowd” for them? It seems like those who disagree with a position like Dr. Page’s use stronger words to speak against them than the types of words that came out of the mouths of those who spoke against those who rejected the inerrancy of Scripture in the Conservative Resurgence. But those who hold this position don’t reject Scripture’s authority or truthfulness or sufficiency, they interpret it differently. You well know the arguments that are used to support this view. And, as you know, these people don’t think that their salvation depends on their view of alcohol. In fact, it has been no problem for thousands upon thousands of Baptists to sing “My hope is built on nothing less than Jesus blood and righteousness”, while at the same time looking at the horrible results that are found in the wake of alcohol and recommending the wisdom of avoiding it, both for themselves and to others. While it is true that you, and many others, disagree with their conclusions, does it make them Pharisees? Or, from your viewpoint, are they just mistaken? Again, I’m talking about the people who say that it is unwise to drink, not a sin. People that recognize that many across the world have no problem with drinking, but that also recognize that there is not a country in the world that does not have problems as a result from drinking. Is there room for this view in your tent?
Thanks for your time.
JC,
I have friends over tonight for a Bible study at my house, and will get back to you asap.
jcoppenger,
I think that it is kind of hypocritical for your side to be complaining about intolerance. The Christian liberty view allows people either to abstain or to drink in moderation in accordance with their conscience.
Your legalistic view is the view that is intolerant. It is the legalistic seminary presidents on your side who are forcing seminary students to sign pledges that force them to abstain from alcohol. It is your side that urges churches to adopt church covenants that force members to abstain from alcohol. It is your side that would practice church discipline against those who drink alcohol. It is your side that passes resolutions at the SBC which tell people to abstain from alcohol. It is your side that tries to pass legislation that makes entire regions “dry,” thus depriving merchants and consumers of their economic freedom. It is people on your side who make harsh, judgmental comments to other people trying to enjoy their Christian liberty.
If the Christian liberty view prevails in the SBC, then legalists still will have the freedom to abstain if they want to. But if the legalistic view prevails, then those who disagree will be deprived of their freedom. When legalists accuse others of intolerance, it is nothing but hypocrisy. It is the legalists who try to control and condemn the behavior of others without the Scriptural authority to do so. That is intolerance in its purest form.
Hutch,
Is there some reason you felt it necessary, rather than respond to jcoppenger’s rather straightforward and honest questions, to attack the side that he neither defends nor discusses in any way? Nowhere does he “complain” about intolerance, he merely asks questions in an attempt to better understand Joe’s position. I would think this is the kind of dialogue we ought to encourage, not react to with labels and judgments. I for one am interested in Joe’s response. Regardless of what side I happen to be on, I think that discovering more fully the beliefs of each side is something worth pursuing, not to cast aside by ranting about hypocrisy and intolerance. Perhaps you should “tolerate” a humble question or two?
Hutch (Jeff Hutchinson?),
I concur with Ben. I think jcoppenger asked some legitimate questions, and perhaps they would be beneficial for us to think through and discuss. Pastor Thorn has promised a response, so please allow him to do so without resorting to simply calling jcoppenger a “legalist.”
Thanks for allowing me to “enter the conversation”!
I have no doubt Joe will answer the questions.
As with most issues in the SBC, I wish this discussion could take place without all the name-calling. The moderation side calls the abstinence people “legalists”. The abstinence people call the moderation side “antinomian”.
The rhetoric is not helpful…though I understand the tendency.
I personally have a VERY VERY hard time calling the consumption of alcohol as sin. I just don’t see that in Scripture. If it is a sin, then I’d like to see where that is. If it is not a sin, then it is a matter of wisdom and conscience and then I agree that one view of wisdom cannot be forced on everyone as “THE view”.
I feel like a middleman in this discussion because I choose not to drink for all the reasons that the abstinence people abstain…but I just don’t see the warrant to force that as if Scripture teaches abstinence. I don’t see it. But I’m willing to be convinced.
The sufficiency argument comes up because as soon as we start calling things sin that God has not called sin (and trying to apply that standard as a means to holiness) then we have gone beyond Scripture…and we open ourselves to the charge of not acting as if we believe scripture is really sufficient.
