—Chris Krycho
The following is one article in a series on dealing with alcohol Biblically. You can read the rest of the series here.
In Alcohol is of the Devil! I argued that alcohol is actually a good gift from God rather than inherently evil. As such, we should enjoy it, although we should do so wisely, and with a great deal of care and concern for brothers and sisters in Christ who are tempted to drunkenness. As I expected, a number of people argued against this view. Drinking has long been a hot-button issue in many churches, especially in the Southern Baptist Convention. The arguments against drinking alcohol generally take two forms, so I will address each in turn—one in this article, and one in the next.
The first argument is as follows:
- The wine that the Bible praises was significantly diluted compared to the alcohol we drink today, and was beneficial for health purposes.
- Alcohol can lead to immense harm in people's lives by removing inhibitions toward sinful behaviors and causing sinful relational patterns. Moreover, in significant quantities, alcohol can lead to health problems.
- Alcohol is not absolutely necessary for life (even a happy life).
- Therefore, alcohol in our modern context (unlike the Biblical context) is not beneficial or good.
- Therefore, while alcohol was not sinful in Biblical times (even for Jesus himself), it is sinful today.
However, there are several problems with this reasoning. First, the premises, however well constructed, ignore what Scripture clearly states: God made wine, promises it as a blessing and takes it away as punishment—and Jesus Christ himself enjoyed it. If alcohol consumption today is always sinful, then the very blessings of God—as described in Scripture—are evil. The conclusion, then, clearly runs contrary to Scripture.
Second, the argument itself fails. The first premise (that the alcoholic content of the wine drunk throughout Scripture was always diluted) cannot be substantiated. The only evidence in its favor are from the late Hellenistic period (between the writing of the Old and New Testaments) and only address common rabbinic teaching of that time. There is no evidence whatsoever regarding the strength of the wine enjoyed by the Psalmist except that it was strong enough to make one drunk. Moreover, we know that the wine drunk in Greek and Roman culture was not diluted; the pagans were famous for their drunken revelries. Yet Paul never forbade the drinking of wine despite his letters' audience of both Jewish and Greco-Roman convert. There is a significant, Scripturally unsupportable, leap between Paul's rejection of drunkenness and a rejection of all alcohol.
Further, the final conclusion does not follow from the second and third premises. Allow me to take an apparently innocuous example to make this point more clearly:
- The music that the Bible praises was significantly simpler rhythmically and harmonically compared to the music we compose today, and was beneficial for praising God.Today's music differs radically from music in Biblical times, being composed of styles that have historically been associated with sexual sin.
- Music can cause immense harm in people's lives by removing inhibitions toward fornication and encouraging rebellious attitudes. Moreover, at significant volumes, music can lead to the permanent damage of people's eardrums.
- Music is not absolutely necessary for life (even a happy life).
- Therefore, music in our modern context (unlike the Biblical context) is not beneficial or good.
- Therefore, while music was not sinful in Biblical times (even for David himself), it is sinful today.
The reasoning is identical, yet the conclusion is absurd. (Incidentally, the first premise here has been used in perennial battles about church music for centuries.) We can apply the same arguments across all human life and conclude that driving automobiles, having sex, using knives and even going to church are all sinful. In every case, circumstances have changed over time, there are benefits and risks, and none of them are necessary for life.
A further problem with this argument is that it is simply asceticism, the belief that any desires not absolutely necessary for life should not be satisfied. As you may recall from my previous article, Paul dismissed asceticism as useless for combating sin (Colossians 2:16-23).
Finally, this view indicates an unwillingness to submit our human wisdom to Scripture's teaching. It ignores the repeated, unqualified declarations in Scripture that wine is a gift from God, and it relies instead on cultural reasoning and historical references. It ignores the clear Scriptural evidence that Jesus unabashedly ate enough food and drank enough wine that his opponents famously accused him of being a glutton and a drunkard. Jesus directly contrasted his own eating and drinking with John the Baptizer's fasting and abstaining from alcohol. Rather than taking a Nazirite vow to abstain from wine, Jesus gave us an example of drinking wisely and joyfully. Finally, this argument ignores the promises of wine as a reward and its inclusion in the feast that ends the ages. In short, this line of reasoning ignores Scripture in favor of human wisdom, and then fails on its own grounds as well.
By contrast, the second argument for teetotalism at least has the advantage of being an argument made from Scripture. Next time, I will deal with the two passages for this argument, Romans 14:1-23 and 1 Corinthians 1:7-13.
