115 Comments »

1. The problem with these resolutions is that it is entirely different for you to say “I do not drink” and for you to say “You should not drink”. Resolutions are about condemning others (or at least that is usually how they are both perceived by the outside and how the inside treats them).

   I went to Wheaton College, I fully support the schools policy to abstain from drinking while at college. I think it is appropriate and laudable for individuals to say I will not drink. But when you start telling others that they should not drink you start treading on an area of conscious. Areas of conscious are not areas of sin, but we can easily treat them as areas of sin.

   I respect, Andy Stanley’s question, because it is personal. The problem I have most often is that resolutions get convoluted to mean we are against the people that drink. If we are against the people that drink then we loose access to many people that still need Christ. You do not have to drink to reach people that drink, but you have to love people that drink to reach people that drink. When we have resolutions or we put an end to outreach bible studies in bars we move our focus to protecting our own from reaching out to others.

   Comment by Adam Shields — October 14, 2010 @ 7:31 am

2. This is beautifully written and spot on correct. What a tremendous post. Thanks for writing it.

   Comment by Rick — October 14, 2010 @ 7:59 am

3. Dr. Akin, I appreciate the spirit in which you wrote this post—even if I have to categorically disagree on almost all points! :-) A couple months ago, I wrote a lengthy series arguing that the Bible teaches quite clearly that alcohol is good.

   When I began that study, I was generally of the view that consuming alcohol is nowhere condemned by Scripture, and thus merely uncomfortable with the SBC’s position. When I finished, I was convinced that the SBC’s position is in fact thoroughly unbiblical and worth repudiating.

   That’s strong language. Why? In short, because I think it is dangerous to call evil something God calls good—and the Bible repeatedly affirms the goodness of wine. The Southern Baptist’s historical position stands in contrast to the views of almost all of the church throughout history, in contrast to the general treatment of alcohol in Scripture, and—most devastatingly—contrary to Paul’s direct teaching in Romans and 1 Corinthians (the latter of which passages actually directly addresses alcohol). While I appreciate and agree with the call to wisdom, I think we go dangerously amiss anytime we condemn something the Bible calls good. I argued for this view at length in my series, Alcohol is of the Devil!, if anyone is interested in hearing why I believe as I do—I don’t want to take up this whole thread.

   Again, thank you for writing with the goal to edify and for explaining your views in a way that is not harsh or self-congratulatory. I appreciate and admire that immensely.

   Comment by Chris Krycho — October 14, 2010 @ 9:57 am

4. Great article on alcohol. These are truths that should be presented often. Folks need to know why we believe as we do.

   Southern Baptists who abstain do love those who drink. It would be surprising to see the number of Southern Baptist churches and individuals who love and minister to those struggling with alcohol.

   David R. Brumbelow

   Comment by David R. Brumbelow — October 14, 2010 @ 10:11 am

5. So, will you be willing to follow the example of mixing wine with water and drinking the 3 to 1 wine? Should we be starting these kinds of distilleries?

   Comment by Ben — October 14, 2010 @ 10:25 am

6. This is one of the best essays for alcohol abstinence I’ve seen. Intellectually valid, Biblically sound and rational. Thanks for this transparent treatise.

   Comment by Dan Burrell — October 14, 2010 @ 11:08 am

7. This post is one of the best application oriented posts on the subject of alcohol that I have ever read. Thank you for speaking in love the truth with applied wisdom and compassion for people.

   I hope you do not mind if I share it.

   Thank you!

   Comment by Tim G — October 14, 2010 @ 11:59 am

8. I love this post, agree with it, and feel it was very well written. But like the first commenter, I question the need or basis for a “resolution”. Alcohol is an easy target. I’m waiting for someone to try to pass a resolution against fat preachers, but I won’t hold my breath.

   Comment by Michael — October 14, 2010 @ 12:11 pm

9. Completely disagree.

   1. I assume that the admonitions in the Bible to refrain from being drunk are there because drunkenness was a widespread problem. The Bob Stein reference above suggests that it couldn’t have been the case because the amount of alcohol required to get drunk would have been expelled through urination before intoxication. I’d give the Bible the benefit of the doubt here and assume that, whatever the alcoholic content of wine was in ancient times, it was sufficiently intoxicating to trigger a number of warnings about being drunk in the Bible.

   2. The article doesn’t carve out medicinal use of alcohol, which I believe Paul even recommended.

   3. The article doesn’t address the fact that Jesus turned the water into wine. I always hear that Jesus did so because there was no potable water in ancient times. But if Jesus had the power to turn contaminated water into drinkable wine, then He could have turned contaminated water into drinkable water too. I think this last point is the one that defeats the notion of abstinence only, i.e., the fact that Jesus, in His first miracle, turned water into alcohol for purposes of enjoyment.

   Certainly, the person who never has a first drink of alcohol will never be an alcoholic. But then person who never has any food other than fruits and vegetables will never be obese. And the person who never has any medicine will never be addicted to medicine. But those aren’t good reasons for abstaining from kinds of food or medicine.

   There may be awfully good reasons to warn against the abuse of things that are permitted. But if wine was good enough for Jesus, it’s good enough for me.

   Comment by Jeff — October 14, 2010 @ 12:14 pm

10. One other point to make: the analogy to eating is a sound one.

    We have to have food and we have to have beverages to live. Maybe it’s better to have water than wine. And maybe it’s better to have broccoli than chocolate cake. And maybe some people will commit the sin of drunkeness which starts with the first glass of wine. And maybe some people will commit the sin of gluttony which starts with the first piece of cake. But just because some will sin doesn’t mean we shouldn’t drink wine or eat cake.

    Comment by Jeff — October 14, 2010 @ 1:06 pm

11. I certainly agree that there are wisdom reasons and weaker brother reasons to avoid the use of alcohol. But I believe there is a case to be made for the superior wisdom of drinking in moderation.

    I was compelled by my study of Scripture’s treatment of wine and strong drink, as well as my contemplation of the wisdom in modeling moderation to my children, to actually gain an appreciation for wine and drink, in moderation.

    Scripture praises wine as God’s “good gift to man” which “gladdens man’s heart” (Ps. 104:14-15) and that which “cheers man and God” (Judges 9:13). In fact the connection between joy and wine is pervasive in the Old Testament. Furthermore, diluted wine is seen as inferior (Is. 1:22), and the problem of drunkenness remains very clear (albeit no abstention position is taught), to the extent that Stein’s statements about your bladder bursting before being affected by wine become nonsense (and others have answered his assessment of ancient wine making and use). Deut. 14:26 includes strong drink as an item we should consume and rejoice before the Lord with.

    Since Scripture presents wine as a stimulant to man’s joy, and a relief from pain (Prov. 31:6-7, Jer. 16:7) and sorrow, it is evident that such is God’s design in making wine available to us. The clear witness of Scripture argues that we do not drink to excess and get drunk. And people could know how to drink and not get drunk back then and they know this today, too.

    Food and intimate marital relations are necessities, yes. But they are also pleasures. And they can be enjoyed in God’s limits and boundaries, and are sin when they are enjoyed outside of those limits and boundaries (in adultery or gluttony, etc.). Same for wine.

    The wisdom in moderation that I see, is in modeling a careful use of it with children. Kids will tend to buck the system and if they are taught never to use alcohol, but not given express Biblical commands against its use, they may experiment with it when the substance is mysterious and novel and get caught up with it. If the mystery and novelty of it is gone, and a careful use is taught and modeled, fewer Christian kids may get caught up in drunknenness.

    Furthermore, discussions like these tend to demonize the drink itslef. It’s “Satan’s brew”. No it isn’t. Substances aren’t evil, alcoholism isn’t a disease from an evil substance. It is a sin from an evil heart. Addictive qualities don’t excuse the blame. And yes not all should use this due to other factors.

    But this is my biggest point, who are we to be smarter than what God tells us in His word? In the New Testament there were many opportunities for God to condemn alcoholic use. When the Corinthians were getting drunk at the Lord’s Table, Paul could have settled the matter. But he didn’t. We make resolutions about who can and cannot be on our trustee boards and institutions based on our superior wisdom. But Scripture, which downright praises wine (for it’s spirit-uplifting quality, mind you) numerous times. The loss of wine is a tragedy and a sad grief to bare. It’s parallel with barrenness of the womb, even. Study it out.

    I feel that any wisdom which is smarter that God’s Word, is suspect. I need to fit my views with the Bible. And I refuse to view a substance as evil and wicked and a scourge to society, when that substance is not the cause of anything (it’s evil hearts which are), and when God expressly promotes that substance for our good.

    I detail my case for wine at my blog. And share many other thoughts about this issue on my blog. This isn’t going to win everyone to my position. But I for one, didn’t lightly pick up the bottle. And I’ve never been drunk. And I don’t hang out at the bars and all that. This is something I’m careful about with weaker brothers, and I enjoy in the privacy of my home for the most part. I am enjoying God’s good gifts, from a heart that wants to fit in with His Word.

    In Christ,

    Bob Hayton

    Comment by Bob Hayton — October 14, 2010 @ 1:54 pm

12. [...] S.B.C. leader gets passionate over [...]

    Pingback by The Southern Baptists and Alchohol Abstinence « Heart Issues in the I-15 Corridor — October 14, 2010 @ 4:19 pm

13. Healthy viewpoint…thanks for the article…we are brought up with us rigid views and disfunctions….Glad to hear someone’s wisdom on this….

    Comment by sheila — October 14, 2010 @ 4:23 pm

14. Thank you for your various comments both pro and con. I appreciate all of you sharing your thoughts. We should be able to discuss significant issues both with firm conviction and a gracious spirit. Sadly, that happens far too seldom. I do think several of you did not critique what I actually wrote but went after arguments I did not make. A more fair assessment is to respond to what I did say not what you wanted me to say. One example, I never called taking a drink in moderation sinful or evil. I simply believe it to be unwise in this day and time and nothing has convinced me that I should change my mind on this matter. In our 21st century context (which is significantly different from the ancient context) with the gross commercialization of beverage alcohol (that which I was clearly addressing in the article, not it’s medicinal use which I have no problem with at all) and it’s massive abuse which inflicts so much pain, sorrow and suffering, I simply believe wisdom and witness (clear biblical principles) would support the wisdom of abstinence. I really lose nothing by my refusal to support the alcohol industry, and avoid muliple dangers in the process both for myself and others. In the position I hold and the argument I make I gladly join hands with my friends Mark Dever, Al Mohler, Russ Moore, John MacArthur, David Platt and John Piper just to name a few. Again, thank you all for sharing your perspective.

    Comment by Danny Akin — October 14, 2010 @ 4:33 pm

15. I appreciated your article and your good spirit. I posted it over at Sharper Iron where some are commenting on it
    here

    ——– My own comments ———

    In arguing for total abstinence, these are arguments I would not use:

    * The argument that alcohol destroys homes. You could use the same line of reasoning about avoiding credit cards! You could put credit cards in this sentence: “There is simply too much sorrow and heartache connected to [abusing credit]. Avoiding [credit card use] is simply the wise thing to do.”
    * The no need for it argument: “Alcohol is not a necessity for life or good living.” You could say the same about Pepsi, ice cream, taking a vacation, having air conditioning, etc.
    * The bad example argument: “Because I am an example to others, I will make certain no one ever walks the road of sorrow called alcoholism because they saw me take a drink …”. In my extended family we have many brothers, cousins, parents (well they are all dead (except my Mom!), etc who drink in moderation. Is not their moderation in drink a positive example.
    * The argument that “The term “wine” or oinos in the ancient world, then, did not mean wine as we understand it today but wine mixed with water”. I don’t think one can substantiate this and the argument is weak

    Arguments I would use to recommend abstinence:

    * Guaranteed never to be drunk!
    * Your drinking will never be a stumbling block to another

    Points of the article with which I agree:

    * “Should those who practice abstinence look down on those who do not? The answer is an unqualified no.”
    * “As a pastor or church leader, would I demand abstinence for church membership? No, I would not.” (Observation from having been a Pastor: demanding rarely works except with the weak willed and weak minded. I wouldn’t want to have a church filled with doting acolytes.
    * “Can I say it is always a sin to take a drink? No.”

    Re this point: “Would I demand it for leadership? Absolutely! ”

    * Why didn’t Paul demand it in 1 Tim 3? (for deacons: “Likewise deacons must be reverent, not double-tongued, not given to much wine”). Frankly I don’t even think he demanded it of Bishops (”not a drunkard” vs 3 ESV)
    * Why didn’t Paul (to the horribly immature and carnal Corinthian church that actually had at least one event where Lord’s table participants were drunk! (1 Corinthians 11:21)) require total abstinence of the Corinthian church?
    * Certainly the Jerusalem Council would have been clearly aware of alcohol abuse. Why did they state this “but that we write to them to abstain from things polluted by idols, from sexual immorality, from things strangled, and from blood” and add no more? “no greater burden than these necessary things”

    Comment by Jim Peet — October 14, 2010 @ 5:22 pm

16. Thanks too, Dr. Akin, for a measured and careful position here. You don’t call for membership to be shaped by this issue. John Piper, led his church to amend a membership covenant to allow for believers to differ on this issue. You did make a challenge of sorts, not for direct interaction with your post but for a counterpoint which is “wiser”. That could be why some gave their position as a response. Anyway, I’m thankful for your leadership even if I have a difference of opinion on this point.

