# Are You Drinking Too Much?



## LittleDrummerBoy (Oct 11, 2020)




----------



## brian lancaster (Oct 11, 2020)

I know I wouldnt want to try to witness to a lost person with the smell of alcohol on my breath


----------



## LittleDrummerBoy (Oct 12, 2020)

brian lancaster said:


> I know I wouldnt want to try to witness to a lost person with the smell of alcohol on my breath



Yet there was no contradiction in the Apostle Paul telling Timothy both to "use a little wine" and "do the work of an evangelist" (not necessarily at the same time).

If I happened to have a little wine (communion or otherwise), it wouldn't stop me if shortly thereafter I had an opportunity to share the gospel.  

Otherwise, we end up with strange legalisms something like, "Better not celebrate at your daughter's wedding with a glass of wine.  You might have a chance to share Jesus with a lost relative later in the evening."

I trust the Holy Spirit to convict of "sin, righteousness, and judgement" when I share the gospel.  Having a glass of wine does not hit the "off" button on the Holy Spirit's work.  God's word does not return void from his servants' mouths because of a glass of wine.

"Whoops, I just has some communion wine.  Hit the pause button on the Great Commission for a while."  Silliness!


----------



## Spotlite (Oct 12, 2020)

Is your question in the OP about “too much” drink, or as in your last post where I’m assuming some responsibility / moderation / or for sickness is used? (A glass at daughters wedding, , communion, Timothy)


----------



## LittleDrummerBoy (Oct 13, 2020)

Spotlite said:


> Is your question in the OP about “too much” drink, or as in your last post where I’m assuming some responsibility / moderation / or for sickness is used? (A glass at daughters wedding, , communion, Timothy)



Some Pharisees misrepresent the Biblical position as a ban on alcohol and attempt to impose this legalism on other Christians and shame those who drink in moderation.

If you've watched the video, you'll quickly see that is not my point at all.  Quoting the script:

I am not a tea totaler.  The Bible does not describe any and all alcohol use as sin.  The problem is with excess and absence of moderation.  Jesus turned water into wine.  Paul instructed Timothy to use a little wine.  The Old Testament has both positive examples of the use of wine in moderation and negative examples of use in excess.  Even when God is allowing plagues in the book of Revelation, the instruction is given, “Do not damage the oil and the wine.” Scripture says, “Do not let anyone judge you by what you eat or drink” and Jesus declared all foods to be “clean.”  Alcohol in moderation is not a sin.  But we do well to recognize that “Wine is a mocker and beer a brawler; whoever is lead astray by them is not wise.”  Since Scripture tells us to judge ourselves according to Scripture, I offer these Biblical principles of moderation for your prayerful consideration.

Most of the video discusses the principles of moderation for determining what is "too much."  I've discussed those before in various contexts  - food, drugs, drinking, fishing.  So far, no one has really objected to the principles themselves - from a societal, family, or Biblical viewpoint.  The objections come when their sacred cows are skewered.  For some, the sacred cow is the overindulgence.  For others, their sacred cow is their legalism:

“Do not handle! Do not taste! Do not touch!”?  These rules, which have to do with things that are all destined to perish with use, are based on merely human commands and teachings. Such regulations indeed have an appearance of wisdom, with their self-imposed worship, their false humility and their harsh treatment of the body, but they lack any value in restraining sensual indulgence. - Colossians 2:21-23


----------



## Spotlite (Oct 13, 2020)

LittleDrummerBoy said:


> Some Pharisees misrepresent the Biblical position as a ban on alcohol and attempt to impose this legalism on other Christians and shame those who drink in moderation.
> 
> If you've watched the video, you'll quickly see that is not my point at all.  Quoting the script:
> 
> ...


Too much is going to be an individual issue. That being said, I agree with the quote below. Except that I won’t care to discuss politics, religion or family with anyone smelling like a bottle. I will fish with them, though. 


brian lancaster said:


> I know I wouldnt want to try to witness to a lost person with the smell of alcohol on my breath


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Oct 13, 2020)

Speaking from experience here.  The argument "alcohol in moderation is not a sin" is missing the point entirely.  There's a higher standard that is to be applied, and that standard is this: "Does the decision to do "x" have even the slightest potential to negatively impact my spiritual walk with God?"   THAT'S the standard we are to apply. Arguing whether or not action "x" is a sin focuses on the ACTION.  It's the same tactic the serpent used with Eve: focus on the action “Did God really say, ‘*You must not eat....*?"  But notice, the desire preceded the action because a change in will/desire must always precede an action.  Notice the change in will: "When the woman saw that the fruit of the tree was good for food and pleasing to the eye, *and also desirable* for gaining wisdom, she (then) took some and ate it."

The sin isn't in the action, the act only consummates the sin.  By the time the action has taken place the sin has already been committed.  It's very clear here:  "But I tell you, everyone who looks at a woman to lust for her has *already* committed adultery with her in his heart." because sin, at heart, is a selfish act, in that we forsake God's will and pursue ours.   The decision to do that in regards to ANYTHING is sin.  Knowing that alcohol has the potential to destroy you, not to mention your spiritual walk with God, and then *choosing* to drink is a sin before you ever put that drink to your lips, and that again, applies to anything in life.


----------



## brian lancaster (Oct 13, 2020)

Well said and I totally agree


----------



## jrickman (Oct 13, 2020)

In the interest of complete transparency, I do drink but not to the point of impairing my judgement, so my opinion might be colored by my own choices. 

I think with many things, the responsibility lies with the individual to know their own weaknesses. My having a few beers and sipping a little scotch doesn't cause my flesh to rise up and overpower me, but it might cause others to lose control entirely. Likewise, I have my own issues where if my spirit gives and inch, my flesh will take a mile. One must know themselves and run like mad from situations they know will cause them to lose themselves.


----------



## LittleDrummerBoy (Oct 14, 2020)

Then he [Jesus] told them, “Now draw some out and take it to the master of the banquet.”

They did so, and the master of the banquet tasted the water that had been turned into wine. He did not realize where it had come from, though the servants who had drawn the water knew. Then he called the bridegroom aside and said, “Everyone brings out the choice wine first and then the cheaper wine after the guests have had too much to drink; but you have saved the best till now.”

What Jesus did here in Cana of Galilee was the first of the signs through which he revealed his glory; and his disciples believed in him.
John 2:8-11


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Oct 14, 2020)

LittleDrummerBoy said:


> Then he [Jesus] told them, “Now draw some out and take it to the master of the banquet.”
> 
> They did so, and the master of the banquet tasted the water that had been turned into wine. He did not realize where it had come from, though the servants who had drawn the water knew. Then he called the bridegroom aside and said, “Everyone brings out the choice wine first and then the cheaper wine after the guests have had too much to drink; but you have saved the best till now.”
> 
> ...



Again.  Misses the point and emphasizes it at the same time.  Jesus did not have to worry about being in the will of God as he was God. 
The miracle was the first to confirm that.   You and I????  Not so much.  When you can turn water into wine, get back with me.


----------



## LittleDrummerBoy (Oct 14, 2020)

SemperFiDawg said:


> Again.  Misses the point and emphasizes it at the same time.  Jesus did not have to worry about being in the will of God as he was God.
> The miracle was the first to confirm that.   You and I????  Not so much.  When you can turn water into wine, get back with me.



You think Jesus was going to drink all that wine by himself?

Of course not, Jesus provided the wine for the wedding guests to drink.  It was in the will of God for the guests at the wedding to drink that wine.

He would not have done that if drinking wine was a sin or the result of sinful thinking.

Scripture says, "Let no man judge you by what you eat or drink."  A man need not turn water into wine to know we can drink in moderation with a clear conscience.  A man only need to acknowledge that "all things God created are good, and nothing is to be rejected if it received with thanksgiving."


----------



## willie1971 (Oct 14, 2020)

yep.  about the only thing that hasn't ever let me down is a 6 pack.  honestly can't think of anything else for that matter


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Oct 14, 2020)

LittleDrummerBoy said:


> You think Jesus was going to drink all that wine by himself?
> 
> Of course not, Jesus provided the wine for the wedding guests to drink.  It was in the will of God for the guests at the wedding to drink that wine.
> 
> ...



What exactly IS moderation.  Almost every person's I know or have ever known, definition of moderation goes 1,2,10.  Almost every alcoholic I have ever met started drinking "in moderation".  Forty three percent of people who drink at any given time drink excessively and clinically could be considered alcoholics.  You have to figure the other 57 percent will progress.  Alcoholism IS progressive after all .  Nobody starts out an alcoholic.  By the time they realize they have a problem they can't stop.  Said in another way, everyone considers their drinking "moderate" until they realize they can't stop at which point it's a major problem, so your definition of "drink in moderation" leaves a little to be desired.  

Back to the point. Choosing to indulge in anything that has the ability to destroy your spiritual walk with God is a sin.  I find it a bit shocking a Christian would argue there is an exception to this, much less one who considers himself a teacher.  

Just got a text after finishing this, but before posting it that a good friend of mine's son who was in his early 20's just died from a drug overdose.  His drinking started moderate before it led to drugs.  My friend, his father; his drinking started out as moderate too.  He got help before it was too late for him, but apparently not his son.  His last text to me yesterday was filled with guilt.  The family had been told there was no brain activity.   What do you think he would say to your "moderate drinking is OK" slogan right now?  It's thinking like this that leads to this destruction yet people keep spouting it.  It's akin to watching people play Russian Roulette with 5 bullets in the revolver and coming to the conclusion that it's safe because all the survivors are healthy....so far.  But what do I know?  Maybe self-destruction isn't a sin either.  I gotta quit, before I say something I will regret.  I'm out.


