Sunday, July 16, 2006

Alcoholics Anonymous

For those who may be having trouble with their addiction to the moderation of alcohol I have some great news! The first step in the road to recovery is admittance:)

On a serious note, beginning this Wednesday, I will be posting some articles written by different leaders in the SBC, which may be very insightful to the ethical dilemma we are facing. I believe this issue deserves our attention and sober contemplation. Therefore I have asked the leaders of our Southern Baptist agencies, our current president, and two past presidents who helped lead the resurgence to write an article; each bringing their own clarion insights to this hot-button issue. Once I have received all the articles I will conduct a qualitative research study looking for common themes or motifs and post the results.

Dr. Danny Akin, Dr. Roy Fish, Dr. Richard Land, Dr. Frank Page, Dr. Paige Patterson, Dr. Phil Roberts, and Dr. Jerry Vines have already agreed to participate. I have requested that those who have chosen, or will choose to participate have their articles to me by July 24th. Since I already have four, I have chosen to begin posting them this week. Dr. Fish is out of the country and will submit his article later.

Wednesday I will explain the study, noting the essence of qualitative research as well as the methodology to be used. Further I will express my current understanding of this issue. Thursday, I will post the first article written by Dr. Jerry Vines.

I will not edit the articles in any way. However, while I am running this series I will post comments from previous Southern Baptist resolutions, and research/statistics concerning alcohol consumption.

I am making the assumption that the majority of us interested in this topic (no matter what our current position is) approach it with a teachable spirit, an open-mind and a desire to learn. I further assume we can learn from these men. May God be honored as we seek truth.

Finally, I want to personally thank all those who have chosen or will choose to participate, for taking the time out of their already strained-schedules to help us gain more clarity on this issue.

61 comments:

posttinebraelux said...

Brad,
It's interesting that you desire that those who would peruse this set of blogs have an "open mind and teachable spirit" when, in fact, you have chosen for your articles gentlemen who, albeit laudable scholars, hold the same position regarding alcohol consumption that you do. It seems to me that if you desire an "open mind and teachable spirit" from others, you would require of yourself - i.e. that you would truly desire a diverse panel of scholars. That's just me, though.

Your open-minded friend,

PTL

Christopher Redman said...

I had a comment but I decided not to post it but can't we just move on now?

IN HIS NAME said...

BRAD, BRAD, BRAD,

WHERE HAS OUR WITNESS GONE.

A Brother in CHRIST

sbc pastor said...

Brad,

I look forward to reading the thoughts of these men of God concerning the Biblical teaching in regards to beverage alcohol. Certainly, these are men that our convention has faithfully entrusted with leadership and there is nothing wrong in that they are all in the "abstention" camp. Truly, it's a Big camp - 90% of the messengers at this year's convention agree with them, and it’s a Biblical camp – 100% of the Scripture agrees with them. I am sure that someone in the “moderate” camp is having a fit over that statement:) - but I hope not:)

Thanks and God bless!!!

In Christ,
JLG

peter lumpkins said...

Dr. Reynolds,

Thank you for your project in securing credible essays from various SBC leaders and voicing concerns over the recent fiasco bent on making an issue out of alcoholic usage.

Some, like our good Brother, Christopher, think its time to move on (by the way, thanks Christopher for your ditto comment on my site as well:D

However, those of us who hold moral reservation on alcohol consumption are definitively not the ones who drew fisrt blood by suggesting we should "Drink with Jesus" or "Wine while we Witness."

Hence, it may very well be irresponsible, from my view, to let it drop when Libertines broadside by charging that being a non-advocate of comsuming alcoholic beverages exclusively for pleasure purposes may be moral tradition but it is Biblically bankrupt.

Personally, I think such a charge deserves a careful answer. Thus,I, too, plan a series on sbctomorrow.com. Indeed, I've already got some discussion started about it.

I trust your day goes well. With that, I am...

Peter

brad reynolds said...

PTL
I do not know all the positions of all our leaders. I did not choose them for the position on alcohol but rather for their position of leadership
BR

brad reynolds said...

In his Name

Your question is exactly why I felt the need to address this.
BR

brad reynolds said...