    Blessings in Christ to you and your ministry.

    Comment by Bob Hayton — October 14, 2010 @ 5:25 pm

17. You did not call drinking sinful, you call it ‘unwise’ and then you said that you thought it appropriate that churches have a policy that made drinking a disqualifying mark for leadership.

    You say you don’t disqualify medicinal use but how can you disqualify leaders and not disqualify medicinal use? Everyone has agreed that abuse is a problem. But abuse of many good things are a problem. Making them out of bounds does not really solve the problem of abuse.

    The biblical support that you bring up is important. And I think it is a good reason for individuals to make a decision not to drink alcohol. But by bring it into leadership, you contradict the scriptures which says that alcohol, in proper context and not abused, is a good that is created by God.

    Comment by Adam Shields — October 14, 2010 @ 7:36 pm

18. I am going to say that the thing that strikes me about this post and the comments is the respectful way the differing opinions are stated.

    I have spent some time on another blog today where people are not charitable.

    It is so refreshing to see the different perspectives spoken so kindly.

    The only concern that I have about the abstinence position as it relates to the SBC is will people who believe and practice as a couple of the commenters on here be welcome in SBC positions of leadership.

    I don’t think any of the brothers who have advocated differently than the total abstinence position has done so out of worldliness or as libertines. I think that they have presented good biblical arguments.

    I would hate to see men like that excluded from service as trustees or speakers at SBC events because they don’t toe the line on this issue.

    My concern, however, is that they would be discriminated against. And thus, an issue that should not divide us does.

    As to SBC employees on the mission field and such, I feel differently. There are legal and other issues at stake.

    Comment by Louis — October 14, 2010 @ 9:40 pm

19. Dr. Akin, if we have pushed back on your point, it’s precisely because you invited us to: you said, “I challenge anyone to show me the superior wisdom of drinking ‘in moderation,’ as opposed to not drinking at all.” That, I think, is what your audience has done. In fact, the the series I wrote was explicitly devoted to that aim, and most or all of the arguments you raised in support of your view were dealt with there.

    You said, “I simply believe it to be unwise in this day and time and nothing has convinced me that I should change my mind on this matter.” To that, I ask: Is there anything that could change your mind on this?

    The reason I continue to respond here is because it strikes me (and I say this cautiously, wondering what others’ take will be) that arguing that all alcoholic consumption now is unwise—though it was not for Jesus and his disciples—and indeed that it should be forbidden for all church leaders, seems to run up against the sufficiency of Scripture. Here’s what I mean: if it is always unwise to consume alcohol, why doesn’t Scripture say so? Indeed, why does it say the opposite? If we really hold that Scripture is our standard of faith and practice, then we ought to be very careful not to call unwise that which the Bible calls good, not to place requirements on leaders that Scripture does not, etc.

    I am hard pressed to see how taking this stance does not do injustice to the view of Biblical sufficiency, but I also recognize that you are a vocal defender of that precise concept (and I’m deeply appreciative of your steadfast defense), so the position argued here confuses me. I wish to be very clear; I am not saying this to attack you but out of a genuine confusion as to how you can argue as you do without somehow elevating human understanding over Scripture—Scripture that clearly and repeatedly affirms that wine and strong drink are a blessing from God.

    Please clarify where you are coming from here; I am genuinely interested in your response.

    Comment by Chris Krycho — October 15, 2010 @ 9:35 am

20. *sigh* The link in the previous post is broken, I forgot to fill in the address. The series is linked in my first comment on the post, in any case.

    Comment by Chris Krycho — October 15, 2010 @ 9:41 am

21. Though presently abstaining from alcohol, I have not yet made up my mind on this issue. There are two things that keeping coming to mind:

    1. Have Christians in past centuries taken such a strong stance on alcoholic beverages? Have they applied the Bible in the same way? Going back to a Southern Baptist Convention resolution in 1886 is not particularly persuasive, even for a life-long Southern Baptist.

    2. Have Christians in other cultures taken such a strong stance on alcoholic beverages? Have they applied the Bible in the same way? If it’s truly unwise for people to consume any alcoholic beverage, then that should be a principle that applies universally, not only in the United States.

    I think these things are relevant, since it would be really easy to decide if the Bible said, “Don’t drink alcoholic beverages.” But it doesn’t. And if few (if any) people condemned the consumption of alcohol anyplace else beside the Unites States or anytime before the Second Great Awakening, then I’m still very skeptical.

    If you have time, please respond.

    Comment by Andy — October 15, 2010 @ 10:18 am

22. Thank you Dr. Akin for your careful and thought out position concerning this issue. I especially enjoyed the comment made in chapel on Wednesday that liberty is directly connected with responsibility and love. Liberty does not live and profess itself in a vacuum. I think that many comments made in disagreement have not dealt with what has been said but what people think should have been said or they want to deal with, and by doing this changes the nature of this post.

    From a young man whose family has seen the effects of alcohol. Thank you.

    Comment by Gregory — October 15, 2010 @ 11:05 am

23. Gregory and other that seem to think that the point is not being addressed: The post concludes not by asking people consider abstinence as a personal wise decision but by asserting that leaders in the church should be “Absolutely!” restricted from alcohol. Most that are pushing back are saying that requirement, to stop leadership from absolutely using alcohol, is an extra biblical requirement. If you approve of placing extra biblical requirements on leadership then you are treading dangerous ground. There are times when it is appropriate but it is most often abused. Some of the leaders appealed to at the end have said that alcohol use is a matter of personal conscious (and place no restrictions on leadership) and some place strong restrictions on leadership. I have no issues with personal abstinence. My family has been strongly affected by alcoholism as well, but I believe that it is spiritually dangerous to place universal restrictions because of a personal matter of conscious.

    Comment by Adam Shields — October 15, 2010 @ 11:43 am

24. Thank you again for the numerous contributions to this conversation. As one who is a vocal defender of both biblical inerrancy and sufficiency, let me add a couple of clarifying comments.

    I do believe the Bible affirms the goodness of strong drink, but it appears to me it does so for medicinal purposes. In light of Ephesians 5:18, I can find no biblical justification for the recreational use of the same. It seems clear that anything that would impair the senses or cloud the mind is to be avoided. How you love God well with your mind when your mind is under the influence of strong drink is unknown to me. Unfortunately the church at Corinth got this wrong and God judged them for it. And, it is clear the Bible and Jesus affirm the goodness of wine,esp. as an evidence of harvest blessing and divine provision. However, I can scarcely imagine our Lord placing His stamp of approval on the alcohol industry of today. What they produce is not God’s good gift. What they produce, in spite of billions spent on slick commercialization, inflicts massive pain, sorrow and death. That is simple undeniable.

    Finally, as I alluded to earlier, I do not disobey God nor do I risk hurting my witness by abstaining from alcohol. I lose nothing my my unwillingness to support the alcohol industry. This is very much the point made by John Piper. So, if anyone chooses to drink a glass of wine or drink a beer, I will not say that you have sinned. There is perhaps even a context on this earth where I might choose to do the same given certain conditions and circumstances. However, speaking very personally, I do not like the taste of alcohol, I do not need nor do I want it’s stimulus, and I am not interested in supporting a man made industry that markets itself to the young telling them that drinking our product will make you happy and cool. That is a lie and a very dangerous and tragic one.

    Again, thank you for sharing your perspectives and thoughts. I do look forward to the millennium and the new heavens and earth where we will enjoy the fruit of the vine for all eternity without fear or concern of drunk drivers, beaten children and spouses, and so many other sorrows that clearly lie at the feet of the alcohol industry of our day. I gladly wait and look forward to that day.

    Comment by Danny Akin — October 15, 2010 @ 12:09 pm

25. Thank you for your kind response. For my part, I will add this final comment and then let the topic go, lest we all start running around in circles and getting frustrated.

    First, a point of clarification: personal abstention does not bother me in the least; it is the proclamation to others that alcohol should be avoided that I think is amiss. With that, I can wholeheartedly endorse your refraining—no question there. I hope I have not given the impression that I think everyone should drink alcohol; my point is that no one (whose conscience is untroubled) ought to be made to feel guilty over partaking of God’s good gift.

    Second, we are in agreement that alcohol can and has been put to evil use. I respect an argument for not supporting industries that intentionally cause harm much more than any other argument against alcohol use. At the same time, I feel I should note that a number of companies do not take that approach, and some very consciously have embraced the idea that their product is indeed God’s good gift to be enjoyed carefully (Guiness historically comes to mind here). So while I am sympathetic there, I think that, like any other boycott of conscience is and must remain a matter of personal conviction—and one to be applied judiciously, especially in the way we speak about it. To reiterate, though, I can respect that view more than any other I have heard.

    Finally, I have some concerns with your use of Ephesians and 1 Corinthians here, which seem to be stretching the text beyond what it says in the first case and to actually miss part of what Paul says in the second. (I wouldn’t bring these up if your heart for Scripture were not abundantly clear and consistently worthy of admiration and emulation.) Ephesians 5 clearly affirms that drunkenness is always wrong—but does not address recreational ingestion of alcohol in general. Getting drunk and having a beer or a glass of wine are quite simply not the same thing. You do all your brothers and sisters who do drink without once getting drunk a disservice when you misapply that passage and ones similar to it.

    Likewise, Paul’s response to their drunkenness over Communion was not, “Stop drinking alcohol!” but rather “Drink at home, before you come together!” The condemnation was not for drinking alcoholic wine, but for being drunk—and at the Lord’s Table, at that. The passage, if anything, militates against the view you used it to argue for, as Paul has no problem with them drinking what was clearly “strong drink” at home.

    With that, I will let you have the “last word” here. Again, thank you for conducting what could be a very heated and unprofitable discussion in a kind, charitable, God-honoring manner. Too often when this topic comes up it quickly reduces to insults thrown each direction; this conversation has tended pleasantly otherwise. If all of our disagreements could be conducted in such a winsome way as this discussion has been, our witness to the world would be far stronger.

    Comment by Chris Krycho — October 15, 2010 @ 1:48 pm

26. So do you still have the same position that it is appropriate to insist on abstinence for church leaders?

    Comment by Adam Shields — October 15, 2010 @ 2:18 pm

27. Dr. Akin,

    Though I disagree, I do appreciate your time and willingness to interact. It is hard for me to grasp how one would bind the conscience of another where the Scripture does not (i.e. church leadership).

    That said, there is something often overlooked in our SBC when it comes to alcohol.

    Sports!

    Take your statement:
    

    However, I can scarcely imagine our Lord placing His stamp of approval on the alcohol industry of today. What they produce is not God’s good gift. What they produce, in spite of billions spent on slick commercialization, inflicts massive pain, sorrow and death. That is simple undeniable.

    There are millions spent on slick alcohol advertising in sports which greatly impacts our children. As I understand your position, you aren’t calling alcohol inherently evil, but the results of its abuse and its effects on society in general.

    It seems no safer to turn to sporting events given the influence alcohol has in that arena. According to The Center on Alcohol Marketing and Youth – “The alcohol industry spent $491.7 million to place 59,461 ads in 2001, $597.3 million to place 80,548 ads in 2002, and $540.8 million to place 90,817 ads on sports programming on television in 2003.”

    Sorry if this seems a bit of a side topic, but I’ll be holding my breath waiting for the next SBC sports abstinence resolution. ;)

    Comment by Mark — October 15, 2010 @ 2:36 pm

28. I appreciate the tenor of the conversation here and certainly uphold anyone’s personal conviction to avoid alcohol. That being said, I was somewhat surprised by this statement that you made, Dr. Akin:

    “I do believe the Bible affirms the goodness of strong drink, but it appears to me it does so for medicinal purposes.“

    Certainly, you are familiar with Deuteronomy 14? For my part, as one who grew up in independent Baptist circles, when I first came across this passage I was at a definite loss. I made mental note of it for years before being brave enough to study the issue out for myself. I had always been taught that “strong drink” was the really strong stuff and definitely always condemned in Scripture.

    Here’s the Deuteronomy passage for your consideration:
    

    “You shall tithe all the yield of your seed that comes from the field year by year. And before the LORD your God, in the place that he will choose, to make his name dwell there, you shall eat the tithe of your grain, of your wine, and of your oil, and the firstborn of your herd and flock, that you may learn to fear the LORD your God always. And if the way is too long for you, so that you are not able to carry the tithe, when the LORD your God blesses you, because the place is too far from you, which the LORD your God chooses, to set his name there, then you shall turn it into money and bind up the money in your hand and go to the place that the LORD your God chooses and spend the money for whatever you desire—oxen or sheep or wine or strong drink, whatever your appetite craves. And you shall eat there before the LORD your God and rejoice, you and your household. And you shall not neglect the Levite who is within your towns, for he has no portion or inheritance with you.” (Deuteronomy 14:22-26 ESV)

    It is Scripture passages like the above which forced me to change my mind on this topic.

    I fear that we bring our tradition and cultural heritage with us when we encounter the Text so much, that at times we invent reasons to keep the status quo the same rather than going out of our way to submit to the Word. It’s easy to do and I’m sure I’m still guilty of this myself.

