This is a topic that I have never intended to write on, primarily because of the inevitable knee-jerk reactions it will provoke. Those reactions will be along the lines of, “Yeah, right. Here’s another libertine trying to justify his sin, another carnal Christian (a fictitious character, by the way) indulging his flesh in the name of Christian liberty.” In a post on another blog, and in the subsequent comments (the provocation for this post), the observation was made that the only people who seem to care about this issue are precisely that kind of person. That observation, which in my experience has been accurate, was intended to demonstrate that only the unsanctified and self-centered would defend such an indefensible practice, but the spiritually mature know better. I believe the commenters who questioned the motives of those who defend this practice were sincere, but very often that charge is little more than a way of disqualifying their opponents by attacking their character — Clearly, if you were more holy, you would see it my way — so, because of the very predictable ad hominem, very few are even willing to take on the argument. Well, like a modern day Mighty Mouse, here I come to save the day!

The topic, in case you have forgotten your chemistry (like me — I had to look it up) is beverage alcohol use. The purpose of this post is not to defend myself, but the sufficiency of Scripture and the character of God. That may seem grandiose, but I believe the stakes are that high. You will see why as this topic unfolds. The purpose of this post is not to persuade anyone to drink wine who doesn’t want to. Also, I do not believe I am under any obligation to prove anything. I am not trying to bind anyone’s conscience, and I believe Scripture is plain enough to place the burden of proof on the prohibitionists, not me.

Although it should go without saying, this is not a defense of drunkenness. It’s a shame that I have to say so, but there are those who refuse to separate drunkenness from the enjoyment of a gift from God. They will probably continue to do so in spite of this disclaimer, but there it is.

Another reason I have not formally addressed this issue is the fact that many men whom I deeply respect disagree with me. In fact, the one Bible teacher who has had the greatest influence on my theology, of whom I can say with no exaggeration, “I am who I am because of his ministry,” will disagree with me on this. I won’t name him, because that would require me to explain just how we disagree in order to avoid misrepresenting his views, so I’ll leave it at that. On the astronomically unlikely chance that he is reading this and knows who he is, with all due respect, Sir, I think you’re wrong; but you’re still my hero.

Some of the issues I will address, not necessarily in order, are:

• Is drinking alcoholic beverages a sin?
• Is abstinence a higher standard?
• Is moderation acceptable, but abstinence wiser?
• Are the “rules” different now than they were in “Bible times?”
• What about the “weaker brother?”

I will not be addressing the “wine back then was Welch’s” argument. With all due respect to some pretty smart guys who say so, I just don’t think it’s a viable theory worthy of consideration. [Update, 2008-08-07: Bob Hayton has addressed this here.]

I really have nothing to say about this that has not already been said. If readers from Doulogos come over here and suspect that some of my remarks are copy & pasted from my comments there, well, that’s possible. Additionally, much of my understanding of this issue comes from God Gave Wine by Kenneth L. Gentry. If readers of that book suspect me of plagiarism, I confess right up front; but it’s not intentional.

Finally, some may ask, “Why address this at all? If it is such a contentious, divisive issue, why not just give it up? Why not just abstain for the sake of peace and unity?” Because peace and unity cannot be had at the expense of truth. The truth cannot be sold, especially so cheaply.

This issue is being discussed currently because the Southern Baptist Convention has written a resolution condemning alcohol use. Consequently, the question has been asked, “How Does It Feel To Exclude Jesus From Your Denomination?”

Tune in next time for Sola Scriptura and the SBC.

Homework:
Read How Does It Feel To Exclude Jesus From Your Denomination? by Brent Thomas.
Read The Sword and Spirits, Drinking with Jesus, & Akin on Alcohol by Joe Thorn.
Buy God Gave Wine by Kenneth L. Gentry.

Part 2: Sola Scriptura and the SBC

As I mentioned in part 1 of this series, this issue has been raised in the last few weeks because the Southern Baptist Convention has passed a resolution expressing “total opposition to the manufacturing, advertising, distributing, and consuming of alcoholic beverages.” Please take the time to read the resolution for yourself.

The resolution cites as its justification the negative results of alcohol abuse and addiction, attributing them all to “alcohol use.” It attributes the acceptance and advocacy of alcoholic beverage consumption by “some religious leaders” to “a misinterpretation of the doctrine of ‘our freedom in Christ’.”

