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"?
Couldn't agree more. The problem is that some mean saved but not living a life that testifies to Christ's indwelling presence, and some mean not saved.
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?
Maybe. Maybe not. That's God's decision.
What we are called to do is not judge whether he was saved or not, but treat him as if he weren't. There's a difference.
IOM, that would disqualify him from serving in office at a church. It would also mean urging him into reconciliation with God.
I like the way that is stated in 2 Corinthians because it has universal application. Regardless of where the person stands with God, they are urged to be made right with him.
For the unbeliever, that would be encouraging him to get saved. For the believer, it would be encouraging him to deal with sin in his life and go into a deeper walk with Christ.
I suppose it would depend on who or what is doing the controlling.
Whether the person can control his alcohol consumption or the alcohol controls him.
I’d hazard a guess that falling down drunk, black out, puking your guts out the next morning kind of drunk is over the line.
Here he was baptized to fulfill all righteousness.
"Then cometh Jesus from Galilee to Jordan unto John, to be baptized of him. But John forbad him, saying, I have need to be baptized of thee, and comest thou to me? And Jesus answering said unto him, Suffer it to be so now: for thus it becometh us to fulfil all righteousness. Then he suffered him" (Mt 3:13-15 AV).
This was one of the seven baptisms mentioned in the New Testament; eight, if one counts the ritual cleansing in the mikvah.
Jesus was baptised twice.
To be revealed to Israel.
John 1:29-34 The next day he saw Jesus coming toward him, and said, “Behold, the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world! This is he of whom I said, ‘After me comes a man who ranks before me, because he was before me.’ I myself did not know him, but for this purpose I came baptizing with water, that he might be revealed to Israel.” And John bore witness: “I saw the Spirit descend from heaven like a dove, and it remained on him. I myself did not know him, but he who sent me to baptize with water said to me, ‘He on whom you see the Spirit descend and remain, this is he who baptizes with the Holy Spirit.’ And I have seen and have borne witness that this is the Son of God.”
If you’ve had enough that you start making bad decisions, at whatever that point is, you’ve had enough. If you’ve had enough that you don’t later remember making said decisions, at whatever that point was, you’ve definitely had enough. If you want Biblical examples, there’s Noah getting “get-nekked” drunk, and Lot having his daughters get him “have sex with us” drunk, and several passages in Proverbs. They’re not talking about just relaxing and having a good time with friends and family. They’re talking about getting messed up.
1 Corinthians 6:19-20 Do you not know that your bodies are temples of the Holy Spirit, who is in you, whom you have received from God? You are not your own; you were bought at a price. Therefore honor God with your bodies.
I think drinking to excess is not only drunkenness as described in a Biblical fashion, it dishonoring our bodies that God gave us.
However, Christ Himself drank wine.
WINE IN THE BIBLE: A BIBLICAL STUDY ON THE USE OF ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES
The above article gives a very thorough explanation of the issue from a Biblical perspective.
Christ even gave this brilliant retort to those who would accuse Him:
Matthew 11:19 "The Son of Man came eating and drinking, and they say, ‘Here is a glutton and a drunkard, a friend of tax collectors and sinners.’ But wisdom is proved right by her deeds."
Freeper Cuban Leaf also brought up the subject of obesity, which is a subject that very, very few Christians or pastors discuss.
I have heard many sermons solely devoted to alcohol.
I have never, ever heard a single sermon devoted to gluttony.
America currently has a an obesity epidemic approaching 1/3 of the entire population.
The Bible condemns this behavior as much as it condemn drunkeness:
Proverbs 28:7 The one who keeps the law is a son with understanding, but a companion of gluttons shames his father.
Proverbs 23:20-21 "Do not join those who drink too much wine or gorge themselves on meat, for drunkards and gluttons become poor, and drowsiness clothes them in rags."
There are many others, including warnings from Christ. But little is sometimes said on the subject, because many people are obese - and it is not a topic that people (even in the church) are are eager to "go there."
Can you imagine sitting in a church, noticing all the fat or obese people around you, and listening to a message on over eating? I am sure some pastor has done it, but I have yet to see it.