Here is a test case for the teetotalers holding to the dilution argument: would you still oppose drinking alcohol even if it were diluted to levels similar to those of Biblical times? If so, on what grounds?
19 comments:
You're missing two premises. You need a premise between 1-3 to get to the point that "X is neither good nor beneficial", as 1-3, while suggesting it, don't merit a "therefore" as "X is good and beneficial" is logically compatible with all 3 premises. The same as between premises 4 and 5, as "non-beneficial" does not mean the same thing as "bad".
If you presented a logically valid argument, or an attempt at construing one, you could also talk about the missing premises as well, or your difficulty coming up with them.
-Ryan
Ryan,
Obviously Chris is disagreeing with the argument he references. You are correct that it is invalid to go from 1-3 to 4. That's the point. The problem is that #4 is really a premise (an invalid one) and not a conclusion. This is not Chris' fault - he is trying to accurately represent an argument that is in support of alcohol being inherently evil.
I think you can go from #4 to #5 more easily if #4 was worded "Therefore, alcohol in our modern context (unlike the Biblical context) is bad," which is entirely possible because #4 is invalid as a conclusion and could be worded in whatever sense Chris wanted.
And, as far as I can tell, this is not a straw man. Sadly, the argument which Chris listed does coincide with the premises and conclusions which some teetotalers use when arguing that all alcohol is bad. Again, Chris' point is that the argument is inherently flawed.
Good thoughts, though.
Hey Guys. Travis Here.
This discussion has been healthy. You have no idea how much I enjoy participating in dialogue with you all. It will surely be a blessing in a more spiritually dark place in which I will soon be immersed. Keep it up.
The argument above is adequately dispelled. It actually makes no sense at all. I'm not sure if it is a straw man or not. I've never dialogued with a teetotaler who outlined their thoughts this way, but I'll take your word that they're out there.
My thoughts differ in the following ways:
The issue of dilution merely informs the decision-making process. It helps us understand the decision-making premises of Christ-followers in Biblical Times.
Christ-followers are commanded to worship God with all of their mind (emphasis on "all"). Today, we know that alcohol inhibits the mind, even in portions that our society deems acceptable (12 ounces of beer, 8 ounces of wine, 1 ounce of hard liquor over the course of one meal). Given the command to worship God with all of my mind, this is enough for me to abstain.
What are we to do about the Biblical record of wine, then? Well, that's when our historical understanding of wine aids us. It helps us understand that the health benefits of wine, understood to be exclusive in Biblical times, necessitated consumption. God knows our needs. Dilution, in this context, maintained the health benefits necessary while also seeking to follow Christ's command to worship God with all of your mind. Though the inhibitive affects of alcohol may not have been expelled perfectly (admittedly not), the attitude of worship could be maintained. God knows our heart, and He knows our needs.
Now might be a good time to confess that there was one time in my life when I intentionally inhibited my mind. It was the morning of a surgery which would leave me with a few less teeth in the back of mouth. I took this little white pill when I got up. I then put on a green shirt. After that, I have no memory of anything until I woke up later that afternoon on the couch in throbbing pain and with bloody cotton balls in my cheeks (sorry to be graphic). Was I worshipping God with all of my mind during that time? Well, I don't really know (I don't remember, haha). I can tell you, however, that my heart was in a place of worship.
I hope this makes sense. It seems so clear to me. I'd be happy to answer questions (Even though it might take me awhile).
Till next time!
-Travis
Travis,
Suppose a magic time machine brings you a glass of wine from Jesus' day.
Would you say that drinking that glass of wine, today, is wrong?
Note to above: despite the wording of the sentence, I am not meaning to ask what you think about you yourself drinking it, but rather if anyone can drink it.
Rephrased: "Would you say that it is a sin for someone to drink that glass of wine, today?"
Peace
Travis, thanks for participating in an edifying way. :)
I think I can sum up my disagreement with your dilution argument this way: it still does not address (in any way) the numerous places that God calls alcohol a blessing, a gift, a promised reward—all things that indicate that it is good and that consuming it is good. What do you take those passages to mean?
(I don't think the dilution argument has any bearing on them: if it did, we could, courtesy of Chase's comment on last week's article, quite happily drink Oklahoma beer or diluted wine without any fear that we were violating Scripture's views.)