    Blessings in Christ,

    Bob Hayton

    Comment by Bob Hayton — October 15, 2010 @ 9:22 pm

29. Dr. Akin,

    I mean the following in the most gracious terms possible. This is something that has long frustrated me, so please don’t read my frustration as directed at you. I’m just glad to find someone addressing the issue instead of assuming we all fall in line.

    Is this even an issue outside of Baptist circles? I wonder if this has not become our own cultural identification marker.

    As a student of a sister SBC seminary, I am constantly frustrated by the application of this issue coming from SBC-lifers, who appear sheltered in the shadows of the convention. I am required to sign a covenant each semester, which includes such clear biblical issues as not committing adultery. These issues cite biblical passages, but the alcohol abstention carries no such reference. This is frustrating, especially because it is ‘check this box or you can’t take classes.’ It is impersonal and downright irritating.

    I took a 1 Corinthians class last semester where the standard argument for abstinence as a form of exercising freedom in love was given by the professor. I pushed back, and rather than dealing with the issue, got strong-armed. I am all for using our liberty in love, but the arguments never seem to come from those who have alcohol issues in their past. They come from teetotalers, who have never drank a drop in their lives. This reeks of legalism to me.

    Requiring abstention for church leaders rules out most leaders in the history of the Church. How is that wise?

    Comment by Andrew — October 16, 2010 @ 11:26 pm

30. This has turned into a subject of speculation that there is a hidden drinking problem with SEBTS students.

    Why not be totally forthright, Dr. Akin = “Is there a problem or not???”

    The issue of alcohol abuse became clear to me as a student at SEBTS in 1967 and working at the Alcoholic Ward at Dorothea Dix State Hospital in Raleigh–Nurse’s Aide. I did not see any SEBTS students nor graduates there I will hasten to add!!

    Prohibition was the main mover in our stand on alcohol in the SBC. I have served old SBC churches whose history can be traced to the early 1800’s. In each of them real home made wine was used in Communion. It was an honor to make the wine. It was bestowed on the family which had the best for the Lord’s Table.

    Anyone considering use of alcohol–especially teens–should have had to visit the Dorothea Dix Alcoholic ward to see what abuse can bring to families. The saddest days of the week (Saturday or Sunday) were when families visited their father on the ward. Wives were looking some 10-20 years older than their actual age. It, sadly, kills and destroys the family as much as the alcoholic and you well know, Dr. Akin, from the personal experience of you wife.

    That is the real tragedy—other tragedies of abuse of substances are all the rotund Pastors who abuse food to the point of gluttony / ill tempers among those same Pastors who consider themselves the “King of their church” / surrounding small churches who used to gladly call student pastors from SEBTS, but got a new “little Knight in shining armor” who brought with him a model Constitution and By-laws to turn that church into a servant of the Pastor instead of the other way around as it was in my days of 1967-70 at a wonderful SEBTS!

    Ah well—now SEBTS has its own modern share of “false accusations” and you are it’s President. Good luck / godspeed / hang in there!

    Comment by Gene Scarborough — October 18, 2010 @ 7:29 am

31. Excellent! I agree completely.

    Comment by Liz — October 18, 2010 @ 8:48 am

32. [...] a worthy read. I look forward to getting it. 6. Dr. Akin (SEBTS President) makes a case (again) for alcohol abstinence. While I do disagree with him, he makes a good argument. My question…should we not eat [...]

    Pingback by Much and Link Love (October 18 edition) | This Whole Life — October 18, 2010 @ 8:50 am

33. “Can I say it is always a sin to take a drink? No. Can I say it is almost always unwise? Yes, because it violates the biblical principles of wisdom and witness.”

    So – drinkers aren’t sinning, they’re just fools.

    I am commanded by God not to despise him who cannot practice what I am free to practice and he is commanded not to pass judgment on me. (Romans 14:3). Drinking is included in this (Romans 14:21). I will ask God to help me not to despise you for calling me a fool and I hope you will try not to make the judgment.

    Comment by Ken — October 18, 2010 @ 10:47 am

34. I am a pastor at an SBC church and I can affirm that it is the “wise thing” for me to do in occasionally having a beer.

    Looking at the life of the Reformers we see many Godly regenerate men who were able to redeem the use of beer for God’s glory in theological conversation and fellowship, and their joy.

    I am not a regular drinker, I probably have one beer a month. But on those occasions I do it is in controlled environments in which no one would be led to stumble. Often in the midst of personal evangelism I have shared a beer with a neighbor or friend and found it to be a very effective way to foster closer connection and more meaningful conversation.

    I find the view of abstaining from alcohol to be reductionistic of God’s ability to redeem that which sin has distorted. As you fairly did point out Dr. Akin, alcohol was consumed in the Bible (though in diluted amounts) which leads me to see a dusting of legalism in your attitude that you would require abstinence from alcohol for church leadership. I am always afraid of a church that wants to be more holy than Jesus.

    Comment by Ryan — October 18, 2010 @ 10:47 am

35. 1 Tim. 4:1-5 and Col. 2:20-23 settled this issue for me: if one wishes to abstain, God bless him. When abstention is elevated to a general rule of wisdom (and then morality), we are transgressing Christ’s rule over his Church. Only Christ has the authority to legislate morality, and we have his Word, his legislation. Anything else usurps his authority.

    Comment by Philip Larson — October 18, 2010 @ 11:01 am

36. [Administrator's Note: Danny Akin posted a lengthy response to a string of comments at SBC Voices. We are reproducing his response here, since his thoughts apply to several of the recent comments on this blog post. Below is the full text."

    "Seldom do I respond to blogs. However, in this instance, given Peter Lumpkins blog and this one by Dave Miller, I felt it might be helpful in speaking to it this one time. I would add anyone could have contacted me at any time and I would have been happy to receive and respond to their questions or concerns. That is a good and wise policy I believe I should have as a servant of the churches of the Southern Baptist Convention, and one I delight in honoring. It also would have saved many of you some time and loss of sleep! :)

    "Every semester I hold a president’s forum where students may ask me any question they wish. It has been well received by students and faculty alike. On this occasion I was asked if I had ever written anything concerning my position on the use of alcohol. I was also informed that some students at SEBTS and other seminaries and Baptist Colleges (not a large number at SEBTS, and I suspect not a large number at our other schools) looked for loopholes in the various conduct covenants, believing, for example, it was OK to drink alcohol between semesters, thinking that they were not enrolled in school at that particular time. I told them I had written on the matter and that I would make those writings available. I went to my website at http://www.danielakin.com and discovered I did not have a category for Alcohol (there is one now), nor could I locate the BP article I wrote several years ago or the chapter on Wise Decision-making I had written for a book on the Emergent Church. Both are now avaialble at the website (with B&H permission), and the BP article basically is the conclusion of the book chapter. I then addressed the “loophole” issue in the forum. You may listen to or view it at http://www.sebts.edu under chapel messages. I then asked the administrators of BTT to post both so that it would be available in the public realm. I had written a brief preface to the BP article noting it’s time and context of writing, but that mistakenly got left off. I do not think that was a big deal though I now see it raised some questions for some of you. So, is there a alcohol problem at SEBTS? No, there is not. Will we maintain our current policy on this issue as long as I am here? Yes we will. Do I think our students can learn from those with whom we disagree on certain issues and be sufficiently discerning to know what to embrace and what to reject? Again, yes I do.

    “Since I have decided to enter this conversation, let me take the opportunity to explain why I invite certain persons to the campus of SEBTS which, again, has been the concern of a some. You may not agree, but hopefully it will foster better understanding. Let me use an example to make my point. In the last century there was a wonderful apologist, maybe the most effective one of that era. Now, this individual was known to regularly take a drink, smoke a pipe or cigar, and use from time to time what we might call “salty language.” He was also a theistic evolutionist and held a number of other doctoral positions with which I would strongly disagree. I speak, of course, of C.S. Lewis. Now, were he alive today, would I invite Lewis to join my faculty? Of course not. Would I invite him to come and lecture at SEBTS? YES! And, I suspect, and rightly so, I could move to a local area and easly draw a crowd of 20,000 or more Southern Baptists alone to learn from this servant of our Lord. Would I expect or hope that those SEBTS students in attendance would adopt his worldview at every point? Of course not. He is not a model at every point as none of us are. Still, would I challenge them to listen carefully and learn from this brother in Christ whom God raised up to serve His Church? Absolutely, trusting in their ability to be discerning and wise in what to embrace and what to set aside. Right or wrong, and of course I think it is right, that is why I have and will again invite certain persons to SEBTS who may hold view that I personally reject. I hope this is at least somewhat helpful to those who wonder why I do some of the things I do.

    “Thank you for allowing me to enter into this conversation. Pray for me and SEBTS as we seek to honor Jesus in all we do and fulfill His final marching orders of making disciples of all the nations for His great glory. That should be our focus. That should be our passion and priority. Danny Akin”

    Comment by administrator — October 18, 2010 @ 11:19 am

37. [...] SEBTS’s Danny Akin on alcohol abstinence on Between the Times: [...]

    Pingback by Akin on Alcohol Abstinence « Donald Kim: “Life’s a Blur.” — October 18, 2010 @ 11:29 am

38. Dr. Akin,

    That is a great post.

    I especially like the reference to C.S. Lewis.

    It would be hard to argue that C.S. Lewis, were he alive today, should not be allowed to speak at SBC seminaries.

    Comment by Louis — October 18, 2010 @ 12:10 pm

39. Although I disagree with some of the points in your article, I enjoyed reading about your mindset and philosophy. If my pastor told me that I should abstain from drinking alcohol for lesser clarity, I would would cease for the love of my church. I would not search for another church. These are (in my opinion) petty arguments. I disagree with you. So what? If you were my pastor I would honor your lead.

    Now if you said no coffee…

    Comment by Brett R — October 18, 2010 @ 12:15 pm

40. Great article. Here’s what bothers me the most from some of these responses: why do “Christians” feel what they have the “right” to do supersede that which is edifying and wise? These people clearly do not have the heart of Paul who would lay down his own “rights” (eating meat sacrificed to idols) so that the cause of Christ might be spread. That some may come to receive the Gospel. I’m honestly discouraged that people make such a big deal out of this. How hard is it to drink something else?! And for the one gentlemen who repeatedly states that you shouldn’t tell other people what to do, why is authority such an issue in your life? I think accountability and authority is clearly biblical. Comments are mighty disturbing.

    Comment by Jay Beerley — October 18, 2010 @ 12:36 pm

41. Jay,

    Eating meat sacrificed to idols led people back into their idolatry. Were the point to be made by someone with whom drinking was associated with past idolatries (i.e. their life before they came to Christ), I daresay most of us would eagerly lay down our rights. These two issues cannot be so easily equated, especially when, as I pointed out in my previous comment, many (if not most) of those arguing for alcohol abstinence have grown up in the SBC and never had a drop to drink.

    If anything, alcohol abstinence has become the SBC form of Gentile circumcision, which is being urged on those outside of the church as they enter. This is one of my concerns with this issue.

    Comment by Andrew — October 18, 2010 @ 1:22 pm

42. Danny …

    No doubt you knew beforehand that you would be shot at, and even ostracized for sharing this strong (and much-needed) Biblical answer to the ever-growing division within the Christian church.

    When I was saved in 1969 (incidentally, I was an alcoholic) I never thought I would have to defend the position of abstinence. I thought this was a given for Bible believers.

    Thank you for such a marvelously scripturally and practically wise defense of the position of abstinence for serious Bible students.

    MARVELOUS !

    George Thomas

    Comment by George Thomas — October 18, 2010 @ 1:29 pm

43. [...] President of Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary, Dr. Daniel Akin, has written an irenic and thoughtful post about the subject of drinking. I wholeheartedly agree with [...]

    Pingback by Daniel Akin on Abstaining from Alcohol Beverages « Pastor Brett — October 18, 2010 @ 3:17 pm

44. “What is the wise thing for me to do?” (i.e. What would Jesus do?).

    Jesus drank wine. Would He today? Not sure about that, but considering He was fully aware that His actions in the first century would be recorded for all of history to be used as an example of how to live life, one might be able to conclude that he did not oppose alcohol consumption.

    BTW: I don’t drink alcohol.