----------



## brian lancaster (Oct 14, 2020)

SemperFiDawg said:


> What exactly IS moderation.  Almost every person's I know or have ever known, definition of moderation goes 1,2,10.  Almost every alcoholic I have ever met started drinking "in moderation".  Forty three percent of people who drink at any given time drink excessively and clinically could be considered alcoholics.  You have to figure the other 57 percent will progress.  Alcoholism IS progressive after all .  Nobody starts out an alcoholic.  By the time they realize they have a problem they can't stop.  Said in another way, everyone considers their drinking "moderate" until they realize they can't stop at which point it's a major problem, so your definition of "drink in moderation" leaves a little to be desired.
> 
> Back to the point. Choosing to indulge in anything that has the ability to destroy your spiritual walk with God is a sin.  I find it a bit shocking a Christian would argue there is an exception to this, much less one who considers himself a teacher.
> 
> Just got a text after finishing this, but before posting it that a good friend of mine's son who was in his early 20's just died from a drug overdose.  His drinking started moderate before it led to drugs.  My friend, his father; his drinking started out as moderate too.  He got help before it was too late for him, but apparently not his son.  His last text to me yesterday was filled with guilt.  The family had been told there was no brain activity.   What do you think he would say to your "moderate drinking is OK" slogan right now?  It's thinking like this that leads to this destruction yet people keep spouting it.  It's akin to watching people play Russian Roulette with 5 bullets in the revolver and coming to the conclusion that it's safe because all the survivors are healthy....so far.  But what do I know?  Maybe self-destruction isn't a sin either.  I gotta quit, before I say something I will regret.  I'm out.


you are absolutely correct and thank you for taking the time to post. This country will go to any and all means to justify alcohol as i once did and ive never seen one positive or Godly thing come from it


----------



## LittleDrummerBoy (Oct 15, 2020)

The video explains how the individual can know what moderation is and isn't in some detail.

One would be acting quite the fool to have written many paragraphs in this discussion without watching it.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Oct 15, 2020)

LittleDrummerBoy said:


> The video explains how the individual can know what moderation is and isn't in some detail.
> 
> One would be acting quite the fool to have written many paragraphs in this discussion without watching it.



I'll certainly be the first to call myself a fool, just not enough to deny the truth today.


----------



## Nicodemus (Oct 15, 2020)

LittleDrummerBoy said:


> The video explains how the individual can know what moderation is and isn't in some detail.
> 
> One would be acting quite the fool to have written many paragraphs in this discussion without watching it.




Even though subtle, that is still a personal attack. Be mindful of your words.


----------



## strothershwacker (Oct 15, 2020)

Legalism is like alcoholism. Both are hard for folks to give up.


----------



## brian lancaster (Oct 16, 2020)

LittleDrummerBoy said:


> The video explains how the individual can know what moderation is and isn't in some detail.
> 
> One would be acting quite the fool to have written many paragraphs in this discussion without watching it.


why would you even get on here and try to justify drinking. Because i think in your heart you know its a stumbling blocck for people and if you told the truth you know you shouldnt be doin it as you say that you are a leader of men. i personally wouldnt ever sit and listen to nothing you had to say


----------



## brian lancaster (Oct 16, 2020)

instead of trying to get on here and justify youre drinking how bout trying to mentor a teenager from drinking as it is totally out of control in this country and destroying people and there families. i personally dont wont to hear the bull of a grown man trying to justify in the eyes of men his drinking


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Oct 16, 2020)

LittleDrummerBoy said:


> Not my words:
> 
> To answer before listening—
> that is folly and shame.
> Proverbs 18:13



  I've said many times you should not be in a position to teach.  You have stated and demonstrated many times you have a desire to do so.  Although I took no offense in what you stated earlier, the Moderator warned you (correctly) that you were treading on thin ice regarding the personal insults.  Instead of respecting that and being grateful you double down with this reply to him which is nothing more than another show of pride.  To me that's just another indicator of your need to mature.  Given your initiative, you would probably be effective as a teacher if you could actually ever lay aside your pride long enough to learn something.  I'm not sure you are capable of it.  You remind me of myself at one time, and I will tell you this based on my experience:  The higher you hold yourself, the further it is to the bottom when you fall and the worse the pain is when you hit.  Just something you may want to consider.


----------



## strothershwacker (Oct 16, 2020)

Romans the 14th chapter.


----------



## Israel (Oct 16, 2020)

Not all men who teach are presuming they are teacher of all.

Paul said "If I be not an apostle to others..." accepting that his ministry was to those to whom he was sent for their recognition as it was no less for his own.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Oct 16, 2020)

Israel said:


> Not all men who teach are presuming they are teacher of all.
> 
> Paul said "If I be not an apostle to others..." accepting that his ministry was to those to whom he was sent for their recognition as it was no less for his own.



And sometimes if it swims like a duck, is feathered like a duck, waddles like a duck, and quacks like a duck, pretending it’s a hippopotamus doesn’t help the hippo or the duck.

I dunno.  Maybe I’m so blind I can’t see how the blind leading the blind has any benefit.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Oct 16, 2020)

With all the references in the Bible to wine, grape vines, vineyards, and communion, it's going to be hard to remove it all now through justification.

I just don't see why abstinence is litmus test for Christian living. Feeding and helping a stranger, yes but having a few glasses of wine, no.

Psalm 104:14–15 “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.” 

Ecclesiastes 9:7 “Go, eat your bread with joy, and drink your wine with a merry heart, for God has already approved what you do.”

Isaiah 62:8–9 “The Lord has sworn by his right hand and by his mighty arm: “I will not again give your grain to be food for your enemies, and foreigners shall not drink your wine for which you have labored; but those who garner it shall eat it and praise the Lord, and those who gather it shall drink it in the courts of my sanctuary.”


----------



## Spotlite (Oct 16, 2020)

Israel said:


> Not all men who teach are presuming they are teacher of all.
> 
> Paul said "If I be not an apostle to others..." accepting that his ministry was to those to whom he was sent for their recognition as it was no less for his own.


Topics such as this one are often forgotten that a person has to have a personal conviction over it, so their enlightenment is thrown heavily at those who have yet to see. The Bible does not forbid taking a drink - it does speak against drunkenness.

At what point between a swallow and waisted is something each man has to deal with based on their own weaknesses when learning to live righteous, holy, etc.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Oct 16, 2020)

I think LittleDrummerBoy is a good preacher. I don't see his pride as being any greater than anyone else on this forum. 

In fact I sometimes see the pot calling the kettle black.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Oct 16, 2020)

Now don't get me wrong, half my family probably drink too much. More than a few are alcoholics. Also drug abuse is in my family. I know it's affects. Obesity too. Lack of exercise, for sure.

Let's suppose a wedding though, should I not serve wine because of my families alcohol problem? Can I really even stop or cause someone to drink too much or to use drugs? Can I ever stop someone from drugs or alcolhol. I've tried in the past and it never has worked.

How do we now perceive Drunkenness as a sin that could keep one out of the Kingdom now that we know it's a mental problem?

1 Corinthians 6:10
nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.

Thank God for the washing!


----------



## hummerpoo (Oct 16, 2020)

> #4





> [IMG]https://forum.gon.com/data/avatars/m/17/17814.jpg?1589136218[/IMG]
> *Israel
> Senior Member*
> There's a point in this a man will find "too personal".
> ...



Has anyone else ask themselves how anyone knows who, or if, these posts are giving offense to a brother.


----------



## Israel (Oct 16, 2020)

hummerpoo said:


> Has anyone else ask themselves how anyone knows who, or if, these posts are giving offense to a brother.



I am not sure if by posts you mean the OP/thread origin...or those which follow.

I do believe there's a very tight spot of motive's sorting and sourcing that is addressed either in the closet, or will be by the assembly (some may prefer "an" assembly not willing to assign "the" except to the one they find of their preference) and lastly "in the world".

That "tight spot" through which entrance may be gained (we can discuss whether it is denied if peremptorily refused its acknowledgment) in which the man sees or confronts the matter of offense and his relationship to it. I don't know whether this matter is ever fully experienced (thanks be to God for the faith of His Son!) while in these bodies of humiliation, which is of course only to say, I yet have hope for it.

A man in whom I taste the utmost of restraint is, on that very principal matter of restraint...the One in whom I also sense the utmost of authority. This is the metric perhaps only delivered to rebels, or perhaps most singularly only to the chiefest of them, myself. But, I can't deny it. All others are free to recuse themselves. That I sense more power demonstrated by the power of restraint may well be one such singular gift found in salvation granted a bull in a china shop.

That "tight" place led to of this confrontation is remarkably stark. All things there bear equal contrast in both light and weight. It is where it is recognized that a man may be called to bear/carry/express what he either knows is of offense and/or just as surely surmises will be, in equal knowing that there's a stark forbidding of any desire to "give" offense. God does not indulge our _gotcha propensities. _Grace may forgive them, but they are not indulged.  

There's a threshing on the way (better to say_ has been_ on "my way"?) to the apprehending of "When a man's ways please the Lord He causes even his enemies to be at peace with him". 

Part of the threshing has accomplished by exposure a thing once hidden. I want an enemy. I want to fight. I want to oppose. I want to win and conquer. I have had a need to push against, to look for and distill to a manageable and manifest thing around which throat I can finally wrap my hands and throttle to a final vanquishing. The thing is..._everything else_ is bigger than me.

I met myself in a dark alley once...


----------



## hummerpoo (Oct 16, 2020)

Israel said:


> I am not sure if by posts you mean the OP/thread origin...or those which follow.
> 
> I do believe there's a very tight spot of motive's sorting and sourcing that is addressed either in the closet, or will be by the assembly (some may prefer "an" assembly not willing to assign "the" except to the one they find of their preference) and lastly "in the world".
> 
> ...





> I am not sure if by posts you mean the OP/thread origin...or those which follow.



In starting to respond to your post I was going to first clarify that I had no intent to include each and every post in the thread nor to exclude any specific post.  However, I decided that even that would not be fair unless I first reviewed the thread.  When I almost immediately encountered the pejorative use of "Pharisees" follow closely by reference to attempted forced legalism I decided to just ignore the thread with regret of ever posted on it.


----------



## Israel (Oct 17, 2020)

hummerpoo said:


> In starting to respond to your post I was going to first clarify that I had no intent to include each and every post in the thread nor to exclude any specific post.  However, I decided that even that would not be fair unless I first reviewed the thread.  When I almost immediately encountered the pejorative use of "Pharisees" follow closely by reference to attempted forced legalism I decided to just ignore the thread with regret of ever posted on it.


Thank you for responding. Your previous question I cannot blame for my long windedness, but I will say it's surely thought provoking.

Gem wrote elsewhere that "Nothing is more offensive to the flesh than a Theocentric mind." And I don't believe we'd find much argument amongst ourselves that Jesus Christ possesses that single eye of intent, with intent.

So, to me at least, (with apologies for the "So") conscription here includes some form of surrender? resignation? happy acknowledgment? that (like it or not) a man will at times be recognized as offensive (even to himself!)...and perhaps even especially so.

But that is a different matter than merely coming to enjoy (and I can testify a man can find some pleasure in) assuming a role as provocateur. But I can also testify that "wears thin" and unable to satisfy the soul. The not fearing of being an outcast does not of necessity mean one should seek it at every turn....lest a man find himself so singularly given to it he discovers he is not moving in any boldness, but merely a spite to provoke the opprobrium of man he finds himself able to bear.

