Comments on: Riffs: 11:03:07: Missouri Baptists and The Battle of the Booze http://www.internetmonk.com/archive/riffs-110307-missouri-baptists-and-the-battle-of-the-booze ...dispatches from the post-evangelical wilderness Sat, 21 Nov 2009 15:47:17 -0500 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.6 hourly 1 By: camgirls http://www.internetmonk.com/archive/riffs-110307-missouri-baptists-and-the-battle-of-the-booze/comment-page-3#comment-495177 camgirls Wed, 08 Jul 2009 05:48:16 +0000 http://www.internetmonk.com/archive/riffs-110307-missouri-baptists-and-the-battle-of-the-booze#comment-495177 Cool blog all we need islashings of sexy livejasmin girls could do with more like it, good luck with this by the way <a href="http://www.livejasmin-webcam-girls.com/" rel="nofollow">jasminlive</a> Cool blog all we need islashings of sexy livejasmin girls could do with more like it, good luck with this by the way jasminlive

]]> By: Mark http://www.internetmonk.com/archive/riffs-110307-missouri-baptists-and-the-battle-of-the-booze/comment-page-3#comment-321507 Mark Wed, 19 Nov 2008 23:43:42 +0000 http://www.internetmonk.com/archive/riffs-110307-missouri-baptists-and-the-battle-of-the-booze#comment-321507 Whenever I hear an assertion that The Last Supper had no wine I make a point: The refrigerator did not exist as yet. You _couldn't_ have only grape-juice at the time. Barring a miracle, that is; and I don't recall that one being documented, it would certainly have been noteworthy. Whenever I hear an assertion that The Last Supper had no wine I make a point:

The refrigerator did not exist as yet. You _couldn’t_ have only grape-juice at the time. Barring a miracle, that is; and I don’t recall that one being documented, it would certainly have been noteworthy.

]]> By: Ken http://www.internetmonk.com/archive/riffs-110307-missouri-baptists-and-the-battle-of-the-booze/comment-page-3#comment-162966 Ken Fri, 30 Nov 2007 17:20:12 +0000 http://www.internetmonk.com/archive/riffs-110307-missouri-baptists-and-the-battle-of-the-booze#comment-162966 <i>Even full abstinence from alcohol still doesn’t solve the deeper problem of sinful addiction. I think those who don’t deal with the addiction would just find another substance of choice.</i> Like in-your-face Temperance and Prohibition? (Proven from SCRIPTURE! of course...) Even full abstinence from alcohol still doesn’t solve the deeper problem of sinful addiction. I think those who don’t deal with the addiction would just find another substance of choice.

Like in-your-face Temperance and Prohibition?
(Proven from SCRIPTURE! of course…)

]]> By: Skerrib http://www.internetmonk.com/archive/riffs-110307-missouri-baptists-and-the-battle-of-the-booze/comment-page-3#comment-156273 Skerrib Mon, 19 Nov 2007 05:29:00 +0000 http://www.internetmonk.com/archive/riffs-110307-missouri-baptists-and-the-battle-of-the-booze#comment-156273 Nicholas Anton, Following your reasoning regarding wine in Biblical times, those who choose to drink now need only dilute their wine to more closely match that in the Bible...but I don't understand how responsible, moderate, and discreet consumption of alcohol contributes to the social problems created by alcohol abuse. Even full abstinence from alcohol still doesn't solve the deeper problem of sinful addiction. I think those who don't deal with the addiction would just find another substance of choice. Also, I don't believe anyone is 'insisting' on alcoholic wine for all people in all situations. Why do you keep 'insisting' on no alcoholic wine, ever, for anyone? Nicholas Anton,
Following your reasoning regarding wine in Biblical times, those who choose to drink now need only dilute their wine to more closely match that in the Bible…but I don’t understand how responsible, moderate, and discreet consumption of alcohol contributes to the social problems created by alcohol abuse. Even full abstinence from alcohol still doesn’t solve the deeper problem of sinful addiction. I think those who don’t deal with the addiction would just find another substance of choice.

Also, I don’t believe anyone is ‘insisting’ on alcoholic wine for all people in all situations. Why do you keep ‘insisting’ on no alcoholic wine, ever, for anyone?