    Comment by Mike Perrigoue — October 18, 2010 @ 3:35 pm

45. Just a couple of comments with respect to certain responses. First, I do not believe my position would disqualify Jesus for leadership today. I think I was clear: if I had lived in the 1st century I probably would have drank wine just as Jesus did. I also believe if Jesus lived in America today where alcohol has done so much evil He too, for wisdom and witness sake, might affirm abstaining as a loving and wise course of action. Second, those concerned about this issue are not just those who grew up in the SBC and have never taken a drink. To my shame, I did drink on a number of occasions as an older teenager. It did nothing to help my witness for Christ and was plainly harmful to it. Second, my article began with the devastating tragedy of what alcohol did in my wife’s family and I told not the half! I could have continued noting today she has a lost brother and sister who are alcoholics. Almost all of her aunts, uncles and cousins are lost alcoholics. Her aunt was murdered by her husband while intoxicated with alcohol. I could continue for much longer!!! So, I admit to having a personal interest in all this. I also stand by the fact that I am making a “wisdom argument” grounded in biblical principles in almost exactly the same way John Piper and John MacArthur do, both of whom have influenced my thinking in this area as well as many others. Hope this sheds more light on the issue from my perspective. Danny

    Comment by Danny Akin — October 18, 2010 @ 3:37 pm

46. Interesting article but I find your selective quotes from John Piper a bit disturbing. Piper fought against an amendment to his congregation that would prohibit drinking. He goes further and points out that legalism is more of a risk than alcohol. . here are some excerpts of a sermon he gave:

    “If any of you still wonders why I go on supporting this amendment after hearing all the tragic stories about lives ruined through alcohol, the reason is that when I go home at night and close my eyes and let eternity rise in my mind, I see ten million more people in hell because of legalism than because of alcoholism. And I think that is a literal understatement. Satan is so sly. “He disguises himself as an angel of light,” the apostle says in 2 Corinthians 11:14. He keeps his deadliest diseases most sanitary. He clothes his captains in religious garments and houses his weapons in temples. O don’t you want to see his plots uncovered? . . .Legalism is a more dangerous disease than alcoholism because it doesn’t look like one.”

    The entire sermon is well worth a listen/read.

    I am not sure why you presented Piper’s view in such a way as to suggest that he supports prohibition – he does not.

    Comment by ACTX — October 18, 2010 @ 4:47 pm

47. As someone who was a member at John Piper’s church for almost five years, I think I should point out that the church had an old Baptist member’s covenant which pledged to abstain from the drinking and sale of alcohol. Piper’s personal position is that abstention is wise, but he lobbied to change the member’s covenant to allow for people to join the church who didn’t share his position on the alcohol question. The change was approved. I think this happened in the early years of his ministry.

    One point which still is concerning to me is Dr. Akin’s statement in the comments: “I do believe the Bible affirms the goodness of strong drink, but it appears to me it does so for medicinal purposes.”

    That seems to ignore the witness of Deuteronomy 14:22-26. We can’t conclude strong drink was only for medicinal purposes, when Deuteronomy lauds the use of “strong drink” in a festal, celebratory context where the partakers are drinking “before the Lord”.

    Comment by Bob Hayton — October 18, 2010 @ 5:02 pm

48. I must say that even though I disagree with your conclusion, I have to agree with the wisdom portion. I see nothing wrong with someone choosing to abstain from alcohol as a means of personal wisdom, and I have no problem with someone expressing their views of such wisdom to those that they can influence. I think that is all acceptable.

    However, I agree with what has been said about the resolutions. It comes down as condemning those who disagree with the resolution. There is no need for it. If it will not be a requirement for membership, why pass the resolution at all? It will definitely feel exclusionary for those who are seeking after Christ but are caught in the midst of their struggle. They will see that they will not be accepted as part of the SBC until they give up their drinking. And even though I know that is not the heart of the SBC, it is how lost people will see it.

    My further issue is that you say you would require abstinence as a condition of church leadership. This bothers me greatly. The Bible gives us the qualifications for church leadership. The Bible is the ultimate authority on the matter, and the Bible never says one must abstain from alcohol in order to lead. Requiring this from your leaders adds extra rules onto their lives that God has not placed there. Disqualifying a leader because he/she occasionally enjoys a glass of wine or beer in a healthy manner is dangerous and legalistic. Churches should only require that their leaders submit to the biblical requirements for leadership and nothing else. Otherwise, we can go back to the days when men couldn’t wear hats and women had to. Let’s just start adding all kinds of rules.

    Comment by Matt — October 18, 2010 @ 5:22 pm

49. ACTX, I need to ask an honest question of you: did you read my article? Did you read all of Dr. Piper’s sermon? He makes a very strong argument for why he practices alcohol abstinence and the wisdom of that position. I do not take selective quote’s from John’s Oct. 14,1981 message on “Total Abstinence and Church Membership.” I affirm John’s postion of abstinence and his rationale, his position on church membership and his position on the greater dangers of legalism and pride in that legalism. You misrepresent both me and John. I would encourage others to read my article and the sermon of Dr. Piper and decide for yourself. You have the date and the title for easy referencing. It is good and healthy for us to debate issues like this. It is unhealthy for us to misrepresent others to strengthen our argument whether we do it intentionally or by accident. May we all, myself included, be better than this.

    Comment by Danny Akin — October 18, 2010 @ 5:30 pm

50. You have more rules than God does!

    Interesting points, I think as a personal guideline for yourself it’s a great standard you have set. But to set it as a necessary standard for other’s cannot be supported by the bible.

    Comment by David — October 18, 2010 @ 7:08 pm

51. Great post Dr. Akin, you said “John Piper teaches the wisdom of abstinence because alcohol can be a mind-altering drug, and it can be addictive.” Teaching the wisdom principle is great and I agree with many of your points throughout your article. However, teaching it is wise not to drink vs. my wisdom to abstain means you must abstain is significantly different, especially when you do not call the act a sin. If you called it sin, your argument would be constant, but since you admit it is not sin it appears to me that the SEBTS policy is inconsistent. With the highest respect for you and your ministry at SEBTS, Mike

    Comment by Mike — October 18, 2010 @ 7:15 pm

52. Contrast this pietistic legalism with God demanding beer for drink offerings:

    Numbers 28
    » (7) Its drink offering shall be a fourth of a hin for each lamb; in the holy place you shall pour out a drink offering of strong drink to the LORD.
    “Its drink offering shall be a quarter of a hin for each lamb. In the Holy Place you shall pour out a drink offering of strong drink to the LORD. (8) The other lamb you shall offer at twilight. Like the grain offering of the morning, and like its drink offering, you shall offer it as a food offering, with a pleasing aroma to the LORD.” (Num 28:7–8 ESV)

    http://www.bib-arch.org/bar/article.asp?PubID=BSBA&Volume=36&Issue=05&ArticleID=04&Page=0&UserID=0&

    Comment by Al — October 18, 2010 @ 7:56 pm

53. I respectfully disagree with your analysis, but kudos for a well-done essay that presents a compelling argument but respects those of us that do not agree.

    Comment by Tim — October 18, 2010 @ 8:09 pm

54. Great response by Bob Hayton. Scroll above and read!

    Comment by Daniel Patz — October 18, 2010 @ 8:27 pm

55. I find it interesting for all those who affirm drinking, don’t seem very interested in examining the manufacturing process of wine and alcohol today versus biblical times. Furthermore, the Deuteronomy passage that someone quoted also says, “whatever your appetite craves, go for it.” With California getting ready to vote on the legalization of marijuana, what will all those in favor of liberty do with that, should it pass? There is no way to deny those who want to smoke a little pot (in moderation of course) if you are sipping the wine or beer, once it becomes legal. The fact is that those who drink are not breathalizing themselves after every drink, in other word, they are determining for themselves when drunkeness occurs. So for those who want liberty and freedom to drink, don’t even try and say that you would be able to judge someone who smokes a joint. The only reason this is not a larger issue in the church is because the government declares it to be illegal (but not for long). Perhaps a question would be whether those who think that drinking is required would continue if prohibition went back in force?

    There is a slippery slope and it grows more and more by the day.

    Comment by Nate — October 18, 2010 @ 8:33 pm

56. Dan,

    Was Jesus in error when he consecrated wine at the last supper? And were the apostles in error for promoting wine in the Lord’s supper?

    Comment by Robin — October 18, 2010 @ 8:34 pm

57. I support Dr. Akin’s position as he has stated in this article. Best to stay away from it… why? Well, for one, it causes division as evidenced on these comments (it destroys families). Second,in my estimation, there is only one reason to drink alcoholic beverages and that is to take pleasure in the sensations it produces when drank in quantity (otherwise, a tasty soft drink quenches quite nicely.)

    When you as a Christian leader or even a lay person visit the home of a non-CHristian, what is the first reaction when you are offered a drink, the beer is pushed to the back of the refrigerator.

    If you as a Christian leader go to the local supermarket to get your hooch, wine, etc… and your co-worker whom you’ve tried to reach with the Gospel sees you, what is your first reaction, you try to hide it because you are ashamed…

    My point is that alcohol never edifies, it always destroys. It destroys Christian witness, it destroys relationships AND it destroys families on a daily basis, and yes it does destroy health. Try talking to the guy in the hospital with cirrhosis

    Comment by Charlie Fugate — October 18, 2010 @ 9:56 pm

58. Thank you for your wise and careful treatment of a topic that, unfortunately, is dividing a lot of brethren under the guise of Christian liberty. You have handled it wisely.

    I grew up in an SBC church, and the church covenant was posted at the front of the sanctuary. I remember reading “To abstain from the sale and use of alcoholic beverages” week after week while the owner of the local liquor sat behind my parents and me. Talk about a tough one to reconcile as a teenager! No one becomes an alcoholic without taking the first drink. As someone who dealt with this in our home, I would not wish that “liberty” on anyone.

    Comment by Paul — October 18, 2010 @ 10:07 pm

59. The nt affirms slavery. It is therefore unbiblical to oppose slavery. Rather, slavery should be practiced in moderation. (sarcasm)

    Comment by A lawyer — October 18, 2010 @ 10:32 pm

60. Alcohol does not cause cirrhosis. Consuming too much causes cirrhosis. Too much of a good thing is always wrong, but never makes a good argument for abstinence.

    The divisions caused by the issue are not usually caused by those arguing to drink in moderation. If anything, it is the other way around.

    [14] You cause the grass to grow for the livestock
    and plants for man to cultivate,
    that he may bring forth food from the earth
    [15] and wine to gladden the heart of man,
    oil to make his face shine
    and bread to strengthen man’s heart. (Psalm 104:14-15 ESV)

    Why should we deny ourselves and those in our churches this good gift of God?

    Comment by Andrew — October 18, 2010 @ 10:35 pm

61. Great Article Dr. Akin,
    I won’t act pious or self-righteous here. I went to college did not walk with the Lord like I should have. Part of that was engaging in what someone could easily call alcohol abuse. While I never got a DUI, an alcohol related arrest, or something of that nature, I consider it only by God’s grace that I didn’t. I still don’t consider myself an alcoholic, and understand and did the practice of “moderation” for years, until I had children.
    As a father to two girls (both toddlers), I believe that I am called to be the best father I can be to those two girls for the rest of their lives.
    That being said, I want to do nothing, that would cause me to fail in any obligation as a father (and husband). If my girls need to get the doctor in the middle of the night, or if I am far from them and need to get to them in a hurry, I don’t want to have to tell them, “Girls, sorry daddy can’t get there. I’ve had a drink or two, and it’s not safe for me to drive. Someone else will have to come get you.” That’s not the message I want to send. When they call Daddy, Daddy will get there.
    Also, as my girls get older, I want them to see that its perfectly fine to see Dad say “No” when someone offers me a drink. That saying “No” is fine, and you never have to give into peer pressure to do so.
    I have friends, that are Christians, that drink. They have kids the same age I do, and they drink. They are still my brothers in Christ, and I still socialize with them.
    But my girls come first, and I never want to do anything to embarrass them, their mother, and ultimately my Saviour.
    Thanks for being the ultimate hero Dr. Akin.

    Comment by David — October 18, 2010 @ 10:50 pm

62. Jesus drank alcohol.

    Comment by Tom S. — October 18, 2010 @ 10:54 pm

63. Dr. Akin, I appreciate your honest approach to this topic. I (as many others here) was raised to follow the SBC standard of abstinence, but I never heard a good argument as to why. As I studied Scripture for myself, it became clear that abstinence from alcohol just makes sense. Paul certainly encourages Timothy in 1 Tim 5:23 to drink “a little” wine with his water for the sake of his stomach and his “frequent ailments.” Contrary to some commentators, there is nothing here that would explicitly suggest that Paul had asceticism in mind at this point-he was merely giving Timothy some practical advice. The question I originally had was, “Why did Timothy not drink any wine in the first place?” Apart from taking a vow (e.g. the Nazrites), abstinence from alcohol is not that common in the Bible. Obviously, I do not have any concrete evidence to support this, but I think it is interesting to look at this passage in light of Paul’s letter to the Ephesians. Paul’s oft-quoted admonition to the Ephesians (5:17) is to not be drunk with wine, but to be filled with the Holy Spirit. I do not think that it is difficult to suppose that there were some in the Ephesian church-including the young leader Timothy-who took this instruction to the same conclusion that we do today: If we are not to be drunk, then it makes sense to avoid alcohol altogether. I think Paul’s reason why Timothy should drink wine is also interesting. It has nothing to do with the enjoyment of the drink or out of a sense of Christian liberty. It is very practical: “You are getting sick a lot. It would help you to drink a little wine with your water.” There was no reaching back to Old Testament imagery of wine being a symbol of God’s blessing and joy. It was a prescription.

