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"?

Jesus didn’t think so. He drank wine & made large quantities for already-inebriated partygoers.

We've gone over this several times in FR discussions. Both here and in the general world I see that some pretty big assumptions regarding recreational alcohol are made, as touching the regenerated believer-disciple-priest following Christ. The answer is simple. The answer is "No."

Now, I would like to see anyone prove beyond the shadow of a doubt that Jesus ever made, drank, served, or recommended intoxicating wine for his disciples. Personally, I believe Scripture shows that he could not, and did not, as a recognition of His righteousness and holiness. Here's the clincher, demonstrated by the humble prophet Daniel, concerning whom God has never found fault (Ezek. 14:14,20), and whom Jesus cited (Mt. 24:15, Mk. 13:14). Here's Daniel's posture toward wine (yayin):

"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).

Did you get that? Intoxicating wine defiles one who would be holy, one obedient and meek toward The God and His Christ. Heres what several commentaries say about this:

Barnes:

That he would not defile himself with the portion of the king’s meat - Notes, Dan_1:5. The word which is rendered “defile himself” - יתגאל yı̂thegâ'al from גאל gā'al - is commonly used in connection with “redemption,” its first and usual meaning being to redeem, to ransom. In later Hebrew, however, it means, to be defiled; to be polluted, to be unclean. The “connection” between these significations of the word is not apparent, unless, as redemption was accomplished with the shedding of blood, rendering the place where it was shed defiled, the idea came to be permanently attached to the word. The defilement here referred to in the case of Daniel probably was, that by partaking of this food he might, in some way, be regarded as countenancing idolatry, or as lending his sanction to a mode of living which was inconsistent with his principles, and which was perilous to his health and morals. The Syriac renders this simply, “that he would not eat,” without implying that there would be defilement.

Nor with the wine which he drank - As being contrary to his principles, and perilous to his morals and happiness.

Clarke:

A daily provision - Athenaeus, lib. iv., c. 10, says: The kings of Persia, (who succeeded the kings of Babylon, on whose empire they had seized), were accustomed to order the food left at their own tables to be delivered to their courtiers.

But Daniel - would not defile himself - I have spoken of this resolution in the introduction. The chief reasons why Daniel would not eat meat from the royal table were probably these three: -

1. Because they ate unclean beasts, which were forbidden by the Jewish law.

2. Because they ate, as did the heathens in general, beasts which had been strangled, or not properly blooded.

3. Because the animals that were eaten were first offered as victims to their gods. It is on this account that Athenaeus calls the beasts which here served up at the tables of the Persian kings, ἱερια, victims, lib. 4 c. 10, p. 145.

Jamieson, Faussett, Brown:

Daniel ... would not defile himself with ... king’s meat — Daniel is specified as being the leader in the “purpose” (the word implies a decided resolution) to abstain from defilement, thus manifesting a character already formed for prophetical functions. The other three youths, no doubt, shared in his purpose. It was the custom to throw a small part of the viands and wine upon the earth, as an initiatory offering to the gods, so as to consecrate to them the whole entertainment (compare Deu_32:38). To have partaken of such a feast would have been to sanction idolatry, and was forbidden even after the legal distinction of clean and unclean meats was done away (1Co_8:7, 1Co_8:10; 1Co_10:27, 1Co_10:28). Thus the faith of these youths was made instrumental in overruling the evil foretold against the Jews (Eze_4:13; Hos_9:3), to the glory of God. Daniel and his three friends, says Auberlen, stand out like an oasis in the desert. Like Moses, Daniel “chose rather to suffer affliction with the people of God, than to enjoy the pleasures of sin for a season” (Heb_11:25; see Dan_9:3-19). He who is to interpret divine revelations must not feed on the dainties, nor drink from the intoxicating cup, of this world. This made him as dear a name to his countrymen as Noah and Job, who also stood alone in their piety among a perverse generation (Eze_14:14; Eze_28:3).

=============

The contention about the Cana miracle always comes up, because those who simply will not give up on clinging to their wine use it to illegitimately manufacture an excuse as propping up their belief structure.

In fact, though Jesus could have miraculously not only caused the water to become fresh new wine (Heb. tirosh, awsiys; Gk. gleukos), but to also have the appearance of age. But why would he supply more enabling alcohol if they were already drunken? The Scripture does not say so or even hint so. Whatever wine he created, it would be new. The stone vessels used were stone, not clay, for storing "living" water for ritual purification, and storing fresh, new, unleavened wine in them would not do violence to the owner's sensibilities. But putting leavened (fermented) wine in them would be offensive and unholy.

In any case, oinos is generic, and could refer to intoxicating wine or unfermented wine. The state is always context sensiive. However, the overall thrust of the Bible is that tha context does not approve of the use of intoxicating beverage; and indeed usually discourages it, sometimes rather strongly.

============

About "strong drink": People like to misuse the term shekar, translated "strong drink," as referring to something like brandy or Jim Beam, or such. Let's cut that idea dead. Distillation of spirits for human consumption was not discovered until long after Jesus' time. Shekar could be beer (Egyptians' favorite), mead from honey, apple ider, etc., as well as undiluted yayin.

============

Here is a link to a site discussing this topic from a fundamental Biblicist:

Should Bible Believing Churchs Require Abstinence From Alcoholic Beverages?

Go to it.

Maybe, if you insist on setting a poor exam;e, they'll deliver your son's or daughter's or grandchild's body in a long wooden box, as they did mine. But his 0.28% BCA had been replaced with a more effective preservative: formaldehyde. Hope that won't be the result of your experiment with "Christian" doctrine.

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.