Beer and Bible Study?

[brianb]

I have no opinion on this until David Cloud (and Al Mohler - always good to have a second opinion) says something about it first.

 

[OZZY]

Ahhh WINO's for Christ!! Only in America! 

 

[ALAYMAN]

I have no opinion on this until David Cloud (and Al Mohler - always good to have a second opinion) says something about it first.

Ask and ye shall receive:

We've all seen some of the websites and the weblogs and the kind of conversation that has been had about this, among people that we know, that have been, that are close friends.  Let me tell you that I find a great deal of immaturity reflected there.  It's all the sudden like we have a young generation trying to say, 'Hey we are so much smarter than our parents, uh, we are so much more mature and more liberated, we can enjoy these things, and now I'm going to recommend my favorite beer and my favorite wine to all of my friends.'  And frankly I think it's sad, immature, and it's showy.  It's the exact opposite of Paul's concern for unity in the church.  This kind of ostentatious display of liberty is an adolescent display.  And it's exactly what mature Christians should avoid.

And....

http://www.sbts.edu/MP3/Mohler/Alcohol&Ministry.mp3

 

[Ransom]

Figgers.  Is it a coincidence that ALAMER is a near-anagram for AMOHLER?

 

[rsc2a]

rsc2a.....I would say that your assessment of the article is your assessment of the article. 

MacArthur does not believe that alcohol consumption is a sin....

Not in words. And he has stated that church leaders should be teetotalers which is an extra-Biblical position.

Perhaps you could reference your source.....

I'll look for it when I get home...I believe it was in his commentary on 1 Timothy though.

Thanks....not that I doubt your word, I've always known him to take the stance that drunkenness, not drinking is prohibited.

MacArthur on 1 Tim 5:23 -

Water in the ancient world was often polluted and carried many diseases. Therefore, Paul urged Timothy not to risk illness, not even for the sake of a commitment to abstinence from wine. Apparently, Timothy avoided wine as not to place himself in harm's way.

Paul wanted Timothy to use which, which because of fermentation, acted as a disinfectant to protect his health problems due to the harmful effects of the impure water. With this advice, however, Paul was not advocating that Timothy lower the high standard of behavior for leaders.

The first paragraph is a combination of fact and total conjecture, both treated as "truth". (I have found this is common in his commentaries.)

The last sentence in the second paragraph is where he makes the particular statement I was referring to.

 

[Tarheel Baptist]

I have no opinion on this until David Cloud (and Al Mohler - always good to have a second opinion) says something about it first.

Ask and ye shall receive:

We've all seen some of the websites and the weblogs and the kind of conversation that has been had about this, among people that we know, that have been, that are close friends.  Let me tell you that I find a great deal of immaturity reflected there.  It's all the sudden like we have a young generation trying to say, 'Hey we are so much smarter than our parents, uh, we are so much more mature and more liberated, we can enjoy these things, and now I'm going to recommend my favorite beer and my favorite wine to all of my friends.'  And frankly I think it's sad, immature, and it's showy.  It's the exact opposite of Paul's concern for unity in the church.  This kind of ostentatious display of liberty is an adolescent display.  And it's exactly what mature Christians should avoid.

And....

http://www.sbts.edu/MP3/Mohler/Alcohol&Ministry.mp3

You're your usual helpful self...modeling servant leadership! 
Ransom says Hey or was it EH?
I no speak-ey Canadian!

 

[Tarheel Baptist]

rsc2a.....I would say that your assessment of the article is your assessment of the article. 

MacArthur does not believe that alcohol consumption is a sin....

Not in words. And he has stated that church leaders should be teetotalers which is an extra-Biblical position.

Perhaps you could reference your source.....

I'll look for it when I get home...I believe it was in his commentary on 1 Timothy though.

Thanks....not that I doubt your word, I've always known him to take the stance that drunkenness, not drinking is prohibited.

MacArthur on 1 Tim 5:23 -

Water in the ancient world was often polluted and carried many diseases. Therefore, Paul urged Timothy not to risk illness, not even for the sake of a commitment to abstinence from wine. Apparently, Timothy avoided wine as not to place himself in harm's way.

Paul wanted Timothy to use which, which because of fermentation, acted as a disinfectant to protect his health problems due to the harmful effects of the impure water. With this advice, however, Paul was not advocating that Timothy lower the high standard of behavior for leaders.

The first paragraph is a combination of fact and total conjecture, both treated as "truth". (I have found this is common in his commentaries.)

The last sentence in the second paragraph is where he makes the particular statement I was referring to.

Here is his commentary on "Not given to much wine":

"Not given to much wine"--Not a drunkard
The Greek phrase could be translated "not holding near much wine." Wine was about the only drink available in Paul's day. It was mixed in a ten-to-one ratio with water to prevent intoxication, but one still needed to exercise caution.

The Greek word translated "given to much wine" (prosech[ma]o) means "to hold near." To use it in a metaphorical sense it means "to turn one's mind to" or "to occupy oneself with." It was a necessity to drink wine, but not indulge in it. The present active nature of the participle indicates it is to be the person's habitual practice. He is to be known as someone who doesn't allow drink to influence his life.


