Jerry Vines Blog
During my ministry of over 50 years I have seen a shift among preachers relative to the matter of alcohol.
In the early years of my ministry preachers of virtually all denominations would stand together in opposing the sale and use of alcohol in any form.
Then, I saw many fall silent.
Now, I find some who are speaking out in favor of what they term moderation. A few are even drinking themselves. This development caught me off guard and greatly concerns me.
I believe the Bible teaches total abstinence when it comes to intoxicating beverages. Some dismiss this view with what D. A. Carson in his “Exegetical Fallacies” calls, “cavalier dismissal.” That is, just assuming a view is incorrect, universally rejected and unworthy of further investigation. I think this is what is going on as to the alcohol issue.
I delivered a full lecture on the subject. It is available in my CD series, “Baptist Battles,” which has 4 lectures on issues now before Baptists and other Christians as well. It is entitled “Libertinism: A Baptist and his Booze.”
I urge all of my pastor brethren, and others as well, to study this issue carefully. Thousands who might be led into alcoholism by the smoke screen of moderation are at stake.
Tommy Oglesby
February 18, 2009 @ 11:35 AMI wholeheartedly agree with your position on alchohol. I too believe the Bible teaches a total abstinence on liquor. The old preacher John R. Rice said, "All the devils apples have worms." Surely theres is a great big worm the apple of booze.
Thank you for your gracious leadership
Robby Holcomb
February 18, 2009 @ 12:24 PMDr. Vines,
It seems to me that when a person wants to do someting they will always find a way to justify it. Clever names for arguments do not hide the fact that some simply want to drink and will. Few are fooled but sadly many are misled.
I agree completely that the Bible teaches abstinence rather than moderation. Men of God must take a firm stand and re-raise the banner. Dads must make up their minds and then do right. The issue of alcohol certainly needs to be addressed in our pulpits so that the folks in the pews can not feel so comfy and cozy with the bottle.
Logan Gentry
February 20, 2009 @ 2:21 PMI respect the conviction of many that they should abstain from alcohol, but a simple survey of scripture searching the word wine bring up interesting verses that have to be dealt with. Psalm 104 describes how God has made wine to gladden the heart of men. Jesus makes wine and uses wine as a reference in teaching knowing that it is common place, never condemning it.
If we are going to claim inerrancy of scripture, it appears that scripture speaks a lot concerning wine, the sin is not consumption, but abuse. Drunkenness is sin. Drinking in moderation exercises self-control, a fruit of the Holy Spirit's presence in a believer.
It is ultimately a secondary issue that each individual must seek the Lord on, but there is no biblical mandate that all should drink or that none should drink.
Coffee and Alcohol both affect the "temple", but we're not trying to ban Starbucks as Baptists are we?
Mike Barnett
February 21, 2009 @ 12:27 AMThank you Dr. Vines for addressing this issue in Baptist Battles. It is something that troubles me as well. It is a growing problem even in some of our conservative churches.
Joe Lee
February 22, 2009 @ 10:02 PMAmen!!
Dr. Vines, thank you for your biblical stand on alcohol. I agree with you! Thank you for your tremendous message at the Pastor's Conference in Jacksonville and especially your comments about the consumption of alcohol by preachers. I, too, have absolutely no respect for any preacher who drinks alcohol. Your illustrations linking alcohol to the very appearance of evil was excellent.
As a boy I witnesed firsthand the evil and chaos caused by alcohol. I witnessed an uncle who was good and kind when he wasn't drinking, but it took only one can of beer to be consumed and he was ready to fight and kill.
Thank you again for your example in standing against the evil of drinking alcoholic beverages. In case there is any doubt, I'm with you all the way on this issue, Dr. Vines!
David R. Brumbelow
February 24, 2009 @ 4:29 PMBrother Jerry,
Thanks for your stand against the recreational use of the drug called alcohol. That stand has been sadly lacking in recent years. Baptists figured out the evils of alcohol over 150 years ago and have spoken against it ever since. I pray we do not lose that biblical conviction.
Someone asked why we’re not trying to ban coffee. I suppose when coffee begins to destroy homes, kill and maim, rob people of their good sense and judgment, lead to unwanted pregnancies, crime, and the general coarsening of society - then we will begin to oppose it.
