#1 || 10·06·21··10:20 || James

Contrary to your position here, people often quote 1Cor 8-10 and start pontificating about stumbling-blocks. However, they miss Paul's point entirely.

"Weak" & "strong" refer not to strictness of standards, but to strength of conscience: how well you stick to your guns around other people with different ideas.

Paul's point is most certainly not "be on your tiptoes around stricter Christians!" His concern is that we not lead another brother to violate his conscience by following our example.

Thus, a drinker would treat different teetotalers differently. No matter how legalistic a person may be, if his conscience is strong and he won't violate it, the drinker could drink around him. If the teetotaler has a weak conscience and would likely stifle it because of the drinker's example, the drinker would be careful to use liberty wisely around that person.

It's all a matter of knowing each other well in the body of Christ and loving each other with our actions, really. And that's something we don't seem to excel at, I'm afraid.

#2 || 10·06·21··12:06 || David

James:

I agree with your interpretation of that passage.

However, I stand on the point made in Piper’s article, because I believe the culture created by American fundamentalism, as it pertains to alcohol, correlates with the culture in which Paul pointedly refused to circumcise Titus, not the one in which he did circumcise Timothy.

To address your last two paragraphs, I agree that there is some wisdom in what you say. However, if I know someone well enough to know that my drinking might trouble them, I also know them well enough to teach them the truth about it. To simply roll over and let their ignorance make the rules, doing nothing to free them from their legalism, is neither honest nor loving.

Furthermore, since this particular error has so many people living in bondage to man-made tradition, I think it is incumbent upon biblical Christians to speak loudly in correction. And it’s a correction that’s way past due.

#3 || 10·06·21··13:51 || Aaron Miller

I think that there is in deed liberty concerning drinking. Are we not taught to take our liberties if it is proven to be an offense? Further, I believe that we should not base our decision to drink or obstain on the traditions of up tight christians. but up tight, traditional, legalistic Christians are not those before whom we are called to live, we are called to live before the weak and the immature and refuse to do anything that will cause them to either stumble or give opportunity for them to take offense. It is for that reason that I do not drink, nor do I believe the leadership of my church, or any mature Christian should drink. It seems to me you are more interested in being free from bondage, but I believe we are to live in bondage so that the weak may live in freedom.

#4 || 10·06·21··15:12 || David

Aaron:

So, you think you can judge my motives? Not an unusual tactic for legalists.

I find it humorous whenever someone suggests that Christians, mature or not, in leadership or not, should not do what Jesus did. But then, Jesus was very young. If only he had been more mature ...

Anyway, enjoy your bondage, knowing that it contributes to the freedom of others to live in bondage. Wait a minute — you couldn’t have meant that ... could you?

#5 || 10·06·22··06:13 || Marla

The problem is that alcohol itself holds many people in bondage. My husband is a naval aviator. Drinking is a huge part of the military culture and is a problem for a lot of people. We have lived in Germany, England and both coasts of the United States and have know very few "moderate" drinkers. Fine with me if non christians want to numb themselves, but why do believers want to be associated with an activity that is obviously out of control in our culture and is destroying lives and marriages? There are many former alcoholics in our churches. I think it is right to consider that we may be a stumbling block to them if we drink around them or label them as "legalists" because they abstain.

#6 || 10·06·22··09:48 || David

Marla:

Enjoying the gift of alcohol does not associate us with drunks any more than eating good food associates us with gluttons.

I would never label anyone a legalist simply because he abstains. However, if one attaches any virtue/moral superiority to it, or tries to bind others, then he absolutely is a legalist.

Finally, no one is in bondage to alcohol per se. Every unregenerate soul, however, is in bondage to sin. Alcoholism (so-called) is only one manifestation of that bondage, and far from the most widespread or destructive. I am far more concerned for the souls of legalists than I am for the souls of drunks. To quote Piper again,

Legalism is a more dangerous disease than alcoholism because it doesn’t look like one. Alcoholism makes men fail; legalism helps them succeed in the world. Alcoholism makes men depend on the bottle; legalism makes them self-sufficient, depending on no one. Alcoholism destroys moral resolve; legalism gives it strength. Alcoholics don’t feel welcome in the church; legalists love to hear their morality extolled in church. —from Brothers We Are Not Professionals

#7 || 10·06·22··10:03 || David

Isn’t it interesting that no one has made any attempt to interact with the actual point of this post?