I think this accustaion is a fair one, based on what SOME leaders have said, but not based on what all have said. Does abstinence make us more holy? If so, why isn’t that stated in Scripture as to be the position for all believers for all times?
Moreover, isn’t it interesting that this discussion is only taking place in post-prohibition USA?
Isn’t it interesting that this discussion is taking place in a denomination that has a tendency to lean toward legalism on many issues…and one that has practically rejected the sufficiency of scripture in most matters of ecclesiology?
I have many more questions as well.
If Joe really means “full wisdom, 100 Proof wisdom, allows for abstinence and moderation and calls for tolerance among all,” then it sounds as if there is not only room in his tent, but also room at the cross for proponents both of abstinence and of moderation. That is certainly good news for all of us, I think.
As for how we ought to speak about each other, which is certainly an important question given the way both sides have ignored and talked past each other in the past month or so. I tend to like “brother” and “sister” and feel certain Joe prefers that, too. What’s more, I imagine Jedidiah does as well. At least, I know I have sat in a rather large banquet room with his father where Christian brothers and sisters of all varieties sat around tables celebrating the work of God among Anglican churches in the southern hemisphere. Some people drank, some people didn’t, but everyone was encouraged by the fellowship and reports of the news of the labors of faithful ministers in difficult sitations.
Jedidiah, some say it’s not a matter of sin, but wisdom. But then that “wisdom” is impinged on everyone as a universal. You can’t call it universal “wisdom” and then say you aren’t calling it a sin. Universal wisdom is law, not wisdom. I think there is a fundamental misunderstanding of what wisdom is and isn’t on your side of this issue.
So if you say it isn’t necessarily a universal, then those on your side should speak out against the unhelpful, extra-biblical rules put on our missionaries and churches. Speak against our resolutions that attempt to bind the conscience and control who is and isn’t eligible for future SBC leadership.
As to calling people “Pharisees” or whatever, it doesn’t bother me. We need to do it carefully and that’s not easy to do. But if the category of “Pharisee” isn’t allowed in this discussion then we will miss the well-defined and biblical problem of pharisaism. I say if people don’t want to be called “Pharisees” they should stop making rules beyond Scripture.
Also, Bailey is right. I think Joe makes clear that those on both sides are on the same team and in the same “tent.” The problem, from my view, arises when one part of our team places on others on our team an extra-biblical rule. They are then working against the rest of us and against (unwittingly) the Scriptures and the Savior.
By the way, Joe, your post is excellent. And the continued buzz on the alcohol issue post-Gboro from teetotalers is a pretty good indicator that the SBC is starting a shift in a better and more biblical direction.
Joe, sorry about stirring everything up. It wasn’t my intention, just wanted to hear your position.
Hutch, a simple no would have been enough.
Ben and Robbie, thanks for your help.
Richard, you’re right about me and my father. We both know great men of the faith who drink, (and he works with some – not at the seminary of course), have been graciously influenced by men who drink, and celebrate the great things God has done or is doing in and through them amongst the nations. And, at the same time, not to speak too much for him, we abstain from drinking and advise others that it is wise to do so too.
Steve, I might need to do work on my understanding of wisdom (like a lot of other things). But as I understand it, wisdom is not the same as law and it can be universally prescribed. So, if something is law, it is either right or wrong. If we’re dealing with wisdom, it is either wise or unwise. Also, as far as universal application of wisdom goes, I can say that it is not a sin to dance near the edge of a cliff. But at the same I can say it is always unwise. So when the guy does it, I don’t say he is sinning, I say he is unwise.
As far as calling people “Pharisees”, I just wonder if it is too strong a word for our discussion. It seems to me that Pharisees were unregenerate folks who fought against Christ. Those that you disagree with on this issue, I hope, are regenerate and are passionate about Christ. So, it just seems a little strong.
Thanks for your time guys.
Jedidiah, I certainly didn’t mean to imply that your father was some kind of lush. On the contrary, what I didn’t say so clearly and meant to was that I think the type of attitude he has (one of a conviction that prompts him both to behave certain ways and to respect the decisions of others) is the type of mature attitude from which many of us could benefit.