I don't believe he is being deceitful or historically inaccurate in his take on wine in the first century.
Other sources seem to validate his opinion.

AND, I am not attempting to make a Biblical case for teetotaling.
But, it often seems my teetotaling really bothers some people.....(not referring to you, personally.)

 

[rsc2a]

I have no opinion on this until David Cloud (and Al Mohler - always good to have a second opinion) says something about it first.

Ask and ye shall receive:

We've all seen some of the websites and the weblogs and the kind of conversation that has been had about this, among people that we know, that have been, that are close friends.  Let me tell you that I find a great deal of immaturity reflected there.  It's all the sudden like we have a young generation trying to say, 'Hey we are so much smarter than our parents, uh, we are so much more mature and more liberated, we can enjoy these things, and now I'm going to recommend my favorite beer and my favorite wine to all of my friends.'  And frankly I think it's sad, immature, and it's showy.  It's the exact opposite of Paul's concern for unity in the church.  This kind of ostentatious display of liberty is an adolescent display.  And it's exactly what mature Christians should avoid.

Ahh....

Let's re-write this:

We've all seen some of the websites and the weblogs and the kind of conversation that has been had about this, among people that we know, that have been, that are close friends.  Let me tell you that I find a great deal of immaturity reflected there.  It's all the sudden like we have a young an older generation trying to say, 'Hey we are so much smarter than our parents the greats in the faith (e.g. Luther), uh, we are so much more mature and more liberated spiritual, we can enjoy these things treat extra-Biblical suggestions as part of the 10 commandments, and now I'm going to recommend my favorite beer and my favorite wine to force my extra-Biblical legalism on all of my friends.'  And frankly I think it's sad, immature, and it's showy.  It also stinks of a works-based righteousness mindset and confuses culturally-drive moralistic behavior with Spirit-led transformation. It's the exact opposite of Paul's concern for unity in the church.  This kind of ostentatious display of liberty legalism is an adolescent Pharisical display.  And it's exactly what mature Christians should avoid.

 

[Izdaari]

I don't care if anyone is a teetotaler. I do care if they say people who are not likewise teetotalers are worse people than they are, or worse (or less mature) Christians. 

 

[rsc2a]

Here is his commentary on "Not given to much wine":

"Not given to much wine"--Not a drunkard
The Greek phrase could be translated "not holding near much wine." Wine was about the only drink available in Paul's day. It was mixed in a ten-to-one ratio with water to prevent intoxication, but one still needed to exercise caution.

The Greek word translated "given to much wine" (prosech[ma]o) means "to hold near." To use it in a metaphorical sense it means "to turn one's mind to" or "to occupy oneself with." It was a necessity to drink wine, but not indulge in it. The present active nature of the participle indicates it is to be the person's habitual practice. He is to be known as someone who doesn't allow drink to influence his life.

Which is all find and good and accurate. But when it adds to that in other sections of his commentary (as I quoted), he has treated extra-Biblical beliefs as commandments.

I don't believe he is being deceitful or historically inaccurate in his take on wine in the first century.
Other sources seem to validate his opinion.

I have no problems with him describing the place of wine in NT days. That is not what he is doing when he says:

Therefore, Paul urged Timothy not to risk illness, not even for the sake of a commitment to abstinence from wine. Apparently, Timothy avoided wine as not to place himself in harm's way.

With this advice, however, Paul was not advocating that Timothy lower the high standard of behavior for leaders.

He's treating his opinion as fact and judging those that disagree with his extra-Biblical opinion.

AND, I am not attempting to make a Biblical case for teetotaling.
But, it often seems my teetotaling really bothers some people.....(not referring to you, personally.)

I have no problem with your teetotaling. In fact, I respect you for it. My problem is when people try to force their extra-Biblical views on alcohol onto others as a mandate in Scripture and judge those who appropriately exercise their freedoms as being sinful.

 

[rsc2a]

I don't care if anyone is a teetotaler. I do care if they say people who are not likewise teetotalers are worse people than they are, or worse (or less mature) Christians.

+1

 

[Tarheel Baptist]

In my experience, many Christians who drink alcohol seem to flaunt that fact and often assume that I somehow think less of them because I don't drink.

And they seem disappointed when they find I don't give a rats hiney whether they drink or not.....again, that's my experience here in the so called Bible belt.

 

[jimmudcatgrant]

I don't like alcohol consumption, period.  I don't think I am superior to people who imbibe.  I have my own besetting sins.  Yes, alcohol consumption can be a sin.  Shhhh. Don't tell the freebirds.  It can be a sin for many reasons, not the least one being that it hurts the weaker brother.  It is a bad example, and hurts the cause of Christ, imo, in some situations.  It can lead to abuse, or, God forbid, someone getting hurt or killed.    It seems the people that love to brag about their consumption are the ones who think they are superior:  abuse could never happen to them, they are too strong to have a habit that controls them.  They can't help it if other Christians are weak.  After all, are they their brother's keepers?

 

[rsc2a]

I don't like alcohol consumption, period.  I don't think I am superior to people who imbibe.  I have my own besetting sins.