]]> By: Ragamuffin http://www.internetmonk.com/archive/riffs-110307-missouri-baptists-and-the-battle-of-the-booze/comment-page-3#comment-155911 Ragamuffin Sun, 18 Nov 2007 20:22:43 +0000 http://www.internetmonk.com/archive/riffs-110307-missouri-baptists-and-the-battle-of-the-booze#comment-155911 <i>Regarding alcohol content of wine in biblical times</i> Nicholas, You're grasping at straws. Truly, knowing whether wine was 4%, 12%, 20%, more or somewhere in the middle back then is irrelevant. We know from numerous accounts of drunkenness as well as the admonitions not to be "drunk with wine" that whatever the actual percentage was, it was of a high enough percentage that one could get drunk. I think it's a reasonable assumption that one didn't have to chug 4 gallons of it in 20 minutes to achieve the drunken state. Second, grapes themselves, in and on the skins, contain yeast. More yeast is added to create wine and convert the sugars into alcohol, but naturally occurring yeast within the grape itself remains even in regular grape juice. So unless the Lord provided the Hebrews with something magical to remove all traces of yeast from the non-alcoholic grape juice you insinuate they would need to follow the Lord's literal command, I think it's safe to say your interpretation of what is being referred to in the Exodus passage is not correct. Regarding alcohol content of wine in biblical times

Nicholas,

You’re grasping at straws. Truly, knowing whether wine was 4%, 12%, 20%, more or somewhere in the middle back then is irrelevant. We know from numerous accounts of drunkenness as well as the admonitions not to be “drunk with wine” that whatever the actual percentage was, it was of a high enough percentage that one could get drunk. I think it’s a reasonable assumption that one didn’t have to chug 4 gallons of it in 20 minutes to achieve the drunken state.

Second, grapes themselves, in and on the skins, contain yeast. More yeast is added to create wine and convert the sugars into alcohol, but naturally occurring yeast within the grape itself remains even in regular grape juice. So unless the Lord provided the Hebrews with something magical to remove all traces of yeast from the non-alcoholic grape juice you insinuate they would need to follow the Lord’s literal command, I think it’s safe to say your interpretation of what is being referred to in the Exodus passage is not correct.

]]> By: Nicholas Anton http://www.internetmonk.com/archive/riffs-110307-missouri-baptists-and-the-battle-of-the-booze/comment-page-3#comment-154481 Nicholas Anton Fri, 16 Nov 2007 17:41:17 +0000 http://www.internetmonk.com/archive/riffs-110307-missouri-baptists-and-the-battle-of-the-booze#comment-154481 re; the discussion on communion wine; Note, the following instructions to Israel regarding the Passover; Exo 12:19-20; SEVEN DAYS SHALL THERE BE NO LEAVEN FOUND IN YOUR HOUSES: for whosoever eateth that which is leavened, even that soul shall be cut off from the congregation of Israel, whether he be a stranger, or born in the land. Ye shall eat nothing leavened; in all your habitations shall ye eat unleavened bread. The word, “eat”, can also be interpreted “consume, devour”. Note the following add on the net; “Lavin Premium Wine Yeast” The Question? 1) In that the Bible states, “There shall no leaven be found in your houses:, and in that leaven/yeast is used to ferment wine, is fermented wine therefore also on the “excluded” list for the Passover? (I am not referring to tradition, but to God’s literal command) 2) In that in the symbolism of the Bread and Cup which represents the Crushed, Broken Body and Spilled Blood of Our Lord Jesus Christ, the fermenting process has nothing to do with the symbolism, why make issue about fermentation or alcohol? 3) In that the Bible NEVER refers to “wine” at The Lord’s Table, but to “The Cup”, why insist on alcoholic wine? Now do your own mathematics. re; the discussion on communion wine;

Note, the following instructions to Israel regarding the Passover;
Exo 12:19-20;
SEVEN DAYS SHALL THERE BE NO LEAVEN FOUND IN YOUR HOUSES: for whosoever eateth that which is leavened, even that soul shall be cut off from the congregation of Israel, whether he be a stranger, or born in the land. Ye shall eat nothing leavened; in all your habitations shall ye eat unleavened bread.
The word, “eat”, can also be interpreted “consume, devour”.

Note the following add on the net; “Lavin Premium Wine Yeast”

The Question?

1) In that the Bible states, “There shall no leaven be found in your houses:, and in that leaven/yeast is used to ferment wine, is fermented wine therefore also on the “excluded” list for the Passover? (I am not referring to tradition, but to God’s literal command)

2) In that in the symbolism of the Bread and Cup which represents the Crushed, Broken Body and Spilled Blood of Our Lord Jesus Christ, the fermenting process has nothing to do with the symbolism, why make issue about fermentation or alcohol?

3) In that the Bible NEVER refers to “wine” at The Lord’s Table, but to “The Cup”, why insist on alcoholic wine?

Now do your own mathematics.

