From a Biblical standpoint, when is drunkenness reached?

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...

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?

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?

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"?

So, does the Lord command anywhere that NO wine should EVER be used by ANYONE? No, I don't think He does

Though I hate it, I am going to have to disagree with you on this, dear BB.

In fact, you had the correct answer right in your hand, the God-breathed verse which firmly says otherwise:

Pro 23:31 "Look* not thou upon the wine . . . "

* Imperfect tense, an act persistently or habitually performed in the past, but may be continually ongoing. 'Don't you have been staring longingly at . . .' This is not in the imperative voice on the one hand, but is not just take-it-or-leave it conditional wise advice, as the simple past or present tense might allow. No, it is a strengthened form of instruction that must not be ignored. Also, regard that the audience was unregenerated souls who had no indwelling Holy Spirit to instantly monitor and reinforce this Scripture, which says 'No! Look not!'

". . . when it is red, . . ."

Here the wine has changed through fermentation from a sugar-laden, neutral or mildly alkaline fluid has changed to an acidic (pH ~1 to ~3), sugar-depleted whose ambient population of anthocyanin color centers no longer absorb red and transmit blue light, but now absorb the blue and transmit red. This causes a shift from the fluid being purple to being red, an indicator of significant fermentation having taken place. Note that wine vinegar from purple grapes is also quite red

". . . when it giveth his colour in the cup, ..."

This is caused by the change to red, and accentuated by an increase in the index of refraction due to the dissolved alcohol fermentation product.

". . . when it moveth itself aright.

A large fraction of ethanol present will reduce the surface tension, such that wine in the glass will, after swirling, form a perceptible band of evaporated and recondensed alcohol, try to withdraw from the meniscus of the main body, thus forming 'tears' or 'legs,' as described by astute wine tasters. the main body

These physical properties are indicative of alcoholic content, without having to taste the fluid and are the signs for which the Holy Ghost warns the partaker of the presence of ethanol, a central nervous system poison, as well as other toxins--tannin, sulfites, phenols, and glycerine. The intake of toxins intoxicates one. (Note also that by direct inference, the grape juice is still wine when these properties are absent. I have never had a headache and overwhelming nausea fron drinking lots of Welch's.)

But the unregenerated carnal person or the spiritual infant likely will not hear and heed the Spiritual warning. And those who may be "Christian" but not really spiritually mature, will find reasons or excuses for self or others to continue toleration of alcohol as a recreational drug at some level, when the Holy Ghost clearly and unequivocally says "NO!" in God's Holy Word. This attitude is the mark of one who has no desire to advance further spiritually, IMHO.

Think of the wise, Spirit-controlled, hero Daniel, and the Scripture-bathed fellow Christians Hananiah, Mishael, and Azariah who followed his example:

"But Daniel purposed in his heart that he would not defile himself with the portion of the king's meat, nor with the wine which he drank: therefore he requested of the prince of the eunuchs that he might not defile himself" (Dan 1:8 AV)

Alcohol as a viand or recreational beverage for the committed Christan both defiles himself, insults the Holy Ghost, and deludes the onlooking world as to one's profession. On the other hand, takin in this doctrine, and thus being indoctrinated by the Holy Ghost, will lead to superlative spiritual rewards and maturity. Beloved John spoke of spiritual maturity in his acknowledgement of the neaniskos, "I write unto you, young men, because ye have overcome the wicked one.. . . I have written unto you, young men, because ye are strong, and the word of God abideth in you, and ye have overcome the wicked one." He continues, "Love not the world, neither the things that are in the world. If any man love the world, the love of the Father is not in him. For all that is in the world, the lust of the flesh, and the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life, is not of the Father, but is of the world. And the world passeth away, and the lust thereof: but he that doeth the will of God abideth for ever." (1 Jn 2:13-17)

Dear BB, leavened wine is of the world system, it is not of The Father. Refusal to release it through lust of the flesh is not prompted by The Holy Ghost. It defiles one. one cannot become a spiritual adult, much less a spiritual parent of new spiritual babes, if such items are to be tolerated. one sign of young spiritual adults overcoming the Wicked One is putting away table wine for good, and sticking to the delicious 100% grape juice made from concentrate, freely available and cheap; just as full of resveratrol and antioxidants as Thunderbird, and far tastier. I shiver when I think of some footstomped, E. coli contaminated, unfiltered, unpasteurized grape must stored in an untanned goatskin for a few weeks or months, of which Jesus spoke, and not in a commending way. .

Ask not what beverage alcohol can do for me; ask what I can do for those whose livelihood is in manufacturing beverage alcohol.

Or distilled spirits.

(I worked for the Dupont Company, after Charles and Edgar Bronfman, the owner of Seagram's Distilleries, bought it out and raped it.)

Look not on the wine when it is red . . . Eh?

I appreciate that you have strong feelings about this subject and I agree that for some people - those who have a "problem" with alcohol abuse - the complete avoidance of any alcohol is wise. What I don't agree with - and mildly resent - is the notion that everyone has to believe as you do about a topic that Scripture never draws a black or white line on. That a Christian has "liberty" on those areas that are nonessential seems to irk particularly legalistic folks. The idea, that one answers to God for ALL of his life choices, brings down judgmental and superior attitudes from them that can cause the OPPOSITE response from "babes in Christ".

Personally, I rarely have a (meaning ONE) glass of wine with dinner. I'll even cook with wine on occasion. Alcohol is not a big issue for me and I can take it or leave it - I don't HAVE TO have it and neither does my husband. If he chooses to have a glass or two of wine at the end of a long day to relax at home, who am I or anyone to dictate to him that he isn't being a "good" Christian if he does? Our use of alcohol is not a "recreational drug" and I resent the idea that this demonstrates mine or anyone else's immaturity in the faith, resistance or stubborn refusal to obey God or a denial of Scriptural commands. You are free to hold your own opinions and live the life you do between you and God, but consider that others also have that freedom to choose for themselves as well.

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.