[Adam K]

Originally Posted by BillSPrestonEsq

The spirit vs letter of the law does not change the fact of the matter that scripture says not to be drunk. In all honesty, how we feel is really rather irrelevant.

Spirit of the law vs letter would apply to whether being intoxicated out of control with THC was okay because scripture does not mention Cannabis.

But scripture makes the claim that we should not get drunk with wine, which is debauchery. There seem to be some common sense therapeutic exceptions based on the proverbs, but ultimately, our feelings can't stand in judgment of the scriptures. There are many things I feel I don't like about scripture, but that does not change whether or not it is commanded or not.

Well, as far as approaching "the spirit of the law" we see Jesus revealing some new aspects to the Mosaic Law in the Sermon on the Mount. The Pharisees had basically said "A command is a command. It means what it says." And Jesus quoted the commands as follows: "You have heard that it was said, 'Do not ____ ' BUT I tell you...". Basically, going deeper than what had actually been the "letter of the law" and setting that as the true standard of righteousness. So, basically Israel (God's chosen people) themselves took the attitude of "A command is a command. It means what it says" and Jesus set them straight with the intended meaning.

So, what I'm NOT saying is that if we have a "feeling" about the intended meaning of a command we should follow that instead, what I AM saying is that there are indicators in Scripture that can point us towards intended meaning(s) of a command that may not be obvious from just the reading of it.

Originally Posted by BillSPrestonEsq

I will not really go there.

We have a few options here.

1) A command is a command. It means what it says.
2) A command is a suggestion. It means something different than it says.

So, this is a little extremist. It excludes interpretation.

1) "A command is a command." We find out what it means in a variety of ways, not just from reading the single verse/command.
2)"A command is a suggestion." Sometimes this can be true. We either can evaluate what is being said wrongly, OR not recognize that although the author uses imperative language the context in which the command is given may rule out its authority over us, or that the author really doesn't have the authority to be issuing (new) commands anyway.

I'm not really establishing what I think theologically on this matter here, just addressing what I think may not be a good approach.

[BillSPrestonEsq]

Originally Posted by Adam K

Well, as far as approaching "the spirit of the law" we see Jesus revealing some new aspects to the Mosaic Law in the Sermon on the Mount. The Pharisees had basically said "A command is a command. It means what it says." And Jesus quoted the commands as follows: "You have heard that it was said, 'Do not ____ ' BUT I tell you...". Basically, going deeper than what had actually been the "letter of the law" and setting that as the true standard of righteousness. So, basically Israel (God's chosen people) themselves took the attitude of "A command is a command. It means what it says" and Jesus set them straight with the intended meaning.

So, what I'm NOT saying is that if we have a "feeling" about the intended meaning of a command we should follow that instead, what I AM saying is that there are indicators in Scripture that can point us towards intended meaning(s) of a command that may not be obvious from just the reading of it.

Your options here are what it says or your feelings that over-ride it.

We are not discussing something other than a simple imperative.

The phrase is an imperative, which says do not do x, because x is wrong.

There is no room for this to mean other than what it says without deifying our feelings, and making them an idol and deciding that we know better than God in a replay of the garden.

The Pharisees were rebuked, not for their obedience to the law, but rather, their disobedience to the Spirit of the law and adding to it. Jesus actually commended them for their rigid tithing in fact. To take this verse as the pharisees, would be to either ban alcohol altogether, as many do, or to make elaborate rules on what you could or could not be drunk on.

So, this is a little extremist. It excludes interpretation.

Actually, it isn't and doesn't. You know, I mentioned it being an imperative. Imperatives do not have a lot of categories for usage. You can have a command in the positive, and the negative. In other words, the case indicates this is a black and white issue. Without tacitly denying the veracity of scripture, there is no room for interpretation of an imperative command. We can discuss what drunk means, but that it is sinful to be in the state that scripture forbids as sinful, is not a matter that is up for discussion if you hold to scripture as the word of God.

1) "A command is a command." We find out what it means in a variety of ways, not just from reading the single verse/command.

Disagree. The command is given as a command. It says something quite simple. If thou shalt not murder was only spoken once, it would still apply.

2)"A command is a suggestion." Sometimes this can be true. We either can evaluate what is being said wrongly, OR not recognize that although the author uses imperative language the context in which the command is given may rule out its authority over us, or that the author really doesn't have the authority to be issuing (new) commands anyway.