Chris

I must agree with Peter.

And Peter thanks for your post I will peruse your blog

BR

Christopher Redman said...

If 90% of the messengers agree and voted in the affirmative of the resolution, fine. Are you really persuing this subject with such vigor over the 10% in dissent?

Frankly, the biblical argument by concernedsbcer is stronger than that espoused by Dr. Patterson's article in BP. However, if the issue is primarily the abuse of alcohol and the problems of the alcohol industry in our culture, then say so. If it is merely an issue of being a better witness and not supporting the alcohol industry financially, then say so. But to continue a rant that Jesus did not turn water into fermented wine is, honestly, overstepping scripture. To insist this view is "authoritative" is simply not true. At best, and I think it is grasping, but at best it is only a possibility.

Sound Doctrine is not constructed and taught as authoritative based on a possibility.

This is really an issue of tradition and a rebuke of the evils of alcohol abuse. Why can't we be honest enough to say what this is really about?

Or perhaps this really boils down to driving a wedge between some calvinists and some fundamentalists in the SBC.

CR

brad reynolds said...

Christopher,
I appreciate very much the spirit you have always posted with and may we continue in that spirit.

I have addressed the concernedsbcer’s flawed responses to Dr. Patterson’s article under my last comment on my post “legalism and alcohol”.

However, calling a qualitative study on the perspectives of the leaders of the SBC agencies a “rant” is revealing of your presuppositions. Perhaps the direction that truth is headed may not be the direction the 10% desire. But let us pursue truth. If truth brings a wedge then so be it.

If this were an issue of tradition or abuse I would not be pursuing it.

Wednesday when I explain my position I will address the inconsistencies I see in those who hold the moderationists view (which include the seeming denial that alcohol is a mind-altering drug and thus their belief that it is somehow classified differently from other mind-altering drugs; and the seeming denial that oinos usually referred to fermented wine mixed with water in that culture).
BR

posttinebraelux said...

Brad,
You know very well what the positions of those you've asked to respond are and to say that you don't is misleading. I must say that I agree with Christopher about the 90% - 10% issue. Why is the SBC so concerned about the evil moderationist position getting out of hand if only 10% of the representatives hold that position? If your point is to confirm that the majority of the SBC leaders hold the position that the moderationists are sinning by consuming alcoholic beverages for pleasure, then you will accomplish two things: (1) you will lend fuel to those who would continue in their condemnation of moderationists (I'll not point to any specific individuals, but several come to mind :) ), and (2) you will further encourage moderationists to affiliate with a denominational organization who more closely holds to what they believe is the more Biblical position regarding the consumption of alcohol. Neither of these outcomes are what I would want were I an SBC leader engaged in such a "grey" issue.

Peterfrank,
I'm sure I haven't seen nearly as many blogs/comments as you, but I don't think I've seen even one where moderationists refer to the abstentionist position as "spiritually bankrupt." That may be a bit strong, don't you think? I believe that those who hold an abstentionist position based on their interpretation of Scripture (and not based on the fact that their pastor told them it was sin)are to be applauded for their convictions and diligence in Scripture study - as are the moderationists.

Searching for Truth,

PTL

brad reynolds said...

All
I have read PeterFranks post and he does an excellent job of addressing the issues.

Find it as www.sbctomorrow.com
BR

brad reynolds said...

PTL
I sincerely do not know the positions of all the leaders of the SBC agencies. I did know the position of a few. I assume that if there are some who do not hold the position of the convention they will probably choose not to participate. Although some are unable to participate for other reasons. Dr. Iorg, who affirms the position of abstinence according to the e-mail he sent me is unable to participate but beleives Dr. Akin's article is sufficient. Dr. Rainer is very approving of this study but has prior writing commitments.

We are certainly agreed that those who sincerely search Scripture for truth on this issue are to be appluaded no matter where they are in their current understanding.
BR

Christopher Redman said...

Brad,

With all due respect, your comment on the "flawed response of the concernedsbcer" (comment 90 on Legalism and Alcohol) was not monumental in shifting the argument in favor of your position.

