I recently posted a review of a book by my good friend, Randy Jaeggli, on the subject of the Christian and alcohol consumption. As Calvin Coolidge is said to have said about a preacher’s attitude toward sin: “He was agin it.”
I came across an article in the Criswell Theological Review today. The article is by Richard Land and Barrett Duke. In The Christian and Alcohol, they appear to be ‘agin’ it also. The whole issue of the CTR is devoted to the subject of Christians and alcohol use. I commend Land and Duke’s article to you, I think they present a well-reasoned position for adopting a policy of total abstinence.Another article from the issue that is available online has to do more with the Biblical data (although the Land/Duke article deals with many passages). This article doesn’t seem to be quite as strongly opposed to alcohol use, but it does present helpful discussion of the passages. The Bible and the Question of Alcoholic Beverages by Keith Gentry.
A third article available on the subject is To Drink or Not to Drink: A Sober Look at the Question by Norman Geisler. This one is also helpful. I seem to recall Geisler having some good articles in BibSac on this subject also.
I have perused these articles rather quickly, but I think they are worth consideration when dealing with this topic. They are helpful for their content and they are helpful for who the authors are. They are not “rabid fire-breathing Fundamentalists” like me. They offer wisdom, and they do so from a less strident perspective than mine. While I don’t think my Fundamentalism invalidates my arguments, some would be prepared to dismiss it from me. The addition of evangelical voices to this question makes the abstinence position less easy to dismiss. (Though of course libertines dismiss any voices, regardless of the theological perspective.)
It is unconscionable that Christians are so cavalier in their willingness to play games with the world, especially in the area of drinking. Alcohol is very dangerous and Christians should not use it.
No disclaimers? :)
Hi Dave, I thought you were advising people not to read me any more? Thanks for reading.
My comments are sufficient disclaimers on this subject. Further, it is not the presence or absence of disclaimers that I deplore, it is the constant and willful promotion of blasphemers that bothers me.
Maranatha!
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3
Not sure where you got the idea I was advising anyone about anything related to you. I do think once I was asked my opinion on whether someone should interact with you about a post and I said that I wouldn’t personally do it. I can’t recall telling anyone to not read you. Not sure what that has to do with anything, but just didn’t want you to think wrongly about that. Obviously, I read your posts when I see something that interests me. I probably should have kept to my no comment policy, but found it funny, that’s all. Don’t mind me, I am just a lurker trying to learn what’s wrong with everything.
Hi Dave
Try this one to refresh your memory.
Maranatha!
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3
So you’re intentionally quoting guys to your left, with whom you differ on other important issues, because the fact that even they see this issues clearly strengthens your argument. Is that right?
Just so you know, I got whacked for doing this very thing a while back. No kidding! A guy was disgusted with me and actually questioned my fundamentalicity over it. Now, I think what you’ve done here is fine, but I’m just saying, in light of how things like this are interpreted in the blogosphere, watch your back.
Carry on. :)
Chris, they aren’t blasphemers.
Maranatha!
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3
Oops. Guess I better pay attention to what I write (especially when trying to be wise guy)!
I should add, if someone were to show me that the men I have linked in this post are blasphemers, I would be embarrassed. I would make an apology and probably remove the links or otherwise retract my commendation.
That is the difference as I see it.
Maranatha!
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3
As long as you see it, I’m good.
Your comment is a little cryptic, Chris, but it tends to make me think that you don’t see the difference yet.
Maranatha!
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3
Well, the standard seems to be what you think is or is not over the line. We both cited men with whom we don’t agree on everything as “hostile witnesses” against movements or ideas to which we’re opposed. You say yours is appropriate and mine was overtly inappropriate. You’re the standard, it seems.
We’re not going to agree on this. There’s really no profit to rehashing it.
The comment thread here is entertaining.
Pr 17:9 ¶ He that covereth a transgression seeketh love; but he that repeateth a matter separateth very friends.
Ok, been away…
Chris, obviously you don’t see it. Please note that you are the one bringing our disagreement up. If there is no profit in rehashing it, why bring it up at all?
As to the individuals concerned, it isn’t just a matter of citing men with whom ‘we don’t agree on everything’. The men I cite are not blasphemers. We would agree far more than we would disagree. And it isn’t simply citation. Citation is referring to someone as a source. Making the objectionable figure the focus of appreciative evaluation is quite another thing.
And there are some men who are so beyond the pale they should simply be shunned.
Jesus Christ is the standard, and those who blaspheme him deserve nothing but censure and condemnation.
Maranatha!
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3
Pastor Johnson,
Just one slight correction. My friend Chris did not bring this matter up. What say ye “Lurker?” Is it funny now?
Quite.
Not the response I was hoping for….but what can you expect from a “wise guy?” Where will the “Lurker” next appear? Only those elected to be a shadow will know!