Your first circumstance questions whether the scripture is authoritative or normative or inspired. Was Paul as an Apostle able to make these declarations by divine inspiration? Yes. Is this command given in a way to indicate it was not directed at believers? No, it gives a universal equivocation that drunkeness was debauchery, and that we were to be instead, filled with the spirit.

So we are left with for this not to be the case, either a denial of paul's apostleship, or Pauline authorship.

I'm not really establishing what I think theologically on this matter here, just addressing what I think may not be a good approach.

Not everything in scripture can be interpretted away to not meaning what it says, without you merely replacing divine authority with human emotionalism. A simple command which has attached a general basis is really rather solid, unless you want to remove all biblical basis whatsoever.

[Adam K]

Your options here are what it says or your feelings that over-ride it.

What I said was..."So, what I'm NOT saying is that if we have a "feeling" about the intended meaning of a command we should follow that instead, what I AM saying is that there are indicators in Scripture that can point us towards intended meaning(s) of a command that may not be obvious from just the reading of it."

By "indicators" I am NOT meaning "feelings" about the intended meaning, but rather using what Scripture says on related topics and/or in related contexts to interpret said command. Rather than automatically taking a literal approach we should evaluate what the whole of Scripture communicates to us about the specific subject and related topics at hand.

The phrase is an imperative, which says do not do x, because x is wrong.

Okay, so what do you do when I say "x" = 1 and you say "x" = 2?

Not everything in scripture can be interpretted away to not meaning what it says

I don't remember suggesting this(?) I'm saying certain things in Scripture can be interpreted to mean something different than what we assumed they could mean...BASED upon what the whole of Scripture indicates rather than just what the solitary context suggests.

[BillSPrestonEsq]

Originally Posted by Adam K

What I said was..."So, what I'm NOT saying is that if we have a "feeling" about the intended meaning of a command we should follow that instead, what I AM saying is that there are indicators in Scripture that can point us towards intended meaning(s) of a command that may not be obvious from just the reading of it."

By "indicators" I am NOT meaning "feelings" about the intended meaning, but rather using what Scripture says on related topics and/or in related contexts to interpret said command. Rather than automatically taking a literal approach we should evaluate what the whole of Scripture communicates to us about the specific subject and related topics at hand.

I was responding to why we can't play fast and loose with a text based on feelings. In this imperative text there are no markers to take it any different than how it reads.

It basically reads, don't get drunk with wine, which is recklessness, but be filled by the Spirit. It is clear, timeless, and a simple command. Paul does not go off on any long, hard to follow backgrounds.

All indicators would point that Paul is writing, giving a command to the church.

I was responding as to why, prayer, and feeling peaceful about something don't change what it says. It says what it says, rather simply. The simpler something is stated, the harder it is to wriggle out of it. Or do I need to pull up all the writings in the NT on drunkenness, which do, in fact, back up the Pauline command here.

Okay, so what do you do when I say "x" = 1 and you say "x" = 2?

This is what is called a strawman argument.

Scripture says, do not do x. Thus, if we assume the veracity of scripture, know that it is in an imperative, than we can safely say that it means, do not do x. I was responding to the point that it was okay to do x if scripture clearly states, don't do x. The fact that what was said directly contradicted an imperative text, shows that the issue is not, what we are talking about, but rather are commands in the bible authoritative.

The issue was not what drunkenness was. But whether the Pauline command against drunkenness superseded personal feelings about the command.

I don't remember suggesting this(?) I'm saying certain things in Scripture can be interpreted to mean something different than what we assumed they could mean...BASED upon what the whole of Scripture indicates rather than just what the solitary context suggests.

That can be true. However, when you are dealing with an apostolic imperative that gives a reason for why it is wrong gives you a basis for obeying that command whether it is repeated or not. No scripture suggests that drunkenness is okay for the believer for fun.

[Adam K]

Without tacitly denying the veracity of scripture, there is no room for interpretation of an imperative command. We can discuss what drunk means, but that it is sinful to be in the state that scripture forbids as sinful, is not a matter that is up for discussion if you hold to scripture as the word of God.