I have your messages, Baptist Battles, and would recommend them to anyone. By the way, I hear there is a great new book coming out in June about alcohol.
David R. Brumbelow
Patrick Haight
February 26, 2009 @ 3:52 PMThank You Dr. Vines for your stand against Alcohol I am scared that preachers who preach moderation are leading people astray and causing people to fall into drunkness. I want to be on the side of safety and preach against it all together that way we could stop a person from becoming a drunk altogether
James Heffington
March 5, 2009 @ 10:04 AMI understand the reasons for opposing alcohol mentioned in the responses to your post. I do not however see Scripture banning all use of alcohol. To oppose it for practical reasons and as a part of a good testimony is great (and a stance I personally choose to support in my own life) but to say Scripture prohibits all use of intoxicating beverages is dishonest with the text. Jesus really did turn water into wine and alcohol really is spoken of in positive terms in Scripture. Wine in the Bible was NOT grape juice or some other non-alcoholic beverage. When we take unbiblical stances we lose our voice to a lost world.
Randall Crawley
March 14, 2009 @ 10:34 PMThere is a link between being a Holy man of God (I am convinced God wants all men to be Holy men of God), and abstaining from alcohol. There is sufficient evidence in God's Word that deals with drinking alcohol. Scriptures that deal with the foolish actions that follow a person being controlled by something other than God. I know I am not under the vow of the Nazarite but there is something to be said about the fact that this was expected in these men's lives as a part of serving God.
So I am truly encouraged to know there are those men of God who are unashamedly taking a stance against this widespread and rampant form of sin. Thank you Dr. Vines for being true to the call of a gospel preaching man of God.
Dr. David King
March 14, 2009 @ 10:36 PMDr. Vines,
At this point it would be best to inform Mr. Gentry (Logan Gentry -- see above) what you spoke on recently at the Pastor's Conference in Jacksonville, and the research you uncovered with regard to the use of the word "wine". You could say this better than I can, but did you not say something to the effect that there were uses of the word "wine" in the Bible that were used in a negative sense and an admonition sense, and only those in the admonition sense in the Greek were using the term "grape" and those in the prohibiting sense used a term that references to firmentation. Could you elaborate on this, because I hear this all the time from people?
People who are uneducated about the Word of God want to always bring up this argument and say that the Bible says it is okay; i.e., "use a little wine for thy stomach's sake," etc. Why is there so much Biblical illiteracy today among preachers.
Unfortunately when I hear a preacher use arguments as the ones above by Mr. Gentry, it only reveals how much we DON'T know about this issue. Kind of like those who see Hebrews, Chapter 6 as a salvation passage instead of a maturation passage. It appauls me that we are losing so many Baptists to the Pentecostals, the Assemblies of God, and to the Calvinists -- and it concerns me because I think it reflects on the Baptist preachers who don't know enough of their Bible to counter these issues, and this is but one more example of that.
Remember Folks, Baptists have historically been a people of the text. If you are going quote from Scripture, do the textual work first.
This preacher will forever believe that there are more than 250 references in the Bible that teach us that drinking alcohol in any form is wrong. Come on, Guys, where is the backbone that our predecessors had?
Sad to see the preachers of this day are allowing themselves to be flushed down the river with society and the culture. In the last 20 years I have seen those who call themselves preachers allow themselves to be "one of the boys" "a member of the club" as Dr. Homer Lindsay would say. I don't want to be one of the boys. I want to be one of God's boys who will stand up and warn this world of these kinds of evils. I am afraid we are becoming a degenerate class of preachers, the likes of which remind me of Amaziah in Amos' day. God help us!
Thank you, Dr. Vines, for your stand.
Calvary Baptist, Lawton, Oklahoma
David R. Brumbelow
March 15, 2009 @ 6:32 PMJames,
Just noticed your comment. You make a great mistake in assuming all wine in the Bible was strong, intoxicating wine. You are reading your modern day conceptions into Scripture. Think about it, if all they had to drink was strong drink they would have been drunk all the time.
You may disagree, but we are not being dishonest with the text. The Bible plainly condemns fermented, intoxicating wine (Proverbs 23:29-35; 1 Thessalonians 5:6-8, etc.). The smartest man in the world provided a detailed description of fermented wine and what it does. He then said not to even look at it.
Much scholarly evidence can be presented to support this position.
