Drinking in Moderation

[mrbillbenson]

I have wrestled with this topic for quite awhile. I believe that the Bible is clear for its time, that wine was drunk by many. And not because water was scarce. What did they fill up at the marriage in Cana: water barrels. Water they had plenty of, it was wine they were short on! On the other hand, excess alcohol is a toxin, and hurts the body, which is the temple of the Living God. God is not at all happy with human vices which take people's mind off serving Him, or take their bodies out of commission. Hard to go to church in the morning w/ a hangover.

Jesus drank wine. He compared himself to John the baptist. John, he said in Luke 7, came neither eating bread nor drinking wine; whereas he, the Son of man, came eating and drinking. John wasn't trying to avoid grape juice, he was abstaining from alcohol. Wine in and of itself cannot be spiritually evil. Matthew 15:11 "...not that which goeth into the mouth defileth a man; but that which cometh out of the man..."

We need to ask ourself in each situation, why do we desire to drink wine (or beer, or other substances). That should be what tells us it's ok or not, how we feel about the motivations and the truthfulness with which we face up to them (even if only to ourselves). I think a spiritually healthy attitude is understanding that there may be some times when something is ok, and other times when it isn't. My belief is that Jesus would handle the topic of alcohol on a case by case basis. The Bible is clear that certain things are absolutely against God, and it amazes me that church-run institutions would take a stand against drinking wine - but allow, for example, divorced people to remarry.

[Shea]

If it makes you feel any better, the only sort of divorced person that we allow for remarriage is one who's former spouse was unfaithful. (See Matthew 5:32)

[mrbillbenson]

An exception was granted for fornication, not for adultery.

Fornication referred to a "before marriage" condition, not an after-marriage condition. In other words, if you married someone and later found out you were lied to prior making the covenant. You were cheated into promising your own life-long love.

That was the only exception to otherwise not fulfilling one's own obligation to take "for better or for worse."

And what a congregation allows isn't my point, my point is God is clear in the text of the Bible what HE allows, and what Jesus gave example of. Churches need to be careful, we are the body, not the head. Getting something right, or getting it wrong, and giving either as "doctrine" is a risky thing. Again, churches put up the fence, but God knows where the property line really is, and when Jesus returns, He is going to point to a lot of fences that are not where they were supposed to be.

[Shea]

Originally posted by mrbillbenson
[B]An exception was granted for fornication, not for adultery.

Fornication referred to a "before marriage" condition, not an after-marriage condition. In other words, if you married someone and later found out you were lied to prior making the covenant. You were cheated into promising your own life-long love.

Where did you get your info? I have a program that shows me the original Greek text. The greek word for fornication in that verse is "porneia". It is a word that is described as being from harlotry, including adultery and incest. I didn't see anything that talked about a pre-marriage condition.

But I agree that there are a lot of fences that are put in the wrong places. Our congregation does it's best to follow what God allows and doesn't.

[mrbillbenson]

No one has the "original Greek text". There are no original parchments left, only transcriptions. That said, I do think the King James scholars probably tried to do a reasonable job of collecting accurate materials from other languages. So I use common commercial sense: If you buy something and it isn't what was represented to you, you can take it back for a refund. This is also in the old testament concerning "tokens of virginity" Deut 22:15.

But what spouse can claim they had NOTHING to do with their own partner's infidelity? Who has, like Christ, been the perfect spouse?

(2) My source is the Spirit. I feel by the Spirit in me that there are three very important relationships which Jesus strove to emphasize, Father-Child (provision, duty), Brethren (unity), Bride-Bridegroom (undying love, sacrifice). It was clear what Jesus intended, that a man or woman would stay together, work through problems, show forgiveness. If they are made one flesh, how can that be put assunder, without hardness of heart? Then, it is not the unfaithfulness, it is the hardness of heart at the root cause.

(3) 7:10 And unto the married I command, yet not I, but the Lord, Let not the wife depart from her husband: 7:11 But and if she depart, let her remain unmarried or be reconciled to her husband: and let not the husband put away his wife. 7:13 And the woman which hath an husband that believeth not, and if he be pleased to dwell with her, let her not leave him.

The way I read this, people shouldn't leave one another (or put them away). And Jesus says both the one who remarries ... and the one who marries the divorcee, are adulterers. Not fornicators.

