Stuff Fundies Like is right on this one (and I hate to admit it)

[Recovering IFB]

Agreed. It isn't any more helpful or accurate or fair to refer to those who disagree as drunkards then it is to refer to us as dishonest.

Ok, point taken.  But can I please keep calling them idiots.  Don't know about helpful, but it is accurate.

one thing is certain... it never made anybody smarter.... .

j

But you can say it did make Bud wiser.

 

[FSSL]

I'm trying to decide if this is worse than when he cited a forum post as his primary source.

Every Christian that preaches/teaches ought to get themselves at least two volumes:
--Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament
--New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology

My dad, an insulator by trade who taught 2nd grade Sunday School and preached at a rescue mission on occasion bought the New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology back when I was 13 years oldish.

I am not sure he used it much, but I did in high school, in college and when I graduated from seminary he gave me the set.

The now have the New International Dictionary of Old Testament Theology. It came out 20+ years later in the late 1990s.

These are great language tools for the nonGreek/nonHebrew reader. They are considered primary sources.

 

[weaker-brother]

The word wine today generally means alcoholic drink--but study of the Bible and non-biblical books from that era indicate that the word wine was not always used that way, that it can refer to grape juice as well.  Context determines which way it was meant.

Don't believe a word can be used that way?

We have a word today that has more than one meaning--on this very same subject!

"Let's go out for a drink sometime"  Do you think they are referring to drinking water?  Could be, but likely referring to alcoholic drinks.

But "Don't drink out of the hose" refers to non-alcoholic drinking of water from a hose.  But could mean drinking alcoholic wine from a hose, in some bizarre, contrived circumstances. 

My point is that those who say we must take the word wine to mean alcoholic drink because it is used one way today are being a little bit silly.  As are those who say it referred only to non-alcoholic drinks back then.

Wine was a word, back then, whose meaning depended on the context, just as the word drink today means one of 2 things depending on context.

You might argue which would be the "default" meaning, if context is unclear, but that is different from pontificating that the word wine always means what it means when YOU use it TODAY.

There was no alcoholic beverages at my wedding, or any wedding I have been to, so from my (limited) perspective I have no reason to conclude that just by being at a wedding, they must have meant Jesus created alcoholic wine.
You have to come up with more than that for context.

 

[Just John]

There was no alcoholic beverages at my wedding, or any wedding I have been to, so from my (limited) perspective I have no reason to conclude that just by being at a wedding, they must have meant Jesus created alcoholic wine.
You have to come up with more than that for context.

This is the silliest part of your post. I have been to a number of weddings, of believers, that DID include wine....and that's in the US. Consider what the tradition is in Europe where wine is looked at very differently than here. Attempting to shoe horn a 21st Century American tradition of limited sects of Christianity into the New Testament is indicative of a position hard to defend.

Again, if it was so important the Bible would have been explicit. God is not an author of confusion.

 

[FreeToBeMe]

so from my (limited) perspective......

Very limited, obviously.

 

[OZZY]

There was no alcoholic beverages at my wedding, or any wedding I have been to, so from my (limited) perspective I have no reason to conclude that just by being at a wedding, they must have meant Jesus created alcoholic wine.
You have to come up with more than that for context.

Again, if it was so important the Bible would have been explicit. God is not an author of confusion.

We hear the same argument from the Sodimites for Christ!

 

[Just John]

There was no alcoholic beverages at my wedding, or any wedding I have been to, so from my (limited) perspective I have no reason to conclude that just by being at a wedding, they must have meant Jesus created alcoholic wine.
You have to come up with more than that for context.

Again, if it was so important the Bible would have been explicit. God is not an author of confusion.

We hear the same argument from the Sodimites for Christ!

Except there is ABSOLUTELY no confusion on that so that's a bad analogy really.

 

[OZZY]

There was no alcoholic beverages at my wedding, or any wedding I have been to, so from my (limited) perspective I have no reason to conclude that just by being at a wedding, they must have meant Jesus created alcoholic wine.
You have to come up with more than that for context.

Again, if it was so important the Bible would have been explicit. God is not an author of confusion.

We hear the same argument from the Sodimites for Christ!

Except there is ABSOLUTELY no confusion on that so that's a bad analogy really.

There is absolutely no confusion on it unless you are a practicing Sodimite that claims to be a Christian,then they twist scripture to make it suit THEIR life style. Same  argument you have here.

 

[pastorryanhayden]

There was no alcoholic beverages at my wedding, or any wedding I have been to, so from my (limited) perspective I have no reason to conclude that just by being at a wedding, they must have meant Jesus created alcoholic wine.
You have to come up with more than that for context.

Again, if it was so important the Bible would have been explicit. God is not an author of confusion.

We hear the same argument from the Sodimites for Christ!

Except there is ABSOLUTELY no confusion on that so that's a bad analogy really.

There is absolutely no confusion on it unless you are a practicing Sodimite that claims to be a Christian,then they twist scripture to make it suit THEIR life style. Same  argument you have here.