This doesn't make sense. How can we accurately obey a command without having a clear definition of "being drunk"? Having a general idea about what to avoid doesn't help in circumstances that specific choices need to be made. Basically this reduces to erring on the side of caution which is not exactly the kind of example Christ laid out. The Church advances its cause by taking risks, by living and sharing life to its fullest.. What I am saying is that Paul's command is vacuous without a definition of drunkenness. There is no biblical definition of drunkenness. And we can't presume that our definition of "drunk" was Paul's definition of "drunk". From what I gather, the Ephesians were not shy about drinking and this could be part of Paul's motivation for stressing the Spirit's role as something that mustn't be replaced by drinking. In other words, not letting alcohol become our Comforter (our "Holy Spirit"). But this isn't to say that if we use "the drink" for its intended purposes (celebration, feasting, etc.) that it should not have an effect on us. In fact if we look at the whole of Scripture wine was given to "gladden the heart of man"(Psalm 104:14-15). Now if that doesn't speak about the (intended) effect alcohol upon our lives I don't know what it IS talking about.

Here is a link that helps lay out a more comprehensive look at Scripture's stance on alcohol's effect on man:

"Wine to Gladden the Heart of Man": Thoughts on God's Good Gift of Wine :: Fundamentally Reformed

If wine being created for man's joy is the middle ground, then what does this say about drunkenness? Possibly that it is taking the use of wine BEYOND "gladdening" and using it for (a false sense of) security.

I was responding to the point that it was okay to do x if scripture clearly states, don't do x. The fact that what was said directly contradicted an imperative text, shows that the issue is not, what we are talking about, but rather are commands in the bible authoritative.

The issue was not what drunkenness was. But whether the Pauline command against drunkenness superseded personal feelings about the command.

I never contested Paul's authority, all I remember saying was:

Originally Posted by Adam K

2)"A command is a suggestion." Sometimes this can be true. We either can evaluate what is being said wrongly, OR not recognize that although the author uses imperative language the context in which the command is given may rule out its authority over us, or that the author really doesn't have the authority to be issuing (new) commands anyway.

I'm not really establishing what I think theologically on this matter here, just addressing what I think may not be a good approach.

I was clarifying the importance of interpretation, and used indefinite language to suggest that this wasn't necessarily the case here. It was a generalization

[BillSPrestonEsq]

Originally Posted by Adam K

This doesn't make sense. How can we accurately obey a command without having a clear definition of "being drunk"?

It makes perfect sense if you think about it at all.

I am saying that being drunk, is according to scripture, wrong.

I am not specifically defining drunk. If someone contests the command, the scripture is what they are contesting, not the specifics.

I also don't believe .08BAV is always drunk for everyone.

I think we can make a separate case to define the command, but that the command commands against drunkeness, however it is defined is indisputable from the text.

Having a general idea about what to avoid doesn't help in circumstances that specific choices need to be made.

While I would argue that a standard could be made, your statement here is plainly untrue.

If I decide I don't want to get drunk, so if I were buzzed a little, should I slam 14 shots? No. Whether I define the line hard or not, my destination could still guide my actions. You are arguing for a legalistic, pharasaic interpretation.

Basically this reduces to erring on the side of caution which is not exactly the kind of example Christ laid out. The Church advances its cause by taking risks, by living and sharing life to its fullest..

2 problems here.

1) Your premise is wrong. Nowhere do we have any evidence that Jesus Christ tried to push himself close to sin.
2) I have not argued for what you are claiming.

What I am saying is that the approach could be layed out this way.
1) Scriptures says not to be drunk with wine, period.
2) Exceptions come out from proverbs for health reasons.
3) After we accept the premise that scripture says drunkenness is wrong, we can then discuss what drunkeness is. But if we toss this out based on emotionalism, a discussion of drunkeness is futile because there is no reason if someone disregards the command in the first place.

That the command is true is undisputable. The nuances of the command could be a little more worthy of finesse.

What I am saying is that Paul's command is vacuous without a definition of drunkenness. There is no biblical definition of drunkenness. And we can't presume that our definition of "drunk" was Paul's definition of "drunk". From what I gather, the Ephesians were not shy about drinking and this could be part of Paul's motivation for stressing the Spirit's role as something that mustn't be replaced by drinking. In other words, not letting alcohol become our Comforter (our "Holy Spirit"). But this isn't to say that if we use "the drink" for its intended purposes (celebration, feasting, etc.) that it should not have an effect on us. In fact if we look at the whole of Scripture wine was given to "gladden the heart of man"(Psalm 104:14-15). Now if that doesn't speak about the (intended) effect alcohol upon our lives I don't know what it IS talking about.