If the words “alcohol use” were replaced with “drunkenness,” I would agree with every part of the resolution except the part about “supporting legislation that is intended to curb alcohol use in our communities and nation.” We already have laws against drunk driving, boating, and handling firearms. Those are good laws. We certainly do not need to waste our time and efforts pressing for redundant laws. The witness of the church has suffered enough from the crusades of those who have confused the Great Commission with the Great Political Campaign; but that’s a topic for another post.

While the legalistic nature of the SBC resolution should be evident even to abstentionists, and while legalism is certainly spoken of in Scripture as a great evil, my greatest objection goes much deeper than that. I believe that this issue, although it may seem superficial, is a fair litmus test of one’s view of Scripture, and therefore of God. Is Scripture true, or not? Is it the sole source of doctrine, or are there additional doctrines that need to be added? Does Scripture contain the whole counsel of God, or did he leave some things out? This resolution, and the history of fundamentalist prohibitionism, is no less than a rejection of sola Scriptura, “teaching for doctrines the commandments of men” (Matthew 15:9). It doesn’t get any more fundamental than that. That, and not my enjoyment of a drink, is what fuels my passion on this issue.

As I approach this issue, sola Scriptura will be the first guiding principle. The second, which is Siamese twin to the first, is tota Scriptura, the doctrine that all of Scripture is authoritative and relevant. While prohibitionists are always quick to cite Scripture forbidding drunkenness or describing special circumstances calling for abstention, I have yet to hear a serious treatment of passages such as Psalm 104:14–15 or Deuteronomy 14:22–27. It seems as though they have taken white-out to the two-hundred-plus passages mentioning wine.

The final principle governing my approach, which should really go without saying, it that of 2 Timothy 2:15 — “Study to show thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.” Perhaps the most glaring deficiency of the SBC resolution is the atrociously amateurish hermeneutics. If this is a good example of the authors’ exegesis and hermeneutics, I wouldn’t let them teach my five-year-old’s Sunday school class, let alone represent an entire denomination.

So far, I have only stated my position without proof. As in all things, Scripture alone and Scripture in full must be our authority as we consider this important issue. In my next installment, I will begin answering the question, “Exactly what does Scripture say about wine?”

Homework:
Search the Bible for the words wine and strong drink. Ignore those that obviously address drunkenness, unless you’re looking for a defense of it (time-saving hint: you won’t find any). Read each passage in context. Ask the text, “Is it a good thing?” Consider the passages calling for abstention. Ask the text, “Who, why, when, and for how long?” This is the time to leave comments involving passages that you believe support an abstentionist or prohibitionist position, but do so with 2 Timothy 2:15 in mind. If you’re too lazy to do the work, chances are that I’ll be too lazy to consider your comment.

Part 3: What Does Scripture Say?

The following is a list of verses containing the words wine and strong drink, generated by E-sword from the KJV.

Genesis 9:21, 24; 14:18; 19:32, 33, 34, 35; 27:25, 28, 37; 49:11, 12;
Exodus 29:40;
Leviticus 10:9; 23:13;
Numbers 6:3, 20; 15:5, 7, 10; 18:12; 28:7, 14;
Deuteronomy 7:13; 11:14; 12:17; 14:23, 26; 16:13; 18:4; 28:39, 51; 29:6; 32:33, 38; 33:28;
Joshua 9:4, 13;
Judges 9:13; 13:4, 7, 14; 19:19;
1 Samuel 1:14, 15, 24; 10:3; 16:20; 25:18, 37;
2 Samuel 6:19; 13:28; 16:1, 2;
2 Kings 18:32;
1 Chronicles 9:29; 12:40; 16:3; 27:27;
2 Chronicles 2:10, 15; 11:11; 31:5; 32:28;
Ezra 6:9; 7:22;
Nehemiah 2:1; 5:11, 15, 18; 10:37, 39; 13:5, 12, 15;
Esther 1:7, 10; 5:6; 7:2, 7, 8;
Job 1:13, 18; 32:19;
Psalm 4:7; 60:3; 75:8; 78:65; 104:15;
Proverbs 3:10; 4:17; 9:2, 5; 20:1; 21:17; 23:30, 31; 31:4, 6;
Ecclesiastes 2:3; 9:7; 10:19;
Song of Solomon 1:2, 4; 4:10; 5:1; 7:9; 8:2;
Isaiah 1:22; 5:11, 12, 22; 16:10; 22:13; 24:7, 9, 11; 27:2; 28:1, 7; 29:9; 36:17; 49:26; 51:21; 55:1; 56:12; 62:8; 65:8;
Jeremiah 13:12; 23:9; 25:15; 31:12; 35:2, 5, 6, 8, 14; 40:10, 12; 48:33; 51:7;
Lamentations 2:12;
Ezekiel 27:18; 44:21;
Daniel 1:5, 8, 16; 5:1, 2, 4, 23; 10:3;
Hosea 2:8, 9, 22; 3:1; 4:11; 7:5, 14; 9:2, 4; 14:7;
Joel 1:5, 10; 2:19, 24; 3:3, 18;
Amos 2:8, 12; 5:11; 6:6; 9:13, 14;
Micah 2:11; 6:15;
Habakkuk 2:5;
Zephaniah 1:13;
Haggai 1:11; 2:12;
Zechariah 9:15, 17; 10:7;
Matthew 9:17;
Mark 2:22; 15:23;
Luke 1:15; 5:37, 38, 39; 7:33; 10:34;
John 2:3, 9, 10; 4:46;
Acts 2:13;
Romans 14:21;
Ephesians 5:18;
1 Timothy 3:3, 8; 5:23;
Titus 1:7; 2:3;
1 Peter 4:3;
Revelation 6:6; 14:8, 10; 16:19; 17:2; 18:3, 13