David R. Brumbelow
Kyle Gulledge
March 19, 2009 @ 10:51 AMI remember the very wise Dr. Adrian Rogers once say, something to the affect of, "That moderation is not the cure for Alcoholism but the cause of it."
Kim Burson
March 29, 2009 @ 8:52 AMThank you Dr. Vines for taking a stand on issues that affect how people live daily. I agree with you scripturally; moreover, my service is in a local mission working with those who have made poor decisions including a “little drink” which has scared their lives and destroyed their families. God can rebuild a life, but why go through this pain. Also, a personal testimony is that many doors have opened to witness for Jesus when asked, "You don't drink?" As a pastor once said, give me the wine Jesus made because it will make me kinder, sweeter, more caring, compassionate person not a drunk who abuses his children or a pervert who takes some teens life. Someone may not agree with me and that is their privilege; however, don’t be too harsh on me for taking a stand for good.
Joel Shiflett
March 30, 2009 @ 7:02 PMThanks for your stand on this issue! I believe that any acohol is a wittness killer! We could never wittness to the person behind the counter that sold us the acohol and that alone should be enough to make any christian want to abstain from somthing that would cause them to be no earthly good.It seems that today we are having to take stands against things that should be a no brainer for the true sold out believer.
Jamie
April 1, 2009 @ 4:01 PMNow, it cannot be ignored that the first mention (actually first 2) of wine in Scripture is in a negative light used of Noah (Gen 9:21). But the Lord chose to separate Noah’s drinking of wine and his becoming drunk as a result of his having drank wine; notice “…he drank of the wine, and was drunken…” Now this brings up the question “is the Lord pointing out his drinking or his drunkenness”? With the admonishment found in the NT to “be not drunk with wine” (Eph 5:18) supports the observation that God is noting his drunkenness not his drinking per se. It is also observed that his being found drunk was facilitated by his having drank wine in the first place; but while it is impossible to be drunk without having first drank wine it is entirely possible to drink wine without becoming drunk.
The predominate word for wine (141 uses) in Hebrew is ‘yayin’ and of its first 5 uses 4 are in a negative light simply because of its abuse to drunkenness first by Noah then by Lot, used by his daughters to make him drunk resulting in incest. Yet sandwiched in the middle is “…the priest of the most high God…” Melchizedek king of Salem bringing out wine (yayin) to Abram (Gen 14) so that along with the bread he also had must be understood to have been intended for consumption.
Now to stand on the belief that drinking wine is sin must lead one to also conclude that Melchizedek placed a stumbling block before Abram which is a very difficult position to defend or you must abandon the understanding of ‘yayin’, established in Ch 9, in Ch 14 then take it back up again in Ch 19. We would certainly call this poor Hermeneutic as well as linking the “appearance of evil” with that of drinking wine. While it is proper to say that “for my testimony’s sake I should not drink wine,” it is improper to say that drinking wine is sin if the individual’s conscience is not bearing witness against him.
peter lumpkins
April 3, 2009 @ 10:42 AMJamie,
Thanks for your point. Noteworthy is your statement, "Yet sandwiched in the middle is “…the priest of the most high God…” Melchizedek... bringing out wine (yayin) to Abram (Gen 14)...intended for consumption."
I suppose it's fairly evident the 'yayin" was "intended for consumption." The question is, what was the "yayin"? The biblical evidence seems to be against "yayin" universally being supposed as an alcoholic product. The term "yayin" was employed to denote "wine" in the vineyard, "wine" as it was freshly squeezed juice in the "vat," etc.
Indeed the linguistic evidence demonstrates precisely what Dr. Vines cites as the "cavalier dismissal" of many who argue for moderation. The "cavalier dismissal" is, wine [yayin] is always and ever alcoholic whenever it is used in the OT. Proceeding on such assumption is going to get a version of the "abuse-not-use" argument every time.
With that, I am...
Peter Lumpkins
Jamie
April 6, 2009 @ 10:14 AMPeter,
I do agree that it is impossible to make the argument that wine ‘yayin’ is in every case alcoholic; however, the preponderance of the evidence, particularly with its first mention being so, should lead one to the presumption that it is unless the context dictates otherwise. This is a proper hermeneutical use of the ‘Law of First Mention’. You are correct in your observation “The term "yayin" was employed to denote "wine" in the vineyard, "wine" as it was freshly squeezed juice in the "vat," etc.” so the Scriptures are set against a universal application of wine being alcoholic in every instance, yet it is the context which must dictate its intended understanding which I believe is your point..