Do you know what I mean? I believe you do.

It's really not very hard to fall in love with a self image as stoic "rebel", (particularly a man such as myself) but only God is able to wean.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Oct 17, 2020)

brian lancaster said:


> I know I wouldnt want to try to witness to a lost person with the smell of alcohol on my breath


I would think a wine tasting event or a beer garden atmosphere would be the perfect place for a Church or Christian group to have a booth and witness.
People only have this "Den of Iniquity" image. True those places do serve alcohol. So does a wedding feast, a Cruise Line, a family camp out or BBQ, etc.

I'm thinking of Paulk Vineyards in Coffee County. If you open their link they have a Bible verse. Not that that means anything, just saying it's a  nice wholesome atmosphere. They don't have a Hoochie Coochie Show.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Oct 17, 2020)

Israel said:


> I am not sure if by posts you mean the OP/thread origin...or those which follow.
> 
> I do believe there's a very tight spot of motive's sorting and sourcing that is addressed either in the closet, or will be by the assembly (some may prefer "an" assembly not willing to assign "the" except to the one they find of their preference) and lastly "in the world".
> 
> ...


Either way. Then again couldn't a post about the Trinity vs Oneness?


----------



## Israel (Oct 17, 2020)

Artfuldodger said:


> Either way. Then again couldn't a post about the Trinity vs Oneness?


Do you mean "be found offending" to some by positions stated?


----------



## Artfuldodger (Oct 17, 2020)

If I go to a sinners house to witness and he is a drunkard, fornicator, of gambler. Should I tell him to stop or just try and lead him to Christ or Christ to him? 
What I'm getting at is why not let's get him saved or lead to that salvation, then let the Holy Spirit work on changing him. 

Is that changing really our goal or is that between that individual and God?


----------



## Artfuldodger (Oct 17, 2020)

Israel said:


> Do you mean "be found offending" to some by positions stated?


Just meaning if a brother found this thread offending, he may find a thread on almost anything offending.

I thought some of the responses may have offended a brother but maybe not. Maybe it's a fine line between teaching and offending. I'm sure I've offended by teaching before.

I once told my grown daughter she was a finagler. She got offended but I meant it in a positive way. I didn't realize that it was always a negative word.
I've actually never found a word for a positive finagler. Resourceful maybe?

We seem to have lost a couple, I hope neither see it that way long term. Maybe we all need to be less brash and hostile.


----------



## Israel (Oct 17, 2020)

Artfuldodger said:


> Just meaning if a brother found this thread offending, he may find a thread on almost anything offending.
> 
> I thought some of the post may have offended a brother but maybe not. Maybe it's a fine line between teaching and offending. I'm sure I've offended by teaching before.
> 
> ...



Remember when Paul said "Am I therefore become your enemy, because I tell you the truth?"

The plumbline is always at hand...even at the door...to disclose if a thing is "the truth spoken in love",  a thing merely to draw attention and/or be provocative or just a lunatic's rant.

Obviously (to me) Paul was willing to have his love measured against what he said to "them". Yeah...it's a place so tight only Jesus fit through...to be willing to be made such an offense but not for the sake of stumbling (even though it would surely occur!) but for salvation.

We get led to that very place...and there begin to discover the necessity of Jesus' accompanying us. How we cannot do without Him! For we are left in a strait no man can navigate himself.

"Offenses must come...but woe to the man through whom they come" Jesus says.
(There can be no avoiding of offenses coming!)

No less does the Spirit express: "Now we all offend in many ways..." (making it even more personal!)

There is only one "safe" offense...that which provides salvation at the most perfectly personal measure of love...and we get winnowed on the way. But...that is because the Lord would not have us miss just how personally...and perfectly we ourselves are loved.
That "new" commandment "Love one another as I have loved you..." leads to an inexhaustible and eternal mining of the one before the other can be "done" or shown.


And no man has ever been sorry for being conscripted to this adventure in exploration...to learn just how much he has been loved by the Lord. And how much the Lord has borne both "for that man"...and no less from that man in patience to show.

And yeah...for the most part kids have little notion (and are not expected to) just how much they are loved...because a "good" parent makes no issue of it...their sacrifice that the child might be care free. Warm bed, dry roof, meals, and a welcoming hearth to call home. But the simple act of "growing up" reveals often what the parent would be loathe to burden a child with. The things done "out of sight" (my dad never dragged me to work daily to make sure I knew how hard he labored..."for me"...did yours?)

So we find out eventually about all things done unbeknownst to us, done even in the "before" as provision for us (Lamb slain from the foundation...) according to a perfect foreknowledge without which none would know being.

We are to be "waking up" to a being so secure in this foreknowledge that we may say, as I do indeed hope your daughter will (if she hasn't already) "Oh, Father, I had no idea...but thank you for your love in bringing me to this hour".


----------



## gemcgrew (Oct 17, 2020)

I place no more confidence in my abstinence... than I do in my excess.


----------



## LittleDrummerBoy (Oct 17, 2020)

Artfuldodger said:


> I think LittleDrummerBoy is a good preacher. I don't see his pride as being any greater than anyone else on this forum.
> 
> In fact I sometimes see the pot calling the kettle black.



I run where I am sent.  I preach what I am told.



Artfuldodger said:


> Now don't get me wrong, half my family probably drink too much. More than a few are alcoholics. Also drug abuse is in my family. I know it's affects. Obesity too. Lack of exercise, for sure.
> 
> Let's suppose a wedding though, should I not serve wine because of my families alcohol problem?



I didn't serve alcohol at my own wedding for that very reason.  Right choice?  Who knows.

When it comes time for my own children to marry, I will honor their choice, praise God for providing the spouse and the occasion, and write the check.  Will I drink on those occasions?  Not if it causes a brother to stumble.


----------



## Israel (Oct 19, 2020)

Spotlite said:


> Topics such as this one are often forgotten that a person has to have a personal conviction over it, so their enlightenment is thrown heavily at those who have yet to see. The Bible does not forbid taking a drink - it does speak against drunkenness.
> 
> At what point between a swallow and waisted is something each man has to deal with based on their own weaknesses when learning to live righteous, holy, etc.


I have taken what you say to mean this (so please correct me if I am wrong)

(With) topics such as this (such topics may include practices/preferences/activities that are not specifically fordidden...and quite possibly even allowed?) it is (easily?) often forgotten that they are left open to personal conviction (so that one) who has strong personal conviction may find himself over emphasizing (what may be a matter of less consequence?) it (almost fruitlessly?) to those who who do not yet have any conviction (yet to see?) over it. (????)

Correct my understanding as needed. I am not trying to make what you say more clear...only seeking to establish if I am understanding you.


----------



## Spotlite (Oct 19, 2020)

Israel said:


> I have taken what you say to mean this (so please correct me if I am wrong)
> 
> (With) topics such as this (such topics may include practices/preferences/activities that are not specifically fordidden...and quite possibly even allowed?) it is (easily?) often forgotten that they are left open to personal conviction (so that one) who has strong personal conviction may find himself over emphasizing (what may be a matter of less consequence?) it (almost fruitlessly?) to those who who do not yet have any conviction (yet to see?) over it. (????)
> 
> Correct my understanding as needed. I am not trying to make what you say more clear...only seeking to establish if I am understanding you.


Correct - with the caveat that im not saying what’s allowed and what’s not. 

People are people and their minds can be a dangerous playground that they battle with for themselves. If they’re convicted over something, they’ll condemn those that aren’t. If they don’t condemn it, they feel they’re condoning it. And they’ll sling the meat to new converts instead of milk. 

A prime example outside of drinking is a TV. Someone that struggled with porn, etc. may feel convicted and not have one in their home. He has absolutely no business to quote scripture concerning “not setting wicked / evil things before your eyes” in order condemn someone else that has a TV. Although there might be enough scripture to support his conviction, there’s not enough to condemn someone else.


----------



## LittleDrummerBoy (Oct 19, 2020)

Spotlite said:


> A prime example outside of drinking is a TV. Someone that struggled with porn, etc. may feel convicted and not have one in their home. He has absolutely no business to quote scripture concerning “not setting wicked / evil things before your eyes” in order condemn someone else that has a TV. Although there might be enough scripture to support his conviction, there’s not enough to condemn someone else.



This is an important point - thanks for brining it up.  As we go through life, the Holy Spirit often leads us to make certain changes that are for US.  They become legalisms if we try and impose them on others.

An important example in my life was throwing away all my rock n roll albums shortly after I was born again.  Rock n roll had discipled me in lots of ungodly things for many years.  On the one hand, I could testify about what God had done for me and the Holy Spirit leading me to throw away the rock music.  On the other hand creating a new "rule" for other Christians would be inappropriate.

I think most Christians can give testimony of disciplines added to their lives that bear good fruit.  But it is an essential part of Christian liberty for each believer to walk in the Spirit and allow God alone to bring conviction and leading.  In Scripture, we see frequent attempts of religious people to apply additional requirements.  It is a common theme that God has his people rebuke those trying to bring additional human requirements.  Additional human requirements are a yoke that God does not want on his people.


----------



## Israel (Oct 19, 2020)

Spotlite said:


> Correct - with the caveat that im not saying what’s allowed and what’s not.
> 
> People are people and their minds can be a dangerous playground that they battle with for themselves. If they’re convicted over something, they’ll condemn those that aren’t. If they don’t condemn it, they feel they’re condoning it. And they’ll sling the meat to new converts instead of milk.
> 
> A prime example outside of drinking is a TV. Someone that struggled with porn, etc. may feel convicted and not have one in their home. He has absolutely no business to quote scripture concerning “not setting wicked / evil things before your eyes” in order condemn someone else that has a TV. Although there might be enough scripture to support his conviction, there’s not enough to condemn someone else.



Well said, and thank you for the response.

If I correctly also follow the arc of LilDrummer Boys ministry/postings...he has (if I recall correctly) sensed a calling to what is/are commonly called "Red Necks" and not unwilling to find identity among them. (Perhaps reminiscent of "to the Jews I became as a Jew"). He is not ashamed to extol some of those benefits they embrace in their identity (so as not to be an offense to them)...that (according to the understanding he has of his ministry) he might "win some".

Just as perhaps Paul would not enter a synagogue and first say "hey the law is all ultimately useless to us except as a shadow"...but rather use it to help guide toward the benefit of Christ being the very (superior) embodiment of every good gift ever given by God. To see a superseding...even appointed. (See that shadow? Now follow it to the substance that cast it!)