All I know is that I'm dying for a beer here over in Saudi Arabia. Could someone please forward this to the Muslim world? I mean, they could benefit from a lot of these articles, but if we could start with this one, I'd really apprecaite it. =)
I don't buy the dilution argument; all the Scriptural quotes that Travis made on the other post merely suggested that sometimes people did dilute their wine, which I won't deny, not that it *must* be diluted or that it was *always* diluted in such a way.
Such dilution just wouldn't make sense for the weddings of the day. Why would wedding feasts have two types of wine (the good stuff that everyone drank while sober and the cheap stuff that they drank when they couldn't taste the difference anymore)? Jesus transformed water into the good stuff in Canaa, and I can't say I'd have been a very happy wedding guest if it were three-two wine, nor would I have any interest in busting a gut drinking enough to the point that the cheap stuff turned good.
--Andrew
The primary issue in this discussion is worship. God's mandate is to worship Him with all of our mind. If there seems to be a necessity to inhibit our mind, we must use wisdom to discover how to properly follow God's command in whatever situation we find ourself. One time, preceding a surgery, I thought it was wise to take a small white pill that would inhibit my mind. My conscience was clear in this matter. Were I to take that small white pill tomorrow morning, I would clearly be sinning (I guess it's important to note that I have no surgeries planned for tomorrow).
"Every good and perfect gift is from above." The Bible praises wine for its taste. God made our senses to be delighted! Done in an attitude of thanksgiving, delighting our senses is an act of worship. Delighted senses are a sign of God's goodness, God's abundance, and God's blessing. Therefore, these delights become culturally important, and a sign of national or cultural prosperity, affluence, and reward. Wine is referenced in this regard throughout the Bible.
We must be careful however, not to associate any pleasure of being "buzzed" or inhibited with the praises of wine. These debilitating aspects of wine are always condemned!
In wisdom, those seeking to honor God have figured out how to follow God's command in their own situation. Issues significant to the application of wisdom in Biblical times are different than our current time.
In our current time, wisdom dictates that we should not inhibit our mind by drinking alcohol. I exhort all Christ-followers, in view of God's desire to be worshiped, abstain from alcoholic consumption.
As for Saudi Arabia, I think it best not to add to their problems. I would love to visit, however! My problem is that they're really strict on their Visa requirements! Can you get them to loosen up any (without alcohol, that is - haha)?
-Travis
Travis, I appreciate your comment. However, I have two serious concerns.
First, you continue to avoid one very important question: why is it wrong for believers now to drink the same sort of alcohol that believers drank in Biblical times? If the wine they drank did not affect their minds in any way (a premise I do not grant—again, the Psalmist tells us that God made wine expressly for the purpose of gladdening men's hearts), why should we not partake of at least the same sort of alcohol? You cannot answer "wisdom," here, because if so, wisdom would have dictated the same for them. While I agree that particular applications of wisdom are different under different cultural contexts, you are actually arguing that something God expressly calls good, promises as a blessing, etc. is now contrary to worshipping God.
Let me pose the question a little differently: if we, in our scientific prowess, managed to devise a kind of "food" that completely satisfies all of our nutritional needs, prevents obesity, and is injected intravenously—something, in short, that allows us to avoid the dangers of gluttony—should we then stop eating food and switch to this new approach, because "wisdom" demands that we avoid things that can be used for sinful purposes? Or should we continue to affirm that what Scripture calls good is good indeed, and teach people to wisely eat in a manner that glorifies God?
Take a close look at the way Scripture teaches on food and gluttony, and compare that to its teaching on wine and drunkenness. You'll find they are much the same.
If the discussion is going to continue, you really need to answer PJ's question: Would you say that it is a sin for someone to drink a glass of wine identical to that from Jesus' time today? (I'm quite serious about this: please answer that question directly and clearly in any response.)
Second, and more importantly, you have essentially placed "wisdom" over Scripture's teaching. Because Scripture repeatedly affirms that alcohol is good, a blessing, part of God's creation for us to enjoy, you cannot argue from Scripture that we should not partake of it. You are left arguing from "wisdom." Yet what wisdom do we have apart from consciences informed by Scripture? The reason your arguments concern me so deeply is that they value a distinctly extra-biblical teaching over Scripture's teaching itself. (They also run up against all of the first 18 centuries of Christian teaching on the subject, and much Christian teaching since then as well.) That seems a very dangerous path to me. Whenever we place our own understanding, however well-intentioned, over what Scripture teaches, we proclaim (even if quietly) that we do not find Scripture sufficient. Real wisdom is submitting our own cultural understanding to the correcting influence of His word.