STRAWMAN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Here is a link that helps lay out a more comprehensive look at Scripture's stance on alcohol's effect on man:

"Wine to Gladden the Heart of Man": Thoughts on God's Good Gift of Wine :: Fundamentally Reformed

If wine being created for man's joy is the middle ground, then what does this say about drunkenness? Possibly that it is taking the use of wine BEYOND "gladdening" and using it for (a false sense of) security.

I don't think posting links really contributes much.

I never contested Paul's authority, all I remember saying was:



I was clarifying the importance of interpretation, and used indefinite language to suggest that this wasn't necessarily the case here. It was a generalization

If you were generalizing, then you were merely obfuscating. I did not include a bunch of non-applicable double-speak because an apostolic command is an apostolic command and is authoritative. Your point was that I was wrong in the specific instance because of those criteria. In other words, you did call into question those things in that instance.

[Adam K]

If I decide I don't want to get drunk, so if I were buzzed a little, should I slam 14 shots?

The "specific choices" I was talking about are ones that are a little more ambiguous than "slamming 14 shots". More like, say that you are buzzed a little and your friend offers to get you another beer.

No. Whether I define the line hard or not, my destination could still guide my actions. You are arguing for a legalistic, pharasaic interpretation.

Right. That's my point. Our destination is everything! In my opinion, Scripture says that the destination should be gladness, not losing one's self-control in sensuality. And I am actually arguing against what could BECOME a pharisaic interpretation.

2 problems here.

1) Your premise is wrong. Nowhere do we have any evidence that Jesus Christ tried to push himself close to sin.
2) I have not argued for what you are claiming.

1) I don't understand what it means for Jesus to "push Himself close to sin". But what I was meaning to say is that Jesus "lived on the edge" in the sense that conservatism was not the basis for His life or ministry. He came "eating and drinking" (Matt. 11:19; Luke 7:34) unlike His cousin John, which assuming that everyone in that period "ate and drank" to a certain degree, this context seems to indicate that Jesus did so in a (liberal) manner that others labeled Him as glutton and a drunkard (which He wasn't). He risked being called a friend of sinners in order to reach out them (1 Cor. 15:33; Prov. 13:20). His curses and reprimands of the Pharisees ("you fools!" Matt. 23:17) tended towards a hatred that some saw Jesus preaching against (Matt. 5:22).

2) I didn't say that you were arguing for erring on the side of caution. I was laying out what the general avoidance of drinking reduces to. (Basically I was laying out the extreme position that I am trying to avoid here. I wasn't claiming that it was your position. I was using it as a reference point to argue from.)

What I am saying is that the approach could be layed out this way.
1) Scriptures says not to be drunk with wine, period.
2) Exceptions come out from proverbs for health reasons.
3) After we accept the premise that scripture says drunkenness is wrong, we can then discuss what drunkeness is. But if we toss this out based on emotionalism, a discussion of drunkeness is futile because there is no reason if someone disregards the command in the first place.

That the command is true is undisputable. The nuances of the command could be a little more worthy of finesse.

1) Agreed
2) Right. And Proverbs 31:6-7 "Give strong drink to him who is perishing, And wine to those who are bitter of heart. 7 Let him drink and forget his poverty, And remember his misery no more."
3) I agree. The command is authoritative and reiterates Scripture's attitude towards drunkenness as a whole. BUT I feel like the discussion about the definition of drunkenness is the essence of the command. In my opinion, not having a definite line (that we can measure with) leaves us with approaching the drink from, "How can we properly drink to God's glory?" rather than "How can I avoid from sinning with this drink?" The result may technically be the same thing, but like you said the destination is significant (and that destination is largely based upon our approach).

STRAWMAN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I apologize that a lot of the time my posts are structurally inept. I was not meaning that what I was arguing against was your position. Sometimes I get on a roll of ideas that just come flowing out rather than making 100% sure that I am responding in argument form (1. Your point. 1. My rebuttal, etc.). Sometimes I do read more into what you're saying than what was probably intended. My bad.

I don't think posting links really contributes much.

Sorry. Here.