However, there is no contextual reason to presume the wine in Gen 14 is different than in Ch 9 or in Ch 19 so that it is just as “cavalier” to dismiss its usage at this point. The “caviler dismissal” noted in the original document is using a very broad brush to paint everyone with a dissenting view as being intellectually lazy or dishonest and is really rather insulting. The real question before us is, is the “use not abuse” argument wrong, and if so upon what bases it is in light of the whole counsel of God’s word? I think to say it is is a difficult argument to make without dismissing the usual and customary usage of the text or without allegorizing the text which we dispensationalists should be against.
peter
April 7, 2009 @ 8:23 AMJamie,
You write, "I do agree that it is impossible to make the argument that wine ‘yayin’ is in every case alcoholic...so the Scriptures are set against a universal application of wine being alcoholic in every instance," It seems to me once you concede the generic use of "yayin," the debate is all but over. And, apparently you agree with me "the context ...must dictate its intended understanding."
If this is so, Jamie, then unless there are contextual indicators pointing to intoxicating wine, we cannot assume intoxicating wine was meant. Gen. 9 definitively indicates intoxicating wine. Prov. 20:1, 23:29-35 definitively indicates intoxicating wine. On the other hand, Prov. 9:1-6 and Ps. 104:14-15 definitively indicate a non-intoxicating product.
As for "allegorizing the text which we dispensationalists should be against." I haven't a clue what you're driving at..
I'd recommend a great little book on this--"The Scriptural View of the Wine-Question" by Andover theologian & OT scholar, Moses Stuart (1848).
With that, I am...
Peter
David R. Brumbelow
April 7, 2009 @ 11:40 AMJamie,
Like wine, other words are used differently and determined by context in properly interpreting Scripture. The word “angel” refers to good angels, evil angels, or to a messenger. The title “God” refers to the one true God, sometimes to a false god.
Certainly intoxicating wine was available, but the most used wine in Bible times was unfermented. Somewhat like the most common drinks today are unfermented. Melchizedek’s wine was the common un-intoxicating wine. I base this on the meaning of yayin, the context of Genesis 14, and the entire context of the Bible. For someone to disagree does not mean they are just taking the Bible for what it says; it means they are interpreting wine to always mean fermented wine.
You recognize that wine (yayin, oinos) can refer to fermented or unfermented wine, and I certainly agree. Proverbs 23 gives a description of fermented wine and its effects, and says not to even look at it. Proverbs 20:1 says wine is a mocker. Unfermented wine is not a mocker, only intoxicating wine. Scripture commands us to be sober (1 Thessalonians 5:6-9, etc.). Drink moderately and you will be moderately sober. Alcoholics Anonymous would be happy to explain to anyone that sober means no alcohol at all. By the way, the biblical command to be sober would include more than “not drinking,” but it would certainly include not using an intoxicating drug.
On top of this, biblical principles condemn a recreational mind altering drug. Our body is the temple of the Holy Spirit. We are to love God with all our minds. We are not to cause a brother to stumble. We are to be wise. We should not support an evil industry. Add to that the incredible hurt, death, destruction, disease, crime caused by alcohol. As my brother Mark said the other day, even if the Bible said nothing against beverage alcohol, common sense would tell us to leave it alone. How can anyone reasonably claim that God’s Word would condone such a curse to society?
David R. Brumbelow
David R. Brumbelow
April 7, 2009 @ 3:02 PMDr. Vines mentioned “cavalier dismissal.” Many just assume any mention of non-alcoholic drinks in the Bible is ridiculous. But the common drinks were definitely not like our modern day alcohol, and ancient people had multiple ways of keeping wine and other drinks unfermented. They could even keep grapes fresh for months.
Wine regularly used in the New Testament, “would stimulate about as much as our tea and coffee.” -Dr. John A. Broadus, Matthew; Kregal: Grand Rapids; 1990, p. 244. Broadus was a Baptist theologian.
Some quibble with Broadus’ use of the word “stimulate” when alcohol is classed a depressant. But we know what Dr. Broadus meant; we’ve all seen someone stimulated or “lit up” by alcohol. His point was, that did not happen with the common wine of the NT.