Joe, I have been away for the last week or so on vacation and a little slow to catch up on the recent conversation. Nice work on the recent articles brother.
Robbie and Jed:
Glad to see some fellow SBTS and Ninth and O’ers addressing these issues. I understand your position and concerns, but I think the question about “room in the tent” needs to be turned around. Clearly, the idea that our brothers who do not abstain from alcohol and drink in moderation are being called out. From one teetotaler to another
, I am afraid that this is becoming a pseudo-demarcation of liberalism. As I have argued earlier, I believe that there is an attempt to redefine what/who conservatives are (don’t get me wrong, we do need a clear definition). However, the parameters or boundaries to what we call “conservatism” should be underpinned by Scriptural warrant and our confessional faith. I don’t think you will find Joe or any other SBC brother attempting to narrow cooperation beyond what Scripture requires and our confession inspires (that is, in the theologically conservative camp).
So I guess my question is, then, could you serve and minister with a brother who does not practice total abstinence regarding alcohol consumption? To what degree does this resolution practically make a difference in your treatment and cooperation with brothers who are just as much or more theologically conservative than you?
If you argue that it doesn’t matter, then what’s the point in the resolution in the first place? If you argue that it does matter, then do you think you are drawing the line where Scripture doesn’t? This seems to be a precarious place to be in, is it not?
This is where I believe the charge of being a “legalist” comes from. Also, I think there is the idea that if one is theologically conservative, then that necessitates one being politically conservative or socially conservative. Sure, our worldview encompasses all this, but a failure to the see the nuance between these (and others) is an oversimplification of what biblical conservatism really is (by this I am arguing that the social ill of alcohol consumption in moderation deemed by a few is tantamount to the theological ill of a denial of the penal substitutionary atonement for example). Dr. Mohler has given us great advice in his theological triage model, and we would be “wise” to consider what is esential and what is not. To me, a brother who moderately drinks is simply not essential to the gospel nor the Christian faith.
I feel funny jumping in like this, but I thought I would throw my observations out there.
jcoppenger,
There is room in my tent for people who believe that it is unwise for me or anyone else to drink alcohol. (Being 20, right now it is illegal for me as well, but that is besides the point.) I think it can be an unwise decision.
You said this in your first post (emphasis is mine.)
“In fact, it has been no problem for thousands upon thousands of Baptists to sing “My hope is built on nothing less than Jesus blood and righteousness”, while at the same time looking at the horrible results that are found in the wake of alcohol and recommending the wisdom of avoiding it, both for themselves and to others. While it is true that you, and many others, disagree with their conclusions, does it make them Pharisees? Or, from your viewpoint, are they just mistaken?”
I have no problem with the view you are putting forth. I do have a problem when the actions go beyond recommending to requiring. That is the turning point. That is the point where the proponents of this resolution do act like Pharisees. I believe that these men are regenerate, and that they do believe in the sufficiency of Scripture, but they are not acting within that belief in this instance.
The problem is not that the men who believe in moderation have no room for the people who think that abstinence is the solution in their tent, it is that the teetotalers have no room for the men who hold to moderation in theirs. While Hutch may have gone a little far earlier, he makes a good point. A requirement for service prohibiting alcohol in moderation is clearly not accepting the opposing viewpoint “in your tent.”
Well said, Timmy…as usual.
Timmy & Paul, helpful.
Jedidiah,
If Scripture says something is a good (or at least acceptable) thing, then allowing that thing isn’t about wisdom. The circumstances and timing and precautions may take wisdom, but not the acceptability of the act itself.
Is it wise, by the principles of your explanation above, to be a missionary to cannibals? Nope. High risk. Dangerous. Yet we are commanded to do so. Wisdom is knowing how to do it, with whom, when, what precautions, etc.
So with alcohol. Drinking is allowed and even encouraged. Abstinence is allowed. Wisdom will tell us if we need to be an abstainer or if we can exercise self-control and drink. Wisdom tells us when we should temporarily abstain for the sake of others. But wisdom can never, ever tell us that it’s wrong for everyone all the time. That’s law. That’s a universal. And to call someone unwise when they are doing what God says is good is to say (again, unwittingly) God isn’t wise enough to give us a law so we must then do so.