    Historically, not only was the consumption of alcohol different (the Greeks actually viewed the drinking of undiluted wine as barbaric…talk about legalism!), but the manufacture of it was a far cry from methods used today. Modern breweries and wineries select varietals of grains and fruits specifically for the purpose of controlling the alcohol content, and production processes have been perfected to achieve the same purpose. The result is a beverage that would make the wine of Paul’s day crude and weak (or at least inconsistent) by comparison. Much of this is because despite knowing how to make wine, the ancient world had no knowledge of the biological processes that occurred to convert sugars and yeast into alcohol. They knew that you put this juice into that jar and after a certain time it smells and tastes different. Alcohol production was an art form; today it is a science. Distilled spirits are an altogether different issue. By all accounts, the process of distillation was unknown in the Mediterranean, and it was not widely practiced in Europe until around 800 AD. The process was supposedly developed in Asia around 800 BC, but it was rudimentary. This is of course because-as with the initial fermentation process-the chemical process of distillation was not understood until relatively recently.

    I bore you with all of this to say that the alcohol of Paul’s day-the manufacture, the availability, the quantity, and the cultural use of it-has little in common with the alcohol that we know today. There is obviously no Scriptural mandate to abstain from alcohol. In fact, I do not think it all unlikely that some believer somewhere on this planet is using alcohol today to make drinking water potable. There is certainly a use for alcohol, but in a Western culture that makes excess so easy, can we really say that its consumption as a beverage is wise?

    Comment by Micah — October 18, 2010 @ 11:03 pm

64. I have heard this discussed for years and the question comes to mind….

    Should we be concerned about anything that people fight for the right to practice, given that we are to “deny ourselves, pick up our cross, and follow”?

    Personal opinion: the top two “rights” that people fight for are…. homosexuality and alcohol.

    If we are not to get drunk, there are plenty of other non-alcoholic drink options. Coca-Cola has over 450 different products… a far cry from Jesus’ day. So why do you “need” that drink?

    Comment by Michael Shannon — October 18, 2010 @ 11:08 pm

65. Here is what I don’t get. Why do people like Charles Fulgate want to deny it is possible to drink appropriately? The vast majority if people can and do drink without sin. They are not drunken, they do not get out of control, they are within biblical guidelines. Some people actually like the taste and drink not to get drunk, but because they like the taste. Most of the people talking about the problems of drinking do not drink. It is a matter of culture, not real conviction.

    How can people so concerned with following scripture so clearly call for something that is not scriptural? Person after person have expressed concern about legalism. No one has said drunkenness is appropriate and everyone has said it is appropriate for people to make personal decisions for abstinence. But still there is a reluctance to address the main issue. How, or why, should we have make rules for leadership that exceed those of scripture. I would go further and say that blanket abstinence rules violate scripture, but even if we disagree on that point, I think it is still difficult to understand why this is such a big issue for the SBC.

    Comment by Adam Shields — October 18, 2010 @ 11:22 pm

66. Michael,

    Alcohol is called good by God (i.e. Ps 104:15). Homosexuality is called evil. There is a huge difference. Why should we call evil something God has called good?

    As for the process of making alcoholic beverages, there are too many blanket statements being made. If you want to oppose Annheiser-Busch, that is one thing. But don’t lump every producer in together. For instance, Guinness actually was produced to address the problem of drunkenness in Ireland. Many Christians home brew beer or make their own wine. Don’t make the error of judging the whole because of a few perceived bad seeds.

    Comment by Andrew — October 19, 2010 @ 8:30 am

67. And let’s not be so quick to say that something like wine should be replaced by coca-cola! Wine has scientifically proven health benefits, while coca-cola has only ever contributed to a growing and rampant obesity problem. Wine is good for the body (in moderation, of course), and coca-cola is not even in moderation.

    Comment by Matt — October 19, 2010 @ 9:33 am

68. Thanks for an insightful and irenic post.

    Something I find that is almost universally overlooked in this discussion is the proper identification of the substance known as “strong drink”—which to most Americans carries a cultural connotation of distilled liquor, or a drink with an above average alcohol content.

    The distillation of spirits came along early in the second millennium A.D. and is usually attributed to the Islamic world (note that our word alcohol is an Arabic loan word).

    So, what is strong drink? One word: Beer.

    Note that the NIV uses “beer” irregularly to translate Heb. shakar. In the Psalms and prophets “beer” appears several times, while “fermented drink” is in Pentateuch and Judges.

    The Greek NT uses sikera (cognate to Akk. sikaru) in Luke 1:15.

    Many years ago a University of Pennsylvania prof brewed Assyrian Beer from cuneiform text recipe for sikaru.

    And, to finish the story, several years ago in France I bought a few bottles of “Sikaru” beer.

    Let’s think about that before we impose our cultural pre-understanding on the biblical text with too much pressure. Admittedly, the pre-understanding is always there. The question is: am I willing to have my pre-understanding adjusted by the text of God’s word?

    Comment by Steve — October 19, 2010 @ 9:56 am

69. Adam–my point exactly about slavery. Jesus and Paul could have said a lot about ending slavery, but they didn’t. Therefore, it must be permissible. In fact, blanket prohibitions on slavery must be sinful.

    (sarcasm)

    Comment by A lawyer — October 19, 2010 @ 10:18 am

70. If we aren’t carefule in crafting our arguments against alcohol based on the pervasive abuses of its use that surround us today – we will one day be challenged to set aside preaching in our churches on the same grounds (this is being done already, btw). Its abuses are far more dangerous, its target audience (the church) is our primary concern, and its attacks know no limits of time, culture, society, creed or confession. I, however, am determined not to “stop or deny” what God has promised is good and “powerful to save” – - regardless of those who will abuse its use to the detriment and destruction of so many.

    Comment by Steve — October 19, 2010 @ 10:24 am

71. [...] The Case for Alcohol Abstinence Oct 14th, 2010 by Daniel Akin [...]

    Pingback by A word on alcohol « …F O L L O W… — October 19, 2010 @ 1:02 pm

72. For those of you who are comparing this to the NT teachings on slavery, I would suggest you take some time to study what you are saying. The NT never affirms the use of slavery in the way that American’s used it for much of our history. To compare the two is absolutely ludicrous. One is a personal choice that every able-minded adult is free to make, the other is the subjection of an entire race of people for generations. Let’s not try to compare the two. It’s not wise.

    Comment by Matt — October 19, 2010 @ 3:40 pm

73. Matt, I used a parenthetical “sarcasm” to indicate that I didn’t really agree with what I was saying.

    Just to be clear, the point I was trying to make was this: It is not an answer to say, in support of the proposition that an absolute prohibition on alcohol is sinful or legalistic, that “Jesus drank wine” or that the NT affirms the use of alcohol.

    Comment by A lawyer — October 19, 2010 @ 4:26 pm

74. Exit question: If a denomination sets up policies such that Jesus couldn’t join, can that denomination maintain intellectual integrity — of the sort that will withstand judgment in the sight of the LORD — and still claim the name “Christian”? If so, on what grounds?

    Comment by Eloquorius — October 19, 2010 @ 8:38 pm

75. A lawyer,

    The NT never affirms slavery as good, nor does the OT. The analogy does not work.

    Comment by Andrew — October 19, 2010 @ 10:13 pm

76. “It is true that alcohol has contributed to many going to hell, but pride, no doubt, has done so in even greater numbers. A smug, prideful abstainer without Jesus is just as lost as the poor drunkard who is always in search of another drink.”

    Please explain how alcohol has contributed to many going to hell.

    Comment by Faithalight — October 19, 2010 @ 11:04 pm

77. Andrew, I didn’t say the NT affirms it as “good.” I said it affirms the practice, which it does. See, e.g., Eph. 6:5-9; Col. 4:1; 1 Tim. 6:1-3.

    There are implicit recognitions of alcohol’s usefulness–Paul’s instruction to Timothy, for example–but does the NT affirm alcohol as “good”?

    With that said, I think NT teachings set a trajectory that, under certain circumstances, inevitably lead to the conclusion that slavery shouldn’t exist at all (e.g., the evil form slavery took in Great Britain and the United States).

    The same thing may be said about alcohol. Abuse of it in a particular culture may be so rampant that the wisest thing to do is to abstain.

    The NT teachings on alcohol and slavery are not a perfect analogy. But they are sufficiently similar to consider whether the logic that is being used by Dr. Akin and others who hold the position he advocates is valid, biblical logic.

    Comment by A lawyer — October 20, 2010 @ 9:36 am

78. A lawyer,

    The verses cited don’t leave the impression that slavery is inherently good, but regulate what is already occurring. The trajectory is not the same with alcohol. There are passages that praise alcohol as good, and a gift from the Lord. Why should we restrict the Lord’s gifts for church staff and seminary students rather than allowing them to enjoy His blessings?

    Comment by Andrew — October 21, 2010 @ 8:26 am

79. For those who say the Bible commends wine – yes, it does. But not all wine in ancient times was the same. Nehemiah mentions all kinds of wine (5:18), as do ancient writers. Aristotle, Hippocrates, Plutarch, Athenaeus and others indicated the sweet wine of their day would not intoxicate. God commends un-intoxicating wine, condemns alcoholic wine (Proverbs 20:1; 23:29-35; 1 Thessalonians 5:6-8). Un-intoxicating wine in found clearly in Proverbs 3:10 and Isaiah 16:10. The Septuagint translated the Hebrew words for wine (tirosh & yayin) in these verses with the Greek word oinos. Yayin and oinos could be either alcoholic or nonalcoholic wine.

    They could easily preserve nonalcoholic wine in ancient times: http://gulfcoastpastor.blogspot.com/2010/10/preserving-unfermented-wine-in-bible.html

    The word used for strong drink in Deuteronomy 14:26 is shekar. Shekar was a drink made from fruit other than grapes and, like wine, could be either nonalcoholic or alcoholic. We get our words sugar and cider from shekar. This sweetness would refer to the drink before fermentation would have taken the sweetness away. The NKJV does a good job in translating this word in Deuteronomy 14:26 as “similar drink.”

    Dr. Akin, this comment thread once again demonstrates the need to deal on a regular basis with abstinence from the drug of alcohol. Thank you for doing so.
    David R. Brumbelow

    Comment by David R. Brumbelow — October 21, 2010 @ 10:16 am

80. David,

    1) Oinos and yayin could be nonalcoholic
    2) Therefore, when the Bible calls wine good, it is only nonalcoholic wine.

    Is this what you’re suggesting? Your arguments seem to all be non sequiturs and special pleading.

    Comment by Andrew — October 21, 2010 @ 1:52 pm

81. In my view, preaching abstinence leads to other kinds of problems – when we prohibit things given for our enjoyment (sex, foods, drink) rather than teaching mature and proper use, we create spiritual infants. It’s arguably a form of Phariseeism – well meaning but misguided application of legalism.

    See my “more biblical” views in 10 Biblical Points about Alcohol and Drinking

    Comment by dgsinclair — October 21, 2010 @ 3:58 pm

82. Kenneth Gentry’s book, ‘God Gave Wine’ is a great read!

    Comment by ND — October 22, 2010 @ 2:38 am

83. John the Baptist abstained from alcohol during his entire life. Jesus could have done so also, but he chose not to.

    Comment by Wes — October 26, 2010 @ 9:13 pm

84. [...] I recently read two articles on opposing sides of the controversy and encourage you to read them HERE and HERE. Our favorite quotable theologian Luther who wrote about his love for beer only behind his [...]

    Pingback by Prudance or Legalism on Alcohol Consumption? « — October 27, 2010 @ 1:02 am

85. The Bible never says Jesus or His apostles drank alcoholic wine.

    While people of Bible times obviously had alcoholic wine, they also commonly drank and preserved nonalcoholic wine. Both were called wine.

    Scripture does, however, say to be sober (1 Thessalonians 5:6-8; 1 Peter 5:8; etc.).
    David R. Brumbelow

    Comment by David R. Brumbelow — October 27, 2010 @ 10:56 am

86. David Brumbelow, there is absolutely no historical or cultural or biblical support for that position. As much as some American Christians would like there to be. Why would Jesus have been called a drunkard, if he was always drinking non-alcoholic wine. And as his first miracle, there is no way that at a party Jesus would have made non-alcoholic wine and it have been appropriate to the situation or classified as really good wine. Intellectually, it just does not make sense to scripture. If we read scripture honestly, there is no way, we can claim that Jesus and his disciples would have never had any alcoholic wine.

    And again, everyone on this blog has agreed that drunkenness is a sin. No one is debating that.

    Comment by Adam Shields — October 27, 2010 @ 8:52 pm

87. Adam Shields,
    You are incorrect.
    Historical and cultural support: Everyone, or most everyone, agrees “must” is new unfermented wine or grape juice. Aristotle said must is a kind of wine. Plutarch has a confused discussion of why some wine intoxicates and some does not. Again, Aristotle said sweet wine would not inebriate. Pliny spoke of un-intoxicating wine. Un-intoxicating raisin wine was common, sometimes called passum.

    Biblical support: Proverbs 3:10 and Isaiah 16:10 clearly call unfermented grape juice or must, “wine.” The Jewish scholars of the Septuagint translated those words for wine with the Greek word oinos. Oinos is the word used in John 2; according to those Jewish scholars it can obviously mean unfermented wine. Isaiah 65:8 refers to a cluster of grapes as having wine in them; that is unfermented wine. Check out how many English Bible translations translate these OT verses with the English word wine.