The message, as has been stated here, is moderation in all things, but also self control, which is a gift of the Holy Spirit:
Galatians 5:22-23 "But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, meekness, temperance: against such there is no law."
Matt 3:13Then cometh Jesus from Galilee to Jordan unto John, to be baptized of him .
Mat 3:14 But John forbad him, saying, I have need to be baptized of thee, and comest thou to me?
Mat 3:15 And Jesus answering said unto him, Suffer it to be so now: for thus it becometh us to fulfil all righteousness. Then he suffered him.
Mat 3:16 And Jesus, when he was baptized, went up straightway out of the water: and, lo, the heavens were opened unto him, and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove, and lighting upon him:
The key verse is 15, particularly;
" ... for thus it becometh us to fulfil all righteousness"
Two people involved here ... John and Jesus and they both had a job to do.
John had to baptize and Jesus had to BE baptized ... simply ... in obedience.
The righteousness fulfilled is nothing more than being obedient.
Mat 3:17 And lo a voice from heaven, saying, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.
PS ... Jesus saw the Spirir of God descending like a dove ... not John nor the crowd.
THIS was not the time to reveal Jesus ... that would come later.
My decisions got so much better while drinking booze that I was never wrong...I also became an excellent driver...
And my taste in women was impicker ... emperker ... impcilli ... better as time wore on an dricxsh flewed an stufflikethast ...
>>> You bring up a good point regarding overweight believers.
On the contrary, what blood sugar level would be considered sinful?
If sugar is sinful, I’m the devil.
>>1 Corinthians 6:19-20 Do you not know that your bodies are temples of the Holy Spirit, who is in you, whom you have received from God? You are not your own; you were bought at a price. Therefore honor God with your bodies. <<
I'm afraid your text above is a mistranslation, whose interpretation using the English alone leads you to a serious error.
In fact, the words "body" and "temple" in the Koine are singular both in the Received Text and in the Critical Text, not plural. But "you" and "your" are second person plural, and involves the several individuals as combined into one singular body.
The mistranslation you have leads one to believe that this is a reproof for and to each individual as affecting only one's state of relationship with the Lord. That is very definitely not the gist of this verse (though erring in that direction is quite tempting), when examining the grammar.
No, this is a letter of correction addressed to the local immature church as a body at Corinth, whose members constitute one body, a local Body of The Christ; and thus the reprimand is toward the conduct of the member as it affects the whole church body.
Here is a more accurate translation:
"What? know ye not that your body is the temple of the Holy Ghost which is in you, which ye have of God, and ye are not your own? For ye are bought with a price: therefore glorify God in your body, and in your spirit, which are God's" (1 Cor. 6:19-20 AV)(my strikeout of "the"; the construction is anarthrous).
(It is the local church which here is a temple of the Holy Ghost, not any particular individual. Better yet would be ". . .your body is The Holy Ghost's Temple in y'all . . .)
He/she that engages in sexual immorality (as in this context), or foolishness (Eph. 5:15-17), or drunkenness (Eph. 5:18a) brings not only God's chastening upon him/herself, but more importantly, upon the whole local assembly; as Achan's personal sin brought condemnation upon the whole congregation of Israel (Josh. 7:1-26). Defiling yourself with alcohol as a recreational man-made drug is fraught with retributional action from The God on both him/herself:
"Know ye not that ye are the temple of God, and that the Spirit of God dwelleth in you? If any man defile the temple of God, him shall God destroy; for the temple of God is holy, which temple ye are" (1 Cor. 3:16-17 AV).
(Note that your critical source text also deletes the last half of verse 20.)
A: To keep the Irish from rulin' the world.
(Please, please, just a joke, not a personal belief.)
“The bible says “obey every law and ordinance of man.”
Including the ones that required turning Jews over to the Nazis?
HaHaHa...
http://www.newadvent.org/summa/3150.htm
Article 1. Whether drunkenness is a sin?
Objection 1. It would seem that drunkenness is not a sin. For every sin has a corresponding contrary sin, thus timidity is opposed to daring, and presumption to pusillanimity. But no sin is opposed to drunkenness. Therefore drunkenness is not a sin.
