Part 1: Introductory Comments
Part 2: Sola Scriptura and the SBC
Part 3: What Does Scripture Say?
Part 4: Abstinence in Scripture
Part 5: To Abstain or not to Abstain

In this post, I will answer questions and objections that have been brought up in the comments on this blog, as well as those I have encountered elsewhere. Some of this will be redundant, it may be a bit rambling and unorganized, and it might get long. As I address some of the comments that have been left on this blog, it should not be construed as singling out the commenters as stupid or foolish. The objections I will address are common ones that have been around as long as people have been promoting abstinence. All of them have represented my point of view in the past. For every time I have used the word “ignorant,” I must confess to having been ignorant myself. Ignorance is no cause for shame. An unteachable spirit is. With that stated, I will dive in.
____________________
“Abstinence is easier than moderation.” That was the first objection raised in my comments by Daniel, an eminent Canadian philosopher and theologian (whom you should blame or thank for provoking this series). He raised it here in jest, as we had already discussed it at his blog and in emails. I know he will agree with my answer because he has already told me so, and I am simply copy-and-pasting from my email to him.

Daniel applied the argument of Augustine, who was speaking of sexual abstinence, to alcohol consumption. My answer to him was,

On your statement, “complete abstinence is easier than perfect moderation,” that may be true, depending on the person. My concern, as I’m sure yours is, is not what is easiest, but what is right; and I definitely don’t believe it’s right. First, moderation is no virtue if, in your heart, you are immoderate – and that is the confession of one who says he abstains because it’s easier than moderation. He imagines he is a drunk at heart, and responds, not in repentance and faith, but by taking a supposed “better way”. You see, the drunk’s problem is not alcohol, but his sinful desire. If he abstains, he saves himself and possibly others from the consequences of his drunkenness, but not from his guilt. Wanting to sin, and choosing not to, only appears innocent; but the guilt remains. So the one who abstains because he has no Galatians 5 self-control is no less guilty than the one who drinks with abandon. In fact he may be worse off because he believes he has conquered his sin, when in fact, he has only suppressed it. He may be worse off because he believes he has conquered it by his own will-power. Second, when God has said “Here, take this gift, a token of my love for you, given for your benefit,” I hardly think the right answer is, “No, thanks. It’s easier to pass.”

When I began this series, my biggest fear was that I would be the recipient of drunken high-fives from the frat-boy types who seem to revel in their “authentic” journey to follow Christ their own way. I want it to be clear that I, along with Daniel, abhor that attitude. If that describes you, I do not speak for you. Christ did not die so that I could continue “just as I am.” He died to free me from my sin — its penalty and its power. That is the true meaning of “Christian Liberty” — freedom to do what is right. If you profess faith in Christ but still willfully live in sin, I cannot consider you a brother in Christ. Your faith is dead. I can only entreat you to repent.

____________________
Another commenter suggested the application of 1Corinthians 6:12, “All things are lawful unto me, but all things are not expedient: all things are lawful for me, but I will not be brought under the power of any.” He asked,

Is it wise or profitable to drink alcohol when it is not a necessity? Within the cultural context of the Scriptures wasn't it wise and profitable to drink alcohol due to the dangers of drinking unsanitary water? Wasn't Timothy practicing abstinence to the point of losing his health and Paul basically had to command him to drink alcohol for its medicinal value (1 Timothy 5:23)?

At a time and place in history when there are plenty of nonalcoholic beverages available that are sanitary and profitable, is there wisdom in placing yourself in a position of coming under the power of alchohol which could lead to drunkenness? Due to the warnings of Scripture about the power and danger of alcohol (Prov. 20:1; 21:17; 31:4) isn't it wiser to abstain if possible?”

Yes, according to Scripture, it is wise and profitable to drink alcohol. I think we have looked at enough Scripture to demonstrate that. Scripture never presents it as a necessity, just a good thing, so whether or not it is necessary is irrelevant. As for the “unsanitary water” argument, I just don’t buy it. Wine was not given because there was no clean water. If God, who is sovereign over all and perfect in his providence, chose to supply them with dirty water, he certainly would not have provided a substitute that was simply the lesser of two evils. No, God gave wine, just as he said, to make the heart glad. Furthermore, medical science testifies to the benefits of moderate alcohol consumption.

Whether or not we live “at a time and place in history when there are plenty of nonalcoholic beverages available that are sanitary and profitable” is debatable. I would be interested in knowing what those choices are that are actually healthy. Surely not soda pop, especially diet sodas. Water, milk, and fruit juices have been around since Genesis, along with wine.