Part 1: Introductory Comments
Part 2: Sola Scriptura and the SBC

In this installment, I will bring Scripture to bear on the assertions I have made. To systematically go through every mention of wine or strong drink in Scripture is a long and tedious process. I know, I’ve done it. I won’t bore you with every one of them. The comments to this post will be the place to bring up passages that you believe I have overlooked or avoided. I will attempt to answer objections in a later post.

As you saw at the end of the last installment, there are over two hundred uses of the words wine and strong drink in Scripture. There are passages describing, forbidding, and warning against drunkenness, which are not germane to this discussion. There are passages dealing with special circumstances requiring abstention. Those will be discussed in a later post.

There are numerous passages in which wine appears just as a matter of fact. Nothing positive or negative is said about it. That, however, does not mean we cannot draw any conclusions from them concerning wine. The most obvious conclusion is that wine was a constant, normal part of life throughout Bible history. Through it all, there are no sweaty preachers ranting about the evils of “demon rum” and repeating tearful anecdotes about the poor man who thought he could get away with “taking Satan into his mouth” just once, but ended his life an alcoholic wreck. That kind of drama is entirely missing from Scripture. (I do realize that not all prohibitionists are “sweaty” or “ranting,” but if they will portray Biblical enjoyment of a gift as carnal and licentious, then I must be allowed my caricatures, as well.)

Throughout the Old Testament we see wine as an integral part of worship, which continues as Christ instituted the Lord's Table, assigning the representation of his blood to the Passover wine.

The first mention of wine in Scripture, after that of Noah’s drunkenness, is in Genesis 14. Lot had been taken captive, and Abram had rescued him along with all the other captives and spoils of battle. “Melchizedek king of Salem brought forth bread and wine; and he was the priest of the most high God. And he blessed him, and said, Blessed be Abram of the most high God, possessor of Heaven and Earth: And blessed be the most high God, which hath delivered thine enemies into thine hand.” Melchizedek brought wine for the purpose of dispensing a priestly blessing. Lest anyone doubt Melchizedek’s character, Psalm 110 declares Christ himself to be “a priest for ever after the order of Melchizedek.”

Exodus 29 brings the institution of “one fourth of a hin of wine for a drink offering,” repeated again in Leviticus and Numbers. Wine is included among the produce that must be tithed on. The passage that nailed me between the eyes when I was at the height of my (brief) prohibitionist piety is Deuteronomy 14:22–26, “You shall surely tithe all the produce from what you sow, which comes out of the field every year. "You shall eat in the presence of the LORD your God, at the place where He chooses to establish His name, the tithe of your grain, your new wine, your oil, and the firstborn of your herd and your flock, so that you may learn to fear the LORD your God always. If the distance is so great for you that you are not able to bring the tithe, since the place where the LORD your God chooses to set His name is too far away from you when the LORD your God blesses you, then you shall exchange it for money, and bind the money in your hand and go to the place which the LORD your God chooses. You may spend the money for whatever your heart desires: for oxen, or sheep, or wine, or strong drink, or whatever your heart desires; and there you shall eat in the presence of the LORD your God and rejoice, you and your household.” The idea of spending a tithe on “strong drink” was a revelation to me. Clearly, God could not both prescribe and forbid the same thing.