At best, this is a "grey" area and most all of the arguments against fermented beverage are "from silence" or "assumed" based on some "linguistic" study of some dead language that isn't even hebrew! Or from some biased idea that Jesus could not have produced fermented wine because that's a sin and Jesus didn't sin. (Logic from a preconcieved bias is not exegeting biblical truth.)

And I agree, "if the truth brings a wedge so be it" but let the wedge be based on the authoritative, innerent word of God and not some "argument from silence" and some "assumed" cultural logic.

A wedge forged on anything less than Absolute Truth is a sin. "These six things the Lord hates, yes, seven are an abomination to Him...(#7) one who sows discored among brethren."

CR

sbc pastor said...

I too agree that Peter's comments at sbctomorrow.com are great, and his guidelines for posting on his site are terrific! I also think that he is right on when he speaks of those who are "wining" as "whining":):):) Moreover, I am glad that the blogosphere has more and more new faces with a different (make that Biblical:))perspective. God bless!!!

In Christ,
JLG

Christopher Redman said...

Brad,

With all due respect, your comment on the "flawed response of the concernedsbcer" (comment 90 on Legalism and Alcohol) was not monumental in shifting the argument in favor of your position.

At best, this is a "grey" area and most all of the arguments against fermented beverage are "from silence" or "assumed" based on some "linguistic" study of some dead language that isn't even hebrew! Or from some biased idea that Jesus could not have produced fermented wine because that's a sin and Jesus didn't sin. (Logic from a preconcieved bias is not exegeting biblical truth.)

And I agree, "if the truth brings a wedge so be it" but let the wedge be based on the authoritative, innerent word of God and not some "argument from silence" and some "assumed" cultural logic.

A wedge forged on anything less than Absolute Truth is a sin. "These six things the Lord hates, yes, seven are an abomination to Him...(#7) one who sows discored among brethren."

CR

Christopher Redman said...

sbc pastor -

I too have noticed your chorus of "amens". Keep up the good work and one day you too might become president of the SBC.

CR

sbc pastor said...

CR,

I think I just heard some more "whining" or "wining" - one or the other:):) God bless!!!

In Christ,
JLG

Christopher Redman said...

And blessings to your future candidecy.

brad reynolds said...

Gentlemen,
Let us keep the :)'s coming so that others know you are jesting with each other :)

Also, Chris, If oinos meant wine in that day and was translated as such, but the content of alcohol was closer to the consistency of root beer would you still claim it an argument from silence?

In other words, to ignore what oinos was referring to (wine mixed with water) and to assume it was referring to California Chardonnay is not exegesis.

Further, pointing out what oinos was, is not an argument from silence.

I also agree it is good to see many new blogs with different perspectives. One should always be open to new ideas.
BR

sbc pastor said...

Thank you, but please make a note that it is spelt "candidacy," not "candidecy." Oops! I'm just being fundy, I mean funny:) God bless!!!

In Christ,
Jeremy

Christopher Redman said...

Now that I know we are competing in the national SBC spelling bee -

Brad,

The natural and consistent reading of John 2 clearly implies "the best wine" that was served last was that which was fermented. To argue otherwise is an argument from silence.

CR

brad reynolds said...

Chris
To insist that "oinos" in this passage meant "fermented unmixed alcohol" is actually the argument from silence.

I know not how you moderationist address Jesus contribution to people getting drunk at the Wedding Feast as your argument implies...but I feel certain from reading the other moderationsist arguments that some hermenuetical principle will be neglected:)
BR

posttinebraelux said...

All,
Simply adding a :) to the end of a mean-spirited post does not negate the force of the comment. :)

PTL

posttinebraelux said...

Brad,
To argue that oinos referred to some drink that was mixed 3/1 (or whatever your exegesis determines) is actually a better example of an argument from silence. There is adequate Scriptural indication that oinos had the potential to inebriate - there is NO Scriptural indication that it didn't (i.e. that it was some diluted drink that had "effectively" no alcohol content).

Cheers,

PTL

Christopher Redman said...

Okay, so my argument is from silence and your argument is from silence. And this is my point exactly, why are we devoting so much time and energy into dividing brethren over arguments from silence? Were you there at the wedding feast? Can you attest under oath that the wine was on the level of root beer by first hand experience? If you can't attest under oath, why insist you have the final authority on this subject?