People, the point here is not to debate whether or not Christians should abstain. I have given that question considerable thought, and consider that to be a settled issue.

I’ll expect any further commenters to demonstrate that they have actually read this post and the one by John Piper at the link provided, and have considered the possible implications of Piper’s article on this issue and any other to which it might be applied.

Is that too much to ask?

#8 || 10·06·22··14:25 || Marla

I'm not as well read or well spoken as you and most of the other commenters. So I apologise for the akwardness of my writing, but I wanted to clarify my earlier comment: The tone of your post implies that Christians only abstain from alcohol for legalistic reasons. You never acknowledge that there are situations where it would be appropriate.
You are judging the motives of people who may be abstaining out of love for others. Legalism is not usually motivated by love. Obedience is though.
I disagree that we are somehow encouraging legalism in others by refusing to offend them. I read Piper's article. The application I see, is that we live in a culture that abuses alcohol and in the interests of the gospel, we should abstain. There are other ways to challenge legalistic christians than by flaunting our freedom under their noses. How about lovingly showing them that their adherance to man made standards does not improve their standing before God, or showing them through Scripture that we have obtained the righteousness of Christ and then rejoicing with them when that truth dawns on them? We all struggle with legalism and will continue to as long as we inhabit bodies of flesh. It is easy to point fingers at certain behaviors and declare "Pharisee!", but sometimes not as easy to discern the more subtle evidences in our own. Merely exercising our Christian freedoms, does not cause us to cease to be legalistic. It takes preaching the gospel to ourselves daily and remembering our dependence upon the sacrifice of Christ. As soon as we forget that, we all become legalists.

#9 || 10·06·27··18:03 || Mark Bainter

You are judging the motives of people who may be abstaining out of love for others. Legalism is not usually motivated by love. Obedience is though.

This is, of course, the problem. There are legalists who would openly state that they are so. But most are savvy enough to realize that's not a winnable argument, so they dress it up in spiritual pap to make it more appealing.

The problems with this theory are numerous. First, at its root, it rests on fear. Fear that there might be someone around who might stumble because of my drinking. Yet ironically, I know very few Christians who worry about making people stumble when they pig out at a buffet, or when they have children.

Apparently, there are magical properties about drinking that aren't true of other things. If someone sees you drinking who has a problem with drinking, they'll sin. But if they see you eating when they have a problem with eating, they'll be fine. If they see that you've had sex when they have lust issues, thats ok.

The application I see, is that we live in a culture that abuses alcohol and in the interests of the gospel, we should abstain.

Do you feel the same way about sex and eating? Those are abused as well in our culture. Should we abstain from those for the sake of the gospel?

How about lovingly showing them that their adherance to man made standards does not improve their standing before God, or showing them through Scripture that we have obtained the righteousness of Christ and then rejoicing with them when that truth dawns on them?

Realistically speaking, that's not going to happen. I mean, you really don't need to look any further than this thread to see how well that's going to work. This has been explained many times in many places, it doesn't change anything.

I would also quote Calvin here on the topic of Christian Liberty, which he asserts forms "a proper appendix to Justification", and goes on later to state in regards to those who would fall into error on either side: "What can we do when thus encompassed with straits? Are we to bid adieu to Christian liberty, in order that we may cut off all opportunity for such perilous consequences? But, as we have said, if the subject be not understood, neither Christ, nor the truth of the Gospel, nor the inward peace of the soul, is properly known."

So this issue is an important one, and it is important at whatever point it is being attacked. It does me no good to take a strong stand for Christian Liberty where it isn't being attacked - but to fail to take one where it is would be tremendous harm.

The issue here is not drinking, it is Christian Liberty, and what it is that you are saying when you allow the commandments and imaginations of men to take precedence over what God has said.

I'm with Dr Carson on this issue, and the application of the passage in question:
If I’m called to preach the gospel among a lot of people who are cultural teetotallers, I’ll give up alcohol for the sake of the gospel. But if they start saying, “You cannot be a Christian and drink alcohol,” I’ll reply, “Pass the port” or “I’ll think I’ll have a glass of Beaujolais with my meal.”