Wine is also named frequently as a blessing. Isaac’s blessing of Jacob (Genesis 27) includes these words: “Therefore God give thee of the dew of heaven, and the fatness of the earth, and plenty of corn and wine.” In Deuteronomy 7, God promises that, if Israel will keep his commandments, that he will “bless the fruit of thy womb, and the fruit of thy land, thy corn, and thy wine, and thine oil, the increase of thy kine, and the flocks of thy sheep, in the land which he sware unto thy fathers to give thee.” In 2 Kings 18, the Lord promises to return Israel “to a land like your own land, a land of corn and wine, a land of bread and vineyards, a land of oil olive and of honey, that ye may live, and not die.”

Numerous texts describe the loss of wine (and other crops) or its production as judgment from God. Among them are Deuteronomy 28, Isaiah 16 & 24, Jeremiah 48, and Lamentations 2.

Probably the most common text cited in favor of wine is Psalm 104:14–15: “He causeth the grass to grow for the cattle, and herb for the service of man: that he may bring forth food out of the earth; And wine that maketh glad the heart of man, and oil to make his face to shine, and bread which strengtheneth man.” It seems fairly obvious that wine is given by God, and that we should receive it gratefully.

More convincing than the texts that describe literal wine as a blessing are those that do so figuratively. If wine was a thing to be condemned, surely God would not choose it to represent blessing when he has all of creation to choose from. Yet, he includes it among other things as a cause of joy, health, and wealth.

In Zechariah 10, it is said that “Ephraim . . . shall rejoice as through wine (at the salvation of the Lord).” In the previous chapter, we read “. . . corn shall make the young men cheerful, and new wine the maids.”

Hosea 2 speaks of the woman who played the harlot (Israel) and did not acknowledge that her corn, wine, and oil were given by her husband (God) and offered silver and gold to Baal. God then destroys the vineyards that she has attributed to her lovers. Then, in a picture of redemptive grace, he draws her back to himself, and gives her new vineyards. “And the earth shall hear the corn, and the wine, and the oil; and they shall hear Jezreel (God sows).”

Song of Solomon repeatedly uses wine as a metaphor for the sweetness of marital intimacy: “. . . thy love is better than wine” (1:2), “. . . how much better is thy love than wine!” (4:10), and the erotic suggestion, “I would cause thee to drink of spiced wine of the juice of my pomegranate” (8:2).

Isaiah 55:1 presents “wine and milk” as a picture of grace: “Ho, every one that thirsteth, come ye to the waters, and he that hath no money; come ye, buy, and eat; yea, come, buy wine and milk without money and without price.”

Throughout the Old Testament wine is constantly present. It is present as an ordinary part of life. It is present in the priestly sacrifices. It is used in celebration, and it is a cause for gladness and joy. It is a choice metaphor for marital intimacy.

In the New Testament, as we should expect, wine is still an ordinary staple of life. Jesus used wine to illustrate his messages (Matthew 9, Mark 2, Luke 5). The “good Samaritan” didn’t have go get wine to pour on the beaten man’s wounds, he was carrying it with him (Luke 10). More to the point, Jesus drank wine. In Luke 7, he is even accused of drunkenness. Furthermore, he made wine — several gallons of it, for the purpose of celebration. Finally, observing the Passover with his disciples, he took the cup of wine and said, “This cup is the new testament in my blood: this do ye, as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of me.”

Wine is a good thing; of that, there should be no doubt. It should be treated the same as every other gift from God. It should be received with gratitude, giving glory to God.

Part 4: Abstinence in Scripture

Part 1: Introductory Comments
Part 2: Sola Scriptura and the SBC
Part 3: What Does Scripture Say?

In the last installment of this series, I established the fact that wine and strong drink are a good gift from the Lord that should be received as such with gratitude and joy, as should all gifts from God's hand. Now I want to turn to the issue of abstinence according to Scripture. Does Scripture ever call for abstinence, and if so, under what circumstances and for what purpose?

Scripture really has little to say about abstinence. There are a few instances where abstinence is prescribed or described. When the account is prescriptive, it is always for a time and purpose. Only Samson and John the Baptist were called to a life-long Nazarite vow, which included abstinence from wine and strong drink.

In Leviticus 10, Aaron and his sons are commanded not to drink wine or strong drink when they were to minister in the tabernacle. The purpose was to set them apart as holy from that which was unholy, common. Ezekiel 44 contains a similar command.