And with that, Dr. Reynolds, you and the SBC pastor may have the last word. I'll bow out of this discussion.

BTW, I'm really not a moderationist. I don't drink.

CR

brad reynolds said...

PTL
Your caution is well-received hopefully by all. However, the assumption that any have a mean-spirit when jesting with each other is an assumption that should not be made. Although I don't assume you have that assumption:)
BR

mom2 said...

BRAD, BRAD, BRAD,

WHERE HAS OUR WITNESS GONE.

A Brother in CHRIST

This to in His name,
I am not sure what you mean by asking this of Brad. I am afraid that you are asking the wrong side of this issue.
Maybe it has gone to the wind because when the lost looks to us as Christians, they cannot see any difference. A Christian with a beer in his hand looks no different than the lost man with a beer in his hand.

brad reynolds said...

PTL and Chris
I have not arrived at the point where I feel comfortable saying that renowned NT Greek Scholars do not know what "oinos" referred to and therefor they speak from silence.

We do know the Bible's attitude toward strong drink (California Chardonnay).
BR

peter lumpkins said...

All,

Thank you, Dr. Reynolds, for taking the time to read my post on Whining & Wining in the SBC (Not to mention plugging it!).

A couple of things: First, I appreciate, posttinebraelux, the exhortation that my conclusions were "a bit strong" about the non-teetotalers accusing teetotalers of a "spiritually bankrupt" position.

However, I think I said "Biblically bankrupt", did I not? My conclusion is based on my perception of their charge that "tradition" [teetotalism] wins out over "Scripture alone" [non-teetotalism], which is Sufficient. I question that.

Also, I feel there is room, even in the teetotalism side, for variance to exist. Not knowing what Biblical view to which Dr. Reynolds personally adheres--other than we both plant ourselves squarely, it seems to me, in the teetotalism garden--I anticipate his Scriptural understanding of the issue.

I am guessing privately we will disagree on at least one of the issues brought up here. But I will await his post.

Our good fortune is, my Brothers, we have some voices like Dr. Reynolds who make themselves vocal for the masses of SBs who may not be ably equipped to publically speak out, but nevertheless are teetotalers to the core and base their position on not what Moma said, but what they believe "thus saith the Lord."

Have a great day. With that, I am...

Peter

posttinebraelux said...

Mom2,
A true Christian will ALWAYS look different than a non-Christian - not by what he's holding in his hand, but by what he harbors in his heart - the love of Christ. True, A Christian holding a water hose may look no different than a non-Christian holding a water hose; it's his actions, however, that determine the difference - not what he's holding.

Grace and peace,

PTL

mom2 said...

peterfrank,
Our good fortune is, my Brothers, we have some voices like Dr. Reynolds who make themselves vocal for the masses of SBs who may not be ably equipped to publically speak out, but nevertheless are teetotalers to the core and base their position on not what Moma said, but what they believe "thus saith the Lord."

If you threw this comment to me, I believe Paul also thought that not all things were profitable for Christians even if they were not forbidden.

posttinebraelux said...

Peterfrank,
You're exactly right about my comment - you didn't say "spiritually bankrupt", but rather "Biblically bankrupt." My apologies - and I mean that. Let me add, however, that I still haven't heard anyone refer to the abstentionist position as Biblically bankrupt (or spiritually bankrupt). I believe that both sides have provided Biblical basis for their positions. Even more reason to allow liberty in this area. As I've said before - wait, I didn't say this, Paul did - for those who do not eat, do not judge those who eat, and for those who eat, do not despise those who do not eat. That, by brothers, is Christian charity.

Grace and peace,

PTL

mom2 said...

posttinebraelux,
A true Christian will ALWAYS look different than a non-Christian - not by what he's holding in his hand, but by what he harbors in his heart - the love of Christ. True, A Christian holding a water hose may look no different than a non-Christian holding a water hose; it's his actions, however, that determine the difference - not what he's holding.

That response doesn't smell right. I don't think I would need to have to answer for my witness because I might be holding a water hose in my hand. What level of education should I need to figure that out?

brad reynolds said...