“Fermented wine was the least common [drink in Bible times] and the percentage of alcohol was small. New wines were wholly without alcohol and were easily preserved in this condition for several months. There were also wines in which, by boiling or by drugs, the process of fermentation was prevented and alcohol excluded. These were mixed with water and constituted the most common drink of the land.” -Dr. Lyman Abbott (1835-1922), Dictionary of Religious Knowledge. Abbott was a Congregational minister, editor, scholar, author.
“It should never be forgotten that when reading the Bible and the classic pagan writers of ‘Wine,’ we are seldom dealing with the strongly intoxicating and loaded liquids to which that name is alone attached in the English language, but usually with beverages such as above described. They were as harmless and sober as our own Teas, Coffees, and Cocoas. Had they not been so, the ancient populations would have been perpetually in a more or less state of drunkenness…These facts should never be forgotten when we read of ‘Wine’ there, - for it was simple fruit syrup, except where especially stated to be of the intoxicating kinds.” -Ferrar Fenton of England, The Bible and Wine. By age 28, Fenton had acquired a working knowledge of 25 classical, Oriental, and modern languages.
David R. Brumbelow
Jamie
April 7, 2009 @ 5:20 PMPeter,
Now, I want to be clear here, I am arguing for the proper interpretation of the Scripture only, not a personal position one way or the other; we can do that when it comes time for application. And please do not misunderstand directness for anything other than getting to the point.
I am sure you understand the Hermeneutical application of the Law of First Mention so that wine’s introduction as an intoxicating beverage in Ch 9 dictates its probable meaning through out the rest of the scriptures (in this case the OT) but especially the book it is found in. It is the author of the book who gets to define his words; this means the onus is upon you to prove the wine in Ch 14 is not the same type as in Ch 9 for I do agree with you the context i.e. verse, chapter, book, dictates its understanding. But again the burden is yours to prove yayin is non-alcoholic.
While I do not disagree with your assessment of the passages cited in Prov and Ps (I have not looked at them) but while they will assist in developing an overall treatment of yayin in the OT it will not help in determining a contrary understanding of yayin as being intoxicating as defined by Moses in Gen 9 unless you want it to. But this will just feed a preconceived idea (or cavalier dismissal), which is what JV spoke against isn’t it.
Jamie
April 7, 2009 @ 5:46 PMDavid,
Having stated this to Peter (above) I must reiterate this “Now, I want to be clear here, I am arguing for the proper interpretation of the Scripture only, not a personal position one way or the other; we can do that when it comes time for application. And please do not misunderstand directness for anything other than getting to the point.”
I do not doubt the yayin mentioned in Gen 9, 14 and 19 was of a less alcoholic content (but that cannot be proven) than what we have today and it was regularly use as an antiseptic of water, but that misses the point; that being both Noah and Lot were drunk as a result of having drank it. That is unmistakable. My treatment has only been dealing with the first five uses of yayin in which, as the author defines it, was an alcoholic beverage. Now Ch14 does not say Melchizedek arrived drunk or that Abram drank and got drunk, but the context does not give the reader any reason to change understanding mid letter as it were. There is nothing in the context to suggest that Ch14 was anything different; so that the burden is yours to prove otherwise.
Logan Gentry
April 8, 2009 @ 2:38 PMIn response to Dr. David King,
The argument regarding the appropriate fermentation of wine has been one I've found quite interesting throughout the years. From reading the context of the scriptures regarding wine, the issue is that regardless of fermentation, the result to be avoided was drunkenness. When discussing wine, the possibility of drunkenness (the actual sin) is present through the Word of God. Please correct me if I'm wrong.
Martin Luther, who began the reformation making Bapist possible, said "Men can go wrong with wine and women, shall we prohibit wine and abolish women?" We are declaring an inanimate object, alcohol, evil and in so doing removing the individual from birthing evil. In Mark 7 and Matthew 15, Christ makes it clear that things that go into a man do not make him "unclean", but that which comes out of man. His point He says is that sin is birthed within the heart of man and results in the outward action.
If we follow this line of thought, the ideas of Jesus, we see that any outward inanimate object cannot birth sin within someone, whether it be alcohol, tv, music, etc. The issue is each individual's heart.