And I agree so whole heartedly with you as to conviction and what then becomes flow from personal experience how that a coloring of ministry is complicated by:



> If they don’t condemn it, they feel they’re condoning it.



(Which as I write this I have just read his post in regards to his rock albums)

The ministry of meat in due season is all but impossible except for faith, I am convinced.

And, if I continue to take you correctly, ministry (such as it may be called) can even be injurious (for it is not true ministry) if one is merely going about to impose their own convictions _against the liberty of Christ._

And though we may not immediately recognize any...or everyone who has undergone the true ministry of Christ toward our own efforts at ministry (we could call it chastening or reproval) we might agree (?) it is a real thing.

But I can't even lay that upon anyone...all I can say is there is a place where Christ can show a man "You ain't doin' nothing but serving your own self in what _you think _is ministry by my Spirit". One has to measure...and one may find repentance too wonderful a gift there. But a most welcome gift there. (Oh, Lord, I been handing out hand grenades as bread! and encouraging an eating!)

The things a man identifies himself by, and/or might be drawn into...well...I ain't found LDB lacking in disclosure. This don't make him anything at all of itself, except that he's plain he's writing/talking often to what he addresses as Red Necks (for Jesus), and if I (or any man) find him either a help...or no help at all, it could just as easily be that I am reading someone elses mail (Do I consider myself a red neck?) as it could be a right judgment upon a, or his, ministry.

And that's specifically what I meant when saying a man who is "found" teaching (by our own appraisal) may not be saying "I am a teacher to all". How much more when a man says "I am in this case sent to the Red Necks".

(And who of us can say "but there ain't no red necks here"? we never know who's watching even were we to find some agreement that "none of us are"...but this could be where we get flushed out by the wise..."why then do you read the mail I have prepared for them?") For if one admits they are "not a red neck"...how would they know the language that might be prepared for them?

Oh, but this way is all but impossible for a man to navigate alone!

This bit of wisdom from you is, to me, superbly embraceable.



> If they don’t condemn it, they feel they’re condoning it.



It could be there's a lifetime of mining that to see whether it truly is...true?

Is a man condoning what he refuses to condemn? 

Lack of condemnation might indeed...somewhere along the way, be shown to be the signal indicator of what a man "condones" in his own heart...the death of Christ on his behalf, not only agreeing to its agreeableness...but convinced in deepest part of its necessity...for the chiefest of sinners.


----------



## Spotlite (Oct 19, 2020)

Israel said:


> Well said, and thank you for the response.
> 
> If I correctly also follow the arc of LilDrummer Boys ministry/postings...he has (if I recall correctly) sensed a calling to what is/are commonly called "Red Necks" and not unwilling to find identity among them. (Perhaps reminiscent of "to the Jews I became as a Jew"). He is not ashamed to extol some of those benefits they embrace in their identity (so as not to be an offense to them)...that (according to the understanding he has of his ministry) he might "win some".
> 
> ...


When a man is sent, or a preacher preaches that which God has gave him. Wisdom prevails and from what I’ve seen, there is correction, reproval, etc., without condemnation nor condoning. Ultimately, that   is “ministering” and leads to conviction.


----------



## LittleDrummerBoy (Oct 19, 2020)

When the Lord is speaking through his servants, including me, there is often a "he who has ears to hear, let him hear" aspect to the message.  God's words do not fail to accomplish the purpose for which they are sent.

It is often the case that some who do not have ears to hear set their crosshairs on the messenger.

I am surprised that most of the criticism for the video in the original post is aimed at my refusal to go beyond Scripture itself and categorize all drinking of alcohol as a sin or moral failure.  I guess I expected more objections along the lines of "Who are you to suggest I'm drinking too much?" or "My drinking is none of your business."  Some have ears to hear.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Oct 19, 2020)

LittleDrummerBoy said:


> When the Lord is speaking through his servants, including me, there is often a "he who has ears to hear, let him hear" aspect to the message.  God's words do not fail to accomplish the purpose for which they are sent.
> 
> It is often the case that some who do not have ears to hear set their crosshairs on the messenger.
> 
> I am surprised that most of the criticism for the video in the original post is aimed at my refusal to go beyond Scripture itself and categorize all drinking of alcohol as a sin or moral failure.  I guess I expected more objections along the lines of "Who are you to suggest I'm drinking too much?" or "My drinking is none of your business."  Some have ears to hear.



To those that have ears your words are recognized as what they are.  To those who don't and are lost and are looking for guidance, they may very well be a path to the grave.  It is what it is.  I don't have to answer for them.  Wisdom is vindicated by her deeds, but so is foolishness.  God is the final judge.  Speaking for God is perhaps the most solemn undertaking one can assume.  The gravity of that should not be lost on anyone.

One final note and I'm done with this subject.  It is this.  In each and every instance in the NT in which wine was mentioned it was either in a context of limited portion, limited occasion, or both: a wedding, communion, as a medication.  Contrast that to the context in which you framed it: social drinking.  The two are not the same, especially given how today's society defines social drinking.  That is all.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Oct 19, 2020)

gemcgrew said:


> I place no more confidence in my abstinence... than I do in my excess.



How quaint, poetic, and spiritually mature sounding.    Which one will destroy you and everyone around you, your abstinence or your excess?


----------



## Artfuldodger (Oct 20, 2020)

Hard to believe all those vineyards, and scriptural reference to vineyards and wine if it was only consumed at a wedding, communion, or for medication. 

Israel as a vine, Jesus as the true vine, etc. I can't see scripture using that many metaphors for something only used for a wedding, communion, and as a medication. 

I grew up in a Baptist Church and ironic we didn't use wine for communion, we were still taught that it was real alcoholic wine,(how could it not be) and that they drunk it every day with meals like we do Ice Tea.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Oct 20, 2020)

I wonder if they ate olives and figs? Maybe we could spin scripture on that as well. How much Middle Eastern and Jewish culture can we remove from scripture to white wash it to fit our modern outlook on their old culture and lifestyle?


----------



## Artfuldodger (Oct 20, 2020)

I wonder if wine is like the Tree of Knowledge. A sort of good and bad type thing. Come to think of it a lot of things are like that. Sex for instance. Weapons? Food? Money? Free Will?

Look at some of the terrible things wine caused. Maybe Adam's sin? Noah for sure. Lots of other examples.

Judges 9:13
But the grapevine also refused, saying, ‘Should I quit producing the wine that cheers both God and people, just to wave back and forth over the trees?’

Wine cheers God, It has great powers, it was a part of sacrifices and ceremonies. Wine is good.

It's a blessing and a curse. It's an enigma!


----------



## Spotlite (Oct 20, 2020)

SemperFiDawg said:


> To those that have ears your words are recognized as what they are.  To those who don't and are lost and are looking for guidance, they may very well be a path to the grave.  It is what it is.  I don't have to answer for them.  Wisdom is vindicated by her deeds, but so is foolishness.  God is the final judge.  Speaking for God is perhaps the most solemn undertaking one can assume.  The gravity of that should not be lost on anyone.
> 
> One final note and I'm done with this subject.  It is this.  In each and every instance in the NT in which wine was mentioned it was either in a context of limited portion, limited occasion, or both: a wedding, communion, as a medication.  Contrast that to the context in which you framed it: social drinking.  The two are not the same, especially given how today's society defines social drinking.  That is all.


It might be easier if you could provide the scriptures that forbid the use of alcohol. Not those where it “might be” alcohol because it might be many other things as well. Like the one concerning “harming the body” this fella warned me about while he was eating the skin from fried greasy chicken........but then I thought about how harmful the 3 refills of Mountain Dew, sugar, carbs, and the greasy skin fat this fella was having for lunch must be. So I questioned him with - I know the Bible speaks against drunkenness and gluttony. So, what’s the difference in that 4 piece chicken with mashed potatoes, beans and bread that can lead to gluttony and 3 beers that can lead to drunkenness?

Or, the one where I can’t be a stumbling block? I heard that one yesterday from a guy eating Reese’s and he knows that I love those things and knew that I’m cutting carbs for the winter. But he’s like chomping down and grinning and rubbing it in my face about how good they are. I knew where he stood on alcohol so I asked him if he wanted a beer and he said I needed to repent.

And I’m not a drinker so I’m not looking to justify anything - socially / or in moderation. Just wanting to know the basis used to separate the “sin” of alcohol from the many other things that harm the body that can lead to other “sin”.

I want to hear someone preach about taters, greasy fat and sugar as well. Fixed it for Israel. 

Am I asking too much??


----------



## Israel (Oct 20, 2020)

Spotlite said:


> It might be easier if you could provide the scriptures that forbid the use of alcohol. Not those where it “might be” alcohol because it might be many other things as well. Like the one concerning “harming the body” this fella warned me about while he was eating the skin from fried greasy chicken........but then I thought about how harmful the 3 refills of Mountain Dew, sugar, carbs, and the greasy skin fat this fella was having for lunch must be. So I questioned him with - I know the Bible speaks against drunkenness and gluttony. So, what’s the difference in that 4 piece chicken with mashed potatoes, beans and bread that can lead to gluttony and 3 beers that can lead to drunkenness?
> 
> Or, the one where I can’t be a stumbling block? I heard that one yesterday from a guy eating Reese’s and he knows that I love those things and knew that I’m cutting carbs for the winter. But he’s like chomping down and grinning and rubbing it in my face about how good they are. I knew where he stood on alcohol so I asked him if he wanted a beer and he said I needed to repent.
> 
> ...


 OK...too many taters, greasy fat and too much sugar is, by the definition of too much..."too much!"

But I don't know if you are asking what "too much" _is _anymore than I know what "too much" taters looks like...except if there can be "too much" then what _is too much_...is.

So, yeah...I'm a lousy preacher. Is hoping for grace for that...too much?


----------



## gemcgrew (Oct 20, 2020)

SemperFiDawg said:


> How quaint, poetic, and spiritually mature sounding.


Sweet! I had the spiritually mature in mind when I typed it.


SemperFiDawg said:


> Which one will destroy you and everyone around you, your abstinence or your excess?


That power belongs to God alone.


----------



## Spotlite (Oct 20, 2020)

Israel said:


> OK...too many taters, greasy fat and too much sugar is, by the definition of too much..."too much!"
> 
> But I don't know if you are asking what "too much" _is _anymore than I know what "too much" taters looks like...except if there can be "too much" then what _is too much_...is.
> 
> So, yeah...I'm a lousy preacher. Is hoping for grace for that...too much?