[Shea]

{THESE ARE MY HUSBAND'S WORDS}

We have one gospel from 125 AD called the Chester Beatty papyrus. We also have the entire New Testament from 330 As call the Codex Sinaiticus. All of the other copies from the 4th centruy are all almost exactly alike as it was only 300 years removed from the original, so your aguement is invalid without bringing up arguements about specific copies that strayed from most version available in the 4th century. (websites are available to validate this arguement if needed) Who told you that King James's scholars first allegiance was accuracy and not defending the unscriptual infrastructure of the Anglican church. James was head of the anglican church and if they would have translated anything that cast doubt on the anglican church system they would have been beheaded. (ie like Oliver Cromwell) Read about history before you make blind assumptions that mislead people from God's truth.

Buying something is not the same act as marriage, Marriage is a commitment ordained by god, buying a pack of gum at 7-11 is not and so you shouldn't make that analogy. As far as "token of virginity" verse, what do you think Jesus was addressing in Matthew 19:8, if he wasn't addressing the Jewish practice of divorcing for any reason whatsoever....including "I don't think she was a vigin."

{THESE ARE MY WORDS}

Neither one of us understood your argument in your second point.

Your third point (for those who don't know, Bill is quoting 1 Corinthians 7:10-13) has nothing to do with the marital unfaithfullness issue of Matthew 5:32. You also failed to address that one of the definitions for the Greek word translated as fornication, is adultery.

[mrbillbenson]

I wasn't there to see the other texts written, nor the King James either. I believe the Spirit has to speak, and only can when we are willing to listen. The written word is dependent on language, the Spirit is not.

My point about relationships with a heavenly theme is that Christ's love for the church (his bride) is an important theme in heaven. He said any who would come to him would not be cast out. The relationship of marriage which you agree is ordained by God, should mirror that to the extent possible. Christ endured much sacrifice for the Bride, and bought her with his own blood. God refers to similar acts of redemption to his "wife" which played the harlot in some of the old testament writings. I don't know exact verses (but I can tell you do!)

Lastly, I believe that adulteries and fornications must be different because of Matthew 15:19 For out of the heart proceed evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, false witness, blasphemies". What is the Greek for fornications in that verse?

Sorry, it's just me here, I don't have a tag team. Good night folks.

[Shea]

I already established my standpoint on "the Spirit" in the Masculinity thread, but to couple it with a point about your second paragraph, you are using human reasoning to make your arguement, which makes it not valid because your "putting up fences that don't belong." Did you read Matthew 19:8? That should have ended the discussion. And actually, I don't know what your reffering to about the OT (but from what I've seen of your knowlege of scripture, I can assume it's out of context).

For some reason, the last two times I've tried to open that program that shows me the Greek text, it makes the computer freeze up. I'll look up Matthew 15:19 after my husband fixes it.

[mrbillbenson]

OK, I read Matt 19:8. What is the point? Seems to be saying it was hardness of heart that caused Moses to give people the law allowing divorce. No one with a hard heart is going to be rewarded in the afterlife, so not a very safe example to follow.

One old testament reference was Jeremiah 3:1 "They say, If a man put away his wife, and she go from him, and become another man's, shall he return unto her again? shall not that land be greatly polluted? but thou hast played the harlot with many lovers; yet return again to me, saith the LORD." God seems to make it quite clear there is more love in his heart for the Children of Israel than the Law itself allows a man to have for his natural wife.

I am saying that Jesus's example was divine love. A man divorcing a wife who has broken a promise of fidelity better not have ONE sin in that marriage, better not ONCE HAVE LOOKED ON A WOMAN TO LUST since he married that bride.

[Shea]

I'm sorry, I haven't read your last post, because it's getting late and I have class tomorrow. I'll read and respond afterwards.

[den]

<reads posts> I have comments to add, but, they're not of biblical proportions so I'll bite my tongue.

[AbdoRinbo]

This discussion is boring.

[AbdoRinbo]

Oops, that's gonna rub some people the wrong way.

[den]

Well then, wanna start a fight or something? liven things up? You bite first

Originally posted by AbdoRinbo
Oops, that's gonna rub some people the wrong way.

[sloegin]

Moderation...f*ck moderation.