]]> By: Nicholas Anton http://www.internetmonk.com/archive/riffs-110307-missouri-baptists-and-the-battle-of-the-booze/comment-page-3#comment-154407 Nicholas Anton Fri, 16 Nov 2007 13:54:06 +0000 http://www.internetmonk.com/archive/riffs-110307-missouri-baptists-and-the-battle-of-the-booze#comment-154407 To totally argue the contemporary use of wine from the basis of Biblical usage is folly, in that the designation of the term and composition of wine used as a beverage in both the Old and New Testament is at best unclear. Contemporary opinion on the matter is varied and divided. Furthermore, we have little knowledge as to the alcohol content of the beverage called wine. They did not have liquor control commissions to determine the content and control the substance as we do today. It can be clearly determined that the use of the term, wine, can refer to both fresh and fermented grape juice, as well as to the juice of other plants. History informs us that grape juice, called wine, could be kept in an unfermented state for up to a year even in New Testament times. History also informs us that in Bible times fermented wines were also boiled down into a syrup for preservation and purification, in which state they would have very limited alcohol content. History also tells us that wines were usually mixed with water when used as a beverage. Furthermore, many references to the use of wine in the Bible are made without moral judgment, similar to the references of King David taking wives and concubines. These references in themselves neither affirm nor deny the practices listed. We must therefore base contemporary use of wine and other alcohol beverages on the principles as taught in Scripture, especially in the New Testament. We must also take into consideration the increased contemporary knowledge on the substance. We must not only make our judgments on the basis of similarities, but also in which ways the contemporary substance and its use are different from Bible times. Likewise, we must adjust the Old Testament ethic to fit the strengthened ethic as taught by Jesus, “e.g.; “...It has been said...”, versus “...but I say unto you...”. Because of Biblical principles, and contemporary evidence against contemporary use of contemporary alcohol, the only wise thing for a contemporary Christian is to abstain from habitual social drinking. The practice of social drinking becomes sin when I put at risk the physical and spiritual welfare of my own person plus anyone that may be influenced by me in the liberties I take. If Christian use of the substance contributes to the massive, well documented social problem, than it is sin. To totally argue the contemporary use of wine from the basis of Biblical usage is folly, in that the designation of the term and composition of wine used as a beverage in both the Old and New Testament is at best unclear. Contemporary opinion on the matter is varied and divided. Furthermore, we have little knowledge as to the alcohol content of the beverage called wine. They did not have liquor control commissions to determine the content and control the substance as we do today. It can be clearly determined that the use of the term, wine, can refer to both fresh and fermented grape juice, as well as to the juice of other plants. History informs us that grape juice, called wine, could be kept in an unfermented state for up to a year even in New Testament times. History also informs us that in Bible times fermented wines were also boiled down into a syrup for preservation and purification, in which state they would have very limited alcohol content. History also tells us that wines were usually mixed with water when used as a beverage. Furthermore, many references to the use of wine in the Bible are made without moral judgment, similar to the references of King David taking wives and concubines. These references in themselves neither affirm nor deny the practices listed.

We must therefore base contemporary use of wine and other alcohol beverages on the principles as taught in Scripture, especially in the New Testament. We must also take into consideration the increased contemporary knowledge on the substance. We must not only make our judgments on the basis of similarities, but also in which ways the contemporary substance and its use are different from Bible times. Likewise, we must adjust the Old Testament ethic to fit the strengthened ethic as taught by Jesus, “e.g.; “…It has been said…”, versus “…but I say unto you…”.

Because of Biblical principles, and contemporary evidence against contemporary use of contemporary alcohol, the only wise thing for a contemporary Christian is to abstain from habitual social drinking. The practice of social drinking becomes sin when I put at risk the physical and spiritual welfare of my own person plus anyone that may be influenced by me in the liberties I take. If Christian use of the substance contributes to the massive, well documented social problem, than it is sin.

]]> By: Ragamuffin http://www.internetmonk.com/archive/riffs-110307-missouri-baptists-and-the-battle-of-the-booze/comment-page-3#comment-153969 Ragamuffin Thu, 15 Nov 2007 22:04:39 +0000 http://www.internetmonk.com/archive/riffs-110307-missouri-baptists-and-the-battle-of-the-booze#comment-153969 Found an interesting article on the origin of using grape juice during Holy Communion rather than wine: http://www.gbod.org/worship/default_body.asp?act=reader&item_id=1743 Corroborated on this site: http://www.welchs.com/company/company_history.html Isn't that great...changing the practice of what to use in the Lord's Supper because of the efforts of an enterprising young guy named Welch? :) Found an interesting article on the origin of using grape juice during Holy Communion rather than wine:

http://www.gbod.org/worship/default_body.asp?act=reader&item_id=1743

Corroborated on this site:
http://www.welchs.com/company/company_history.html

Isn’t that great…changing the practice of what to use in the Lord’s Supper because of the efforts of an enterprising young guy named Welch? :)