    Pastors and scholars today, such as Jerry Vines, Jack Graham, Paige Patterson do not believe Jesus made intoxicating wine. Why was Jesus’ wine the best? Isn’t that kind of a foolish question? Anything Jesus makes it going to be the best. Jesus makes wine every year in every vineyard, in this instance He just hurried up the process. How can you believe the holy Jesus Christ made 120 gallons of a hard drug? If He came back today can you imagine Him making 120 pounds of marijuana?

    Do people ever have drug free parties and celebrations today? Of course they do. Even non-Christian folks do, partly because they know alcohol coarsens everything. They did the same in Bible times. Unfermented wine was common in Bible days, and easier to keep than fermented wine.

    Timothy abstained from alcohol, and had to be told by Paul to take a little wine (could have been fermented or unfermented) for medicinal purposes. Bishops (pastors, elders) are told to be sober and not be around wine.

    You said, “Why would Jesus have been called a drunkard, if he was always drinking non-alcoholic wine.” Using that same reasoning you could argue Jesus had a least a little demon possession since He was accused by His enemies of being demon possessed. But Jesus did not drink alcoholic wine, neither was He demon possessed.
    So that is just a little of the historical, cultural, and biblical evidence.
    David R. Brumbelow

    Comment by David R. Brumbelow — October 28, 2010 @ 9:40 am

88. This is an Occolm’s razor problem. Are there places where there were non-alcoholic wines in scripture. Probably. Is it likely that all are non-alcoholic? Absolutely not. But that isn’t even really the point. You are free to be abstinent. Repeatedly that point has been made. The problem is when we force others to be abstinent against their own conscious.

    Back to scripture. I think it pretty hard to say that Prov. 31:6-7, Jer. 16:7 would be talking about non-alcoholic drinks. In both cases they are talking about giving them a drink that will relieve their psychological pain. This was not for medical use, this was for drinking to relieve pain. Your point seems to be no where in scripture is alcoholic wine (or beer) commended. That is just wrong. Alcoholic wine is commended.

    I am not going to get in a scholar’s war. For every scholar you bring up, there are many others that say that wine that Jesus made was alcoholic. It would be pretty hard to find someone before 200 years ago that thought it would not be alcoholic, and even today the vast majority of the Christian world do not restrict alcohol like what is being suggested here.

    I would commend two other scriptures (1 Tim. 4:1-5 and Col. 2:20-23). I think they directly speak to the kinds of restrictions that are being suggested here.

    Comment by Adam Shields — October 28, 2010 @ 1:04 pm

89. David R. Brumbelow,

    You are wrong. You need to read Kenneth Gentry’s book!

    Comment by ND — October 29, 2010 @ 5:44 am

90. Adam Shields,
    Do you feel the same way about slavery as you do about alcohol? The Bible never directly says, “Thou shalt not own a slave? So are you against slavery? Do you believe it’s OK to be personally against slavery, but if you oppose others owning a slave, you would then be a legalist and Pharisee? Would you force others against their conscience to not own a slave? Slavery is wrong, and drinking is wrong.

    You say no one before 200 years ago thought the wine Jesus made was nonalcoholic. How about Chrysostom and Augustine.
    “Now indeed making plain that it is He who changes into wine the water in the vines and the rain drawn up by the roots, He produced instantly at the wedding feast that which is formed in the plant during a long course of time.” -Chrysostom (c. AD 347-407)

    “He that had made wine that day in those six water-pots does the same every year in the vines. For as what the servants put in the water-pots was changed into wine by the operation of the Lord, just so what the clouds pour forth is changed into wine by the operation of the same law.” -Augustine (AD 354-430)

    And a modern day scholar: “From a standpoint of logic, the “oinos” that Jesus produced was more likely pure, rather than fermented, grape juice, since that which comes from the Creator’s hand is inevitably pure.” -Dr. Paige Patterson; president SWBTS; Baptist Press (bpnews.net), July 7, 2006.

    You take 1 Tim. 4:1-5 and Col. 2:20-23 out of context. 1 Timothy 4:1-5 is not speaking of wine at all. Colossians is simply speaking against the Judaizers and against imposing ceremonial dietary laws. Do you think this Scripture permits the use of other hard drugs, if they’re legal? Have you noticed that Paul in this context says it’s wrong to impose “touch not,” yet in 2 Corinthians 6:17 he says the opposite? If you take them in context, there is no contradiction. Take your view and 2 Corinthians 6:17 is wrong.

    ND,
    The book you mention I have read. It seems to be the bible of moderate drinkers. It uses scant evidence to prove big things, and ignores much evidence. It is impressive only to those who do not know the other side of the issue. Others have answered him well, like: The Biblical Approach to Alcohol by Stephen M. Reynolds; Wine in the Bible by Samuele Bacchiocchi; The Bible and Its Wines by Charles Wesley Ewing; Alcohol Today by Peter Lumpkins; Wine, The Biblical Imperative: Total Abstinence by Robert P. Teachout. Those books include a Presbyterian, Adventist, Methodist, Baptists. I would encourage you to read them.
    David R. Brumbelow

    Comment by David R. Brumbelow — October 30, 2010 @ 4:17 pm

91. David, is there one place in scripture that says that slavery is a good created by God? No. But there are multiple places where alcohol is said to be a good created by God. So that comparison does not work. Neither does the comparison to hard drugs because scripture also says you should not be a drunkard. And again, no one here is suggesting that being drunk (or high) is appropriate.

    You are right, there are some before the last 200 years that suggested that complete abstinence is appropriate (or required). But your two citations from Augustine and Chrysostom do not show their greater work. Neither were proponents of abstinence, instead they were biblical proponents of moderation, which is what I am many others keep suggesting.

    As to you reading of the two scriptures, of course they are not expressly about alcohol. Let me be very explicit so you understand my reason for referencing those scriptures.

    The 1 Tim 4:1-5, while not about alcohol explicitly is suggesting that there will be many people that will teach improperly that sex, and food are inappropriate. Instead we should not bar people from things that God has said are good. The things that God has said are good should not be rejected but instead received with appropriate thanks. If we teach those in our care appropriately about the good of God and the larger truths of God, then people will have nothing to do with the inappropriate uses of sex, marriage, food and other things that can cause people to lose their faith and fall into sin. I think that teaching people the God given use and purpose of marriage, sex, food, alcohol, etc, actually will help people understand the positive use and be much more likely to help people not sin than just telling them, “though shall not.”

    The context of Col 2 is all about not putting on additional rules that are not in scripture. That is extremely relevant to this discussion. It is quite human to just say, do not touch alcohol at all because then you will never become an alcoholic. And it is quite alright for someone to make that decision for themselves. But that is not what this discussion is saying and is the opposite of what Col 2 is about. Col 2:16 explicitly is about alcohol, and not just alcohol but alcohol in the context of pagan worship. If Paul does not expressly condemn alcohol that has been used in pagan worship why should you say that a beer shared among friends in front of a sports game is wrong.

    Here is the summary is what I take from this whole discussion. Alcohol has hurt many people. There are many families that have been torn by addiction of all kinds. It is right and appropriate to minister to those in addiction and their families. But the problem is not the thing they are addicted to as much as it is the addiction itself. People can be addicted to many things that are good creations. Addiction is about sin, not the actual thing that people are addicted to.

    When we tell people something is bad and they should not be involved in it, without telling them the good that God has for them instead of the sin, then we tell them half a message. God did not tell us ‘you shall not…’ and leave it at that. God has an entire scripture of the story of how to live life in the world, using and enjoying the fruits of his hand, yet without sin. It is much harder, and takes more time to be with people and help them navigate through the difficulty of sex, beauty, sensualness of all kinds, and still be without sin.

    The root problem of legalism is not the fact that God does not want us to tell people that something good is bad, but that God wants us to tell the whole story of how good God really is. Stopping at ‘you shall not…’ ignores the rest of the story of God’s creation and of his desire that we as his children have all that a good father wishes for his children.

    I am sure there are many things that I believe that are wrong or incomplete, but I want to strive after what God has for me. At this point, I am learning more and more all the time, that God wants me to live a full life, not for my own enjoyment, but to glorify him and draw others to him. Tonight I will give out candy and enjoy the joy of small children. We all know that those children will be sick if their parents do not teach them moderation. But this is one more place where Christians can step up and show that people are really what is most important to God.

    Comment by Adam Shields — October 31, 2010 @ 5:20 pm

92. Adam,
    Your argument is that the hard drug of alcohol is permissible, even commendable, if taken in moderation. If that is true, then the same would apply to the drugs of marijuana, cocaine, etc., if they are legal and taken in moderation. And there are places where they are legal. That does not follow biblical principles. It would be a terrible, dangerous thing to teach children.

    Children of moderate drinkers are more likely to be drinkers, and abusive drinkers, than children of non-drinkers.

    Scripture never says God approves of alcoholic wine. God made arsenic and poison mushrooms, but we are not to ingest them.

    Previously, you finally agreed that there was nonalcoholic wine in the Bible, but indicated it doesn’t matter. Yes it does matter. God commends nonalcoholic wine, He condemns alcoholic wine. He describes alcoholic wine in great detail by its effects, and then says not to even look at it (Proverbs 23:29-35). God calls wine itself a mocker (Proverbs 20:1), that’s clearly the alcoholic kind. God says to be sober (1 Thessalonians 5:6-8). Jerry Vines says, “Moderately drink, and you will be moderately intoxicated.”

    The first thing alcohol does is take away your good judgment and slow your reaction time. Is it ever appropriate for a believer to have self-induced poor judgment?

    We are to moderately enjoy good things (Proverbs 25:16, 27 even says it is not good to eat too much honey.); we are to abstain from bad things.
    David R. Brumbelow

    Comment by David R. Brumbelow — November 1, 2010 @ 9:40 am

93. Clearly we are not going to agree on this. I am trying not to put words in your mouth, but you continue to put words in mine.

    I said there may have been some non-alcoholic drink in the bible that might fall under the same word as is used also for alcoholic wine. But it is clear from context that the word used for wine in scripture does not always mean non-alcoholic grape juice. To insist that every reference to wine, beer and strong drink actually means non-alcoholic when it is commended, but means alcoholic when we are told to drink it in moderation does not make sense to the text or to translation.

    Your argument about hard drugs does not make sense here because it lacks the requirement of being commended in scripture. Find me a place where scripture said that hard drugs are commended by God as good and then we can talk from there. This is the same issue about you trying to make my argument into support for slavery. I am reading scripture and trying to follow scripture as I understand it.

    You continue to insist that the first drop of alcohol makes you loose all judgement. That is not true and doesn’t make sense biologically, socially or in any other way.

    Your last statement is true and if you applied it to our discussion we would be in the same position.

    Comment by Adam Shields — November 1, 2010 @ 1:46 pm

94. This is why Christians should not drink.
    Here is one of the headlines on foxnews.com
    Drug Experts Say Alcohol Worse Than Crack or Heroin
    http://www.foxnews.com/health/2010/11/01/drug-experts-say-alcohol-worse-crack-heroin-1148653343/?test=latestnews

    Read that article and see how great alcohol is.

    I don’t understand why there is such a debate about alcohol among Christians. Lost people know that drinking is bad. That is one of the reasons some lost people are lost, they don’t want to have to “give up” drinking. Everyone agrees that being drunk is a sin but they claim to drink in moderation. What is the purpose of drinking if you are not going to get drunk? That is why people drink. If you are not going to get drunk then drink something else like tea or how about water.

    Now I cannot speak for everyone in the world but every single person that I have every know who drinks has at some point drinks and drives. Every single person. Everyone drinks and drives at some point.
    If you drink and have never been behind the wheel after drinking I would like to hear about it. Because I have known a lot of people in my life who drank and at some point they ALL drink and drive.

    Comment by Jay — November 1, 2010 @ 2:05 pm

95. Thank Jay. You have made my point for me. You said, “That is one of the reasons some lost people are lost, they don’t want to have to “give up” drinking.”

    When we place cultural prohibitions on the gospel then we are actually taking away the real gospel and replacing it with something that is less than the gospel.

    The requirement to stop drinking is not in scripture, it is not part of the church in most of the world and if it keeps people from coming to Christ or hearing the gospel then we have sinned by perpetuating it.

    Comment by Adam Shields — November 3, 2010 @ 8:11 am

96. I never said that people must stop drinking to be saved. The lost do not want to give up their sin. That IS a requirement for salvation. You are to repent of your sin and turn away from it, not continue in it. If you talk to lost people they know that being a Christian means that you live your life differently than a lost person. Believers are not to be conformed to this world.

    That is the problem today. Why are less and less people being saved every year? Because beleivers are not living out their faith. They are conforming to the image of the world and the lost do not see any difference in believers and unbelievers. Alcohol is part of the problem.

    Did you read the foxnews article?
    That is not a Christian study. They are scientists calling alcohol the most dangerous drug in the world. That is what alcohol has become. That is why Christians should not drink. It is unwise and you lead people to Hell. You may actually be able to drink and never get drunk, which I doubt, but maybe you can. But most people cannot. Christians drinking do more harm to the Gospel than good.

    You will cause a lot more people to stumble by drinking alcohol than by not drinking. I have never seen homes, lives, and families destroyed by drinking water. If we really care about bringing people to Christ then we have to deny self.