Is it wiser, due to Scriptural warnings, to abstain from alcohol? Is it wiser, due to the plethora of Scriptural commendations of alcohol, to enjoy alcohol? Yes. Or no. Take your pick. Whatever you do, do it based on what Scripture teaches, and with a clear conscience; but leave the rest of us alone (Romans 14:3).

The warnings in Scripture all apply to immoderate indulgence — drunkenness. Certainly, abstinence is wiser than drunkenness, but is it better? Maybe, but maybe not. See my answer to Daniel, above.
____________________
Another commenter objected to my use of the word “legalism” to describe the SBC resolution:

You may disagree with their hermeneutic, but they are by no means "legalists" by virtue of the fact that you disagree with them. Legalism is always connected with trying to establish your own righteousness apart from Christ and then applying your righteousness establishing rules to other people. It always has to do with pleasing God apart from faith in His Son. I do not think most intelligent supporters of this resolution can be call legalists. It is not fair, and when the word "legalism" is used so loosely it looses its value as a word to describe anything. . . . One more thing that should be considered: An SBC resolution is by no means a law that every SB must obey. It is voted on by the people to represent the denomination's opinion on the matter. It is not imposed upon anyone. SB churches are autonomous. The convention doesn't rule over them; it is designed to serve the churches, not force the churches to serve it.

There are a couple of common uses of the word “legalism.” One is attaching justification (salvation) to obedience to any law, including God's law. The other is imposing man-made laws under the name of righteousness, sanctification, holiness, or “standards.” It is the second definition that I am applying, and it fits.

Whether or not the resolution is binding on churches or individuals is irrelevant when the unmistakable message is that it represents Biblical standards of holiness and those who do not submit to it are less sanctified, less wise, and are failing to live up to some supposed higher standard set by the authors.

Certainly, they are not “‘legalists’ by virtue of the fact that [I] disagree with them.” Nothing is true just because any man says so. Isn’t that a major point of this series? They are legalists because they impose the traditions of men on others. If you still object to the term “legalist”, I’m willing to go with “Pharisee.”
____________________
Although I stated at the beginning that I would not be addressing the “wine back then was Welch’s” argument, one commenter brought it up, and I just want to answer the basis for his suggestion. He said,

Do you realize that the word wine historically can mean either fermented or non-fermented grape juice.

eg. Noah Websters Dictionary: "Must, New WINE; wine pressed from the grape but not fermented." (1828 A.D.)

English definitions are useful when exegeting works written in English, but the Bible was not written in English. For a correct interpretation, we must define the original Hebrew or Greek word in its original context. We must determine what it meant to the author, and how it would have been understood by the original audience. What it meant to them is what it means to us.
____________________

Does the use of alcohol have any corrolation on mainline churches and their fondness of liberalism compared to the fundamentalism of the neo-conservative groups?

Liberal churches have little regard for the commandments of God, let alone traditions of men. They do have their own brand of legalism, but it doesn’t cramp their style in the way fundamentalist legalism would. Liberals are saved by being “basically good people” or “doing their best.” The bar is set as low as possible, but it is still salvation by works. That’s the only tangent I’m taking in this post. Now, back to business.
____________________

Are [meat sacrificed to idols and alcohol] really parallel? They both might offend but meat was once prohibited by Law, however, wine/strong drink was not.

Actually, only certain kinds of meat were prohibited to Israel. Meat sacrificed to idols is a different issue, however. Paul said that there was no prohibition on eating meat sacrificed to idols. Really, anything that someone could mistakenly believe is wrong could be a parallel to meat sacrificed to idols.
____________________

Times and cultures change. Alcohol abuse hasn’t always been the problem it is today. Don’t we need to consider the present-day culture and abstain for that reason? Look at all the pain and suffering caused by alcohol today. It hasn’t always been like this.

Are you kidding? Do you imagine that drunkenness and debauchery are modern innovations? Let me introduce you to a fellow named Lot. He got drunk, committed incest with his daughters, and became the father of his grandchildren. That was in Genesis. First century Corinth was Partytown. People were making pigs of themselves and getting drunk at the church pot-luck dinners! There is nothing new going on now.

Besides, who says alcohol abuse is such a widespread problem? To hear the prohibitionists talk, as surely as use leads to abuse, there must be rampant bacchanalia going on everywhere, since more than half of Americans drink alcohol, and most other countries have an even higher percentage of those who drink. However, most people, Christian or not, drink moderately. This is largely the result of growing up. Most people reach adulthood, get jobs, have families, buy homes, and live lives that simply are not compatible with irresponsible behavior. They work hard, manage their money, drive carefully, and stay sober.