I recognize that you think this is a matter of interpretation and application—that because of cultural differences, wine was acceptable then but is not now. Unfortunately, I think that consistently applying the hermeneutic you have used would lead us to throw away much that is good in God's creation in the name of "wisdom." More, it leads us to a deficient view of God's constancy and goodness. Whatever God says is good is good. He does not change; what he called good 3000 years ago remains good today.
This is good opportunity to clarify. Thanks.
Wisdom is used to garner the interpretation as well as to discover a proper application; it’s not elevated above what God’s word says. Remember our Bible Study process? Observation, Interpretation, Application. Observation asks, “What does it say?” Interpretation asks, “What does it mean?” Application asks, “What does it mean to me?” God-given wisdom should permeate the entire process but should have a particular emphasis in discovering what it means to us – as we are without detailed revelation regarding every decision we make (i.e. the Bible doesn’t tell me what socks to put on when I get dressed in the morning – in fact, I don’t think it even mentions socks! haha). That’s all I’m trying to say.
Since we’re on the subject of hermeneutics, recall the “Normal Principle.” This states that we must maintain cultural and contextual norms in the use of words and avoid ascribing meaning to them from the outside. We ask, “What did the author mean by what he said.” We know that the author wrote to particular people in a particular culture during a particular historical period and would consequently take the meaning and use of a word or phrase in a normative way for that context.
The Bible says that wine is good, gladdens the hearts of men, etc. What did the author mean when he said this? What did his readers understand when he used the word “wine” and said that it was good?
Observation: What does it say?
There are three Hebrew words for drinks relevant to our discussion. Three parallel words exist in Greek. The transliterations, in order of decreasing frequency, are the following (Hebrew): – “yayin,” “sekar” and “tiros.” The analogous Greek words are: “oinos,” “sikera,” and “gleukous.” For time’s sake, we’ll deal the Hebrew.
As we distinguish nuances in how the words are used, keep in mind that all of the words occur in contexts that suggest possible intoxication.
“Yayin” is by far the most common word and is simply translated “wine” 136 out of 140 occurrences (NASB95 for all of this btw). As abundantly noted, common practice was to dilute this wine to reduce the possibility of intoxication.
“Tiros” is used 38 times and is translated “new wine” 37 times, and “grape” one time. It is always used in a positive context. Its nuanced use implies that it is wine in its early stages of fermentation, or pure grape juice. Note that this was still used in contexts suggesting possible intoxication. It therefore cannot be translated “grape juice.” However, it does seem clear that when this word was used it described a drink in which fermentation was not complete. Just as a side note, the word for “grape” is combined with the word for “liquid” and translated “grape juice” in Numbers 6:3.
“Sekar” is translated 21 out of 23 times as “strong drink.” It is used in a positive context only once (Deuteronomy 14:26). Since it is used many times in contrast to ”yayin,” it probably refers to a fermented grain drink rather than a fruit drink. Therefore “beer” is a more helpful translation because “strong drink” implies distilled liquor to readers in the 21st century. Distilled liquor did not exist in that area until the seventh century. This would mean that the alcohol content was actually less than unmixed wine. Interestingly enough, this is the drink given the most negative treatment throughout the OT. If this was “strong,” I wonder what they thought about unmixed wine (sorry – I couldn’t resist).
So what did the readers understand by what the author said? The majority of the time they understood the word to refer to the diluted stuff. New wine, in the beginning stages of fermentation, was distinguished as more valuable than the normal stuff. Beer, typically condemned, was drunk as well.
What does all this mean? (Interpretation)
Well, for one thing, it means we can’t really get caught up in the alcohol point of Biblical beverages - as my mom would say, “we’ll throw ourselves in a tizzy!” Neither can we presume that those in Biblical times got caught up in it (how would they even measure it?). We can, however, conclude that they took measures to guard themselves from the debilitating aspects of alcoholic consumption. What was “good” about alcohol was its taste, not its “buzz,” relaxing qualities, or obvious drunkenness. 1 Timothy 5:23 also makes reference to the medical value of consumption, which is good as well. Wine delighted the hearts of men much like choice food, music, or incense delighted hearts (Psalm 63:5, Proverbs 27:9). Delight, even sensory delight (taste, hearing, smelling), can be attained without inhibitive affects. Our understanding of God’s goodness and constancy is not compromised.