Objection 2. Further, every sin is voluntary [Augustine, De Vera Relig. xiv]. But no man wishes to be drunk, since no man wishes to be deprived of the use of reason. Therefore drunkenness is not a sin.
Objection 3. Further, whoever causes another to sin, sins himself. Therefore, if drunkenness were a sin, it would follow that it is a sin to ask a man to drink that which makes him drunk, which would seem very hard.
Objection 4. Further, every sin calls for correction. But correction is not applied to drunkards: for Gregory [Cf. Canon Denique, dist. 4 where Gratian refers to a letter of St. Gregory to St. Augustine of Canterbury] says that “we must forbear with their ways, lest they become worse if they be compelled to give up the habit.” Therefore drunkenness is not a sin.
On the contrary, The Apostle says (Romans 13:13): “Not in rioting and drunkenness.”
I answer that, Drunkenness may be understood in two ways. First, it may signify the defect itself of a man resulting from his drinking much wine, the consequence being that he loses the use of reason. On this sense drunkenness denotes not a sin, but a penal defect resulting from a fault. Secondly, drunkenness may denote the act by which a man incurs this defect. This act may cause drunkenness in two ways. On one way, through the wine being too strong, without the drinker being cognizant of this: and in this way too, drunkenness may occur without sin, especially if it is not through his negligence, and thus we believe that Noah was made drunk as related in Genesis 9. On another way drunkenness may result from inordinate concupiscence and use of wine: in this way it is accounted a sin, and is comprised under gluttony as a species under its genus. For gluttony is divided into “surfeiting [Douay:,’rioting’] and drunkenness,” which are forbidden by the Apostle (Romans 13:13).
Reply to Objection 1. As the Philosopher says (Ethic. iii, 11), insensibility which is opposed to temperance “is not very common,” so that like its species which are opposed to the species of intemperance it has no name. Hence the vice opposed to drunkenness is unnamed; and yet if a man were knowingly to abstain from wine to the extent of molesting nature grievously, he would not be free from sin.
Reply to Objection 2. This objection regards the resulting defect which is involuntary: whereas immoderate use of wine is voluntary, and it is in this that the sin consists.
Reply to Objection 3. Even as he that is drunk is excused if he knows not the strength of the wine, so too is he that invites another to drink excused from sin, if he be unaware that the drinker is the kind of person to be made drunk by the drink offered. But if ignorance be lacking neither is excused from sin.
Reply to Objection 4. Sometimes the correction of a sinner is to be foregone, as stated above (Question 33, Article 6). Hence Augustine says in a letter (Ad Aurel. Episc. Ep. xxii), “Meseems, such things are cured not by bitterness, severity, harshness, but by teaching rather than commanding, by advice rather than threats. Such is the course to be followed with the majority of sinners: few are they whose sins should be treated with severity.”
Article 2. Whether drunkenness is a mortal sin?
Objection 1. It would seem that drunkenness is not a mortal sin. For Augustine says in a sermon on Purgatory [Serm. civ in the Appendix to St. Augustine’s works] that “drunkenness if indulged in assiduously, is a mortal sin.” Now assiduity denotes a circumstance which does not change the species of a sin; so that it cannot aggravate a sin infinitely, and make a mortal sin of a venial sin, as shown above (I-II, 88, 5). Therefore if drunkenness is not a mortal sin for some other reason, neither is it for this.
Objection 2. Further, Augustine says [Serm. civ in the Appendix to St. Augustine’s works]: “Whenever a man takes more meat and drink than is necessary, he should know that this is one of the lesser sins.” Now the lesser sins are called venial. Therefore drunkenness, which is caused by immoderate drink, is a venial sin.
Objection 3. Further, no mortal sin should be committed on the score of medicine. Now some drink too much at the advice of the physician, that they may be purged by vomiting; and from this excessive drink drunkenness ensues. Therefore drunkenness is not a mortal sin.