    If your drinking alcohol causes someone to deny Christ and go to Hell, is it really worth it?

    Comment by Jay — November 4, 2010 @ 11:39 am

97. The problem Jay is that drinking is not a sin. Even the original post said that. When you say the very act of drinking is a sin, then you are placing cultural constraints on Christianity.

    I did read the study. And it has a point. But it is the very same point that says that cars are more dangerous than airplanes. Not because planes are inherently safer, but because more people are in cars than are in planes. Do you realize that cars are the number one reason for death of children? They are not even driving. They don’t have a voice in their deaths. So should we as responsible Christians stop driving because it might cause the death of a child?

    Denying self is not the problem. I am all for denying self. But most of the people calling for complete abstinence from alcohol are people that don’t drink. They are not denying self. When I went to Europe to visit some missionary friends I was heard a torrent of complaints from French Christians about the fact that a number of short term missionaries from the US want to stop people from drinking more than they want people to hear the gospel. It is to the extent that some were resistant to having short term volunteers because they knew they would spend half of their time dealing with American Christian cultural issues not doing the work of the gospel.

    It may be that in your circle there really aren’t people that drink, so not drinking is the appropriate Christian response. All I am fighting for is the ability for Christians to make their own decisions about what is appropriate for them. When scripture does not prevent drinking (only drunkeness), I still think it dangerous spiritually to demand that people follow rules that Jesus and the apostles did not follow.

    Comment by Adam Shields — November 4, 2010 @ 2:26 pm

98. I never said that drinking is always a sin. If I were literally dying of thirst and the only drink that I could find was an alcoholic drink then I would drink it. If that is the only way someone can purify their water then that would be ok. But that is not happening in the US. If I went to a foreign country and they were having the Lord’s Supper with wine and by not taking it I would offend them, then I would drink it. I’m sure there are a few other instances that I can’t think of where drinking would be permissible. But in America where alcohol is so destructive and does no one any good, it is never a good idea to drink it.
    James 4:17 says “To him who knows to do good and does not dot, to him it is sin.” It is always a sin to cause someone to stumble, always. The fact is in our day and time here in America most of the time when a Christian drinks he is going to cause a weaker brother to stumble or even worse he causes a lost person to reject Christ. That is sin.
    Your argument is “scripture does not prevent drinking (only drunkenness).” Scripture does not prevent a married man from kissing a bunch of other women it only prevents someone from committing adultery. Do you think that it is a sin for a married man to do this as long as he doesn’t commit adultery? I guarantee 100% of the time that you will not get drunk if you do not drink.
    I have known some believers who have taken your stance on drinking till they tried to witness to someone and that person pointed out that he was a hypocrite for drinking and talking to him about Jesus. The ones that I know gave up drinking. These are people that I know, not just some that I have just heard about.
    Why don’t you try to witness to every person that you buy beer from and see how far you get? I will be willing to guess that they will not listen if they are selling you beer or liquor or whatever you drink.
    Prove me wrong. It’s a win win situation. If I’m wrong people will come to Christ by your witness and if I’m right maybe God will open your eyes as to why you should give up drinking.
    Lives are at stake. Lost people are looking at us. I may be free to do it but it is too big of a risk for me to take, if it is going to cause someone to go to Hell. If I get to Heaven and God says you could have drank all the beer you wanted, I didn’t miss out on anything.
    By the way, where I live I have to use a car. I live 25 miles from the grocery store. I cannot walk it every time that I need something. You don’t have to drink alcohol, you can drink water. There is a big difference. You choose to drink because you want to.

    Comment by Jay — November 4, 2010 @ 5:39 pm

99. Jay, we live in different places. The fact that I drink has opened up opportunities to witness to people. Yes, I agree that some people might stumble. But honestly, I think it is only those that grew up seeing alcohol as evil inside the church that do.

    I used to work as a drug and alcohol rehab counselor, primarily homeless. By the time that people were working with me they had lost everything. And most of the time we had to help them find entirely new ways to socialize because they had been emotionally stunted by alcohol. I understand the problems alcohol can cause.

    Lives are at stake, but so is the gospel. My position is not that drinking is not prohibited by scripture. My position is that drinking (in moderation) is advocated in scripture. Not just one or two places. I believe that when we put requirements on others that restrict what is advocated in scripture we tread dangerous spiritual ground. I am not saying it is bad to choose to not drink. I know many that have and I affirm them. I am saying it is very dangerous to tell others that they must choose not to drink, or even worse, place restrictions on leadership, like this post suggested, not based on scripture, but based on culture presuppositions. The primary cultural presuppositions are not those of the non-Christian world but the Christian world (at least in the circles I run.) If it were primarily non-Christians that I knew that did not drink or that were stumbling, then I would not be drinking. I am completely capable of denying myself. This is a pleasure that I enjoy, not a dependence. But honestly, I cannot remember the last time, if ever, I met a non-Christian that was offended that I drank. Surprise sometimes because so many Christians are against drinking, but not offense. It is only Christians that are occasionally offended. I have no problem offending Christians, they are not the ones we are called to reach.

    Comment by Adam Shields — November 5, 2010 @ 6:45 am

100. There are Biblical restrictions on drinking. The qualifications for being a Pastor and Deacon are “not given to wine”. Why would the Holy Spirit put that as one of the qualifications for leadership?

     You are right the Gospel is at stake. There are people on your side of this subject who water down the Gospel. They say that you don’t have to change when you get saved. You can get “saved” and still do the same things that you have always done. You are free in Christ so it is okay to do what you want. Now I don’t get the feeling that you would say that but there are those who do. They may not come out and say it that way but that is what they are teaching. We are free in Christ, that is free from sin not free to sin.

     Every single “Christian” that I know who drinks also lives in all kinds of other sins. And they may drink in moderation but they still get drunk every now and then. Maybe you are different but not many people are. You said it is a pleasure that you enjoy, which is true. There are no good reasons to drink and there are a million reasons not to drink. I don’t know how you can glorify God while drinking.

     There are a lot of earthly pleasures that we must give up to be a witness for Christ but the Heavenly reward is far greater. I would like to have a new BMW or Mecedes but the people in my community would think that I was getting rich off of the church. I would be causing people to stumble (Christians and nonChristians) so I will drive my Honda. It shouldn’t matter to anyone else what I drive but it does. I could lose some church members or cause someone to totally reject the Gospel.

     You said that you don’t have a problem offending Christians. I don’t think that you are using the word offending and stumbling interchangably but just in case let me say this. Jesus said “whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in Me to stumble, it would be better for him if a millstone were hung around his neck, and he were thrown into the sea.” (Mark 9:42) Because drinking can and does cause people to stumble(maybe not all people but some) it is best not to drink. You may not think that it causes anyone to stumble but you don’t know for sure. It is worth it to give up a pleasure if it will keep one person from stumbling. Jesus obviously took this very seriously.

     Comment by Jay — November 6, 2010 @ 11:40 am

101. Obviously we are not going to agree in the end.

     I want to make three points then I am going to bow out and let you have the last word.
     1) we need to be sure to read scripture fully and in context. The scripture you cited about leadership does not say “Elders and Deacons should never drink”. That is how you are interpreting it. But that is not what it says. Your reference to the millstone passage is also out of context. Jesus was talking about people that teach wrongly, primarily by putting non-biblical restrictions on the gospel.
     2) i think your last point is interesting but I wonder if you apply it to other areas as well. How do you deal with obesity, greed, and a host of other areas where people sin. Of course you should be working to be without sin, but we are always falling short. Part of our role is to help people live in this world and move toward sanctification.
     3) Every single non-drinker I know also lives a life that includes a number of other sins. Yes being drunk can facilitate some sin. But being judgmental facilitates sin, being a gossip facilitates sin, being rich can facilitate a host of sins. Being alive facilitates sin.

     Comment by Adam Shields — November 7, 2010 @ 2:25 pm

102. Jay,

     Legalism causes people to stumble too (and denies the Gospel by adding works). Paul did not circumcise Titus for this very reason. You are making far too broad a generality. Many of those who use the argument about causing a brother to stumble would not be caused to stumble by someone drinking. The argument is often disingenuous and manipulative.

     Comment by Andrew — November 8, 2010 @ 1:15 am

103. Andrew,
     Calling sin sin is not legalism. Causing a brother or a lost person to stumble is sin. There may be many who would not stumble by someone drinking but there are many who would stumble. We don’t know who will stumble. I have talked to so many lost people in my life who never see a real Christian. I have heard several say “that person says he is a Christians but he drinks and parties just like everyone else.” And I have never brought up the subject of drinking to these lost people. That is something that they bring up because they don’t see a difference in believers and unbelievers. Now I admit that these “Christians” that the lost see drinking are usually doing many other things that hurt their witness as well. But drinking is one of the first things that these lost people notice.

     I know that you are going to say that that is general. I cannot speak for every lost person or weak brother. But the fact is we don’t know what kind of damage we do by partaking in a “pleasure”. Even if only one person stumbles and goes to Hell, is it worth for us to use our “freedom” to send someone to Hell?

     As I have said before, there are too many reasons not to drink and no good reasons to drink.

     Adam,
     The passage in 1 Timothy says that pastors are “not given to wine.” What do you think that means? Now it does say that deacons should not be given to much wine. But again, they didn’t have bottled water then. We do.

     The millstone passage is not out of context. Jesus is addressing those whose cause any believer to stumble. Jesus goes on to say if your hand causes you to sin then cut it off. Jesus took sin seriously. We are to take drastic measures to keep from sinning and to keep from leading others to sin. We all sin and we will never be able to stop sinning till we get to Heaven but this one is an easy one. It never fails. You will not get drunk if you do not drink. There are many others sins that cannot be avoided so easily but drunkeness can. It is much harder not to be judgmental than it is not to be drunk because all you have to do is not drink. This is really one of the easiest sins to avoid. But when you play with fire you will get burned. The only reason to drink is to get drunk. Why else would you drink. If you don’t want to get drunk, then drink a non-alcoholic drink. This should not be an issue inside the church.

     One last thing. I would apply the stumbling argument to other sins as well. Paul did. He applied it to eating meat offered to idols. Read 1 Corinthians 8. I think that obesity is a huge problem inside the church especially with so many fat preachers. I know that people are built differently and some cannot help being big. But I will say that I think a lot of people can help it. It hurts their witness. I lost about 40 pounds 2 years ago by simply cutting back on what I eat and running. It can be done. And I haven’t gained it back.

     Comment by Jay — November 8, 2010 @ 4:27 pm

104. Jay,

     It is possible to drink not to get drunk. To say otherwise is simply not true. It goes against clear biblical evidence, such as Paul telling Timothy to drink a little wine. The Christian life is not about sin avoidance. It is about actively pursuing holiness. We can avoid sin and be disobedient. Jesus ate and drank with tax collectors and sinners.

     The Bible views wine as a gift from God. Chew on that for a while. Part of the problem is that most who argue for abstinence view alcohol in and of itself as unholy and a curse. That seems to be part of your problem.

     No one here is arguing that we should drink in front of everyone and be loose about it. If drinking in moderation causes someone to stumble, I won’t drink. This is rarely the case though. More often than not, the one who is offended is not the one who would stumble, but the one who is the self-appointed morality police (trust me, I’ve been one).

     Your examples from non-Christians probably have more to do with people who 1) drink to get drunk and/or 2) have an overall lifestyle that is incompatible with their claim to be Christian. Some of this is complicated by the fact that many of your non-Christian friends grew up in a context that told them that Christians don’t drink. Their perception is off, because of the past overstatements of Baptists, Methodists, and other denominations that have prohibited alcohol. We need to speak truth into this context, so that we don’t set obstacles in their way of coming to Christ. If they get the perception that they must stop drinking to come to Christ, then we may as well ask them to be circumcised too. If this is the case, then we have completely denied the gospel (see Galatians 1).

     Your arguments about not causing anyone to stumble need to be put in the proper context. When Jesus talks about someone stumbling, he is referring to a brother, not to those outside the Church. When Paul talks about eating meat sacrificed to idols, the issue is that some believers are returning to their past lives of idolatry. It is one of relationships between believers, not between believers and unbelievers.

     Comment by Andrew — November 10, 2010 @ 5:16 pm

105. It is possible to drink and not get drunk but why would you drink? The reason people drink is to get drunk. If you don’t want to get drunk then don’t drink an alcoholic drink. Plain and simple. Timothy did not have Tagamet. We do. They did not have clean water in Jesus’ day. We do. They had to do something to purify the water. They were not drinking the same thing as people drink today. The word for wine was a general term used for any grape juice product. Habakkuk calls it a sin to get someone else drunk. If Jesus turned the water into wine and then they got drunk off of the wine then Jesus was sinning. Obviously Jesus didn’t sin.

     As a Christian actively pursuing holiness we are to avoid sin at all costs. We are free from sin not free to sin. Disobedience is sin. We all agree that it is a sin to get drunk. Like I said earlier it is one of the easiest sins to avoid. Just don’t drink. It works every time. Just like the liberal world does not like sexual abstinence being taught. But it is guaranteed to work every time. If you do not have sex you will not get a disease.