Too much is the key lol ? but what is it. And I fixed it for you lol


----------



## LittleDrummerBoy (Oct 20, 2020)

Spotlite said:


> I want to hear someone preach about taters, greasy fat and sugar as well. Fixed it for Israel.
> 
> Am I asking too much??



Not at all.  I just posted a video on "Are you eating too much?" in its own thread.  Interesting that the Apostle Paul could say to the Ephesian elders that he had proclaimed to them "the whole counsel of God."  But in the 21st century church, the sin of gluttony is rarely mentioned.  Even though the New Testament discusses gluttony about as often as drunkenness.

One wonders if those who are so quick to proclaim drinking and smoking as sins give evidence of excess in the area of food - obesity, type 2 diabetes, and other health problems related to excess food.  In the last 20 years, I've seen excess food destroy more lives than too much alcohol.  

For most Americans, obesity is a choice.  Type 2 diabetes is a choice.  Heart disease and high blood pressure are choices.  All these choices are closely related to eating too much.


----------



## LittleDrummerBoy (Oct 20, 2020)

SemperFiDawg said:


> One final note and I'm done with this subject.  It is this.  In each and every instance in the NT in which wine was mentioned it was either in a context of limited portion, limited occasion, or both: a wedding, communion, as a medication.



Exceptions you failed to note:

Luke 7:33 For John the Baptist came neither eating bread nor drinking wine, and you say, ‘He has a demon.’ 34 The Son of Man came eating and drinking, and you say, ‘Here is a glutton and a drunkard, a friend of tax collectors and sinners.’ 35 But wisdom is proved right by all her children.”

Rev 5:6 “Two pounds of wheat for a day’s wages, and six pounds of barley for a day’s wages, and do not damage the oil and the wine!” 

1 Tim 3:8 "In the same way, deacons are to be worthy of respect, sincere, not indulging in much wine, and not pursuing dishonest gain."

Titus 2:3  "Likewise, teach the older women to be reverent in the way they live, not to be slanderers or addicted to much wine, but to teach what is good. 4 Then they can urge the younger women to love their husbands and children, 5 to be self-controlled and pure, to be busy at home, to be kind, and to be subject to their husbands, so that no one will malign the word of God."


----------



## Artfuldodger (Oct 20, 2020)

Maybe they only used oil for special occasions such as lamps, feet, anointment, etc.
Again though it doesn't seem like it would be very symbolic if it wasn't "very" important. It may have been equally used and important as wine was on a daily basis.

The olive tree, root, and branches plays a part in Paul's imagery in Romans 11. They must could somehow identify with olive trees.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Oct 20, 2020)

And we ask ourselves why the Church looks so much like the World.


LittleDrummerBoy said:


> Exceptions you failed to note:
> 
> Luke 7:33 For John the Baptist came neither eating bread nor drinking wine, and you say, ‘He has a demon.’ 34 The Son of Man came eating and drinking, and you say, ‘Here is a glutton and a drunkard, a friend of tax collectors and sinners.’ 35 But wisdom is proved right by all her children.”
> 
> ...



In Luke 7:34 you may notice the words “you say”.  It was not an admission they were truthful.  They also called Jesus a “drunkard”, but maybe you think that also.  

The verse in Revelation is metaphorical according to every commentary I’ve ever read.  To take it as literal pertaining to condoning social drinking is well....taking it out of context at best.

As to the other 2 examples, they prove my point, not contradict it.  If you think they condone social drinking as the term is understood today.   There’s no point in continuing with this from my perspective.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Oct 21, 2020)

Jesus is being compared to John the Baptist by the Pharisees in that John ate sparingly and only things such as locust and honey and drank no wine. Jesus ate pretty much whatever he wanted to and drank wine, and was accused of gluttony and being a winebibber or drunken, because of this. They thought John the Baptist diet strange and too controlled, but when Jesus ate normally, what others ate, they condemned him for having no control. Since there was no sin attributed to food and wine, other than a practice of excess (gluttony and drunkenness), the charge was a slander. Basically they hated that he ate with sinners and publicans as well.
https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/questions/8901/did-jesus-drink-wine


----------



## LittleDrummerBoy (Oct 22, 2020)

SemperFiDawg said:


> One final note and I'm done with this subject.  It is this.  In each and every instance in the NT in which wine was mentioned it was either in a context of limited portion, limited occasion, or both: a wedding, communion, as a medication.





SemperFiDawg said:


> As to the other 2 examples, they prove my point, not contradict it.  If you think they condone social drinking as the term is understood today.



I thought you said you were done with this subject?

Where have I used the term "social drinking" much less condoned it in excess of Biblical guidance?  I am not a fan of social drinking and the lifestyles that commonly accompany it.  But I am a fan of the Biblical imperative "Do not go beyond what is written" in public ministry.  I have not condoned social drinking.  I have worked to stay within the Biblical guidance on what is "too much."

And let's look at one verse I quoted to support my viewpoint about "too much" and contradict the the error that "In each and every instance in the NT in which wine was mentioned it was either in a context of limited portion, limited occasion, or both: a wedding, communion, as a medication."

Titus 2:3 Likewise, teach the older women to be reverent in the way they live, not to be slanderers or *addicted* to much wine, but to teach what is good. 

The women here need to be taught not to be "addicted to much wine."  Is this a limited portion, a limited occasion, or both?"  No.  The portions could be generous and the occasions could be recurring as long as the quantities did not lead to addiction.  This is much closer to my principle of moderation of "Is the excess compulsive?"  No one in the church should be addicted to wine or alcohol in any form.  PERIOD.  But there is room between the errant assertion of a limited portion/occasion and ADDICTION.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Oct 22, 2020)

LittleDrummerBoy said:


> I thought you said you were done with this subject?
> 
> Where have I used the term "social drinking" much less condoned it in excess of Biblical guidance?  I am not a fan of social drinking and the lifestyles that commonly accompany it.  But I am a fan of the Biblical imperative "Do not go beyond what is written" in public ministry.  I have not condoned social drinking.  I have worked to stay within the Biblical guidance on what is "too much."
> 
> ...





> This is much closer to* my principle of moderation* ]



nuff said.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Oct 22, 2020)

I think in the terms of addiction or excess, it's different for each one of us. I really don't see anything wrong with smoking if one only does it like cigar or pipe smokers. 
We had a preacher once that would smoke cigars when us Royal Ambassadors were camping. I knew that he wasn't "addicted" and I knew he wasn't over indulging. In other words his smoking didn't control him.

Addiction actually controls the person, It's what they think about going to bed and the first thing on their mind when they get up.

Each one of us does have our own principle of moderation. For me I may can drink a beer or two every night, or a pint of gin. Yet if it starts to control me. If I feel lost without it. If I can't go visit or help someone because of it. Then it is beyond my principle of moderation.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Oct 22, 2020)

If someone can't "reel themselves back in" from overindulgence of anything, then they need to re-examine that concept.  It needs to be learned, prayed upon, and ask the Holy Spirit for help.

This could be not exercising, having no willpower to do chores, eating, drinking, hunting or fishing too much, etc.

Even jogging, I knew a guy who ran so much  he had stress fractures and couldn't work. His normal hobby had taken control of his mind. His flesh had consumed him.
He had to learn to "reel himself back in."

I think the reason scripture uses food and wine so much is because people back then, and even today, are most familiar with how easy it is to overindulge those two things. What better examples for the average person?

Most people back then didn't over indulge in tobacco, sex, drugs, gambling, hobbies, etc. Food and drink were common with all.


----------



## Ray357 (Oct 22, 2020)

brian lancaster said:


> why would you even get on here and try to justify drinking. Because i think in your heart you know its a stumbling blocck for people and if you told the truth you know you shouldnt be doin it as you say that you are a leader of men. i personally wouldnt ever sit and listen to nothing you had to say


I don't drink. Having said that, you have to resort to extra Biblical thinking to make a case to tee total ban on alcohol. Scripture simply does not ban all alcohol consumption. Honestly, I wish it did.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Oct 22, 2020)

Ray357 said:


> I don't drink. Having said that, you have to resort to extra Biblical thinking to make a case to tee total ban on alcohol. Scripture simply does not ban all alcohol consumption. Honestly, I wish it did.


Society might be better off if scripture banned alcohol consumption instead of homosexuality. 
Think of all the problems alcohol causes? Divorce, car wrecks, hungry children, violence, lack of safety, unprotected sex, adultery, fornication.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Oct 22, 2020)

Ray357 said:


> I don't drink. Having said that, you have to resort to extra Biblical thinking to make a case to tee total ban on alcohol. Scripture simply does not ban all alcohol consumption. Honestly, I wish it did.



I think this brings up a very good point that is maybe being lost.  When you state



> you have to resort to extra Biblical thinking to make a case to tee total ban on alcohol



you couldn't be more correct.  As believers we HAVE an "extra-Biblical" authority that we answer to that is the ultimate authority, even over that of OUR UNDERSTANDING of scripture. We have the Spirit of the Living God living inside of us.  This Holy Spirit IS alive and it has guided men through the dynamic changes of societal norms down through the ages and has never once been wrong.  As times changed men have undoubtedly made mistakes in enpowering THEIR UNDERSTANDING of scripture to guide/validate their behavior (slavery comes to mind).  In each and every instance in which error was made, it was due to men elevating their understanding of scripture over that of the Living Holy Spirit( that they may/may not have, but that's another topic altogether)  When men place the value/weight of THEIR INTERPRETATION/UNDERSTANDING of scripture over the guidance of the Living God( Pharisee comes to mind) bad outcomes are guaranteed.  When you see destruction with your own eyes (be it from slavery, addiction, sexual immorality, etc). you recognize it as "bad fruit".  We all do.   Then you hear people validating the behavior it stems from with scripture (a good tree).  Where is the error?  It HAS to be in our assumption that good trees don't produce bad fruit, or in our understanding: either the fruit that we perceive as bad is not bad, the tree which we perceive as good is not good, or the reasoning of the person providing the validation is faulty.  It's that simple.  History has proven time and time again that when reasoning is based on* OUR* estimation and understanding of scripture and not the Living Holy Spirit residing in us, that is where the fault lies.  Good trees *don't* produce bad fruit, ever, but the Life is in the Tree, not our interpretation of what's written on the paper made from it.


----------



## gemcgrew (Oct 22, 2020)

The Holy Spirit is not Extra-Biblical.


