The Evangelical Universalist Forum

Christians And Alcohol

It’s good to know what established position, you are arguing for and from - the “two-wine” position. It too me a while, to flush out the established position, on another thread also - regarding the thread initiator, following A.E. Knoch. It’s also interesting you do not swear oaths, which is something the Quakers also agree with. And I did hang out with them, for a number of years.

I’m glad you don’t make hybrid positions. It would be hard to talk with a Seventh Day Adventist, Baptist Muslim, who worships in a non-denominational, evangelical church…but likes and believes, in the gifts of the spirit, and is a universalist. :laughing:

Well, I just bought the kindle edition of Brad Wittington’s book ‘What the Bible Really Says about Alcohol’

$0.99 kindle from amazon. The reviews are quite good…

I’ll let you know after a quick read. :smiley:

And it’s free!

I will! :smiley:

Randy said:

Gotta watch out for those Baptist Muslims :laughing:

I haven’t read that one, but it looks good.

For anyone who is interested in West’s book:
amazon.com/gp/offer-listing … d&qid=&sr=

Well, Hermano, I concede that the Hebrew “tirosh” usually refers to the earlier stage of winemaking, in which the wine is not yet fermented—also that this word is translated in the Septuagint as the Greek word “οἰνος” (wine). In the New Testament, whenever the word “οἰνος” refers to the early stage, it is preceded by the Greek word “νεος” (new). Thus “new wine.” I have found no instance of “οἰνος” in the New Testament which is not preceded by “νεος,” that refers to unfermented wine.

Jesus transformed water into wine, and that was clearly alcoholic wine. For we read:

When the steward of the feast tasted the water now become wine, and did not know where it came from (though the servants who had drawn the water knew), the steward of the feast called the bridegroom and said to him, “Everyone serves the good wine first; and when they are drunk, then the poor wine; but you have kept the good wine until now.” (John 2:9,10)

Normally at a wedding, people serve the better wine first, so that the guests can appreciate it. But when they are drunk, they won’t notice the difference, and so they serve the poor wine later. But the steward of the feast marvelled that the better wine was kept until the other wine ran out. It could not have been merely grape juice or new wine that Jesus made, or the steward as well as the guests would have recognized it as soon as they tasted it, and would not have regarded it as “better wine.”

Both Dr. Patton (a Congregationalist) and Dr. Bacchiocchi (a Seventh Day Adventist) include discussions of the Wedding at Cana in their books.

Here are some snippets from Bacchiocchi’s lengthy discussion (minus his original formatting):

Speaking of Seventh Day Adventism, if you have read my comments about grace vs. legalism (à la Joseph Prince and Steve McVey) you know how much I disagree with their Sabbatarianism (among many other serious disagreements I have with them). But I respect them.

And I have a movie recommendation: Mel Gibson’s Hacksaw Ridge, “a 2016 biographical war film about the World War II experiences of Desmond Doss, an American pacificist combat medic who was a Seventh-day Adventist Christian, refusing to carry or use a firearm or weapons of any kind. Doss became the first conscientious objector to be awarded the Medal of Honor, for service above and beyond the call of duty.” (Wikipedia)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s2-1hz1juBI

(Plus, Private Doss was from the beautiful Blue Ridge Mountains of Virginia, near where I also lived for some years. But Randy, I didn’t have contact with any Adventists there, that I know of.)

Blessings.

Qaz, their books are chock-full of good historical and linguistic material, all directed at 1) distinguishing the broad, generic nature of the word “wine,” and 2) arguing that it would not be God’s nature to promote (or serve people) alcohol.

I couldn’t “boil down” all their wide-ranging evidence for you, although, for example, both authors go into great detail about common ancient methods of preserving grape juice from putrefaction. So speaking of boiling, methods like boiling, filtration, inspissation (evaporation), and cool storage, were for the specific purpose of preventing fermentation, and that result—whether liquid or syrup—was also called “wine.” Of course, modern usage for the term “wine” does not encompass that.

All anyone really needs to be convinced of in this discussion is that the word “wine” is a generic term covering a range of products. Both authors do that, and more, quite convincingly.

(I confess, it didn’t take an inordinate amount of studying for me to be convinced that God does not both promote and warn about “wine.” Rather, He promotes non-alcoholic “wine” as nutritious food, and warns against the dangers of fermented “wine.”)

Blessings.

In the interest of being fair, imo it is legitimate to direct those who have an interest to a resource where they can read and make up their own minds.There are in fact ‘experts’ in things I, for one, will never be expert in, and if they make an argument I agree/disagree with I gladly will reference them - as a gift to the reader, since my regurgitation of their well-done argumentation will not have the force and clarity of the expert.
This Forum has never been a place where problems are ‘solved’ - I doubt that any blog can do that - but if it can point to the best, well-written answers, I think that is a good thing. $.02

I’m not sure about Mexico, but I suspect this advice, would hold true here.

Your local public library, adult reference librarian, can help with the research
University librarians (both Christian and secular), are also good resources

I would say that drinking grape juice is also harmful if one consumes too much of it. All of the sugar it contains can’t be good for you, and I’m sure the acid in it would cause tooth decay. Why would Jesus even promote this? I’m sure with all the grape juice drinking going on at the wedding that many may have ended up with a bad case of diarrhea the next day.

:laughing: :laughing:

In Mexico, it’s usually referred to as ‘Montezuma’s revenge’ - :laughing:

See phrases.org.uk/meanings/montezumas-revenge.html

Here are some other names - from the article:

I think you’re correct in that some subjects are just not “forum-able” - a quick synopsis cannot get across the rigor (or lack of it) of the argument in question. A blog can do only so much.

And if you want an in-depth presentation, a website is hosting the PhD dissertation…by Baptist professor Dr. Robert Teachout - at The Use of “Wine” in the Old Testament, by Robert Teachout Faith Saves.

And did DaveB volunteer to read it and give us a Reader’s Digest version of the arguments - for next week :question: :laughing:

If said person states an opinion and points to the sources where he got it, that is sufficient. A dialogue isn’t really necessary, or even productive in many cases. We can enjoy a spirited give-and-take, but not everyone is into verbal throw-downs nor should they necessarily be.

I’m saying nothing more than a poster, in order to ‘back up’ his point, has a range of options, and giving a short summary is one, so is giving a reference to a more adroitly written source.

Randy - if you have the time, go ahead and do that summary for us!! I’m busy. :laughing:

Surely given the ‘two wines’ theory that “wine” in the bible can be equated as being simple “unfermented“ grape juice, then this question above becomes summarily rather MOOT; for the “wine” in the above verses could well be simple “juice” (following the arguments in the OP apparently establishing this) as opposed to the “strong drink” it is compared with. Thus one has to ask WHY Jesus would have turned water into wine… given the apparent sanctions against “Christians” i.e., “kings and priests” imbibing of such, unfermented OR otherwise.

Thus IMO the WHOLE argument is spurious and falls over. :exclamation:

Not only that but Paul’s “And do not be drunk with wine…” is clear — he does NOT say “don’t drink alcohol!” BUT “don’t get DRUNK on it!” :exclamation:

I will, Dave. The second Tuesday of next week :exclamation: :laughing: