Posted on 11/25/2013 9:03:35 AM PST by Laissez-faire capitalist
The Apostle Paul said to not become drunk on wine, but to be filled with the Spirit. Obviously, there is a point at which one can imbibe a certain amount of alcohol, be it from fermented grapes, fermenting honey, or whatever - and become drunk.
I imagine that some people, somewhere, can drink one beer for the first time and become drunk - a rarity indeed - but nonetheless not outside the realm of possiblity. And so, by drinking that first beer, they become drunk --- and sin. Others may say that it takes x amount (be it from wine, beer, hard liquor, etc) to become drunk (i.e. a 6 pack). Others may say that it takes x amount of the aforementioned times 1.5 (9 beers). Others may say 2 times x - a 12 pack...
Is it different for each person? .
Can some people say "I wasn't drunk, I was just slightly tipsy, or somewhat tipsy, and thus was not drunk and therefore do not need to repent of the sin of drunkenness." Who is to say? Do they alone know the truth?
The best thing to do is avoid alcohol altogether.
Now some may say that if this road is trod that it could lead to a host of "maybe I shouldn't do this or that" and thus it becomes a question of necessity.
Is clothing necessary? Yes. Is food necessary? Yes. And on and on... And so, some things in life aren't necessary. Is alcohol necessary?
Can someone become addicted to a host of things? Certainly. Some are probably addicted to social websites - how is that any different from being addicted to cigarettes? Sure, certain addiction may have different levels of consquence, but addictions of any sort aren't pleasing to God.
And, once again, I will add to this - for those who missed it the first two times:
A young man was heard accepting Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior. A few years later he went off to Bible college, graduated, and became a youth pastor not long thereafter. Around two years later he fell into sin, deep sin, whatever. Half of the church thought that he was never saved to begin with, and the other half thought that he had merely "fallen out of fellowship" with Christ, but was nonetheless still saved.
So how much bad fruit, or lack of good fruit, does one have to show in order to be classified into the "never saved" to begin with or the merely "out of fellowship with Christ"? X amount of sin? X amount plus one act of drunkenness? X amount of a particular sin, plus one act of drunkenness, plus one time of fornication to put them "over the top" and into the realm of the "never saved"? And how much of a time period must elapse between each sin(s)?
Yes, Paul the Apostle knew that certain of the Thessalonians were saved, and appaerently the Apostle John knew that certain were saved when he wrote to them, but they were writing the scriptures. The Bible says that the scriptures are God breathed, and Paul wrote that the scriptures were written when the Holy Spirit moved upon men.
And thus it wasn't Paul or John who knew who was or wasn't saved, but God alone --- He revealed this to them as they wrote the scriptures. But since there are supposedly no Apostles around anymore, who is there for God to reveal things like this to? And secondly, the canon of scripture is closed.
I believe that we know personally if our hearts are or aren't right with Jesus Christ. I know when God has pricked my heart on several occasions. As to being able to say with absolute certainty whether or not the person sitting next to me or you in the pew is or isn't saved - who is to know?
I believe that the term "out of fellowship with Christ" needs to be chunked.
If a person is in sin, claims to be saved, then someone should follow the scriptures and go to that person and tell them that they need to repent. If they refuse, then take a second person, (an elder of the church). If they refuse to repent, let the local body of believers they belong to decide to tell them that they refuse to repent and are thus disfellowshipped. Sure, they can still come to that church church, but they (as Jesus said) would be treated like a heathen man.
And so, if that youth pastor person ultimately refused to repent... in the end, was he never truly saved to begin with? And if so, how could they he duped the church for so long?
If his departure from the church was his unmasking, who is to say that he will never return and truly repent, thus showing that a declaration of him being never saved to begin with was actually premature, as they later repented, and thus showed that they were saved in the first place, and had not duped the church, but had fallen into sin?
So, once again, how can one ever differentiate here in the here and now, and at this moment b/w those who are or will be known later as the "never saved" and the "fallen out of fellowship with Christ"?
Are you skeptical of blood/alcohol levels for drunk driving convictions? Or are you skeptical of someone saying that the bible supports helpful laws of governments?
