I’ve wondered all through this debate about one thing…

If one feels responsible for whether or not others come to Christ through what one says and does, one would be inclined (it would seem to me) to err on the side of extreme caution. After all, who in their right mind would want a glass of wine to stand between a friend and his/her salvation?

It boils down to a theological thing — as all things do — but it’s not really in the area of Christian liberty but in the unbiblical burden of “bringing souls to Christ.”

Dr. Aiken’s article never said this explicitly, but implied it numerous times. In fact, his defense for his position started out well enough but bogged down as he appealed, more and more emotionally, to the responsibility we bear for one another’s souls.

I think we would all agree that we should not be stumbling blocks — to the weaker BROTHERS (who are, by definition, already believers) — but if we understand the Sovereignty of God in salvation, then surely He is able to bring men to faith whether or not there is a glass of beer or wine on the table.

This changes the whole debate from leading people astray — meaning, according to the prohibitionist view, that we prevent people from coming to faith — to not causing the weaker brother to stumble. Keeping someone from stumbling can be, for a while, abstaining for his sake, but would also seem to imply that we help the weaker brother not be weak (ie, strengthen him through maturity and greater understanding).

So perhaps the real issue isn’t alcohol at all, but is the slide from the scriptural view of salvation.

Just thinking out loud.

D.R.,
Thanks for noting that change in the 1963 BF&M.

A greater historical awareness is always a good thing.

My post may be a little late for you to get any use out of it, but I was researching some on this and it seems that the Temperance Movement in the South (which first started advocating for moderation and then moved to abstinence later) was to blame for the shift in views on alcohol. And to answer your question, Baptist churches well into the 20th century used wine in communion (in fact the 1925 BF&M reads, “It is prerequisite to the privileges of a church relation and to the Lord’s Supper, in which the members of the church, by the use of bread and wine, commemorate the dying love of Christ.” It was changed in 1963 to read, “The Lord’s Supper is a symbolic act of obedience whereby members of the church, through partaking of the bread and the fruit of the vine, memorialize the death of the Redeemer and anticipate His second coming.”).