----------



## Ray357 (Oct 22, 2020)

Artfuldodger said:


> Society might be better off if scripture banned alcohol consumption instead of homosexuality.
> Think of all the problems alcohol causes? Divorce, car wrecks, hungry children, violence, lack of safety, unprotected sex, adultery, fornication.


Abomination and perversion is far worse than alcohol.


----------



## Ray357 (Oct 22, 2020)

SemperFiDawg said:


> I think this brings up a very good point that is maybe being lost.  When you state
> 
> 
> 
> you couldn't be more correct.  As believers we HAVE an "extra-Biblical" authority that we answer to that is the ultimate authority, even over that of OUR UNDERSTANDING of scripture. We have the Spirit of the Living God living inside of us.  This Holy Spirit IS alive and it has guided men through the dynamic changes of societal norms down through the ages and has never once been wrong.  As times changed men have undoubtedly made mistakes in enpowering THEIR UNDERSTANDING of scripture to guide/validate their behavior (slavery comes to mind).  In each and every instance in which error was made, it was due to men elevating their understanding of scripture over that of the Living Holy Spirit( that they may/may not have, but that's another topic altogether)  When men place the value/weight of THEIR INTERPRETATION/UNDERSTANDING of scripture over the guidance of the Living God( Pharisee comes to mind) bad outcomes are guaranteed.  When you see destruction with your own eyes (be it from slavery, addiction, sexual immorality, etc). you recognize it as "bad fruit".  We all do.   Then you hear people validating the behavior it stems from with scripture (a good tree).  Where is the error?  It HAS to be in our assumption that good trees don't produce bad fruit, or in our understanding: either the fruit that we perceive as bad is not bad, the tree which we perceive as good is not good, or the reasoning of the person providing the validation is faulty.  It's that simple.  History has proven time and time again that when reasoning is based on* OUR* estimation and understanding of scripture and not the Living Holy Spirit residing in us, that is where the fault lies.  Good trees *don't* produce bad fruit, ever, but the Life is in the Tree, not our interpretation of what's written on the paper made from it.


Scripture explicitly permits some consumption of alcohol. If The Holy Spirit supposedly  tells you something different, it was not Him talking.


----------



## LittleDrummerBoy (Oct 22, 2020)

The Holy Spirit is God.  His words have authority.

When He tells you to take better care of your wife, spend more time with your children or mow your neighbor's grass, YOU need to do that, or YOU are sinning.

But when the Holy Spirit speaks to YOU, those words are for YOU.  

I don't need to take better care of your wife, spend more time with your kids, or mow YOUR neithbor's grass.

The Holy Spirit is not telling YOU new rules for other Christians.  If he is speaking to YOU, then his words are for YOU.

That's what it means to have a PERSONAL relationship with Christ.  Christ is YOUR boss.  He is not making YOU boss of your brothers.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Oct 23, 2020)

LittleDrummerBoy said:


> The Holy Spirit is God.  His words have authority.
> 
> When He tells you to take better care of your wife, spend more time with your children or mow your neighbor's grass, YOU need to do that, or YOU are sinning.
> 
> ...





> But when the Holy Spirit speaks to YOU, those words are for YOU.





> That's what it means to have a PERSONAL relationship with Christ.  Christ is YOUR boss.  He is not making YOU boss of your brothers.



We are in 100% agreement on both of these statements.  MY issue with your "sermons" is that you point to scripture as the ultimate authority whereas I would direct the person to personally seek the Holy Spirit's guidance.  To some people alcohol is a deadly toxin, so making the blanket dictum that "alcohol in moderation" is OK based on scripture is destructive and NOT in keeping with the Spirit of God nor what scripture teaches.   If each person were pointed to establishing a living relationship with God instead of "what scripture says" we would have a lot healthier Church instead of one that is a mirror reflection of the world.  It's a fact people have a history of  interpreting scripture based on their personal desires.  As to the Holy Spirit leading someone to make a blanket statement to others it's OK to engage in destructive behavior, well I'll just say that is not in keeping with my understanding of God nor his desire for us.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Oct 23, 2020)

I think what was meant though is the Holy Spirit is not going to tell me different scripture than another person. Personal guidance yes, not the meaning a bible verses though.


----------



## Ray357 (Oct 23, 2020)

SemperFiDawg said:


> We are in 100% agreement on both of these statements.  MY issue with your "sermons" is that you point to scripture as the ultimate authority whereas I would direct the person to personally seek the Holy Spirit's guidance.  To some people alcohol is a deadly toxin, so making the blanket dictum that "alcohol in moderation" is OK based on scripture is destructive and NOT in keeping with the Spirit of God nor what scripture teaches.   If each person were pointed to establishing a living relationship with God instead of "what scripture says" we would have a lot healthier Church instead of one that is a mirror reflection of the world.  It's a fact people have a history of  interpreting scripture based on their personal desires.  As to the Holy Spirit leading someone to make a blanket statement to others it's OK to engage in destructive behavior, well I'll just say that is not in keeping with my understanding of God nor his desire for us.


Heresy is birthed in ANNYTHING OTHER THAN SCRIPTURE being used as final authority. God, who inerrantly inspired Scripture WILL NOT contradict Himself in any new revelation.

Is alcohol in moderation destructive behavior?


----------



## Israel (Oct 23, 2020)

Is there any other way to learn what is expedient but by embracing liberty?


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Oct 23, 2020)

Ray357 said:


> Heresy is birthed in ANNYTHING OTHER THAN SCRIPTURE being used as final authority. God, who inerrantly inspired Scripture WILL NOT contradict Himself in any new revelation.
> 
> Is alcohol in moderation destructive behavior?



If you will notice, I'm not arguing that scripture is in error, but people's interpretation of it.  Big difference.  People become dogmatic that scripture is the final authority, when what they are really saying is that their understanding of scripture is the final authority.  It's not, but the same mentality was used to crucify Christ, justify the slaughter of people down through the ages and pretty much any other atrocity committed in the name of Christ.   What's the common denominator: people being led by pride in their reading comprehension instead of their humility by the Holy Spirit.

Also I am not arguing that alcohol is forbidden by scripture.  It most certainly is not.  What I'm arguing is that alcohol can be and is destructive and for anyone, even a Non-Christian, to come out and make the blanket statement that it's OK in moderation(whatever that is) is wrong-headed.  Even an atheist who couldn't hit his butt with both hands tied behind his back knows better. 



> Is alcohol in moderation destructive behavior?



Define moderation.  Pretty much every alcoholic I know says their drinking started "in moderation" and went something along the lines of
1 then
1,2 then
1,2,3 then
1,2,3,4 then
1,2,10 then
1, oblivion.

So to answer your question.  Is alcohol in moderation destructive behavior?  If I take that to mean 1 at communion, another 1 or 2 at a wedding, 1 at Christmas, then No.   Listening to the video in the thread starter that was broadcast to the public, you tell me if that's what most take his meaning of "moderation" to mean?  Furthermore do you think that's how he mean it, or instead as social drinking?   I would argue if it was meant in the former context there would be no point in addressing it to start with as the whole notion would be absurd.  It would be akin to a "sermon" on "Is eating birthday cake a sin?"  Given he's addressed the issues of Are you fishing too much?, Are you eating too much?, Are you drinking too much?, Is your wife spending too much money? etc. that may be next.  Who knows?  Apparently the subject of these sermons are only limited by his ability to apply his interpretation of scripture to others and their perceived problems.  There hasn't been one yet that was entitled "Am *I* ________________ too much?"  His magnifying glass only looks outward, not reflecting inward.  What's the difference?  It's the difference between pride and humility, comprehension and wisdom,  hypocrisy and self-application, and alienation as opposed to compassion.  There's an old adage that goes something along the lines of "Don't point out, but instead identify with."


----------



## Ray357 (Oct 23, 2020)

SemperFiDawg said:


> If you will notice, I'm not arguing that scripture is in error, but people's interpretation of it.  Big difference.  People become dogmatic that scripture is the final authority, when what they are really saying is that their understanding of scripture is the final authority.  It's not, but the same mentality was used to crucify Christ, justify the slaughter of people down through the ages and pretty much any other atrocity committed in the name of Christ.   What's the common denominator: people being led by pride in their reading comprehension instead of their humility by the Holy Spirit.
> 
> Also I am not arguing that alcohol is forbidden by scripture.  It most certainly is not.  What I'm arguing is that alcohol can be and is destructive and for anyone, even a Non-Christian, to come out and make the blanket statement that it's OK in moderation(whatever that is) is wrong-headed.  Even an atheist who couldn't hit his butt with both hands tied behind his back knows better.
> 
> ...


Interpretation of Scripture can be flawed. Your explanation of it is the Classical liberal theology argument. Since you like slippery slopes, the conclusion of that argument is that Scripture is non-authorative because our interpretation may be flawed.


----------



## gemcgrew (Oct 23, 2020)

Israel said:


> Is there any other way to learn what is expedient but by embracing liberty?


You reckon the believer is free to drink as much as he wants to?

Of course!


----------



## Ray357 (Oct 23, 2020)

Romans 6:15


Israel said:


> Is there any other way to learn what is expedient but by embracing liberty?


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Oct 23, 2020)

Ray357 said:


> Interpretation of Scripture can be flawed. Your explanation of it is the Classical liberal theology argument. Since you like slippery slopes, the conclusion of that argument is that Scripture is non-authorative because our interpretation may be flawed.






> Your explanation of it is the Classical liberal theology argument.



You mean like this:

*Pope endorses civil union laws for same-sex couples*


https://www.cnn.com/2020/10/21/europe/pope-gay-couples-civil-union-intl/index.html

Whacha wanna bet he can cite scripture to support his position.  He is the Pope after all.


----------



## Ray357 (Oct 23, 2020)

SemperFiDawg said:


> You mean like this:
> 
> *Pope endorses civil union laws for same-sex couples*
> 
> ...


Wonderful example of liberal theology.

Citing cherry picked scripture is not a proper form of exegesis. We use the total of Scripture, but some things are so simple, one verse covers it.


----------



## Ray357 (Oct 23, 2020)

Israel said:


> Being set free by grace found in Jesus Christ can never be the cause of sin.


Grace can never cause sin, but Grace gets unjustly blamed when people do sin. Paul pretty well shut that excuse down though.


----------



## LittleDrummerBoy (Oct 24, 2020)

SemperFiDawg said:


> Define moderation.  Pretty much every alcoholic I know says their drinking started "in moderation" and went something along the lines of
> 1 then
> 1,2 then
> 1,2,3 then
> ...