PTL
What he harbors in his heart will guide what he picks up by his hand - no implication is intended - just a note that our inner holiness will express itself outwardly.

Mom2
Your wisdom gained by age, experience and your love of God and His Word is appreciated. Dr. Rogers is also one of my favorites:)
BR

peter lumpkins said...

Dear Mom2,

My deepest apologies. No, not at all. I honestly did not even see--nor notice--your screen name.

My comment was a metaphor suggesting that tradition, in its worst light, is dependent exclusively upon what others tell us--in this case, "My Moma told such-n-such and I believe Moma" reather than Revelation from God... Scripture vs.Tradition.

Hope this helps, Mom2. With that, I am...

Peter

mom2 said...

Mom2 does not hold grudges or worry for very long about differing opinions. I just want to honor God with my life and have my prayers answered, because I have been in some places that I was totally helpless, but He showed such love and mercy to me that I will not forget.
The news should be a wake up call to all Christians. Please pray for the peace of Jerusalem. God Bless.

Jamie Wootten said...

CR,

It burdens me that we would even be spending precious time defending the alcohol industry. I tend to agree with Brad, Dr. Akin and others that a 1 to 1 comparison of 1st century alcohol and 21st century alcohol isn't accurate. But even if we concede that there is disputable evidence for both sides of the argument, with that much "grey" area shouldn't we err on the side of caution and wisdom? Shouldn't we totally reject a substance like alcohol which requires PERFECTION in order to practice moderation? How many of us are comfortable enough in our walk with Christ to boast that we will be perfect in our handling of an addictive substance such as alcohol?

posttinebraelux said...

Brad and Mom2,
Yes, inward holiness is expressed through outward actions - those which display or fail to display the love of Christ. I still fail to see how holding a glass of wine (or beer, or anything for that matter) demonstrates a lack of love toward another. If you're trying to say that the lost world will see us holding a beer and judge us according to their idea of morality, then are you saying that we should submit to the mores of the unsaved simply so our "witness" won't be judged? Surely that is not your argument. If you're trying to say that other Christians will see us holding a beer and judge us because of that, it is not the beer holder who is guilty of sin - it is the judgemental brother (according to Rom. 14). In either case, holding a beer displays neither charity nor lack of charity unless your intention is to bash another about the head with the glass of beer - in which case, it most certainly is sin.

Sola Deo Gloria,

PTL

Christopher Redman said...

Mr. Wooten,

Please sir, I have not defended the alcohol industry. Please refer to my post -

"However, if the issue is primarily the abuse of alcohol and the problems of the alcohol industry in our culture, then say so. If it is merely an issue of being a better witness and not supporting the alcohol industry financially, then say so. But to continue a rant that Jesus did not turn water into fermented wine is, honestly, overstepping scripture. To insist this view is "authoritative" is simply not true. At best, and I think it is grasping, but at best it is only a possibility...

This is really an issue of tradition and a rebuke of the evils of alcohol abuse. Why can't we be honest enough to say what this is really about?"

If you interpret this as defending the alcohol industry, I suppose we have more to discuss.

CR

IN HIS NAME said...

mom2 and utters,

Nowhere in GOD'S WORD does it say drinking Wine or Beer is a SIN.

I personally don't drink other than a rare occasion, Weddings etc.

I would never witness or degrade MY LORD and SAVIOR by suggesting anyone have a drink of Wine or Beer.
I do not look down my nose at those who drink a glass of Wine or a can of BEER.

If a brother or sister were doing it (drinking) in excess I would caution them of downing the HOLY SPIRIT with something in excess. (FOOD, DRINK, and SMOKING).

People did not use Drugs any stronger, than those mentioned, when I was a younger one.

I REPEAT, Nowhere in GOD'S WORD does it say drinking Wine or Beer is a SIN.

We are beginning to look like Legalist and loosing our WITNESS with all the NEWS ARTICIALS in the BAPTIST NEWS.

A Brother in CHRIST

PS: 1Co 3:2 I fed you with milk, not solid food, for you were not ready for it. And even now you are not yet ready,

mom2 said...