Ps. 104:14-15 presents my argument: “You cause the grass to grow for the livestock and plants for man to cultivate, that he may bring forth food from the earth and wine to gladden the heart of man, oil to make his face shine and bread to strengthen man’s heart.” Here the Psalmist praises God for the gift of wine. And he declares that God gave us wine to gladden our hearts. My argument is that Scripture abundantly declares this truth: God gave us wine to bring us joy. I want to present 8 points which combine to make this truth extremely clear. God gave us wine for our joy.

1) Wine is a gift of the goodness of God. (Jeremiah 31:12-14; 1 Tim. 4:1-5; Ps. 104:14-15)

2) Wine produces joy–it “gladdens the heart”. (Judg. 9:13; Eccl. 10:19; Zech. 10:7)

It should be clear that even the intoxicating nature of wine is being praised, here. Wine lifts the spirit and gladdens the heart long before it actually overtakes you and makes one drunk. Wine can be enjoyed and its effects relished without losing control and becoming drunken. Prov. 31:6-7 encourages Lemuel to give wine and strong drink to the sick and the sorrowful of heart. And Jer. 16:7-8 points to a practice of comforting those who are mourning over the death of loved ones with wine and a feast–”the cup of consolation”. Rabbinical literature declares that such was a common practice–particularly in obedience to Prov. 31:6-7.

3) Wine is used in rejoicing before God. (Deut. 14:22-26, 12:17-19; Isa. 62:8-9)

4) Abundance of wine was a particular blessing from God. (Joel 2:24-26, 3:18)

5) Having no wine was a hardship or a judgment of God. (Amos 5:11; Deut. 29:2-6)

6) The absence of wine results in the absence of joy.(Isa. 24:7-11; Jer. 48:33)

7) Drinking wine is singularly festive, joyful, and celebratory. (Eccl. 9:7; Isa. 22:13)
(Another point, similar to this is that the joys of sexual intimacy and love are compared to the joy produced by wine. See Song of Solomon 1:2-3; 4:10; 7:1-2, 9; 8:2.)

8 ) Wine will be part of the future feasting in Christ’s kingdom. (Isa. 25:6-9; Jer. 31:12-14; Matt. 26:29)

This is not an argument against you. I merely posted this as a reference point on the proper use of alcohol.

If you were generalizing, then you were merely obfuscating. I did not include a bunch of non-applicable double-speak because an apostolic command is an apostolic command and is authoritative. Your point was that I was wrong in the specific instance because of those criteria. In other words, you did call into question those things in that instance.

I called those things into question in that manner because I was trying to come in on a different approach. And using generalities was the best way to help me start sorting through what the best approach was. I understand my methods are sometimes a little (as you say) "obfuscating". Please bear with me.

[Ben Toast]

I personally avoid alcohol at all costs. Not just that I'm only 20, but also keeping in mind that I wouldn't want to cause somebody else to stumble by way of my example. If I have an alcoholic drink and someone sees me who isn't a Christian, they could easily generalize that "oh, Christians drink to? It must be okay to get drunk then!"

Let me give you an example: my brothers are not Christians, and neither is my mother. When I go to visit that side of my family, there is always alcohol, and I am often offered a drink (whether by family or a family friend). Part of standing out as a Christian is saying "no thanks" and staying away from doing that. By doing that, they know that I hold myself to a higher standard, and they know that I am a Christian by more than my Facebook or my simply saying "I'm a Christian." It shows them that I actually (at least try to) live out my faith (i.e. walking the walk instead of simply talking the talk).

In addition, doesn't Scripture say to not just avoid evil but the appearance of evil (1 Thessalonians 5:22)? Whether this may be a misinterpretation of scripture or not (I know there is some controversy surrounding it, considering the original Greek literally translates "from every form of evil be abstaining"), think about the principle behind it. If we, as Christians, are to be a light in the world (i.e. the world should be able to look at us and see Christ) then wouldn't it be wise to avoid doing something that might be misconstrued by others as permitting evil?

[rock_show_host]

Originally Posted by Ben Toast

I personally avoid alcohol at all costs. Not just that I'm only 20, but also keeping in mind that I wouldn't want to cause somebody else to stumble by way of my example. If I have an alcoholic drink and someone sees me who isn't a Christian, they could easily generalize that "oh, Christians drink to? It must be okay to get drunk then!"