     My problem is not that I view alcohol as unholy. My problem is there are “Christians” out there teaching people that it is okay to drink. Like Adam admitted above, it is a pleasure to enjoy. What makes it so pleasurable except getting drunk? Alcohol is a drug. Read the link that I posted just a couple of comments up. It is from foxnews and drug experts, not Christians, call alcohol the worst drug in the world. My problem is there are people who go to SEBTS knowing that they should not drink but when they graduate they are teaching people that you are free in Christ – drinking is not a sin so have at it.

     You may not drink “in front of everyone” but you have to buy your alcohol somewhere. And you hurt your witness and mine too. Because lost people don’t trust Christians because they rarely see a real Christian. They see a bunch of people who go to church on Sunday and live like them the rest of the week. Those of us who are true believers are called to be different. We are to be set apart from the world not just like them. Everyone on here who claims moderation says “rarely” is anyone actually caused to stumble. It may be rare but you admit that it does happen. It doesn’t matter if it is only one person. If my freedom to drink causes just one person to deny Christ and go to Hell then it is best to never drink. Because we don’t know who will stumble.

     The Bible teaches a lot of principles that we are to live by. Too many people think that if the Bible doesn’t said “thou shall not…” then it is not a sin. That is not the case. There are priciples for us to follow.

     You sound like you are saying that we need to be teaching lost people that drinking is okay. That is the last thing that we need to be doing. We need to be speading the Gospel of Christ. In America, in our context with all of the damage that alcohol does believers drinking damages the Gospel.

     Part of salvation is repentance. We are to repent of our sins, that is turn away from them. Did Jesus deny the Gospel when He told the rich young ruler to sell all of his possesions? Or was He adding to the Gospel? Having riches was a sin for him because it was obviously more important to him than faith in Jesus. If you are telling people that they don’t have to change, they can still live in their sin then you are denying the Gospel. The rich young ruler would be a deacon in a lot of our Baptist churches.

     Comment by Jay — November 10, 2010 @ 11:38 pm

106. Jay,

     You’re arguing in circles, and moving rapidly from gray areas to attempting to make everything black and white prohibition. First, let’s not call evil what God says is good. God repeatedly calls wine a gift. Wine with alcohol in it. He even says it’s a curse when Israel has no wine (Deut 28:39)

     Second, let’s learn how to reason morally within the gray areas. It is an uncomfortable place to be as a Baptist, I know (I am one). But we need to deal with it. It’s part of growing as a believer; learning to make decisions when you don’t have a black and white answer. The bigger problem is, when people hear the abstentionist/prohibitionist argument from Scripture and see the lack of scriptural support, you have lost their trust. If they can’t trust you to be fair with the evidence with alcohol, how can they trust you when it comes to, say, homosexuality? Dogmatic views on alcohol stand against Scripture, tarnish our witness, and decrease trust in our moral voice on other issues.

     Despite your statements to the contrary, you still think that drinking equals getting drunk. Otherwise, you would have no problem with people teaching moderation. It is beyond your comprehension that some people could enjoy a glass of wine over dinner. You need to seriously sit down and wrestle with this. Have you ever drank alcohol before? I’m not suggesting you go out and do so now, but perhaps your dogmatism here is a function of inexperience. If your only experience with alcohol involves drunkenness, perhaps it is time you spent time with a strong Christian man who enjoys alcohol in moderation. It could do much to redeem God’s good gift from a skewed view.

     Repentance is absolutely part of salvation. But drinking is not a sin. Drunkenness is the sin. Drunkenness is drinking too much, just like gluttony is eating too much (the Bible often places bread and wine together). If someone is guilty of drunkenness and comes to Christ, they must give it up. I would even encourage them not to drink, at least for a time. This is where the argument of idol meat comes in. If drunkenness is their idol, then they should handle with alcohol with extreme caution. If I am around someone who came from this sort of lifestyle, I absolutely will not drink. But the average Christian using this argument shows a complete misunderstanding of the context of 1 Corinthians 8 and Romans 14.

     If you want to compare drinking to sex, bringing in abstinence does not help your argument. Abstinence is the best policy ONLY for the unmarried. When you make this argument, you’re not considering Church history very carefully. The prohibition of sex (e.g. clerical celibacy – in similar fashion to Baptists requiring teetotalism in pastors), due to a misunderstanding of 1 Corinthians 7:6 (usually attributed to Augustine), has long been a problematic issue in the Church. What Augustine did for sex, the Prohibition and Temperance movements have done for alcohol. They have robbed the Church of God’s good gifts and condemned those who receive them from God in faith, with a clear conscience.

     I just completed writing a paper on this topic for Ethics class, and would highly commend to you Andre Bustanoby’s book The Wrath of Grapes: Drinking and the Church Divided, as well as Kenneth Gentry’s God Gave Wine: What the Bible Says About Alcohol. Both are even-handed surveys of the issues, with responses to many of the arguments made in the comments above. I’d also be happy to send you my paper if you’re interested.

     Comment by Andrew — November 12, 2010 @ 2:00 am

107. I found this quote from CS Lewis interesting in relation to the topic that will never end : )

     “One of the marks of a certain type of bad man is that he cannot give up a thing himself without wanting every one else to give it up. That is not the Christian way. An individual Christian may see fit to give up all sorts of things for special reasons—marriage, or meat, or beer, or the cinema; but the moment he starts saying the things are bad in themselves, or looking down his nose at other people who do use them, he has taken the wrong turning.”

     Comment by Mike — November 12, 2010 @ 6:03 pm

108. The only problem with this is that the Bible never requires abstinence from alcohol. The argument that the wine of the Bible is different from the wine of today is silly – we have no idea what the wine of the Bible was like except to most assuredly affirm it was alcoholic – enough so to get drunk on.

     Comment by Stan stiles — November 15, 2010 @ 10:13 am

109. Andrew,
     Sin is not a gray area. Sin is black and white. Like I said earlier too many people think that if the Bible does not say “thou shall not…” then it is not a sin. The Bible teaches principles that we are to follow although it may not say thou shall not do this or that.

     God also called sin a mocker. Proverbs 20:1 says “wine is a mocker, Strong drink is a brawler, and whoever is led astray by it is not wise.” This verse does not say anything about drunkenness. You say drunkenness is drinking too much but how much is too much. Now I know some people say that you are “drunk” from the first drink and I don’t believe that. I am now saying that at all. But how much is too much? Is it only when you cannot stand up straight? Or when you are legally drunk in whatever state you live? The issue here is wisdom. Is it ever wise to drink? I believe in our culture, in America 2010, alcohol does too much damage for Christians to be promoting it. Again, read the article that I linked a few posts up. Those are lost scientists who are calling alcohol the worst drug in the world. Alcohol is a drug. It is addictive and it destroys the liver. How is it good to destroy your body? You don’t have to be an alcoholic to destroy your liver. When you become a pastor one day and you have to deal with the problem of alcohol in the church, you will see that it is a huge problem.

     I do have a problem with people teaching moderation because the people that you teach are not going to drink in moderation. I have a friend who goes to a Methodist church and he told me “they tell us at our church that it is not a sin to drink.” So he drinks all the time and gets drunk all of the time. I am not sure if this guy is a true believer. I have my doubts not because of his drinking but because I have known him my whole life and he lives like a lost person. But his church is not leading him to Christ. If he is a believer, his church is not helping him grow in his faith.

     You can deny it all you want but most people drink to get drunk. Why else would you drink? Because as Adam said on here it is pleasurable? What makes it pleasurable? It is the buzz you get, which is drunkenness. When you drink a glass of wine over dinner, do you then get behind the wheel? I said on here earlier and no one has ever commented on it, but every single person that I have ever known who drank alcohol at some point they have all driven while drunk. I can’t speak for everyone but every person that I have ever known drinks and drives at some point. Have you ever been behind the wheel drunk?

     Drunkenness is a sin and it is always associated with drinking. You cannot get drunk without drinking. When I compared drinking to sex I was making the point that abstinence always works 100% of the time it never fails. I was not saying that married people should not have sex. You are just trying to twist what I said. I was making the point about abstinence. I cannot find any good reason to drink. You drink because you want to. That is what it comes down to. You are the one who needs to sit down and wrestle with this especially if you are going to be a pastor on day. You have to consider what you “freedom” says to other people and how it affects others. I’m a pastor. If I drank my ministry would be over. I would be fired. You may think that I need to be teaching my church that drinking is ok so I could drink and then I wouldn’t get fired for drinking. You have to take into account our culture and the destruction that alcohol IS causing in America today.

     I thought about what you said about spending strong Christian who drinks and I don’t know any. I’m not just saying this. I’ve never even met a mature Christian who drinks. I’ve met a lot of immature Christians who drink. I do know more than one mature Christian who had held the same view that you hold till it hurt their witness. They actually had unbelievers reject their witness because they drank “moderately.” They have since changed their view on drinking. There are far more mature Christians who have the same view as I do like Danny Akin, Johnny Hunt and John MacArthur. You should listen to Johnny Hunt’s sermon I think it is titled “Should Christians drink?” I think you can google it and listen to it for free.

     John MacArthur says this about the qualifications of a pastor. “This quality is not concerned with whether or not he gets drunk. Obviously, someone given to drunkenness would in no way be qualified for the ministry. An elder who is not addicted to wine is a man who does not have a reputation as a drinker. He doesn’t frequent bars or involve himself in the scenes associated with drinking.”

     As Mike said above, this topic will never end so this will be my last post (I hope). Let’s consider others above ourselves. If drinking leads someone to reject Jesus then we should not drink. The wise thing to do is not drink.

     Comment by Jay — November 15, 2010 @ 10:55 pm

110. Jay,

     You still are equating drinking with drunkenness. The proverb you quoted contains a literary device that you misinterpreted. Wine and strong drink are not the culprits. Wine does not mock, nor does strong drink brawl by themselves. These are poetic ways of expressing drunkenness.

     Notice that you are using culture to trump God’s Word. Every pastor you cited is American. Go back through Christian history before the 1800s and the story changes. Look at churches outside the US who have not been culturally reproduced by American missionaries. You will discover that this issue is viewed much differently. What about Luther, Wesley, and the Church Fathers? I believe it was Ambrose that listed among the qualities of heretics ‘those who refused wine.’

     If I have an occasional glass of wine over dinner I am not sinning. If I drink, it is very rare. So don’t hear me promoting the kind of drinking that you are assuming. I’m not drinking and driving. I’m not getting drunk. Don’t jump from having a drink to getting drunk. It is a careless argument and is unmoving to hurl these accusations. If you are going to accuse someone of sin, you better have the Bible backing you up.

     Comment by Andrew — November 17, 2010 @ 10:55 am

111. Not unmoving. Unloving is what it should say. Silly auto correct.

     Comment by Andrew — November 17, 2010 @ 10:57 am

112. Here is the Bible backing it up.
     Isaiah 5:11; Proverbs 20:1; 23:20; Romans 13:13; Galatians 5:19-21; Ephesians 5:18; 1 Corinthians 3:16-17; 6:9-10, 12; Romans 14; 1 Corinthians 6; 1 Corinthians 9
     Believers are a “royal” or kingly priesthood (I Peter 2:9). We are the temple of God (I Peter 2:5). We are Gods special children and should choose total abstinence.
     Drinking, even social drinking, cannot be legitimately supported by the Bible. Every drink that is available today, even beer, falls into the category of unmixed or strong drink. Clearly, Christians should not drink alcoholic beverages. Drinking socially is a worldly activity and in light of the fact that believers are neither to be conformed to the world (Romans 12:2) nor love the world(I John 2:15) our choice should be clear. We ARE to be SEPARATE FROM the world (II Corinthians 6:17) and LIGHT TO the world (Ephesians 5:8; Phillipians 2:15). Perhaps social drinking has enhanced the acceptability of Christians in society, but it has not advanced the cause of Christ, and it does not glorify God! Social drinking is simply a means which the devil uses to blunt our testimony for Christ and squeeze us into his mold.
     You may not think that drinking is a sin but as Dr. Akin said “I challenge anyone to show me the superior wisdom of drinking “in moderation,” as opposed to not drinking at all.”
     This is my last post. May we all be wise and consider others above ourselves when we go out into a lost and dying world.

     Comment by Jay — November 17, 2010 @ 6:16 pm

113. Verses against drunkenness are not verses against drinking.

     Comment by Andrew — November 19, 2010 @ 12:14 pm

114. Here is the best, post I have seen, with lots of biblical citations for why a blanket “no drinking” recommendation for others is the wrong biblical approach. Jay, I think this directly addresses your request for superior wisdom. I am not at all saying that you should drink. That is a decision for you to make. But saying to others that they should never drink is just not biblical.

     http://www.fundamentallyreformed.com/2006/03/20/wine-gladden-heart/

     Comment by Adam Shields — November 21, 2010 @ 6:23 pm

115. 2 questions that I always think of when engaging this debate
     1. does the bible indicate the relationship that a believer should have with alcohol?
     2. is that relationship one of abstinence?

     I think any honest bible scholar will answer yes to 1 and no to number 2. so with what authority can we encourage abstinence?

     Comment by Stan — June 1, 2011 @ 11:26 pm

Leave a comment