On the contrary, We read in the Canons of the Apostles (Can. xli, xlii): “A bishop, priest or deacon who is given to drunkenness or gambling, or incites others thereto, must either cease or be deposed; a subdeacon, reader or precentor who does these things must either give them up or be excommunicated; the same applies to the laity.” Now such punishments are not inflicted save for mortal sins. Therefore drunkenness is a mortal sin.
I answer that, The sin of drunkenness, as stated in the foregoing Article, consists in the immoderate use and concupiscence of wine. Now this may happen to a man in three ways. First, so that he knows not the drink to be immoderate and intoxicating: and then drunkenness may be without sin, as stated above (Article 1). Secondly, so that he perceives the drink to be immoderate, but without knowing it to be intoxicating, and then drunkenness may involve a venial sin. Thirdly, it may happen that a man is well aware that the drink is immoderate and intoxicating, and yet he would rather be drunk than abstain from drink. Such a man is a drunkard properly speaking, because morals take their species not from things that occur accidentally and beside the intention, but from that which is directly intended. On this way drunkenness is a mortal sin, because then a man willingly and knowingly deprives himself of the use of reason, whereby he performs virtuous deeds and avoids sin, and thus he sins mortally by running the risk of falling into sin. For Ambrose says (De Patriarch. [De Abraham i.]): “We learn that we should shun drunkenness, which prevents us from avoiding grievous sins. For the things we avoid when sober, we unknowingly commit through drunkenness.” Therefore drunkenness, properly speaking, is a mortal sin.
Reply to Objection 1. Assiduity makes drunkenness a mortal sin, not on account of the mere repetition of the act, but because it is impossible for a man to become drunk assiduously, without exposing himself to drunkenness knowingly and willingly, since he has many times experienced the strength of wine and his own liability to drunkenness.
Reply to Objection 2. To take more meat or drink than is necessary belongs to the vice of gluttony, which is not always a mortal sin: but knowingly to take too much drink to the point of being drunk, is a mortal sin. Hence Augustine says (Confess. x, 31): “Drunkenness is far from me: Thou wilt have mercy, that it come not near me. But full feeding sometimes hath crept upon Thy servant.”
Reply to Objection 3. As stated above (Question 141, Article 6), meat and drink should be moderate in accordance with the demands of the body’s health. Wherefore, just as it happens sometimes that the meat and drink which are moderate for a healthy man are immoderate for a sick man, so too it may happen conversely, that what is excessive for a healthy man is moderate for one that is ailing. On this way when a man eats or drinks much at the physician’s advice in order to provoke vomiting, he is not to be deemed to have taken excessive meat or drink. There is, however, no need for intoxicating drink in order to procure vomiting, since this is caused by drinking lukewarm water: wherefore this is no sufficient cause for excusing a man from drunkenness.
Article 3. Whether drunkenness is the gravest of sins?
Objection 1. It would seem that drunkenness is the gravest of sins. For Chrysostom says (Hom. lviii in Matth.) that “nothing gains the devil’s favor so much as drunkenness and lust, the mother of all the vices.” And it is written in the Decretals (Dist. xxxv, can. Ante omnia): “Drunkenness, more than anything else, is to be avoided by the clergy, for it foments and fosters all the vices.”
Objection 2. Further, from the very fact that a thing excludes the good of reason, it is a sin. Now this is especially the effect of drunkenness. Therefore drunkenness is the greatest of sins.
Objection 3. Further, the gravity of a sin is shown by the gravity of its punishment. Now seemingly drunkenness is punished most severely; for Ambrose says [De Elia et de Jejunio v] that “there would be no slavery, were there no drunkards.” Therefore drunkenness is the greatest of sins.
On the contrary, According to Gregory (Moral. xxxiii, 12), spiritual vices are greater than carnal vices. Now drunkenness is one of the carnal vices. Therefore it is not the greatest of sins.
I answer that, A thing is said to be evil because it removes a good. Wherefore the greater the good removed by an evil, the graver the evil. Now it is evident that a Divine good is greater than a human good. Wherefore the sins that are directly against God are graver than the sin of drunkenness, which is directly opposed to the good of human reason.