I'm not arguing that all should drink, this is very much a conviction issue. But saying drinking any alcohol is a sin becomes a Bible-believing issue and making a rule the Bible does not is taking a stand on the tradition of men (be it 150 yrs or more) rather than on the revealed, inspired Word of God. It is legalism, Phariseeism and extremely dangerous.
We, baptists, often act like the Spirit of the Living God, which bears fruit of self-control doesn't reside in believers if they drink alcohol and that they will do crazy things if they drink, but addiction to caffeinated beverages every morning is just fine. People addicted to caffeine that do not feed their addiction often act out in impatience, anger, and other sins similar to those who get drunk on alcohol. Is coffee then wrong because the individual that drank it abused it and sinned? None of us would say yes.
We stand firm that scripture is sufficient to articulate the godly perspective on alcoholic beverages and the scriptures never ban alcohol so why would we add to it.
David R. Brumbelow
April 8, 2009 @ 3:50 PMJamie,
Don’t know if you will accept my explanation, but I’ll give it a try. We may just have to agree to disagree. Reasons I believe Melchizedek’s wine was unfermented.
1. Since the Bible does not spell it out, each of us are making an interpretation or an assumption as to the nature of the wine.
2. You mention the law of first use. I would not, however, always use that as a hard fast rule. Using the same word we often switch from one meaning to another without going into a detailed explanation. We just assume people will understand the meaning, and they usually do.
This is kind of like if Genesis said in those various chapters, “Noah drank and got drunk; Melchizedek drank; Lot drank and got drunk.” That does not therefore, prove that Melchizedek got drunk nor that he even drank alcohol.
3. The first mention of wine in Genesis is obviously fermented because it made Noah drunk. Same with Lot. So there is obvious reason to believe in those cases it was intoxicating. There is no such reference in Genesis 14 that would clearly explain the nature of the wine. No derogatory comment is made of this wine. I have a tendency to assume the best unless there is clear evidence to the contrary.
4. The bread and wine was presented by a priest of the Most High God to a godly man Abraham. I admit my bias; I tend to think of godly men not recreationally using a damaging, mind altering drug.
5. To repeat, wine (Hebrew - yayin, Greek equivilent - oinos) was a generic word that was used to refer to all kinds of wine, including fermented and unfermented. Both yayin and tirosh were translated from Hebrew to the Greek word oinos in the Septuagint. For those who may not know, the Septuagint is a Greek translation of the Hebrew Bible (OT) by Jewish scholars in about 200 BC. It is significant that these Jewish scholars viewed yayin, tirosh, and oinos synonymously, and generically.
6. Moses, author of Genesis, was one of the most educated men of his day and would surely have been familiar with the different uses of yayin and different kinds of wine. By the way, Moses even recorded how Pharaoh drank his wine fresh and unfermented (Genesis 40:11).
7. To me, this is a little like our use of the English word, “drink.” Drinking sometimes refers to alcohol, sometimes it doesn’t. A preacher says, “I went to the store and bought something to drink.” Why should I assume it was an intoxicating drink? I’ll just assume nothing’s wrong, unless I have clear evidence to the contrary. Nor will I assume that the bare facts of what he told me, present a case for moderate drinking of beverage alcohol.
Likewise, Melchizedek and Abraham had bread and wine. Without evidence to the contrary, like in the cases of Noah and Lot, I’m going to assume the best.
8. Add to this the biblical condemnations of fermented wine, and the fact that the most common wine in Bible times was unfermented. Add it all up, I believe there is no good reason to assume wine in Genesis 14 was the hard stuff.
Anyway, that’s the way I see it.
David R. Brumbelow
Brian Malcom
April 8, 2009 @ 3:54 PMDr. Vines,
The scripture stands, it cannot be broken. Additionally, why in the world would anyone want to support an industry that leads to so much heartache, car wrecks, and poisoning of the body.
When the advertisers on television/radio run the ads promoting their product, it always ends with,
"please drink responsibly."
You mean that drinking is risky? Nuff said!
Brian Malcom
David R. Brumbelow
April 8, 2009 @ 4:19 PMLogan,
You mention that preaching abstinence from beverage alcohol is, “legalism, Phariseeism and extremely dangerous.”
I believe the Bible directly commands abstinence; but let’s assume it doesn’t. Biblical principles also condemn drinking.