That's a big leap. Not everybody drinks to get drunk. If you're behaving irresponsibly and getting totally wasted in plain view of non-Christians, obviously you're setting a bad example. But what about non-Christians who see you have a few drinks and then purposefully stop before you go too far? Isn't drinking responsibly actually setting a good example?

Originally Posted by Ben Toast

Let me give you an example: my brothers are not Christians, and neither is my mother. When I go to visit that side of my family, there is always alcohol, and I am often offered a drink (whether by family or a family friend). Part of standing out as a Christian is saying "no thanks" and staying away from doing that. By doing that, they know that I hold myself to a higher standard, and they know that I am a Christian by more than my Facebook or my simply saying "I'm a Christian." It shows them that I actually (at least try to) live out my faith (i.e. walking the walk instead of simply talking the talk).

The problem is that the "higher standard" you're describing is man-made. It doesn't come from the Bible and it has nothing to do with being a Christian. The Bible does not forbid alcohol outright. It does forbid drunkenness, and it also instructs us to heed our individual consciences, so if you're personally convicted about drinking then maybe the responsible thing to do is abstain altogether. But if that's the case, it's wrong to act as though you have higher standards than your fellow Christians who choose to drink. You have different circumstances; that's all.

Besides, are you really witnessing just by refusing alcohol? If your family hears you say no to a beer, all that tells them is that you don't like beer. There could be any number of reasons for that. I hate the taste of alcohol, and anytime somebody offers me a drink I say "No, thanks." Yet here I am, on a Christian message board, arguing that drinking is a perfectly acceptable and Biblical activity. Simply adhering to a man-made rule is not witnessing. Again, you may have valid personal reasons for wanting to abstain, but if so, those are the factors that will make for an effective witness. In other words, people will know that you're a Christian not just because you refrain from the physical act of drinking alcohol, but because you believe that God has placed a conviction on your heart and you're striving to heed it. That's what it means to walk the walk, and it should be visible in everything we do, not just certain social taboos.

Originally Posted by Ben Toast

In addition, doesn't Scripture say to not just avoid evil but the appearance of evil (1 Thessalonians 5:22)? Whether this may be a misinterpretation of scripture or not (I know there is some controversy surrounding it, considering the original Greek literally translates "from every form of evil be abstaining"), think about the principle behind it. If we, as Christians, are to be a light in the world (i.e. the world should be able to look at us and see Christ) then wouldn't it be wise to avoid doing something that might be misconstrued by others as permitting evil?

You quoted the King James translation of that verse, and you're right -- nearly every other translation instructs us to avoid "every kind of evil" or "every form of evil." So I think it's suspect at best to interpret that verse the way you're describing.

And there's no way on earth for us to avoid doing anything that might be misconstrued as evil. I think the Bible addresses this pretty directly:

Originally Posted by Luke 7:33-34

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!’

John was accused of appearing evil specifically because he abstained from drinking. And Jesus was accused of appearing evil for the exact opposite reason. People can twist and pervert anything if they want to. I agree that we shouldn't make it easier for them, but I also think we should stand up for truth and not allow them to call evil what God has called good.

[Adam K]

Originally Posted by Ben Toast

Let me give you an example: my brothers are not Christians, and neither is my mother. When I go to visit that side of my family, there is always alcohol, and I am often offered a drink (whether by family or a family friend). Part of standing out as a Christian is saying "no thanks" and staying away from doing that. By doing that, they know that I hold myself to a higher standard, and they know that I am a Christian by more than my Facebook or my simply saying "I'm a Christian." It shows them that I actually (at least try to) live out my faith (i.e. walking the walk instead of simply talking the talk).

The problem comes with the presupposition that abstinence from drinking is a Christian standard. The "higher standard" is not determined one society's values, it is determined by God's Law which we have evidence of through the Scriptures.

In addition, doesn't Scripture say to not just avoid evil but the appearance of evil (1 Thessalonians 5:22)? Whether this may be a misinterpretation of scripture or not (I know there is some controversy surrounding it, considering the original Greek literally translates "from every form of evil be abstaining"), think about the principle behind it. If we, as Christians, are to be a light in the world (i.e. the world should be able to look at us and see Christ) then wouldn't it be wise to avoid doing something that might be misconstrued by others as permitting evil?