Numbers 6 introduces the Nazarite vow. The Nazarite was forbidden to cut his hair. He could not go near dead bodies, including family members, should they die during the days of his separation. He was to “abstain from wine and strong drink; he shall drink no vinegar, whether made from wine or strong drink, nor shall he drink any grape juice nor eat fresh or dried grapes. All the days of his separation he shall not eat anything that is produced by the grape vine, from the seeds even to the skin.” When the days of his separation were complete, he was to bring the prescribed offerings to the priest and shave his “dedicated hair.” “. . . and after that, the Nazarite may drink wine.”

In Judges 13, the angel of the Lord announces to Manoah and his wife that she, although barren, would conceive and bear a son, Samson, who would be a Nazarite from the womb, necessitating temporary abstinence for Mrs. Manoah as well.

Jeremiah 35 brings us the interesting story of the Rechabites, who had been commanded by Jonadab the son of Rechab “Ye shall drink no wine, neither ye, nor your sons for ever: Neither shall ye build house, nor sow seed, nor plant vineyard, nor have any: but all your days ye shall dwell in tents; that ye may live many days in the land where ye be strangers.” The Lord instructs Jeremiah to bring the sons of the house of the Rechabites together, set wine before them, and instruct them to drink. In obedience to the patriarchal command, the Rechabites refuse. God then commends them for their obedience, and chastises Israel for their disobedience to him. It is a fascinating account of God and his holiness and justice and of disobedience and its consequences, but it has nothing to do with abstinence from alcohol. Obedience is the theme.

Daniel, Hananiah, Mishael, and Azariah requested that they be allowed to forgo the king’s meat and wine because “the heathen at their feasts offered up in sacrifice to their gods a part of the food and the drink, and thus consecrated their meals by a religious rite;” (C.F. Keil). It has only now occurred to me that they probably ate meat and drank wine at other times, but I have not yet pursued the answer to that question. Daniel 10 tells us, “In those days I Daniel was mourning three full weeks. I ate no pleasant bread, neither came flesh nor wine in my mouth, neither did I anoint myself at all, till three whole weeks were fulfilled” (emphasis added). Did he then eat meat and drink wine afterwards? It seems probable.

In Luke 1 we read the announcement of the birth of John the Baptist to Zacharias and Elisabeth. The angel said, “For he shall be great in the sight of the Lord, and shall drink neither wine nor strong drink; and he shall be filled with the Holy Ghost, even from his mother's womb.” Like Samson, his was a special calling to be set apart for a unique purpose.

It may seem as though these special cases, because they are special cases, have no bearing at all on what the norm should be. However, I believe they are especially relevant to us for that very reason. These individuals were being set apart for special purposes. Set apart from what? From the normal, acceptable, expected behavior and practices of everyday life, which include wine and strong drink.

“Well then, Mr. Winebibber,” you might ask, “is there ever a time to abstain?”

Stay tuned . . .

Part 5: To Abstain or not to Abstain

Part 1: Introductory Comments
Part 2: Sola Scriptura and the SBC
Part 3: What Does Scripture Say?
Part 4: Abstinence in Scripture

“I know there’s nothing wrong with alcohol, but I abstain for the weaker brother.”

What is wrong with that statement? Absolutely nothing, in the right context. However, if that means abstinence as a lifestyle, and categorizing everyone who disapproves as the weaker brother, it demonstrates ignorance of the Scriptural principle involved.

Romans 14 and 1Corinthians 8 speak of meat, which, for our purposes, can legitimately be replaced with wine and strong drink. Both are good things, given by God for our nourishment and pleasure, which, let us not forget, serve the ultimate purpose of God’s glory. The meat sacrificed to idols was perfectly good to eat, not defiled in any way by having been sacrificed to pagan gods, since those gods did not exist; but some immature Christians, in their ignorance, could not eat it with a clear conscience. Wine and strong drink are good, commended to us in Scripture; but some Christians, ignorant of what Scripture teaches concerning alcohol and conditioned by their home and/or church to believe it is sinful, worldly, or unwise, cannot enjoy it with a clear conscience. Some, but not all, of those Christians are called “weaker brothers,” and are deserving of our consideration as we exercise our right to enjoy God’s gifts.

The only Scriptural call for purposeful abstinence is when doing otherwise will cause a brother to sin. How can doing something that is clearly not a sin cause another to sin? God is far more concerned with the activity that takes place in our minds than what we do with our hands. If we mistakenly believe something is a sin, and willfully do it anyway, we have rebelled against God even though the particular activity is good. If a brother, for any reason, believes drinking alcohol, or eating chocolate, or playing baseball is sinful, and we persuade him to do it without first convincing him of the truth, we have caused him to sin.