What does this mean to us? (Application)
It is actually very useful that the Bible weds drunkenness and gluttony so well together. In fact, even the words appear together in four passages: Deuteronomy 21:20, Proverbs 23:20-21, Matthew 11:19, and Luke 7:34. Have you ever thought about how many fries you have to eat before you cross over from legitimate enjoyment to gluttony? That’s hard to quantify, isn’t it? That’s because gluttony is a matter of the heart. When you find yourself enslaved to your appetite, you are a glutton. If it steals worship from God, it’s sin. Likewise, how can you tell when you’ve cross from enjoyment to drunkenness? I guess you can experiment with your “limits,” (whatever that means). I don’t recommend this. Rather, recognize when your practice is stealing worship from God. As I pointed out earlier, even “moderate” drinking as expressed and understood in our modern culture doesn’t allow for proper worship.
If you want to conform your drinking habits to those practiced in Biblical times, you should do so in a similar context – one that necessitates exclusive medical benefits found in fermented wine. That was the point of my earlier anecdote – I wasn’t trying to avoid a question. Sorry if it seemed that way.
This is why I conclude that Christ-followers should abstain from alcoholic consumption as practiced in our culture today. I’m not ashamed to ask Christians to do so. Thankfully, God has graciously provided ample opportunity to delight our taste buds with countless other options.
Confession time! … Although I am confident in asking Christians not to drink, I’m usually much more anxious to deal with other Lordship issues before I approach this one. This discussion has proven itself valuable platform however, and I trust that my thoughts here have been edifying (as was my intention – along with the immeasurable good that might come if any readers stop drinking)
That’s about all I have to say regarding this. I’ve already covered basically everything I did in my initial research on the subject. It’s been a pleasure, gentlemen.
I was reading Isaiah 1 and came across verse 22, "Your silver has become dross, your best wine mixed with water." The context is the unfaithful city and these are both bad things. It's a new perspective on the dilution argument.
Elaine Shutt
Elaine,
Thanks for that reference. I didn't know that kind of language existed with regard to dilution.
Travis,
This will come in two parts—the first to address specific concerns with your most recent post and the second to address problems with your argument on the whole.
Let's take a step back:
The Bible says that wine is a blessing.
Yet you’re arguing that wine is evil.
This is a problem.
You still didn't explicitly answer the question of "Would it be sin, today, to drink the wine that Jesus drank?" You did imply, however, that your answer to this is "Yes, it is a sin."
To deal with some particular points you made:
#Observation:
It is invalid for you to assume that "sekar (strong drink)" should be the equivalent of beer. Anyone who has ever had a beer would know that it isn't a strong drink. You even affirm in your own argument that beer isn't a strong drink, but you go on to say that "if this was 'strong,' I wonder what they thought about unmixed wine." Clearly, you are looking at your conclusion and then defining the Greek and Hebrew terms in favor of your conclusion. If we are warned to tread carefully with strong drink, and wine is praised in abundance, then strong drink must be stronger than wine. Arguing anything else is just cheating.
#Interpretation:
"We can, however, conclude that they took measures to guard themselves from the debilitating aspects of alcoholic consumption." I would agree with this, and would also add that all Christians who properly drink alcohol in moderation also guard themselves from the debilitating aspects of alcoholic consumption - it's called moderation.
As Chris referenced, David praised wine which "gladden[s] the heart of man" (Psalm 104:14-15.) We would all agree that drunkenness is bad, but the text says wine gladdens the heart of man—all of wine: the alcohol, the taste, the color, and the awesomeness. The particular aspect of wine which gladdens the heart can't be assumed to mean more, or less, than wine as the whole—all of it gladdens our hearts.
#Application:
Just as gluttony is a matter of the heart, so is drunkenness. And actually, knowing limits is much easier than you might expect. It is very easy to tell when to not have another glass, even when you're not already in a degraded state. In fact, this is easy enough to determine on one's first drink ever—it does not require extensive experience to monitor one's state of mind.
Your point that moderate drinking "as expressed and understood in our modern culture doesn't allow for proper worship" is invalid and unsubstantiated. This is especially true because you conclude that any alcohol consumption is sin. If someone had a sip of wine, they would be drinking alcohol, but it's obvious that they wouldn't be debilitated in the least—it's a sip of wine. Based on your conclusions, when you say that moderate consumption doesn't allow for proper worship you are really meaning that any consumption doesn't allow for proper worship. If you're basing the sinfulness of wine on the effects on the mind, then you flat-out cannot argue that any and all consumption is sin.