This language is problematic. Are you saying those who responsibly enjoy a frosty brew are sinning?

Yes, alcohol consumption can be a sin.  Shhhh. Don't tell the freebirds.

Who has argued otherwise?

It can be a sin for many reasons, not the least one being that it hurts the weaker brother.

And insisting that consumption is sinful can, likewise, hurt the weaker brother. I frequently reference Titus and Timothy when discussing this issue. Paul had Timothy circumcised, yet was adamantly opposed to having Titus circumcised. Why? Because, in Timothy's case, it would enable him to be more effective in his call, and in Titus's case, people were making it conditional for his salvation.

So when I am around people who don't personally drink out due to their own personal convictions without forcing that on others (e.g Tarheel), I respect their sensibilities and will not drink. When I am around self-righteous people who make alcohol consumption a spiritual test to determine my salvific condition, I'm likely to thumb my nose at them and have a glass.

(To Tarheel: so the only time I "flaunt" it (in those very rare cases I do have a drink) are when people make it a teetotaling a conditional requirement for salvation)

It is a bad example, and hurts the cause of Christ, imo, in some situations.

And, in others, it does neither.

It can lead to abuse...

As can anything.

...God forbid, someone getting hurt or killed.

Do I need to bring back your ridiculous quote from earlier?

It seems the people that love to brag about their consumption are the ones who think they are superior:  abuse could never happen to them, they are too strong to have a habit that controls them.

Or they just choose to drink responsibly. Do you want me to expand this beyond alcohol? Because I can guarantee that I can make this applicable to things you enjoy.

They can't help it if other Christians are weak.  After all, are they their brother's keepers?

Paul would say the weaker Christian is one who cannot drink (not "will not drink"), not the one who can...

 

[ALAYMAN]

[quote author=rsc2a]Ahh....

Let's re-write this:

We've all seen some of the websites and the weblogs and the kind of conversation that has been had about this, among people that we know, that have been, that are close friends.  Let me tell you that I find a great deal of immaturity reflected there.  It's all the sudden like we have a young an older generation trying to say, 'Hey we are so much smarter than our parents the greats in the faith (e.g. Luther), uh, we are so much more mature and more liberated spiritual, we can enjoy these things treat extra-Biblical suggestions as part of the 10 commandments, and now I'm going to recommend my favorite beer and my favorite wine to force my extra-Biblical legalism on all of my friends.'  And frankly I think it's sad, immature, and it's showy.  It also stinks of a works-based righteousness mindset and confuses culturally-drive moralistic behavior with Spirit-led transformation. It's the exact opposite of Paul's concern for unity in the church.  This kind of ostentatious display of liberty legalism is an adolescent Pharisical display.  And it's exactly what mature Christians should avoid.
[/quote]

And if you listened to what Mohler said in the link, you either need a remedial reading comprehension class because you misunderstood it, or if you listened to it and understood it but still wrote the above nonsensical representation of his position you are patently dishonest.  I vote for "you never listened to it", and your <false> assumptions abput his position only serve to prove that you perfectly fit the type of young and restless type that he and Macarthur warns against.

 

[rsc2a]

And if you listened to what Mohler said in the link, you either need a remedial reading comprehension class because you misunderstood it, or if you listened to it and understood it but still wrote the above nonsensical representation of his position you are patently dishonest.  I vote for "you never listened to it", and your <false> assumptions abput his position...

I didn't listen to the link and wasn't really writing this as a response to Mohler at all. I was showing how I could easily flip it and tear the position of the article apart using the exact same type of "reasoning" that the author used. In other words, it's not too hard to tweak the article and show a huge double standard in how the article is treating the particular sides.

...you perfectly fit the type of young and restless type that he and Macarthur warns against.

Possibly. And some of those guys are on fire for God, and He is using them to accomplish amazing things. So I've got no beef with that.

 

[FSSL]

I don't get it! "Beer& Bible study" Is someone having too.much Bible study?

 

[Bou]

I'm more traditional in this area.

ie: I drink. 

We had a Christian Legal Society meeting at a professor's house tonight and most everyone was imbibing to the glory of God. 

Mmmmm. Beer.

I also went once to Darrin Patrick's church's function, Theology at the Bottleworks, which MacArthur condemns.  It was very good and the beer on tap was excellent.

 

[ALAYMAN]

[quote author=rsc2a]
I didn't listen to the link[/quote]

I figured as much.  It would educate you and help you not tilt at windmills similar to when IFBxers say that Calvinism kills soulwinning.

Possibly. And some of those guys are on fire for God, and He is using them to accomplish amazing things. So I've got no beef with that.

Because we know the ends justifies the means.  That's in the Bible somewhere, I'm sure of it.

 

[rsc2a]

Possibly. And some of those guys are on fire for God, and He is using them to accomplish amazing things. So I've got no beef with that.

Because we know the ends justifies the means.  That's in the Bible somewhere, I'm sure of it.

If Mac's biggest gripe with the YRR crowd is that they don't mind having a drink every now and then, then his biggest gripe is that they don't adhere to his own extra-Biblical standards. Yeah...I'm fine with that.