I wonder how many of those defending the consumption of alcohol would be as vocal in defending the gospel. I think the SBC has a right to set up guidelines for our denomination and for those that got so upset with the guidelines, I suggest you take your grievances to the Lord in prayer. If He comforts you in your beliefs, why not keep your defense to yourself and Him and not take the chance of offending a weaker brother or sister. Our denomination has had this same stance for years, why the uproar now? Could it have to do with the present culture? Do we wish to please culture or who?

posttinebraelux said...

Mom2,
I'm not sure that argument is the correct answer. Had Luther "kept his defense to himself and not taken a chance on offending a weaker brother or sister", He certainly would have been sinning against himself and God, no? Are you suggesting that, in those areas where a substantial number of SB'ers believe the SBC to be wrong, they are to hold their tongues simply because our denomination has had this same stance for years? Surely that is not what you are saying. I cannot allow my desire "not to offend a weaker brother" to supercede my desire that the ministers of God's Word proclaim truth (Truth being that God's word is ambiguous at best regarding alcohol - not that moderationism is the correct stance). :) I'm sure you would be the first to agree, however, that I believe this issue - like all other issues - can and should be debated in such a manner that Christ is glorified and Christian brothers and sisters are edified.

Grace and Peace to you dear sister,

PTL

posttinebraelux said...

Mom2,
PS - I would like to think that I (among most other Biblical moderationists I know) would be among the first to admonish a brother or sister for polluting the Gospel.

Love conquering hate,

PTL

mom2 said...

posttinebraelux, You keep right on defending your alcohol drinking and I will keep looking to find something positive that comes from it.

sbc pastor said...

Mom2,

In regards to your comment:

"Our denomination has had this same stance for years, why the uproar now? Could it have to do with the present culture? Do we wish to please culture or who?"

You have identified the crux of the matter. I too believe that it is a desire (whether conscious, or unconscious) to conform to culture rather than Christ.

In regards to your comment:

“You keep right on defending your alcohol drinking and I will keep looking to find something positive that comes from it.”

You have made another excellent point. There is nothing good that comes from the consumption of alcoholic beverages. Thanks for your wisdom and God bless!!!

In Christ,
JLG

IN HIS NAME said...

mon2
SHOW ME THE BIBLE VERSE, Where is it Written?

A Brother in CHRIST

PS: 1Co 3:2 I fed you with milk, not solid food, for you were not ready for it. And even now you are not yet ready

peter lumpkins said...

Dear Mom2,

I thank you for your clear voice in the matter. And, I also think your point well taken that denominational agencies may set criteria for leadership that may or may not be suitable to all, and, may even be quite rigid.

For example, every church I have served placed on the qualifications of the deacon criteria that was not explicit in the qualifications given in the Pasotral correspondence.

Most of the time, the church expected deacons to be tithers, to be present on Wednesday evenings--if possible--and serve on benevolence committees to name a few. Yet, none of these are explicit in the Pastorals.

Similarly, our denominational heads may require something of someone that others may feel rigid, yet they have every right to do so and without being charged as either legalist and/or Pharisee.

May your afternoon be restful. With that, I am...

Peter

sbc pastor said...

Mom2 and Peter,

You two bring up an interesting point with your comments:

Mom2: "I think the SBC has a right to set up guidelines for our denomination and for those that got so upset with the guidelines, I suggest you take your grievances to the Lord in prayer."

Peter: "I also think your point well taken that denominational agencies may set criteria for leadership that may or may not be suitable to all, and, may even be quite rigid."

As far as I understand, an SBC entity head has both the authority and the trust of our convention to implement any policy that they deem necessary as long as it is approved by that entity's BoT.

Concerning the employees, their liberty would not be "infringed upon" by anyone. They are perfectly free to seek employment elsewhere if they choose not to abide by any policy that an SBC entity implements.

God bless!!!

In Christ,
JLG

posttinebraelux said...