You know, the reasons often given for the Baptist abstinence policy are very nearly the same reasons Catholics traditionally give for their requirement of celibacy. And just as faulty.
1. Celibacy never assured anyone they wouldn’t be tempted to lust. It just made them hide it better. Any arguments our abstinence policy works better?
2. Celibacy made a sin something we understand to be a gift from God (namely, marriage and sex within the marital context). For some people, I suppose, celibacy encouraged holiness. For many it does not (gay Catholic seminaries, anyone?) Any arguments our abstinence policy is better?
Practical question for those who are pastors:
In your own church, when you celebrate the Lord’s Supper do you use only wine? Or do you use grape juice? Or do you offer both?
This is not a trick question, I am trying to work these issues out and am interested in how you handle this aspect.
Joe (and everyone else I guess),
I don’t want to belabour this point any further than it needs to be, but I just want to make a simple observation.
The SBC has passed some 57 resolutions on alcohol in the past 130 years or so. This one has been out less than a month, and because the opportunity to express one’s opinion publicly, it has probably been given the greatest attention. This is good to a degree, but I am also see how bad this really is. Let me explain.
Those who pushed for this resolution knew that it would divide folks in the convention, as it was clearly seen when debated on the floor. The efficaciousness of this resolution is suspect in that it cannot really be carried out, so it is more of a statement than a policy. Therefore, this resolution has served to divide conservatives over a non-essential matter that some want to make essential.
What has been so ironic for me is that for the past month this has been taking place, I have been reading the likes of John Hick, Paul Knitter, and Stanley Samartha–all who reject the deity and Incarnation Jesus Christ. Here is where we should clearly draw a dividing line. But can we rightly juxtapose a rejection of the deity of Jesus Christ with a rejection of total abstinence from drinking alcohol? God forbid!
Let’s not be divided and labeled over such an issue of this resolution. I have many brothers of whom I hold in high regard that I disagree with, but we do not allow this to detract from our partnership in the gospel. I know that some have jokingly asserted that Joe or anyone else who disagrees with Drs. Akin or Mohler on this issue is written off, but if that is the case, it is more an indictment against those who write us off than those of us in disagreement. This is precisely because this matter does not deserve the attention it is getting.
Therefore, I apologize for addressing this matter in a way that has elevated it so such status. We must, I say we must, get our priorities right in the SBC. The gospel is being threatened and our churches are in serious need of reform. Let’s work together and get beyond our petty differences on nonessential matters to seek first the kingdom of God and do all for the sake of the gospel that we might be fellow partakers of it. I look forward to serving others and reaching our world for Jesus Christ with my brothers who drink a class of wine and with those who don’t.
The arguments have been made, but God forbid that a dividing line has been drawn. Let’s come together, brothers, for Jesus’ sake . . . and ours as well.
Timmy,
It would be nice if we could all get along. But it will be impossible for advocates of Christian liberty to work together with legalists as long as legalists insist on policies like this:
“RESOLVED, That we urge that no one be elected to serve as a trustee or member of any entity or committee of the Southern Baptist Convention that is a user of alcoholic beverages.”
With this kind of policy there is no “big tent.” Legalists want to exclude everybody from the tent who will not allow their behavior to be controlled by the legalists.
I’m afraid Hutch is right. This isn’t about having differences and not being willing to look beyond them.
I’m glad you can stand with both sides Timmy. I do as well. But this is a divisive move from the teetotalers and is worthy of plenty of discussion and (Lord-willing) change.
And I know the resolution isn’t binding officially, but just wait to see how it’s used IF a non-abstaining candidate comes forward in the next few years. It will be heavily smacked on anyone running.
To test this theory Steve and I are running together as one presidential candidate next year.
And if we win we will tour the country on unicycles while juggling bottles of cabernet.
Our slogan will be: “Everyone Can! Drink, Even You.”
At the convention we will have Hank Williams, Jr. blow a beer bong.
Our evangelistic thrust will be: “We Will Sit Next To, Befriend, and Build Redemptive Relationships With One Million Barflys by 2009.”