This pattern is common to many areas of addiction and excess - prescription drugs, weed, food, sex, computer games, gambling, watching TV, etc.  By what criteria do we assign behaviors where addiction occurs into to the categories:
1)  A sin even in moderation
2)  Not a sin in moderation, but be careful

The Lord may lead individuals to refrain from alcohol completely as in the case of the Nazarites, Sampson, and John the Baptist.  The Lord may also give people dietary limitations, as shown in Scripture.  In other cases, the Lord may give a calling and gifting for celibacy.  These are matters of individual conviction.  Your faith, conscience, and convictions may put any behavior or action into category 1 (a sin even in moderation) for YOU.  But your faith, conscience, and convictions don't put the same behavior into category 1 for others.

There's can be wisdom in refraining from alcohol, prescription drugs, computer games, gambling, TV, etc.  But there is also a lot of wisdom in taking due care to distinguish between matters of righteousness (sin) and matters of wisdom, especially when communicating with others where their boundaries should be.  Sticking to boundaries clearly articulated in Scripture gives the Holy Spirit room to work, and the Holy Spirit tends to work in different people in different ways bringing different disciplines at different times.  Attempts to impose extra-Biblical rules on others are most often works of the flesh.

I've spoken with lots of rednecks over the past 18 months, and three extra-Biblical rules are a significant hindrance to their interest in church attendance:
a) Prohibition of alcohol
b) Required church attendance
c) Required tithing 10%

We shouldn't be putting these stumbling blocks in people's way.


----------



## Spotlite (Oct 24, 2020)

SemperFiDawg said:


> If you will notice, I'm not arguing that scripture is in error, but people's interpretation of it.  Big difference.  People become dogmatic that scripture is the final authority, when what they are really saying is that their understanding of scripture is the final authority.  It's not, but the same mentality was used to crucify Christ, justify the slaughter of people down through the ages and pretty much any other atrocity committed in the name of Christ.   What's the common denominator: people being led by pride in their reading comprehension instead of their humility by the Holy Spirit.
> 
> Also I am not arguing that alcohol is forbidden by scripture.  It most certainly is not.  What I'm arguing is that alcohol can be and is destructive and for anyone, even a Non-Christian, to come out and make the blanket statement that it's OK in moderation(whatever that is) is wrong-headed.  Even an atheist who couldn't hit his butt with both hands tied behind his back knows better.
> 
> ...


Moderation - If you were letting the Holy Spirit lead you on this topic - you’d quickly and surprisingly understand that there’s no one size fits all in anything you mentioned above. My wife spent $20 on lunch, Donald Trumps wife probably has spent $100 on a lunch. Who spent too much??

That’s why it was very important to point out the fact that it’s an individual issue based on his convictions, weaknesses and temptations. 

Since there are zero scriptures that forbid alcohol (unless you finally found one) there’s absolutely nothing else for YOU to hang YOUR hat on other than YOUR convictions.

This is a problem for the church - they want to do God’s work. Just go find the people, Let God clean them up the way he sees fit. He will do that through men he’s called to teach and preach.


----------



## Spotlite (Oct 24, 2020)

SemperFiDawg said:


> What I'm arguing is that alcohol can be and is destructive and for anyone


Both are true - It can be. And, it is destructive. But it’s dependent on more than the swallow.

The debate hasn’t been about the potential destruction - it has been about “sin”. You stated this: “Knowing that alcohol has the potential to destroy you, not to mention your spiritual walk with God, and then choosing to drink is a sin before you ever put that drink to your lips”

I think what some, including myself, are arguing is what is the point between it can be destructive, and it is? Who decides that? Now, based on your statement - a Coke is sin, because it has the potential to destroy you. BTW - social media and even this forum can be destructive to your family (depending on how much screen time you put in) so are we sinners because they have the potential??


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Oct 25, 2020)

LittleDrummerBoy said:


> This pattern is common to many areas of addiction and excess - prescription drugs, weed, food, sex, computer games, gambling, watching TV, etc.  By what criteria do we assign behaviors where addiction occurs into to the categories:
> 1)  A sin even in moderation
> 2)  Not a sin in moderation, but be careful
> 
> ...





> I've spoken with lots of rednecks over the past 18 months, and three extra-Biblical rules are a significant hindrance to their interest in church attendance:
> a) Prohibition of alcohol
> b) Required church attendance
> c) Required tithing 10%
> ...



LDB, I can name perhaps the two biggest that didn't even make your list. They are on the front of EVERYONE'S mind especially our young people, be they rednecks or not.

a)Prohibition of sex outside of marriage IN ANY FORM
b)Prohibition of same sex relationships

Society's question to the Church is the same as it is for social drinking, "What is wrong with engaging in this if it doesn't hurt anyone and all parties are consenting?"  It's a question the Church has not been able to answer.

The answer is this:  It does hurt you.  In fact it destroys the person from the inside out. With the very first act it destroys our spiritual relationship with God.  Then it destroys our soul by eating away at our dignity, integrity, self-worth, sanctity.  With our relationship with God severed, there is no regeneration of our soul and no hope, only despair.  For some this is a gradual process, for others it's fast.  (I think of the 5 fold difference in suicide rate between homosexual and heterosexuals)  Lastly it destroys the person physically, but because the physical destruction is last and is the only visible evidence others can see, they don't attribute it to the sin.  It's akin to a slow growing cancer cell that starts inside the body, metastasizes throughout the body and only in the last stage is the tumor visible.  People see the tumor and attribute the death to it, not realizing it is only a visible sign of a process that has been years or decades in the making.

That's why social drinking, sex outside of marriage, porn, same sex relationships, etc. are sins....because they destroy our spiritual relationship with God.  THAT relationship is the ONLY thing that not only keeps us alive and sustains us, but in and of itself, is actually the only thing that is GOOD for us in this entire universe.  When you give weight to the notion that any of that in moderation is OK, in any way, you are condoning others to engage in spiritually destructive behavior of the sole, life giving resource we have available: a healthy spiritual relationship with God.

From your statement above regarding your questioning of Rednecks regarding their hindrances to church attendance, and other past posts, I sense this is where your focus is.  I will just say this and leave it for you to digest, but if we don't teach people the truth; that the only way to find Peace and Life in this life and the next, is through establishing a living relationship with God through his son Jesus Christ, and then cherishing and nourishing that relationship all day, everyday, through our utmost ability in word and deed, then the only thing you are doing is moving corpses from outside to inside the church.   Whatever stumbling block they had outside will be a stumbling block inside.

The Living selfishly want to nourish that relationship and will do anything to grow it.  They won't want to do anything that could even conceivably damage it.  They won't want to drink.  They won't want sex outside of marriage.  Their tithing will never be enough to suit them.  They will cherish the opportunity to not only go to church, but serve in it any way they can.  They will come to realize that their relationship with God is the ONLY aspect of life where they can let their selfishness desire run rabid.  They realize they don't need a shift in rules, they have experienced a paradigm shift that has made the rules obsolete.  That's what we need to be addressing.  We aren't tasked with addressing rules, but sharing a LIFE and PEACE on a scale others can't fathom.  Hardly can I, but it's there none-the-less, for the asking.  That's the message we carry.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Oct 25, 2020)

Spotlite said:


> Moderation - If you were letting the Holy Spirit lead you on this topic - you’d quickly and surprisingly understand that there’s no one size fits all in anything you mentioned above. My wife spent $20 on lunch, Donald Trumps wife probably has spent $100 on a lunch. Who spent too much??
> 
> That’s why it was very important to point out the fact that it’s an individual issue based on his convictions, weaknesses and temptations.
> 
> ...



Would you feel the same if your wife or child said they had "no conviction" about sex outside of marriage?  If it's the "principal of conviction", that's a dangerous concept to hang your hat on.  An extreme I know, but a lot of cold blooded killers have no conviction about killing.  You better look to something higher than conviction for guidance.



> Since there are zero scriptures that forbid alcohol (unless you finally found one) there’s absolutely nothing else for YOU to hang YOUR hat on other than YOUR convictions.



Well if you want to hang you hat on scripture and be legalistic about it there's no scripture that forbids snorting cocaine off a strippers butt either.  My point is again, there's a higher calling.  I suggest it's framed by this concept:


> "Does this action have even the slightest potential to damage my relationship with Christ?"


 If I struggle I think I may can make a case for that concept with scripture.  If you can think of a better one I'm all ears, but I think it sufficiently answers your question,



> I think what some, including myself, are arguing is what is the point between it can be destructive, and it is? Who decides that?



and maybe even this critique.



> Moderation - If you were letting the Holy Spirit lead you on this topic - you’d quickly and surprisingly understand that there’s no one size fits all in anything you mentioned above.


.


----------



## Spotlite (Oct 25, 2020)

SemperFiDawg said:


> Would you feel the same if your wife or child said they had "no conviction" about sex outside of marriage?  If it's the "principal of conviction", that's a dangerous concept to hang your hat on.  An extreme I know, but a lot of cold blooded killers have no conviction about killing.  You better look to something higher than conviction for guidance.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I’m not sure you understand the true concept of conviction. 

But, sex outside of marriage is either fornication or adultery. Scripture explicitly forbids both. The sin is committing those acts. Conviction is feeling guilty for committing those acts. A seared conscience doesn’t feel any guilt. 

So, if you feel guilty about something that’s either explicitly forbidden or not, it’s because your convicted of it. 

Cocaine is illegal. You’re to obey the laws of the land - that’s also scripture. No interpretation or fancy Greek words to consider. 
For the record, legalism basically means you deciding that taking a drink is sin........for everyone  - because you feel it is. 

So, no Sir, you haven’t answered my question.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Oct 25, 2020)

Spotlite said:


> I’m not sure you understand the true concept of conviction.
> 
> But, sex outside of marriage is either fornication or adultery. Scripture explicitly forbids both. The sin is committing those acts. Conviction is feeling guilty for committing those acts. A seared conscience doesn’t feel any guilt.
> 
> ...



Then I don't think I can.


----------



## Spotlite (Oct 25, 2020)

SemperFiDawg said:


> Then I don't think I can.


You did for yourself. I have no argument there. The Bible doesn’t forbid alcohol. The Bible doesn’t forbid artificial sweeteners either. The Bible does tell you not to harm your body. So why is Coke Zero ok and alcohol sin?

 I pulled the following from an article. 

