Yes, I would say jealousy, outbursts of anger, and disputes are always wrong. They are the works of the flesh. (BTW, the NAS translation “disputes” is a little weak. The Greek here means something stronger than the connotations we have for ‘dispute’.)

There are many vices that Spirit filled Christians abstain from that are not named in the Bible. Tobacco, gambling and more ought not to be practiced by Christians.

In 1 Cor 5, in dealing with the man guilty of immorality with his father’s wife, Paul says that even the heathen know better than to tolerate this. One implication of that comment is that Christians should know better than to pursue or tolerate works of the flesh in any form, and they don’t need to have explicit Biblical revelation to tell them it is wrong.

Unless of course you want to argue FOR tobacco since the Bible doesn’t mention it.

I believe there are good reasons why the alcohol use of today almost entirely falls under the category of a work of the flesh and therefore should be totally avoided.

Maranatha!
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3

Or are the Greek words conveying ideas here that the English terms are not?

The fact remains as another brother alluded to here, that gluttony is linked with drunkenness, because both, matters of degree.

Abstention is not a matter of degree.

This is not to say that there are clearly some forms of drink one should not use as Proverbs is clear on, (unless for a medicine.) Deception is always lurking.

However it is true that the Biblical symbol for joy and joy in marriage is wine.

To be a teetotaler from wine makes the kingdom, metaphorically, without joy.

Actually the abuse of language to make drunkenness equal to abstaining is sad, very irresponsible I would suggest with all due respect, In English or Greek these words have their own definitions, private interpretations are dangerous.

Abstain from pollutions of idols, yes. Acts 15:20

Abstain from meats offered to idols, ok.. Acts 15:29

Abstain from fornication, certainly. 1 Thess. 4:3

Abstain from all appearance of evil 1 Thes. 5:22 (which cannot include wine for Jesus created it as a first “semion” in the Gospel of John on purpose – a wonderful thing of celebrating echad, God’s way, two becoming one!).

The commanding to abstain from meats which God created is one quality of those departing from the faith. 1 Tim 4:3 and a character trait of latter times

Abstain from fleshly lusts which war against the soul might or might not include wine depending on other factors and stages in ones life of spiritual growth, and of locale, etc. I am not trying to be difficult here, just say like we heard at Preacher Boys class so incredibly often (in regards to some practical question in ministry problems) “it depends . . . !)

The above six verses about abstaining – and many others – could have said abstain from drinking wine. However that might have contradicted other verses that make wine a joyful thing, and other verses that very clearly teach wine must be drunk in moderation

Your reasoning that drunkenness is abstention and that abstention is moderation (at least in the other series) was circular reasoning as far as I can tell.

All I ask is: Where is the simple directive teaching the virtue of teetotalling, in the Bible?

What is sad is all those people in nightclubs that noone can reach because we are not even allowed to go in there as evangelists, most people think. And to go in a bar would be appearance of evil right?

Wrong. Circular reasoning again. The Bible does not say that. How is one to be a friend of sinners? What was Jesus ALWAYS accused of?! When in ministry, preachers are not like CHrist in this, sheltered behind a pulpit and passing out tracts in the parks and train stations. Ha. Nope, not like Jesus there. I wasn’t like Jesus when I was doing those things anyway.

American Christianity has turned cold and aloof and holier than thou in so many ways, based on . . . circular reasoning and NOT sola scriptura. Abstention from wine is nowhere taught in the Bible. I have read it dozens of times.

I have underlined all the directives in the New Covenant writings in many Bibles, (in red) ALL of them and found many directives we never do, and realized there are many of MENS commands we do do, good though we think they be, to the detriment of some clear Bible commands.

I will practice Bible commands and teach others the same. Be angry AND sin not for instance. You guys make me angry, so I will go pray now. :-) Perhaps yet I am wrong? Show me and I will humbly pay attention.

Or do a word study on the word abstain in the Greek. That word is apechomai. It is used six times and means to hold from, or to hold out, hold out from, not have, etc. But it is never used in relation to wine.

Being a teetotaller is not Biblical, or it is extrabiblical, or non-biblical. Let us be honest about Bible words please.

Drunkenness in the New Covenant writings is methae which has to do with being intoxicated, not, NOT- drinking, that is pretty obvious it would seem to me. Also there is the verb metheuo and methusko

Now I am not opposed to appying reasonable principles if it is clear that they apply. But we must not outrightly forbid what God does not forbid, lest we make ourselves God and anger HIM!

So yes, I am opposed to apply principles of abstention if the Bible actually supports in some places the use of that which man outrightly forbids, if the Bible allows for it (wine and eating) as it does in numerous places.

What makes “Total abstinence” so important, since the Scriptures do not?

Please abstain from idols, demon-basd things (foods and music), and from blood and things strangled and from fornication. . . . Abstain from fornication (repeated in Thessalonians as well as Acts), from appearances of evil, from warring, fleshly lusts (epithumia)

I remain mystified by otherwise fairly clear thinkers who have bias and wish to divine for God, when even great translaters of the past made clear what the Spirit in his Spirited words, (the Greek) was saying.

Further, whether its a one wine or two wine theory, there is still MANY ways of producing drinks, some from which should be abstained generally and others which are generally useful – in moderation, in my estimation.

Yours for Jesus words and ways, Roy

Hi Kent,

That is such baloney. Randy does nothing of the kind. His position is for total abstinence.

There are other agendas afoot.

Maranatha!
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3

Hi Tracy and Marty

First, Marty, with respect to liberty, we must always remind people to use not liberty as an occasion to the flesh. I agree with your final observation.

Tracy, I’m not sure I follow your criticism. Perhaps you could explain. I don’t see how my position unseats Rm 14 or Col 2 at all, so perhaps you could enlighten me. Also, as a teetotaler, would you care to list your reasons for that position? It might help to understand what you are saying.

Maranatha!
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3

Well, I suppose they are if they adopt your unfortunate reasoning. Your whole argument reminds me of an incident I experienced years ago. I was listening to an evangelist–a very fundamental man–harangue against booze. After the service the church served refreshments in its fellowship hall. I was sitting at one of tables, and the evangelist came over at sat next to me. We got to talking.

Evang: “Well, what did you think?”

Me: “About what?”

Evang: “About the message. What did you think about the message? Was it spot on or no?”

Me: “Well, to be honest about it, no, it wasn’t. In fact, it was a bit confusing.”

Evang: How so?

Me: “Well, given your theory that a man is drunk to the extent that he drinks (and thus any drinking is ipso facto drunkenness), then I would like to know if a man is a glutton to the extent that he eats.”

He smiled, blinked at me a few times, as he choked down his jelly-filled donut, and quickly caught a another brother’s attention.

I think your rationale completely unseats such New Testament texts as Ro. 14:19-23 and Col. 2:16-23). And, of course, I say this from the position of a teetotaler. Your linking together of texts, and your cross-applying one text to another, reminds me of certain wacked-out NANCers who, when they can’t establish their point by exegesis, suddenly find it in that amorphous world of “biblical principles.”

I’ll follow this discussion. I’ve recently read some Puritan remarks on this issue, and I find a they are all over the board.

Have a good one!

tjp

John MacArthur recently did a radio series on the evils of alcohol, as well or better than any Fundamental Baptist preacher, but his conclusion, it seemed to me, is that drinking is still a matter of liberty. I also have wondered how you could know for sure that you were just a little “tipsy”, and okay with the Bible, or if you instead had already crossed that line into drunkenness. I think that some of the people who champion a Christian’s “liberty” to drink are simply saying “Nobody can tell me what to do.”

MC