]]> By: Larry http://www.internetmonk.com/archive/riffs-110307-missouri-baptists-and-the-battle-of-the-booze/comment-page-2#comment-151394 Larry Mon, 12 Nov 2007 00:11:33 +0000 http://www.internetmonk.com/archive/riffs-110307-missouri-baptists-and-the-battle-of-the-booze#comment-151394 That’s exactly the point. This kind of pietism will strangle and strangle and strangle back to works righteousness over time. These kind of fallen human “laws”, or doctrine of demons, over time constrict and constrict, the kind of thing you saw with the Pharisees over time. Not, as Dr. Rosenbladt once said, “…like the relaxation that one finds with the Gospel”. Calvin made this very point that over time this yeast grows and grows until one can hardly tell how to move. This is what a hidden works righteousness principle does and the key is it is hidden and implied even while a verbal affirmation of “faith alone” is made (James’s ENTIRE point). A principle of works righteousness shows itself over time as both explicit and implied spiritual pressure is made upon people. Slowly, they curve inward (original sin). As they curve inward they measure themselves and others spiritually pleasing to God (so they think) by these “laws”. They become more and more closed off, less true fellowship as more and more “masks” and facades are worn. Simultaneously, they judge others. The judgments can be overt such as “I wonder if he/she is a Christian because they are or are not doing ________”. Or more subtle, “Well it’s no ‘sin’ but the more spiritual Christian will do/don’t do _______”. Right there they don’t see, their eyes are seared shut, the Gospel is gone and so is Christianity. Then the name “Christianity” becomes associated with these law measures or metrics, which is completely opposite of Christianity. Christianity is NOT a move from “vice to virtue” but from “virtue to grace”. Christ ONLY indwells REAL sinners, not pretend sinners and NOT the righteous (which is another way in Scripture of saying self-righteous). To put a sharp edge on it, either you are a real sinner or you have not Christ. Luther said it similarly that all these superstitious manmade laws that have the ‘appearance of wisdom’ by fallen measure eventually make a man so scared that he panics at the very rustling of the leaves as if wrath is coming down upon him. L That’s exactly the point. This kind of pietism will strangle and strangle and strangle back to works righteousness over time. These kind of fallen human “laws”, or doctrine of demons, over time constrict and constrict, the kind of thing you saw with the Pharisees over time. Not, as Dr. Rosenbladt once said, “…like the relaxation that one finds with the Gospel”. Calvin made this very point that over time this yeast grows and grows until one can hardly tell how to move. This is what a hidden works righteousness principle does and the key is it is hidden and implied even while a verbal affirmation of “faith alone” is made (James’s ENTIRE point). A principle of works righteousness shows itself over time as both explicit and implied spiritual pressure is made upon people. Slowly, they curve inward (original sin). As they curve inward they measure themselves and others spiritually pleasing to God (so they think) by these “laws”. They become more and more closed off, less true fellowship as more and more “masks” and facades are worn. Simultaneously, they judge others. The judgments can be overt such as “I wonder if he/she is a Christian because they are or are not doing ________”. Or more subtle, “Well it’s no ‘sin’ but the more spiritual Christian will do/don’t do _______”. Right there they don’t see, their eyes are seared shut, the Gospel is gone and so is Christianity. Then the name “Christianity” becomes associated with these law measures or metrics, which is completely opposite of Christianity. Christianity is NOT a move from “vice to virtue” but from “virtue to grace”. Christ ONLY indwells REAL sinners, not pretend sinners and NOT the righteous (which is another way in Scripture of saying self-righteous). To put a sharp edge on it, either you are a real sinner or you have not Christ.

Luther said it similarly that all these superstitious manmade laws that have the ‘appearance of wisdom’ by fallen measure eventually make a man so scared that he panics at the very rustling of the leaves as if wrath is coming down upon him.

L

]]> By: Bill http://www.internetmonk.com/archive/riffs-110307-missouri-baptists-and-the-battle-of-the-booze/comment-page-2#comment-150839 Bill Sun, 11 Nov 2007 02:21:33 +0000 http://www.internetmonk.com/archive/riffs-110307-missouri-baptists-and-the-battle-of-the-booze#comment-150839 Perhaps we should ask Nicholas straight up. Is drinking alcohol unequivocally a sin? If so, when did it become a sin? Also, is it possible that you yourself engage in activities that other Christians stricter than yourself consider sinful, such as playing cards, dancing, watching television, etc? If so, how do you answer their objections to your behavior? Perhaps we should ask Nicholas straight up.

Is drinking alcohol unequivocally a sin? If so, when did it become a sin?

Also, is it possible that you yourself engage in activities that other Christians stricter than yourself consider sinful, such as playing cards, dancing, watching television, etc? If so, how do you answer their objections to your behavior?

]]>