So, once again, how can one ever differentiate here in the here and now, and at this moment b/w those who are or will be known later as the “never saved” and the “fallen out of fellowship with Christ”?
*****
It’s not your job. The Lord knows what’s in each heart. Relax.
Recommend the below sermon. It will be a blessing:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/3093981/posts
As far as being drunk and what that means for any alcohol consumption, we are told to not be drunken, or controlled by wine or any other thing that would prevent the Holy Spirit from filling us and being in control of our lives - in EVERY area.
Take fresh grapes (no suppressive chemicals added).
Squeeze the juice out.
Wait a week.
The result is wine, featuring alcohol.
And no, a nice glass of the stuff with dinner isn’t going to put anyone in a box.
Mate after all that reading I could sure use a pint of beer - just one though :)
Somewhere between thispy and sot.
On the contrary, alcohol is a natural occurrence as a byproduct of the yeast consuming the natural sugars in the juice. It happens in beer, mead, grains, etc. It is how bread rises, even.
LOLOLOL!!! You get the “Fractal Wrongness” picture because you pointed out the fractal wrongness of what was posted! From what I read, the “theologians” couldn’t decide which side of the fence they were on just like you said.
That's nice, and it is true, but the phase of ethanol (EtOH) formied is only a transitional phase as the sugars pass from dissolved molecules of fructose to molecules of acetic acid (EtOOH) in vinegar, when the process is completely open to air. In such a process, the amount of ethanol at any moment is very low.
Are you not aware that in order to stop the oxidation of the sugars, the process must take place in the absence of free oxygen from the air?
One way is to place the juice in an elastic container, a new sheepskin, and seal it. Then, in presence of yeast, the sugars break down anaerobically to form EtOH and carbon dioxide (CO2). This is not a natural process. It only occurs when mankind intervenes with some kind of device to to interrupt the natural transformation to vinegar. Capisce?
A more modern way to produce wine is basically to put the juice into a container, add some manufactured sugar to drive up the alcohol percentage, add yeast, then seal with an exhaust tube in the stopper. Then connect a length of Tygon tubing to the exhaust tube, and submerge the other end of the tube in a beaker of water or vegetable oil.
This allows the excess CO2 to bubble out, without having air allowed back into the container. Then allow the process to complete. At some point, the alcohol content reaches about 12% maximum, enough to stop further enzymatic action. (Human intervention required, eh?)
Forming intoxicating beverages is a man-made process, not a natural one. It was discovered very early on, after the atmospheric conditions and yeast contamination of everything occurred after the flood. Doubtless, righteous Noah had no idea that his first batch of bottled grape juice was going to become intoxicating after the flood catastrophe.
Apparently his antediluvian culture did not know much about fermentation processes. I see little mention of bread as a principal food until Abrahams time, although God did mention it in Genesis 3. But God declares that their principal food was to be green herbs, not baked bread. Nor is there any mention that Noah formed a habit of recreational use of intoxicants subsequent to that unique post-flood experience.
Well, at least I know what drunkenness isn't. Whatever the government decides is sure to be wrong by default.
Like I'd trust THEM to define morality?
OK, now that we know what it isn't, we can finish trying to figure out what it IS.
I’m glad to see you agree with me. I thought it was wrong on every level as well.
Then Obamacare is also the LAW of the land. Why are we fighting it?
Whoa!
Now it's HELPFUL ones?
Render to Caesar that which is Caesar's, but more to the point, "obey every law and ordinance..."
Similar to Godwin’s law, FR seems to have the law of the Babbling Fool.
SELF control seems to be mentioned a LOT in Scripture, without DETAILING just WHAT it is that needs to be controlled.
Oh goody!
Now he’s gotten the dog to bark at him thru the fence!
I believe that recreational use of alcohol controls a person as long as he/she insists that they will not abandon it and cling only to the Christ of The Cross and his Spirit. I believe the "two master" (Mt. 8:24, Lk. 16:13) principle of two opposites applies here, just as it would for avarice (or for gluttony, or gossip, or pornography, etc.)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.