Joe,
I am sure you know this by now, but Dr. Patterson has come out with his arguments for total abstinence in a BP “First Person” article. Any comments on this?
My first thoughts were, “Geesh, this is like endorsing Ronnie Floyd all over again. These presidents really have got their political juices flowing together!”
But then I thought to myself, “Well, their candidate only got 1/4 of the vote.” Then I slept well last night.
Yeah, I read his article. It was more naked assertions without Scriptural backup (concerning oinos for example). He cites the exceptions (abstainers) and makes them the rule. He argues Jesus did not produce alcohol wine at Cana, etc.
I told myself I wasn’t going to post on here anymore because it’s a waste of time, but when my friend told me Dr. Patterson wrote an article and I read it, I was going to just post the link on here. Which I will do now for all those who would like to read it instead of blindly succumbing to Joe Thorn’s opinion of it.
http://www.bpnews.net/bpnews.asp?ID=23601
Hmmm…let’s see, a person of Dr. Patterson’s stature writes a thoughtful discourse pretty much debunking most of what’s been said on this site about the issue, and all Joe says is it’s “naked assertions”. I’d actually be interested in hearing a little explanation – and perhaps to see you “engage” some of his words. Let’s see, the opinion of a dedicated scholar and preacher of over 50 years whose ministry has been responsible for thousands of conversions and thousands of trained ministers (as well as being responsible for the conservative resurgence which recaptured the high regard for scripture in Southern Baptist life – which you claim to hold so highly too)……..or the view of 30-something pastor who probably baptized 3 people last year.
Speaking of wastes of time–jtip, can you be any more classless and un-Christlike? Good thing no one really knows who you are, someone might make similar evaluations of your life and ministry. But I am glad you showed us so clearly from Patterson’s comments why his remarks are vallid and worthwhile. Oh wait, you didn’t. For explanation and engagement of what Joe thinks, how about reading what he has said in his mulitiple articles here rather than blindly assuming he (or anyone else) has nothing to say. So, you disagree. Ok, great, everyone knows that and could likely even respect it (if not for the slaps at the character and labors of other believers).
As for the thoughtfulness of Patterson’s article, he readily admits that the Bible doesn’t say moderation is a sin, then he closes with the following: “Can it be anything less than sin for a believer who is genuinely grateful for the atoning power of Christ in his life to pursue anything other than the highest — God’s ideal — the best that he can be for Christ?” It certainly took a lot of thought to make that leap.
Yeah, you’re right. I shouldn’t have written any of the inflammatory remarks that I did, so I’m sorry about that.
However, the meat of the post is correct. I don’t need to expound on the article, it makes the points for itself. Kind of like Dr. Akin’s article. Obviously since I’ve posted on here previously, I’ve read all the articles/blogs. And I don’t even understand what your last paragraph says – are you saying that Dr. Patterson isn’t being true to the text, that he is, that he’s making leaps??? I will tell you that as a layperson I would have a problem going to a church where the preacher/leadership drank alcohol and/or said it’s use was okay. And, that the arguments put forth by Patterson and Akin, and others that have a lot of experience, education, etc. are a lot stronger than the ones put forth in some of these other blogs that are pro-alcohol.
But again, you’re right – we’re all Christians here – and I shouldn’t be rude or say disparaging remarks, so forgive me.
jtip, thanks for the response. I really think people who are children of grace can discuss this accordingly and I am glad you agree. If not, all people do is yell at each other and that rarely gets us anywhere (though at times I suppose it is necessary, too). Like yourself, I am thankful for the efforts that Patterson and others have made in the past for the integrity of the SBC. That doesn’t mean, however, that I accept everything they say as the gospel truth.
As for my earlier comments, yes, I do think that Patterson is making some leaps in his logic. Furthermore, I really thought his final few remarks were simply a way to ratchet up the rhetoric and call anyone who disagrees with him a sinner, despite not showing from the texts that such is the case.