“The health effects of artificial sweeteners are controversial, and concern regarding their safety is growing (2Trusted Source). 
Though the research is inconsistent, some studies find that the use of artificial sweeteners may contribute to the development of obesity and metabolic syndrome, a cluster of conditions that increase disease risk (3Trusted Source, 4Trusted Source, 5Trusted Source).”


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Oct 25, 2020)

Spotlite said:


> You did for yourself. I have no argument there. The Bible doesn’t forbid alcohol. The Bible doesn’t forbid artificial sweeteners either. The Bible does tell you not to harm your body. So why is Coke Zero ok and alcohol sin?
> 
> I pulled the following from an article.
> 
> ...



My friend, I don't think I can make you see, help you to understand, that there's a higher life available to you that will exceed even the best life you have ever envisioned, give you more peace than you could have dreamed possible and free you from worrying about the do's and don'ts of scripture.  That fact frustrates me to no end.  God is a living God.  You are a living being created in his image.  It is the nature of beings to form relationships with each other.  That relationship is where the "life" is.  Scripture speaks of it.  In fact, it is the sole purpose of scripture, to testify to the living, breathing relationship available to us with God.  That said, multitudes form a relationship with scripture itself, make it their god and think they have found the "life."    
They have undoubtedly found a better way of living to the extent that they are able to keep it's statutes,  but it's not "life".  Sadly,  most will sooner or later wind up feeling "less than", because they will come to realize they can't attain or maintain the standard.
Many will abandon "the faith" or "the church" out of frustration and deem religion or God as "found wanting", when in fact it was their understanding that was misguided.  Had they placed their effort into establishing a relationship with God as they would a potential candidate for marriage, based on two-way communication and doing what's best for the relationship, the outcome would have been much different.

You can find a woman you are interested in, find out everything there is to know about her likes and dislikes and become a master at doing those things, but until you engage with her, come to know her personally, trust her completely, and commit your life to building, maintaining and protecting that relationship with her continually, you don't have a life with her.  You don't even KNOW her.  You just know ABOUT her.  You are just living up to your image of her from what you have gathered about her.  And as for her, she doesn't even know you exist, because there's no relationship.  I don't know any other way to put it.  If you were to actually come face to face with her some day it would truly result in a ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name and in your name drive out demons and in your name perform many miracles?’ Then I will tell them plainly, ‘I never knew you.' moment.


That pertains to the subject of this thread in exactly the way I have repeatedly stated.
If one has a relationship with God that he/she cherishes, they will not even entertain the thought of doing anything that could even potentially jeopardize that relationship.  That would include drinking, because the risk, any risk,  doesn't justify the potential damage to the relationship. Whether it's forbidden or allowed is a moot point.  The relationship is held that sacred.  People with this type of relationship will understand.  People without it won't, and they may never because they are more focused on finding out ABOUT God than finding a relationship WITH God.

I literally have nothing else I can say on this.  I'm incapable of making it any simpler to understand.


----------



## brian lancaster (Oct 25, 2020)

LittleDrummerBoy said:


> This pattern is common to many areas of addiction and excess - prescription drugs, weed, food, sex, computer games, gambling, watching TV, etc.  By what criteria do we assign behaviors where addiction occurs into to the categories:
> 1)  A sin even in moderation
> 2)  Not a sin in moderation, but be careful
> 
> ...


ive never heard a so called preacher argue if its ok to indulge in alcohol, you sound like the pope and the liberal democrats of the usa . shame on you


----------



## Spotlite (Oct 26, 2020)

SemperFiDawg said:


> My friend, I don't think I can make you see, help you to understand


 Bingo. Point made. Remember, basically, I said it’s an individual issue as God deals with them??? What does the rest of that have to do with you determining which is sin for others between two given examples of things that have the potential to be destructive either physically, mentally or both and neither are explicitly forbidden?? You do realize that the ideology of making things a sin for others is deeper than taking a drink?? Ever been told it’s a sin to have a tv in the house?? A Christmas tree???


SemperFiDawg said:


> My friend, I don't think I can make you see, help you to understand, that there's a higher life available to you that will exceed even the best life you have ever envisioned, give you more peace than you could have dreamed possible and free you from worrying about the do's and don'ts of scripture.  That fact frustrates me to no end.  God is a living God.  You are a living being created in his image.  It is the nature of beings to form relationships with each other.  That relationship is where the "life" is.  Scripture speaks of it.  In fact, it is the sole purpose of scripture, to testify to the living, breathing relationship available to us with God.  That said, multitudes form a relationship with scripture itself, make it their god and think they have found the "life."
> They have undoubtedly found a better way of living to the extent that they are able to keep it's statutes,  but it's not "life".  Sadly,  most will sooner or later wind up feeling "less than", because they will come to realize they can't attain or maintain the standard.
> Many will abandon "the faith" or "the church" out of frustration and deem religion or God as "found wanting", when in fact it was their understanding that was misguided.  Had they placed their effort into establishing a relationship with God as they would a potential candidate for marriage, based on two-way communication and doing what's best for the relationship, the outcome would have been much different.
> 
> ...


1 - While I agree with you, it’s not up to you to determine which potential risks will jeopardize another mans relationship with God. 2 - it’s disheartening to hear folks condemn one potentially destructive action and condone another - remember artificial sweetener verses alcohol?  I realize some are just big boned and might have thyroid issues, but when a man has 5 pieces of chicken on his plate after the third trip to the buffet, I have issue with a Glutton telling me that my Christmas tree is a sin. 

Finally, I never justified drinking. I only wanted to know how you came to the determination that it was sin for everyone based on a “potential” without all the other - the other is how arrived at that point for YOU.


----------



## Spotlite (Oct 26, 2020)

SemperFiDawg said:


> 1 - a higher life available to you that will exceed even the best life you have ever envisioned, give you more peace than you could have dreamed possible and free you from worrying about the do's and don'ts..............2 - That would include drinking, because the risk, any risk,  doesn't justify the potential damage to the relationship. Whether it's forbidden or allowed is a moot point.



1. Trust me, I’m definitely at peace. I’m definitely free from worrying about the do’s and dont’s. I’m not bound to the condemnation and yokes of others. 2. That’s contradicting Romans 14.

Where you keep failing to address my argument is only two areas - 1, how did you determine what is a potential damage for another man and 2, how do you decide which is sin and which is acceptable between the two things I previously used as examples?

I can agree with you 100% until it comes to this statement by you - “Knowing that alcohol has the potential to destroy you, not to mention your spiritual walk with God, and then choosing to drink is a sin before you ever put that drink to your lips”

After reading Romans 14, do you see the issue in red if you say it’s sin for anyone besides yourself?


----------



## Israel (Oct 26, 2020)

If one does, why does anyone trust Paul's opinion on anything?


----------



## Spotlite (Oct 26, 2020)

Israel said:


> If one does, why does anyone trust Paul's opinion on anything?


Why would you not?


----------



## Israel (Oct 26, 2020)

Spotlite said:


> Why would you not?



In the broadest sense because I do not find all opinions trustworthy. Or perhaps better said, worthy of investing my trust in. But if I do trust Paul's, and any other does likewise, on what basis?


----------



## Spotlite (Oct 26, 2020)

Israel said:


> In the broadest sense because I do not find all opinions trustworthy. Or perhaps better said, worthy of investing my trust in. But if I do trust Paul's, and any other dose likewise, on what basis?


Writing God’s Word seems pretty trustworthy to me.

But, Paul had the attitude of “I wish that all men were as I am”. Paul is credited for writing Romans. Romans 14 in particular for the topic of this thread - Paul neither condemned nor condoned there.


To blatantly state “this is sin” when scripture doesn’t forbid it, I can still respect the opinion, but turn a deaf ear to the condemnation.


----------



## LittleDrummerBoy (Oct 27, 2020)

brian lancaster said:


> ive never heard a so called preacher argue if its ok to indulge in alcohol, you sound like the pope and the liberal democrats of the usa . shame on you



I give you back your shame.  Scripture tells us "do not go beyond what is written."  Surely, the Holy Spirit can bring conviction about anything, but when carrying out the Great Commission, I exercise due care not to put unnecessary "stumbling blocks" in people's way to grow closer to Jesus.  (Romans 14:13) 

The Bible gives testimony to a number of preachers/teachers/prophets/priests who either explicitly approved of, provided examples of, or refused to describe as sin the use of alcohol in moderation (and sometimes more than that).  A few examples are:  Noah, Melchizedek, Isaac, Jacob, Moses, David, Nehemiah, Solomon, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Daniel, Joel, Amos, Zechariah, Jesus, and Paul.  Do you plan on trying to add your shame to their good names and reputations?

There are a small number of men in Scripture who refrained from alcohol, but in every case, they understood it as a personal discipline for their specific ministries rather than as a broad prohibition.  There are no preachers in Scripture ever recorded as preaching, teaching, or proclaiming a broad prohibition on alcohol.


----------



## Para Bellum (Oct 27, 2020)

Yes.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Oct 27, 2020)

Metro Trout said:


> Yes.



The most relevant post to date.


----------



## StriperAddict (Oct 30, 2020)

Spotlite said:


> The Bible does tell you not to harm your body.



There lies a chief motivator to this whole thing. 

As we walk in His presence we uniquely find in our hearts the sum of all Life that never wants to crush us or cause us harm. ALL things are lawful, but not all profit us.  The Spirit will lead us into what tips the scales of our health ... and that of our souls as well. (Soul health by moderating the natural earthly things? For another discussion perhaps.)


----------



## Israel (Oct 30, 2020)

I may not be drinking too much, or even enough. But by the look of my waistline and the panting that accompanies anything requiring a bending at the waist (trimming toe nails is like running a marathon) I'd appreciate prayer to decrease calories and/or increase activity. Or even desire to do so.


----------



## StriperAddict (Oct 30, 2020)

Israel said:


> I may not be drinking too much, or even enough. But by the look of my waistline and the panting that accompanies anything requiring a bending at the waist (trimming toe nails is like running a marathon) I'd appreciate prayer to decrease calories and/or increase activity. Or even desire to do so.



LOL, I can so relate!


----------



## LittleDrummerBoy (Oct 31, 2020)

I don't worry so much about some extra energy storage about the mid section.  That might come in handy when the food supply is interrupted.

Personally, my goal is not to be a burden to others, but rather a blessing.  When food is in short supply, will my energy storage allow me to pass on food so others can eat?  Or will the self-control issues that got me here have me fighting for food I don't really need?

I do tend to my overall fitness, though.  When the balloon goes up I need to pull my own weight.  Peace and prosperity will not last forever.  It never does.


----------