God's Law determines what is good and what is evil. So what happens when we see that in Scripture (our picture of God's Law in action throughout history) alcoholic drink is seen as very good, as a blessing!? A proper use of God's blessing is our chance to actually "speak out" to the world about this issue, we spend to much time reacting to the order that the world has in place. We spend too much time focused on avoiding the bad, that we forget to do that which Scripture actually sees as very good.

[Ben Toast]

Originally Posted by rock_show_host

That's a big leap. Not everybody drinks to get drunk. If you're behaving irresponsibly and getting totally wasted in plain view of non-Christians, obviously you're setting a bad example. But what about non-Christians who see you have a few drinks and then purposefully stop before you go too far? Isn't drinking responsibly actually setting a good example?

Setting a good example of responsible drinking, yes. And I understand that not everybody drinks to get drunk, but it doesn't change the fact that alcohol still has adverse effects on brain function. Are we not commanded in Scripture to be "self-controlled and alert"? What, then, would be the better example: responsible drinking, or staying away from something that might impede your ability to be self-controlled? (As an afterthought, responsible drinking would be a form of self-control, and would thus be a circular argument).

Originally Posted by rock_show_host

The problem is that the "higher standard" you're describing is man-made. It doesn't come from the Bible and it has nothing to do with being a Christian. The Bible does not forbid alcohol outright. It does forbid drunkenness, and it also instructs us to heed our individual consciences, so if you're personally convicted about drinking then maybe the responsible thing to do is abstain altogether. But if that's the case, it's wrong to act as though you have higher standards than your fellow Christians who choose to drink. You have different circumstances; that's all.

Duly noted, and I apologize for assuming a higher standard. I overlooked the factor of personal convictions and differing circumstances.

Originally Posted by rock_show_host

Besides, are you really witnessing just by refusing alcohol? If your family hears you say no to a beer, all that tells them is that you don't like beer. There could be any number of reasons for that. I hate the taste of alcohol, and anytime somebody offers me a drink I say "No, thanks." Yet here I am, on a Christian message board, arguing that drinking is a perfectly acceptable and Biblical activity. Simply adhering to a man-made rule is not witnessing. Again, you may have valid personal reasons for wanting to abstain, but if so, those are the factors that will make for an effective witness. In other words, people will know that you're a Christian not just because you refrain from the physical act of drinking alcohol, but because you believe that God has placed a conviction on your heart and you're striving to heed it. That's what it means to walk the walk, and it should be visible in everything we do, not just certain social taboos.

As stated previously, I had overlooked the factor of personal convictions and differing circumstances. I'll take this to heart and ponder it for a while.

Originally Posted by rock_show_host

1. You quoted the King James translation of that verse, and you're right -- nearly every other translation instructs us to avoid "every kind of evil" or "every form of evil." So I think it's suspect at best to interpret that verse the way you're describing.

2. And there's no way on earth for us to avoid doing anything that might be misconstrued as evil. I think the Bible addresses this pretty directly:

3. John was accused of appearing evil specifically because he abstained from drinking. And Jesus was accused of appearing evil for the exact opposite reason. People can twist and pervert anything if they want to. I agree that we shouldn't make it easier for them, but I also think we should stand up for truth and not allow them to call evil what God has called good.

1. That's what I was thinking too.

2. Hmm, that's an interesting point. I'll have to bonk on this one for a while too.

3. Indeed, but wouldn't it be wise to factor in the cultural context of that time? During the time of John the Baptist, alcohol was used in the religious feasts. We don't see that happening in our culture today. Rather, we see a general desire to refrain from it (of course, it must be acknowledged that this probably came about in part--if not largely--due to what alcohol has been associated with from the perspective of religious organizations).

Originally Posted by Adam K

The problem comes with the presupposition that abstinence from drinking is a Christian standard. The "higher standard" is not determined one society's values, it is determined by God's Law which we have evidence of through the Scriptures.

God's Law determines what is good and what is evil. So what happens when we see that in Scripture (our picture of God's Law in action throughout history) alcoholic drink is seen as very good, as a blessing!? A proper use of God's blessing is our chance to actually "speak out" to the world about this issue, we spend to much time reacting to the order that the world has in place. We spend too much time focused on avoiding the bad, that we forget to do that which Scripture actually sees as very good.

::::thinking, stay tuned for reply::::::

[Chrysostom]

Was this a thread merge?