As for this specific article, I wish Patterson had written a coherent, thesis-driven essay (like I struggle to teach my students to do and I assume he does as well). While I might not have agreed with such an essay, at least it could be evaluated based upon its ability to make or not make an argument. As it is, it reads more like a list of random thoughts (for example, why does he throw in the thing about biblical wines being locally produced? Does that mean as long as I buy from a local micro-brew, it’s ok?), ending with a sentence that seemed to make a statement he had not proven effectively.
jtip, you are indeed forgiven. And banned.
Silly me. I thought the Holy Spirit’s ministry was responsible for conversions.
Joe, you are becoming quite the target and thereby attracting the attackers off my site. Thanks man.
Even Mohler says in the SBTS alcohol forum audio that Jesus made water into wine. *GASP* He says to say it wasn’t wine is “a really, really bad Christian argument.”
Hey Stu,
Are you serious? Hard to understand what was meant in jtip’s post? Wow.
Maybe preachers are absolved from every requirement – such as carryiing out the great commission. Or was that just a quick shot?
Let’s all agree to make the arguments the arguments and stop trying to use the greatness of our SBC heroes to defend their arguments.
tt,
It was neither an assertion that preachers are absovled of the great commission, nor was it a quick shot. I just sometimes wish people whose trade depends upon words would choose their words more carefully.
That, and I don’t find the number of nothces on one’s gospel gun to be terribly relevant to the discussion.
p.s. Unles you’ve known me since junior high, don’t call me Stu. Thanks in advance.
Joe,
With reference to the New Testament understanding of the word oinos try looking at the use of the word oinos in the Septuagint. What you will find is that 33 times the word oinos is consistently used to translate Tirosh (“new wine” which only once out of 38 references implied alcohol content).
What bothers me about you fellows is that you make no effort whatsoever to engage the historical context of Scripture. You also refuse to engage the clear prohibitions. For instance, proverbs 23 clearly prohibits the drinking of some sort of beverage unless you would like to debate what the real meaning of the words “do not.” Could you tell me what sort of beverage is being prohibited if not a high alchol wine? Clearly Provebs 31:4 denies the use of yayin and strong drink to leaders yet you call the convention legalists for asking their leaders not drink.
You fellows mock the idea that a believer might bear responsibility if his drinking encouraged another to drink leading to that person’s drinking problems. Statistics tell us that 55% of americans drink while 45% never drink. One out of seven american adults are problem drinkers. If those statics are accurate that means out of adults that drink at all 30% are problem drinkers. You can encourage your folks to go ahead and drink but you’ll also have to be there to help 3 out of ten who follow your advice to pick up the pieces.
Tim, Joe is away for a bit so let me throw in a few thoughts for you. I will say that it’s almost impossible to talk with you about this issue considering how much of this issue you have wrong. I don’t mean that as a dig, but you have worked hard to try to gain a consistent alcohol view with so much Bible stacked against you. I commend you for you desire to be consistent considering how many SBC leaders are inconsistent, but it has kept you from clearly reading the Scriptures.
1. No one has mocked leading a brother to sin. To say that is at least uninformed and at most stupid. We have only said that abstinence is never required unless it may cause a brother to stumble. So the abstinence would be temporary per the texts on the issue.
2. If the SBC members would drink responsibly, your stats on problem drinking would lessen significantly.
3. I don’t see any text in Prov 23 that shows a “clear prohibition” of wine or any alcohol? The passage speaks of circumstantial prohibition, not total.
4. As for Prov 31:4, don’t miss verse 5, “For they will drink and forget what is decreed, And pervert the rights of all the afflicted.” It seems the point is how the abuse (not use) of alcohol will affect their judgment and justice.
Ecclesiastes 10:17 helps here to show that drunkenness is the issue with kings.
Okay Steve, since you struggle to see a prohibition in proverbs 23 let’s exegete the passage and see what it means in its natural sense. We understand that Proverbs is written from the perspective of wisdom to its son (proverbs 1:8). These were sayings that were often written and taught in the form of question and asnwer. And so wisdom asks the son a question: “Who has woe? Who has sorrow? Who has contentions? Who has complaining? Who has wounds without cause? Who has redness of eyes?” Wisdom then gives the rhetorical answer. “Those who linger long over wine, Those who go to taste mixed wine.”