So, while there is a drinking problem, it is nothing new, and it is not a problem that most people have, and I’m not the first to say so. Here is another man’s expression of the same opinion. If you want to talk about a problem that really is widespread, read this:

Study: More Americans too fat for X-rays, scans
Obesity hurting accuracy of images, doctors say.
Thursday, July 27, 2006; Posted: 2:12 a.m. EDT (06:12 GMT)

WASHINGTON (Reuters) -- More and more obese people are unable to get full medical care because they are either too big to fit into scanners, or their fat is too dense for X-rays or sound waves to penetrate, radiologists reported Tuesday.

With 64 percent of the U.S. population either overweight or obese, the problem is worsening, but it represents a business opportunity for equipment makers and hospitals, said Dr. Raul Uppot, a radiologist at Massachusetts General Hospital.

"We noticed over the past couple of years that obesity was playing a role in our ability to see these images clearly," Uppot said in a telephone interview. . . .

"It is a major issue because . . . the patient may still have a tumor, the patient may have appendicitis, the patient may have other inflammatory processes," Uppot said. Full article at CNN

Most people who drink don’t get drunk, but most people who eat do overeat. With two thirds of the U.S. population overweight or obese, where is the resolution against ice cream?
____________________
I apologize for the long, rambling nature of this post, at least to those of you who stayed with me to the end. I have tried to answer all objections, but if you think I have overlooked something, hit me in the comments. I will either answer you or point you to the post where I already have. Just be sure you have actually read the whole series first, please. This was to be the last part of the series, but I want to do a summary and concluding post. That will be the last, I promise.

Part 7: Epilogue

Part 1: Introductory Comments
Part 2: Sola Scriptura and the SBC
Part 3: What Does Scripture Say?
Part 4: Abstinence in Scripture
Part 5: To Abstain or not to Abstain
Part 6: Answering Objections

As I wrote at the beginning of this series, this is not a topic that I ever intended to address formally. I had written this somewhat smart-alecky post, and that was enough. However, anyone can be a wise-guy. “I’ll drink all the wine you can make out of water.” See? There are enough clever quips to go around. What has been in short supply are Biblical examinations of the subject, which I intended to supply in one concise, to-the-point post. Well, it immediately became obvious that one post could not sufficiently handle it thoroughly, so here we are, seven posts in, and finally wrapping up. Thanks to all who have stuck with me this far.

My intention has never been to persuade anyone to drink alcoholic beverages. If you now feel you should drink even though you have no desire for it, I want to state clearly that you need not feel that way. My arguments against abstention do not apply to you, because you are not abstaining. Abstention is purposeful, not passive.

On the other hand, if you have been bound by man-made, anti-Biblical rules, I wish for you to be free to enjoy God and his gifts to you – all of them. I wish for you to do so with gratitude and joy, with a heart overflowing with love for the Lord who made you, and all that the world contains, for his glory. I wish for you to manifest the fruit of the Spirit, of which self-control is a part.

While I have tried to be thorough, I know there is more to be said about this. I recommend reading God Gave Wine by Kenneth L. Gentry and Drinking With Calvin and Luther!: A History of Alcohol in the Church by Jim West.

Skål!

Long ago a city was born. It was located on the eastern edge of Minnesota, and called Minneapolis. It was a city of renown, and people traveled there from all over the country, yea, even the world, to visit its attractions. Everyone knew where it was. Those who drove followed maps that directed them, by way of various state highways and interstate freeways, to that same location, which never moved, in southeastern Minnesota. Those who came by airline, train, or bus bought tickets indicating “Destination: Minneapolis, Minnesota.” Citizens of Minneapolis received mail addressed to Minneapolis, Minnesota and posted mail return addressed from Minneapolis, Minnesota. In short, that Minneapolis was located in Minnesota was well documented and undisputed.

Then one day, not so long ago, a group of cartographers began producing maps placing Minneapolis in Iowa. When the accuracy of those maps was challenged, they had only a few defenses.

“Interstate 35 runs through Iowa. Minneapolis is on Interstate 35. Furthermore, the alleged Minnesota location is only a short drive from Wisconsin, barely in Minnesota at all.”

Others who wished to defend the Original Maps confronted them with evidence — maps, travel tickets, mail — but the cartographers responded with reasons that Minneapolis, while technically situated in Minnesota, should be placed in Iowa.

“Iowa has milder weather and safer road conditions than Minnesota. If Minneapolis was in Iowa, it would have fewer traffic accidents; so again, while technically situated in Minnesota, it would be safer if it was in Iowa.”

Again, they were confronted with the evidence — maps, travel tickets, mail — but the cartographers were immovable.

“I had an uncle who went there once. He thought he could drive safely, but he ended up in getting killed in a wreck. Therefore, while technically situated in Minnesota, it would be wiser to put it in Iowa.”