The Bible never says, “Thou shalt not own a slave.” But biblical principles certainly condemn slavery. Would you accuse those who oppose slavery of legalism, Pharisaism and being extremely dangerous, since the Bible does not directly speak against slavery? Would you consider those who oppose slavery to be denying the sufficiency of Scripture? Would you accept the view, “I don’t own a slave, but you have a right to do so if you choose and I‘ll not preach against it”?
Lest there be any misunderstanding, I oppose drinking, and I oppose slavery. There are solid biblical reasons to oppose them both.
David R. Brumbelow
Logan Gentry
April 9, 2009 @ 10:15 AMDavid,
I agree with you regarding the slavery issue, where a command is not issued. That being said, whether I own a slave or what I drink is hardly an equal measurement.
Could you please show me where the Bible "commands" abstinence? It does say there is wisdom in not "lingering long" over wine and that drunkenness is to be abstained from since it is sin. The only instance I have seen in scripture where individuals are commanded to abstain is the Nazarite vow, but that vow also includes abstaining from cutting your hair and other ideas. We can't just pluck a rule out of many other rules for a certain group of individuals. Alcoholic beverages are a grey area where personal conviction decides whether or not you drink.
My point regarding the legalism is that we are taking a conviction issue and making it a law for everyone. That is legalism. If it is just you saying YOU abstain and not demanding others than that is fine as long as you don't assume not drinking equals greater holiness.
David R. Brumbelow
April 9, 2009 @ 11:36 AMLogan,
I do not believe slavery and abstinence from beverage alcohol are the same, but the biblical arguments about them are remarkably similar. If you are a legalist for opposing alcohol, since the Bible does not say in so many words, “Thou shalt not drink.” then you would also be a legalist and a Pharisee for opposing slavery.
Above I’ve pointed out examples of the Bible directly speaking against the use of alcohol as a beverage (# 11 & 19). Also, biblical principles condemn alcohol (# 19), just as biblical principles condemn slavery.
I believe the most loving, compassionate, biblical, scientific, medical, common sense thing to do is to abstain from alcohol. By the way, a recent scientific study (reported 2-25-AD 2009 in the Houston Chronicle and elsewhere) showed even moderate drinking significantly increased a woman’s risk of cancer. The biblical and loving thing for pastors to do is to tell women, and everyone else, to have nothing to do with alcohol. There are no good reasons to drink, and a ton of reasons not to.
David R. Brumbelow
Jerry Cantrell
April 14, 2009 @ 10:50 AMThank you paster Jerry. I feel the same as you. God bless you and your message.
Lyn
April 16, 2009 @ 6:57 AMIt is obvious in the kingdom and of God we are being lured by spiritual darkness, the battles are stated in Ephesians 6 and they are not carnal. Okaying the consumption of alchohol by Christians in moderation is no different than the snake lying to Eve in saying if you eat of the fruit, you won't die. We all know that physical death didn't take place immediately, but spiritual death did. What's different and how can this even be a question for debate. God bless you Dr. Vines for keeping the truth in scripture on the forefront.
Daniel Batten
May 11, 2009 @ 2:33 PMI have read both arguements made here and while I understand the reasons for both, I still hold to this belief, it is a matter of Christian liberty. I don't see concensus on this matter and believe it to be one of those issues that Satan can use to distract us from bigger issues.
While we have our heads buried in Greek and Hebrew, our nation is collapsing around us, Christians in America grow increasly irrelevant, and churches grow stagnant because of the lack of church discipline and Holy Spirit annointing upon leadership. It's time to stop this preoccupation at what other pastors and other people are doing, and it's time to start being the servants of Christ to a lost and dying world.
As for the arguement of abstaining from intoxicating drink, I personally feel it would be a sin for me to partake of it in my community because the culture around me views it as controversial. However, I do not blame anyone that does not have this same conviction as they may be in an area outside the Bible belt and would not have this same issue. Or here's a thought, they may be in a different stage in their Christian walk.
Today's world is not interested in do's and dont's. They're not interested in actions, but in motives and reasons for the actions. When they look at the church, they see strife, backbiting, hypocritical preachers, and an overwhelmingly hypocritical membership. The church of America is asleep and telling them not to get drunk won't wake them up. They're not buying sermon CDs and they're not reading these blogs. Let's focus on how we can be more like Christ and how we can convey the love of Christ to this world.
In love,
Daniel