Ozzy,
I'm a teetotaler who preaches against alcohol, and I don't see what you are saying.  The Bible does not in any case in context specifically condemn all consumption of alcohol.  Many people who were stalwart defenders of the faith (Spurgeon and Machen come to mind) drank.  Historically speaking, the vast majority of all believers before 1920 were not teetotalers.
The Bible is extremely explicit (at least six times when it couldn't be taken any other way) about homosexuality.  Their has been almost no debate about that in Christian history until about 10 years ago.
Terrible analogy

 

[OZZY]

There was no alcoholic beverages at my wedding, or any wedding I have been to, so from my (limited) perspective I have no reason to conclude that just by being at a wedding, they must have meant Jesus created alcoholic wine.
You have to come up with more than that for context.

Again, if it was so important the Bible would have been explicit. God is not an author of confusion.

We hear the same argument from the Sodimites for Christ!

Except there is ABSOLUTELY no confusion on that so that's a bad analogy really.

There is absolutely no confusion on it unless you are a practicing Sodimite that claims to be a Christian,then they twist scripture to make it suit THEIR life style. Same  argument you have here.

Ozzy,
I'm a teetotaler who preaches against alcohol, and I don't see what you are saying.  The Bible does not in any case in context specifically condemn all consumption of alcohol.  Many people who were stalwart defenders of the faith (Spurgeon and Machen come to mind) drank.  Historically speaking, the vast majority of all believers before 1920 were not teetotalers.
The Bible is extremely explicit (at least six times when it couldn't be taken any other way) about homosexuality.  Their has been almost no debate about that in Christian history until about 10 years ago.
Terrible analogy

So six is the magical number? So If There is only 1 verse where is it condemn drinking alcohol that wouldn't be enought ?  Proverbs 20:1 (KJV)
Wine [is] a mocker, strong drink [is] raging: and whosoever is deceived thereby is not wise.

 

[weaker-brother]

Thanks for your posts.
I realize I am not a part of what this group is.
I was a fundamentalist before I went to HAC, and after years there moved away, but remained a fundamentalist. Still am.

It was helpful for a while to read and post here, but not any longer.
So unless something changes, I won't be back.

Godspeed to you all.
weaker-brother

 

[Just John]

Thanks for your posts.
I realize I am not a part of what this group is.
I was a fundamentalist before I went to HAC, and after years there moved away, but remained a fundamentalist. Still am.

It was helpful for a while to read and post here, but not any longer.
So unless something changes, I won't be back.

Godspeed to you all.
weaker-brother

Stick around. This is a good place for give and take and to learn from each other. Truth is not afraid.

 

[pastorryanhayden]

Ozzy,
Prov 20:1 can be read as a warning against over consumption. 
Again, I'm not for Christians drinking alcohol.  I just think its dishonest to compare Christians who believe alcohol is ok in moderation to homosexual advocates twisting scripture.  One is a lot clearer than the other.
Also, the point of the op was not that alcohol was ok for Christians (although that's what the debate turned into here) the point was that the preacher quite obviously and blatantly mishandled scripture and a bunch of heathen scorners pointed it out.  I meant it as a warning to be careful with the Word.  Not as a rubber stamp for social drinking.
I believe the Bible is overwhelmingly negative about alcohol and that in 2013, there is not one good reason for a child of God to drink.  But I also accept that there are people throughout history who have loved and defended God'S Word as much as I who came to different conclusions. 
I have said negative things about alcohol many times from the pulpit, I have never once said anything in preaching to give people the opinion that drinking is ok, but I've also been careful to not say things the Bible does not say. 

 

[kaba]

If you have time go to my church's website  beaconbaptistchurch.org  my Pastor just spoke on wine-alcohol last night. I thought he did a great job. It just confirmed in my heart what I already believe. That it is not good for a Christian to drink.

 

[Castor Muscular]

10 good reasons to drink.

 

[T-Bone]

Thanks for your posts.
I realize I am not a part of what this group is.
I was a fundamentalist before I went to HAC, and after years there moved away, but remained a fundamentalist. Still am.

It was helpful for a while to read and post here, but not any longer.
So unless something changes, I won't be back.

Godspeed to you all.
weaker-brother

I hope you are not leaving simply because some disagree with you...because that is what it sounds like...if that is the case you are in for a narrow lonely life...and you are destine to zero growth.  But hey it is your choice.

 

[Patebald]

How old is this forum, again? Are the fundies really still trying to prove that Jesus served grape juice at a wedding? I'll take another sip of my Wente as you guys try and figure this out.

 

[Ransom]

So six is the magical number? So If There is only 1 verse where is it condemn drinking alcohol that wouldn't be enought ?

They're not votes.

Someone who believes that the Bible permits drinking alcohol, is able to accommodate those verses that contain warnings or negative statements about it.

But can someone who believes the Bible forbids alcohol, accommodate the verses that commend it?

 

[FreeToBeMe]

10 good reasons to drink.

Looking at these wimmen, they need to re-think their strategy.  They'd have better luck with the drunks.  At least the drunks would have their beer goggles on.

 

[Recovering IFB]

10 good reasons to drink.

Looking for motivation?, this isn't it!