Who, then, is the weaker brother? He is not just anyone who doesn’t drink and thinks you shouldn’t, either. He is not one who is annoyed that you would drink in his presence knowing he doesn’t. He is definitely not one who has read Romans 14 and 1 Corinthians 8 and has decided that he is the weaker brother because he disapproves of drinking wine. Odd as that sounds, such people do exist. They believe others should comply with their preferences based on those passages. They are not the weaker brother. These people are not going to follow the example of others; they are offended that others do not follow their example.

The weaker brother is ignorant of his liberty and bound to a false standard of morality, but could be persuaded to violate his conscience by the example of a mature believer exercising his liberty inconsiderately. What constitutes “exercising liberty inconsiderately” depends on the situation. The best I can do, following the guidance of Romans 14 and 1Corinthians 8, is give a few examples as they may occur in my experience. You will have to make your own application.

Example 1:
We are acquainted with the local IFB pastor and his family. They are total abstainers, but I don’t think he would call drinking a sin. We are also acquainted with the local SBC pastor. I have heard him give a less dramatic rendition of the caricature I presented in Part 3 of this series. If I was sitting on my deck sipping a Warsteiner Dunkel and either of these good men dropped by for a visit, I wouldn’t tuck my bottle out of sight in shame, or in fear of offending a weaker brother. Neither of them would have a beer even if I offered it. At least one of them would probably die a martyr’s death first. They are not weaker brothers. They would not violate their consciences at my urging.

Example 2:
Now, suppose a member of either of those churches stops by, and I am sampling my home-made wine. I offer him a taste, and he declines. Seeing by his expression that he is uncomfortable with it, . . .

. . . I say, “How about a Coke, then, or a glass of water?” Then, when I go to get his drink, I take my wine glass away and return with a soda for myself as well. Maybe some other time we’ll have a conversation about wine, and I’ll be able to show him what Scripture says. At the same time, I’ll emphasize the fact that, whatever he does, he needs to be fully convinced that it is right. Until that time, I won’t rub his nose in my liberty.

Or,

. . . I say some thing like, “Ah, come on, it’s good! Try it!” I cajole and prod him, challenging his abstentionist scruples: “You don’t think there’s something wrong with it, do you? That’s just legalistic nonsense!” Perhaps I coerce him until he gives in, but without full conviction.

Obviously, the first choice is the right choice. I am respecting my brother’s conscience, and leaving the door open for discipling him toward a stronger, better informed faith. In the second scenario, I am bullying him into sinning against his conscience.

Example 3:
I take my family to dinner after church. Our normal habit is pizza and a pitcher of beer (not really, but let’s pretend). This Sunday, a family joins us whom I know or suspect are abstainers. That alone doesn’t make them “weaker brothers,” but rather than place what might be a temptation before what might be a weaker brother, we’ll have root beer instead.

I could go on with countless examples, and you have probably thought of a few, also. This is a principle that must be addressed with wisdom and charity on a case-by-case basis. The motivation for abstinence in these cases is not to be more righteous, or to adhere to some imagined “higher standard.” It is love for our brother. We are not to stubbornly insist on exercising our rights at the expense of our brother’s sanctification. When we do so, we sin.

The other side of this coin is the admonition to those who abstain to not judge those who don’t, just as those who drink should not despise those who do not. “Let not him that eateth despise him that eateth not; and let not him which eateth not judge him that eateth: for God hath received him” (Romans 14:3). Those who abstain are not to think of themselves as more righteous, more mature, or wiser that those who do not.

Whether we eat or drink is irrelevant to the kingdom of God. Scripture tells us clearly which things are sin and which are not. When considering those things that are not clearly sinful, the rule is “live and let live.” Love one another, and live at peace with one another. Make no rules to bind the conscience that are not clearly found in Scripture, and do not encourage others to do what they cannot conscientiously do.

Read more on the question of offense and the weaker brother in the following interestingly titled Fide-O posts:
When All Else Fails Quote a Bible Verse by Scott Hill
Weaky Weakerton by Scott Hill
Larry Legalist Goes to Corinth by Scott Hill
Hercules Henderson by Scott Hill
Off The Fence On Offense by Tony Langdon

In the next post, which should be the last, I will answer questions and objections that have been raised here or elsewhere. It might be a somewhat redundant post, but hopefully, it will tie up any remaining loose ends. Now is the time to bring up any questions or objections that you think have not been adequately addressed. Last call!

Part 6: Answering Objections