Mom2,
Actually much positive has come from the discussion of alcohol consumption. These include: (1) a more intensive and, hopefully, edifying study of the Scriptures, (2) the opportunity for Christian brothers and sisters to engage in edifying and uplifting debate, (3) the opportunity for personal growth as we learn humility by engaging those who do not share our own convictions, and (4) an opportunity for those who hold a moderationist position to lovingly demonstrate why they shouldn't be judged by their abstentionist brothers and sisters. I realize you may not see any of this as positive, but I do - and I will ALWAYS encourage Christlike and edifying debate over Scriptural issues. BTW, I don't defend my "alcohol drinking"; I rather oppose those who would judge me for my Biblical convictions. Do you see the difference? I honestly trust that you do. Grace and peace to you Mom2.

SBCPastor,
How can you judge what my desires are? Can you honestly say that you believe my position is birthed from a desire to conform to culture rather than Christ? That truly is arrogant and insensitive my friend. You are far closer to sin with your judgemental attitude than I am to drink a glass of wine. Be careful when judging someone else's motives my friend. That's God's role - not ours.

Sincerely,

PTL

brad reynolds said...

In his Name and PTL

My spirit has been fermented by your wordsJ

No where in God’s Word does it say shooting up with cocaine, committing suicide or owning slaves is sin either. I shall anxiously await your defense for these.

Further, we are not looking like legalists (please – legalists would say you have to abstain to be saved – let’s be fair), but rather we are looking like the world…desiring alcohol to give us joy rather than the spirit.

Neither suicide nor shooting up with cocaine demonstrates a lack of love for others but it certainly demonstrates a lack of love for that which God created and a lack of holiness.

Further, I would never submit to the mores of this world for they are too lax…surely, Christian mores should be exemplary, which would leave no room for the world’s judgment except that they be won over by our good deeds and glorify our Father in heaven.

Finally, if it does cause a brother to stumble, it is the beer-holder who is guilty.
BR

mom2 said...

posttinebraelux, You are free to do as you please and just because I do not agree with you makes me no more judgemental than your attitude toward me and my view. I still think that you should pray and talk to the Lord about your views and His will for your life, but you do not need to advertise it. I am proud to be a part of a denomination that stands for something. If I did not care, I would join the local Elks Club and forget about church. They serve alcoholic beverages at the Elks and if it meant so much to me that I would go to all lengths to defend it, then that might be where I belonged.

sbc pastor said...

PTL,

In regards to your comment:

"SBCPastor, How can you judge what my desires are? Can you honestly say that you believe my position is birthed from a desire to conform to culture rather than Christ? That truly is arrogant and insensitive my friend. You are far closer to sin with your judgemental attitude than I am to drink a glass of wine. Be careful when judging someone else's motives my friend. That's God's role - not ours."

I assume that you are referring to my earlier dialogue with Mom2 (not you):

Mom2: "Our denomination has had this same stance for years, why the uproar now? Could it have to do with the present culture? Do we wish to please culture or who?"

To which I responded: “You have identified the crux of the matter. I too believe that it is a desire (whether conscious, or unconscious) to conform to culture rather than Christ.”

Sir, I have not presumed to know your personal motives, or anyone else’s for that matter. God alone is to judge the motives of men, but believers can (and should) judge whether or not the actions of others (in this case the consumption of alcoholic beverages by a believer) are in agreement with the will of God that is revealed in the Word of God. Do you disagree?

I merely agreed with Mom2 that those who are suddenly causing an “uproar” in attempting to justify their consumption of alcoholic beverages should take great caution in that they are not rebuffing the words of the Apostle Paul: “I beseech you therefore, brethren, by the mercies of God, that ye present your bodies a living sacrifice, holy, acceptable unto God, which is your reasonable service. And be not conformed to this world: but be ye transformed by the renewing of your mind, that ye may prove what is that good, and acceptable, and perfect, will of God” (Romans 12:1-2).

Interestingly, Barnhouse notes: “We are not to follow the whole manner of life of this society and civilization. That life is the sum total of the lives of all unbelievers, faintly perfumed by the presence of some Christians in the midst of the fetid swamp of this age.”

The Scriptural command is both clear and unambiguous – the believer should not reflect the stench of this world in any way whatsoever. In fact, the child of God should provide an aroma that is a stark contrast to that of the unbeliever. If they both smell of alcoholic beverages, is that possible? :) Would the Scripture command believers, “be not conformed to this world,” in this way if it was not an evident danger to be guarded against?