#Your Bible Study process’ real answers (from Ben Arbour):
What does it say? Wine gladdens the heart of man and is a blessing from God.
What does it mean? Wine gladdens the heart of man and is a blessing from God.
What does it mean to me? Wine can gladden my heart and can be a blessing from God to me.
As a whole, there are more important problems with your arguments and conclusion:
1. You’re arguing for asceticism.
In Colossians 2:16-23, Paul declares asceticism as useless.
He also states that asceticism has the appearance of wisdom.
You’re arguing for asceticism on the basis of wisdom.
Therefore, Paul says you are wrong.
2. You’re adding rules for Christian living that are not required, in any sense, by the Bible.
This is similar to the Judaizers and the Pharisees
3. You’re conclusion disagrees with the whole of Christian history
You disagree with most of Christian history from the 1830s until now, which is when the temperance movement began. It may have gained popularity, but that doesn’t make it right. That popularity was never as large as you might think, and it certainly is diminished today.
You disagree with all of Christian history from Jesus until the 1830s: “The church fathers would have viewed the teetotalers’ argumentation as lunacy” (Ben Arbour.)
You disagree with each and every one of these men:
C. S. Lewis
G. K. Chesterton
John Wesley
Jonathan Edwards
John Knox
John Calvin
Huldrych Zwingli
Martin Luther
Thomas Aquinas
Augustine of Hippo
All of the Church Fathers—without exception
ad infinitum
The position that drinking wine is a sin is outside the bounds of historical Christian teaching. Surely, Christians weren’t wrong on this subject for a full 1800 years.
4. You are correct that Christian wisdom needs to be applied to alcohol.
However, because of the Biblical praise of wine, the only place for Christian wisdom is if and how much I should drink—a personal conviction. Therefore, wine is an explicit topic in which your Christian wisdom cannot dictate what is, and is not, sin, for me, when it comes to moderate alcohol consumption.
5. The hermeneutics you use to argue your point are the same methods used by others to argue:
That the Bible does not condemn homosexuality today. Just as you redefined what wine and strong drink mean, they redefine homosexuality as “rape” or “serial homosexual relationships.” They conclude that the Bible has no condemnation for “monogamous, committed homosexual relations.”
That the Bible does not require gender roles today. They argue that the social context of the Biblical day oppressed women, and that in order to not offend the social norm, women needed to remain silent, submit to their husbands, and not be teachers or have authority over men. But because our current societal context does not oppress women, women are now free to not be under the headship of their husbands and they can be teachers and have authority over men.
Your argument does the same thing. It takes something the Bible clearly states, imposes invalid definitions to terms, and demands unique social contexts (real or not) to be considered over what is actually being said.
This type of argumentation, if valid, would render the entire Bible as meaningless. Therefore, as Christians, this type of argumentation must be invalid.
6. You argue that the Bible cannot be understood without a knowledge of Hebrew and Greek.
This means that the average Christian cannot understand his Bible and invalidates the perspicuity/clarity of Scripture
Travis, I urge you to consider the argumentation you are using. If someone else went through hoops to make the Scriptures say something it’s clearly not saying—would you listen to him?
Ronan,
Thanks for stopping in. It definitely sounds like you're a person for whom abstention is a good idea (and personal abstention in cases like yours is something I heartily affirmed throughout the series).
That said, I have to disagree with most everything you wrote. First, the medical issues you raised are not normal by any means – if they happen, they happen to an exceptionally small proportion of the population. (They certainly don't characterize my response to alcohol, nor that of anyone I know.)
Further, I'm not sure if you actually grasped the points made by this or other posts in the series. As the title affirms: alcohol is a good gift from God, and this point is I think incontestable from Scripture, as I demonstrated clearly above.
By all means, if alcohol has a severe and noticeable impact on you, you should avoid it! But for many believers, it is – and should be appreciated as – a delightful gift from God.
Clarification: the above was in response to a commenter who later requested his comments be removed so as not to be linked to another online persona. Out of respect for his privacy, the comments were removed.
Post a Comment
We welcome your comments—whether you agree or disagree with us—as long as they are polite, kind, and thoughtful. Please supply your name, and if you have a website, provide a link!
Personal attacks, trolling, spam and anonymous posts will be deleted. See our full comments policy for details and clarification.
If you are writing a particularly long comment, you may want to check it against the 4000-character limit.