And so wisdom has instructed his son not to linger long over the sort of yayin that is a low level intoxicant. If the yayin he were talking about was as inebriating as the wines of today he would not have to linger long over it at all. Two or three glasses would easily bring the described condition. But since the wines of that day averaged 6% alcohol (based on secular research that I will gladly note but which you would not bother to read anyway) and were customarily mixed 3 to 1 with water then the fool above had to continually drink it to become inebriated. This is a warning against the abuse of what was acceptable and generally safe social custom.
Now wisdom gives a second lesson on alcohol not to the foolish drinker as you contend but to his son in wisdom.: “Do not look on the wine when it is red, When it sparkles in the cup, When it goes down smoothly, At the last it bites like a serpent, And stings like a viper.” What is he describing here? Not the kind of yayin that intoxicates only after continual drinking but the kind that is well aged and highly intoxicating. The kind that stings when it goes down because of the high alcohol content. He says do not even look at that. I can’t see how you can miss the prohibition here. I would hope that this would not come down to debating what the words “do not look” mean.
Tim,
You’re exhorting these gentlemen to read Proverbs to “see what it means in its natural sense,” but in point of fact you’re failing to do this yourself. When the writer says “do not look on the wine when it is red,” he doesn’t mean _don’t look at it_. What, do we sin if we happen to look at a bottle of wine at Wal-Mart on our way down the aisle? No, he means don’t look on it _with inordinate longing and fondness_. This is in perfect Hebrew parallelism with the admonition not to “linger long” over it. It’s directed at the abuse, not the use. The issue is the matter of the heart, not whether the light waves happen to bounce off the liquid into your retina. Likewise, you contrast the “the kind of yayin that intoxicates only after continual drinking” with the stuff in this passage, which allegedly makes you drunk in a single drink. Well, let’s be honest: any stuff today that _does_ make you drunk in a single drink, is forbidden to the Christian, and there’s no evangelical advocate of moderate beverage alcohol use that would say otherwise. But that’s not what’s in view here anyway, most likely. The writer says that “at the last” it bites like a serpent, etc. That is, the intoxication is something that happens after several drinks. Thus the warning, which seems sensible.
Tim,
You say that:
“With reference to the New Testament understanding of the word oinos try looking at the use of the word oinos in the Septuagint. What you will find is that 33 times the word oinos is consistently used to translate Tirosh (”new wine” which only once out of 38 references implied alcohol content).”
You’re quite right that “unfermented grape juice” falls within the semantic range of “oinos”. That is, even though in the LXX “oinos” is predominantly used to translate the Hebrew “yayin” (that is, wine), in a small proportion of cases it is used to translate the Hebrew “tirosh” (that is, new wine). However, two things need to be kept in mind. First, there is no evidence that “oinos” ever denotes unfermented grape juice _in the NT_. This is why Bauer-Arndt-Gingrich-Danker (one of our most authoritative lexicons of NT Greek) says in its entry on “oinos” that “the word for ‘must’, or unfermented grape juice, is ‘truks’ (Anacr. +’ pap.).” What is relevant for our present purposes is first and foremost koine Greek, and only secondarily LXX Greek. And if the NT authors had wanted to refer to unfermented grape juice, they certainly had a word ready at hand (“truks”). But as a matter of fact, they chose a word that, in the overwhelming number of cases, translates “yayin” in the OT, rather than “tirosh”. Second, the case for the acceptability of using beverage alcohol does not need to rely upon any OT passages that specifically refer to “tirosh”. So the fact that “oinos” was occasionally used in the LXX to translate “tarosh” is irrelevant.
ConcernedSBCer, thanks for taking the time to visit the blog and contribute so substantially.
Joe,
No problem. BTW, I’ve written up a thorough reply to the article by Dr. Patterson, a man I deeply respect and wish to honor by giving his arguments their due. If you want, I could simply post it here in separate parts, although that could be excessive.
Concerned, I say through up a blog so it’s easier for people to read. Let us know if you put one up.
I feel like the prodigal son’s brother. I’m here on my day off working hard to defend truth and liberty for my best friend and some anonymous bloke shows up and gets the fattened calf cooked for him. Joe, whenever you like you can praise me and my entirely mediocre efforts. Just don’t tell anyone they are mediocre.