Reply to Objection 1. Man is most prone to sins of intemperance, because such like concupiscences and pleasures are connatural to us, and for this reason these sins are said to find greatest favor with the devil, not for being graver than other sins, but because they occur more frequently among men.
Reply to Objection 2. The good of reason is hindered in two ways: in one way by that which is contrary to reason, in another by that which takes away the use of reason. Now that which is contrary to reason has more the character of an evil, than that which takes away the use of reason for a time, since the use of reason, which is taken away by drunkenness, may be either good or evil, whereas the goods of virtue, which are taken away by things that are contrary to reason, are always good.
Reply to Objection 3. Drunkenness was the occasional cause of slavery, in so far as Cham brought the curse of slavery on to his descendants, for having laughed at his father when the latter was made drunk. But slavery was not the direct punishment of drunkenness.
Article 4. Whether drunkenness excuses from sin?
Objection 1. It would seem that drunkenness does not excuse from sin. For the Philosopher says (Ethic. iii, 5) that “the drunkard deserves double punishment.” Therefore drunkenness aggravates a sin instead of excusing from it.
Objection 2. Further, one sin does not excuse another, but increases it. Now drunkenness is a sin. Therefore it is not an excuse for sin.
Objection 3. Further, the Philosopher says (Ethic. vii, 3) that just as man’s reason is tied by drunkenness, so is it by concupiscence. But concupiscence is not an excuse for sin: neither therefore is drunkenness.
On the contrary, According to Augustine (Contra Faust. xxii, 43), Lot was to be excused from incest on account of drunkenness.
I answer that, Two things are to be observed in drunkenness, as stated above (Article 1), namely the resulting defect and the preceding act. on the part of the resulting defect whereby the use of reason is fettered, drunkenness may be an excuse for sin, in so far as it causes an act to be involuntary through ignorance. But on the part of the preceding act, a distinction would seem necessary; because, if the drunkenness that results from that act be without sin, the subsequent sin is entirely excused from fault, as perhaps in the case of Lot. If, however, the preceding act was sinful, the person is not altogether excused from the subsequent sin, because the latter is rendered voluntary through the voluntariness of the preceding act, inasmuch as it was through doing something unlawful that he fell into the subsequent sin. Nevertheless, the resulting sin is diminished, even as the character of voluntariness is diminished. Wherefore Augustine says (Contra Faust. xxii, 44) that “Lot’s guilt is to be measured, not by the incest, but by his drunkenness.”
Reply to Objection 1. The Philosopher does not say that the drunkard deserves more severe punishment, but that he deserves double punishment for his twofold sin. Or we may reply that he is speaking in view of the law of a certain Pittacus, who, as stated in Polit. ii, 9, ordered “those guilty of assault while drunk to be more severely punished than if they had been sober, because they do wrong in more ways than one.” On this, as Aristotle observes (Polit. ii, 9), “he seems to have considered the advantage,” namely of the prevention of wrong, “rather than the leniency which one should have for drunkards,” seeing that they are not in possession of their faculties.
Reply to Objection 2. Drunkenness may be an excuse for sin, not in the point of its being itself a sin, but in the point of the defect that results from it, as stated above.
Reply to Objection 3. Concupiscence does not altogether fetter the reason, as drunkenness does, unless perchance it be so vehement as to make a man insane. Yet the passion of concupiscence diminishes sin, because it is less grievous to sin through weakness than through malice.
But if God has something against you, or a church as in Rv. 2+3, then they are not walking in fellowship. a relationship existed, but like a marriage with rifts, there are divisive issues, and thus "we need to talk."
And the Lord works to bring errant souls to repentance and effectual faith, and continued impenitence after being convicted is dangerous. (Hen. 10:25ff)
But when we are judged, we are chastened of the Lord, that we should not be condemned with the world. (1 Corinthians 11:32)
who cares..you know darn well when you are drunk!
Ah, maybe not. How about the practice of ritual cleansing preparatory to entering into one's ministry to satisfy the requirement of The Law? (Ex. 29:4, 40:12, other washings of the priest TNTC)
I believe this is what "unto all righteousness" means --
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.