Furthermore, I was in no way referring to you personally. I was referring to the current “trend” to adapt the Bible and Christianity to modern culture in an attempt to make it more palatable. Why are you so defensive? Please let me encourage you to try and remain calm when discussing these issues.

posttinebraelux said...

Brad,
In all my years of holding the position I hold, never once have I had a brother tell me that my liberty caused him to stumble (or her); if, in fact, I purposed to be a stumbling block to another, then I whole-heartedly agree with you - I would be at fault. What I said, however, (please guard against hominy-hominy arguments) was that if a Christian brother judged me for eating (drinking in this case), then it is the judgemental brother who is at fault - and with that you cannot disagree dear friend (that is unless you go completely against Rom. 14).

Mom2,
I sincerely appreciate your desire to be non-judgemental. I can assure you that I bear no judgement against those who disagree with my position. In fact, it is none of my business what position you hold - that is between you and God. It is simply when you (you being a generalization) tell me what my convictions should be that you have overstepped your bounds.
PS - inferring that the Elks Lodge might be more to my liking than Church is bordering on the judgement thing. :)

SBCPastor,
You ask, "why am I so defensive?" If you cannot see how the words, "I too believe that it is a desire (whether conscious, or unconscious) to conform to culture rather than Christ." would infer a judgemental attitude, then truly there is nothing I can say to you that will melt your hard heart. For that I am truly sorry. I would expect that a Christian brother would understand how others would be offended by being accused of conforming to culture rather than Christ. That's really too bad.

Humbly,

PTL

brad reynolds said...

To all
I have been very hesitant to remove any comments, because, sometimes what we type comes across far harsher than the intent of our hearts. However, may we all keep the Spirit of Christ in our comments.

In a passionate discussion I like to read my comment to someone else (preferably a strong Christian) before posting it. At times it has saved me from having to seek forgiveness.

Thank you all in advance for honoring my desires on my blog:)
BR

brad reynolds said...

PTL
Let me assure you that if I had seen my pastor purchase a six-pack when I was in High-School it certainly would have caused me to stumble.
BR

mom2 said...

posttinebraelux, Where does your name appear in my post implying that you should join the Elks club? I believe I said that if I felt that strongly and would defend alcohol so, maybe I should join the Elks, that it might be where I belonged. I really believe that if I felt as strongly about alcohol as to defend it, I probably would not be interested in the church.

posttinebraelux said...

Brad,
To carry the analogy out, if you had seen your coach buy a "six-pack" (I'm assuming we're talking about beer) and it did, in fact, cause you to stumble (I'm not sure, however, what you mean by stumble - did you mean that it would have emboldened you to get drunk? - to use Paul's analogy), then, if your coach knew that, he certainly would be under obligation to you to make sure he didn't cause you to stumble any longer. He also would be under obligation to you, as the weaker brother, to help mature you in the understanding that it is not what goes into the mouth that defiles a man, but rather what comes out of the mouth. Would you still be offended by seeing a brother or sister drink a glass of wine with dinner? I think your maturity is far beyond that now, no?

Mom2,
You are correct in that you never specifically addressed me in your comment. I think you'd be in the vast minority, however, of those Christians who hold a moderationist position and who prefer the Elks Lodge to church. I know of no moderationists who feel that way. I know I certainly don't. If you do ever modify your stance on alcohol consumption, I sincerely pray that you'd not become more comfortable in the Elks Lodge than in church. Again, I don't defend alcohol consumption, I oppose those who would enforce their convictions on me in spite of what I believe to be clear Scriptural teaching to the contrary. I will assume that you don't fall into that category (i.e. that although you have strong convictions for abstinence - which is a laudable conviction - you wouldn't try to make others hold your convictions.

Grace and peace,

PTL

sbc pastor said...

I have posted an article entitled, "Baptists and Drinking: Drunkenness, not alcohol, is the problem," written by Benjamin Cole and published in the Dallas Morning News this past Saturday, July 15th. In the article, Cole criticizes Southern Baptists, the SBC’s recent resolution, the “fundamentalists” in the SBC, and teetotalers in general. Please enjoy the interesting read :) and God bless!!!

In Christ,
JLG

Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.