ConcernedSBCer, be careful not to steal my boyfriend or I will have to hurt you. Okay, so your comments were helpful. I admit it!
Tim, the context of Proverbs 23 is clear, it’s about drunkenness: woe, sorrow, linger long, redness of eyes, seeing things, altered mental state, hurt without feeling pain, passing out and drinking immediately after.
You are creating the same problem here that you do with the whole issue. You focus on the kind of drink mentioned (%age, strength), but the context focuses on the effects of the drink (drunkenness) and gives warning against drinking resulting in those effects.
Steve, darling. My deepest apologies. Thank YOU for speaking wisdom on this blog in my absence. I really do appreciate it. Oh, and thanks for the boyfriend line. If you thought we’ve been attacked on the alcohol issue, let’s see who starts firing off at us for that comment.
Now I ‘spose you guys are wanting to say homosexuality is okay!
(joking!)
please someone tell me how this is bringing honor and glory to Christ? and i ask that you don’t give me a sarcastic answer to the question.
Joe, I’ll give the blog idea some thought, and let you know. Perhaps later today.
I’ve been following this issue since the Convention. Some folks should take note of the way things have been handled here. Even the folks who fly by with cheap shots are generally acknowledged as brothers and it seems that their comments are examined thoughtfully. Some, quite honestly, haven’t deserved it.
I am merely a witness to most of what has been going on blog-wise with this. (Textual criticism is out of my league.) But it appears that most folks are at least attmepting to apply the Bible in its context to a current situation and come up with a solution that honors God. Any time you can get a bunch of average Baptists (other than that 20% you always hear about) to do that its a good thing.
Concerned SBCer,
Clearly parallelism is not in play between proverbs 23:29 and 23:31.
Let’s also set the record straight on the translation of “Tirosh” with the word “oinos.” “Oinos” translates “Tirosh” not occassionally but in 32 of 38 occurances. I would add that there are at least five OT references where “yayin” refers to the fresh pressed juice. Other references where oinos refers to fresh juice in koine greek include an early church father, papias, Proclus, and other Greek papyri. The question of the nature of oinos is in fact relevant since folks in your camp repeatedly suggest that Jesus made alcohol and repeatedly drank alcohol with his disciples and your desire is only to follow His example. The fact is that there is no passage that provides an indisputable reference to the consumption of oinos by Jesus or His disciples.
OK folks,
If you want to see my material on the Patterson article, here it is:
http://concernedsbcer.blogspot.com/
Tim,
You keep on referring to 38 occurrences of ‘tirosh’ (new wine) in the MT, translated by “oinos” in the LXX 32 out of those 38 times. Sure. But, as I said, “in the LXX ‘oinos’ is predominantly used to translate the Hebrew ‘yayin’ (that is, wine).” Indeed, “oinos” translates “yayin” _hundreds of times_, as opposed to translating “tirosh” a mere 32 times. Its overwhemingly predominant use in the LXX is to translate “yayin,” not “tirosh”. That is its _dominant_ use. This cannot be ignored. However, for the reasons I gave above, this issue is irrelevant anyway.
My claim about parallelism was not between v. 29 and v. 31. It was between v. 30 (“linger long”) and v. 31 (“do not look on the wine”). It’s not a stretch, really. They’re consecutive verses. In addition, all the contextual clues Steve McCoy and myself have raised show the focus is on abuse, not use. Again, do you really think it’s a sin to _look_ at a glass of wine? Really?
ConcernedSBCer, I think you did a wonderful job on your blog. I hope you don’t mind that I linked all six parts of your post on my blog. I did it before I came here and saw your comment.
Thanks,
Mark
If you all haven’t been over to the ConcernedSBCer blog and are concerned at all about this issue make a point to do it today. Teetotaler or not its a great treatment of all aspects of the argument though it fairly well wipes out the arguments put forth in Dr. Patterson’s article.
Much Grace…
Josh
Thanks guys. I’ll try to post a few comments over there today.
Im going to drink wine with Jesus!
Comments on this entry are closed.