“Minneapolis was originally incorporated in Iowa. The city people now call Minneapolis is, um, not Minneapolis.”

Wearily, the defenders of the Original Maps replied, “But Minneapolis is in Minnesota — always has been. Look at the evidence. In spite of all of your criticisms, Minneapolis in Minnesota, is a nice place. Look at all of its good features — The Twins, the Vikings, the Timberwolves, Minnehaha Park, Valley Fair, Bethlehem Baptist Church, several lakes . . . yes, there is the possible hazard of the Mall of America, but that is easily avoided. Did we also mention that Minneapolis is in Minnesota?”

The cartographers condescendingly replied, “After all we have told you about Minnesota, why do you want Minneapolis to be there? It seems as though you have a desire live dangerously. What makes that location so important to you? Could it be that you have a secret desire to drive on icy roads?”

The defenders of the Original Maps shook their heads and went home, sad that many people were ending up in Iowa when all they wanted was to see a Twins game and hear John Piper preach.

I was probably about ten or twelve years old when I became aware of the “social gospel”. I learned that some churches were no longer preaching the Gospel of the salvation of hopelessly sinful men from the power of sin and Hell. They were preaching a gospel of redemption from social and economic inequities which, they said, were clearly the fault of anti-Christian capitalist economic policies. According to the social gospel, Jesus did not come to reconcile man to God, but to eliminate oppression of the poor. If there are any Democrats reading this, you can relax. That “social gospel” is not what I am writing about today.

This social gospel is concerned with our everyday business dealings and the spreading of the true Gospel, and how they are connected. My goal is to convince you to do business as close to home as possible, regardless of the cost. While I can build the case for doing this on economic reasons alone, showing how we all would benefit from it, I will confine my arguments to the spiritual implications of our business practices. How do we impact the kingdom of God through our day-to-day transactions?

I want to make it clear that I am not insensitive to those who find it necessary to economize due to the number of mouths they are feeding and limited cash flow. I fit that category myself, well enough to say that unless you are living in the most desperate poverty, what I have to say about this applies to you.

The current view of evangelism seems to be that evangelism is primarily a church activity – get unbelievers sitting in pews, where they can hear the Gospel. This view not only usurps the legitimate purpose of our assembling together, it lets us off the hook in regard to our responsibility in evangelism. Evangelism is not a profession; it is the calling of every Christian. It takes place as we interact with the people God has placed within our sphere of influence.

Many Christians have effectively removed themselves from a position of influence in their own community by going elsewhere to do business. They can save money by going to a bigger city where there are lower prices; so they hand their money to a stranger, whom they may never see again, in order to save a few bucks. This practice is baptized by calling it “wise stewardship”. I don’t want to minimize the importance of stewardship, but I ask, is God more concerned about how we spend his money, or how we interact with people? Does your good stewardship have the effect of limiting your relationships to the members of your church, and others in your immediate circle of friends?

Allow me to illustrate my point with a personal example. When I have a building project, I can save a considerable sum of money by going out of town to a large, impersonal building supply chain store. I could buy literally everything necessary to build an entire house, excluding the concrete, in one place at significantly discounted prices. Not only would that would be good stewardship, it would make sense, since I have to go there anyway to get the items that my local lumber yard and hardware don’t carry. It would benefit me personally by leaving more money in my pocket. Honestly, I can’t think of a single practical reason not to do business that way.

When I go to my local store, I pay higher prices for a smaller selection of products, but I have personal contact with the owner and employees. They know my name, and remember the last time I was in. We converse about everyday things going on in our lives. They ask me about my life, and I tell them how things are going, and vice verse. If I can develop a relationship with them, even just a casual one, I may eventually have the opportunity to share some Biblical truth with them. At my local hardware store, I have made a point of asking the owner if he can get items that are not in stock. When he suggests that Bigstore in Bigtown probably has it, I tell him, “I know, but I wanted to buy it here, if I could.” He appreciates that, and it opens the door wider for future witnessing possibilities.

There are practical limits, of course. I recently had to buy a car. There is only one automobile dealership in our small town. I could have driven to Bigtown, where there are several dealerships, but I made the decision to buy local, if they had a car that met our needs. It turned out that they did, and at a reasonable price. However, if that one dealer had been a Mercedes or Ferrari dealer, I probably would have to have gone elsewhere.

This policy costs money, and I realize that you can’t spend dollars that you don’t have; but every dollar you now have is a dollar that you previously did not have. If we commit to spending every dollar we have for the glory of God, the dollars will be there. After all, if we’re honest, we must admit that our wealth is not ultimately the result of our intelligence or hard work. It is a gift from our sovereign God, out of his loving provision for us.