Are Christians That Drink Wine Not Saved?

[robmac68]

 

11th page, & I don't believe the drinkers mind will be changed, the love their drinking & refuse to surrender all even for Christ.

 

I Surrender All 

 

All  to Jesus I surrender,

All  to Him I freely give,

I will ever love and trust Him,

In  His presence daily live,

I sur-render all,

I surrender all;

All to Thee,

My blessed Savior,

I sur-render all.

 

All to Jesus I surrender,

Humbly at His feet I bow,

World-ly pleasures all for-sak-en,

Take me Jesus, take me now,

I sur-render all,

I surrender all;

All to Thee,

My blessed Savior,

I sur-render all.

 

All to Jesus I surrender,

Made me, Savior whol-ly Thine;

Let  me feel the Holy Spirit,

Truly know that Thou art mine.

I sur-render all,

I surrender all;

All to Thee,

My blessed Savior,

I sur-render all.

 

All to Jesus I surrender,

Lord,  I give my-self to Thee,

Fill  me with Thy love and power.

Let Thy blessing fall on me,

I sur-render all,

I surrender all;

All to Thee,

My blessed Savior,

I sur-render all.

 

All to Jesus I surrender,

Now I feel the sacred flame;

Oh, the joy of full salvation!

Glory to His name.

I sur-render all,

I surrender all;

All to Thee,

My blessed Savior,

I sur-render all.

 

You posted this as if you sing it because you feel you have surrendered all.  Have you surrendered all?  "world-ly pleasures all for-sak-en"  Do you have a house or a place to lay your head?  You have stated you are in your 60's, ever have a retirement account?  Besides the Scriptures clearly forbidding it (retirement account), I would say retirement is a worldly pleasure. 

I do not drink and believe the Scriptures instruct us to focus on being filled with the Spirit rather than drinking, do I need to change my mind or beliefs because I won't call it sin?  Am I not allowed in the IFB club now?

[robmac68]

You ask this question yet you brought in at least two verse from other versions of the Bible.

 

I know this was not asked of me, yet no I refuse to accept your interpretation for many reasons.

 

1. you take the word wine completely out of context

 

2. there's just to many verses in the Bible telling how bad drinking is for us

 

3. we who love Christ ought to WANT to completely AVOID even the APPEARANCE of evil

 

4. Drinking is a very huge stumbling blocks that a Christian can place in front of his fellow bothers & sisters & the lost

Wow, drinking has jumped from being a "sin" to being "evil".  I have always been taught that all sin is not evil, but all evil is sin and evil is what we do bad to others while sin is any disobediance.  Is a glass of wine at dinner really evil?

 

Point 1 is totally your opinion, which I do appreciate.  13 pages here of reading, studying, and praying will take time.

Point 2 and 4 is dead on. 

Point 3 I addressed at first.

[Heir of Salvation]

Yes, I'm aware of Rice's position on the KJV, he was wrong; look at his kids.

But....his grandson happens to be a very Godly I.F.B. Missionary to Japan and Bible Translator (ironically).  I do not think he is KJVO...but he uses the T.R. to translate and the Masoretic.  So, it's not meaningful to look at that type of thing and then say "look at the man's kids, they are wicked so he must have been wrong".  That's well-poisoning.

 

I did not go to a fancy School.

 

And I do not agree that you are "dumb"

"P.O.V." is just "Point of view"......but "underwater robot" does sound better

[robmac68]

Matthew 11:19 The Son of man came eating and drinking, and they say, Behold a man gluttonous, and a winebibber, a friend of publicans and sinners. But wisdom is justified of her children.

Nope... the word alcohol isn't there. 

The fact:  Jesus said He came eating and drinking.
The lie:  Jesus said He came eating and drinking alcohol.

The disobedient has to add the word "alcohol" to Matthew 11:19, so that he can justify the drinking of that poison that Solomon said not even to look upon. 

The deceived has to add the word "alcohol" to Matthew 11:19, so that he can justify the drinking of that  beverage that causes one to forget the law and to pervert the judgment of the afflicted.

The dishonest has to add the word "alcohol" to Matthew 11:19, so that he can justify the drinking of that liquid that the Word of God reveals takes men down the road to destruction.

WOW!!  Really????  Wow! 

¹⁸ For John came neither eating nor drinking, and they say, He hath a devil.

 

What was John not drinking?  What is this verse talking about?  Was John not drinking water?  Was it Mt. Dew?  If I add "alcohol"  to this, am I deceived, dishonest or am I just being disobediant???  What was John not drinking??  CAn you tell me?  But becareful because hermaneutics teaches us to look at verses before and after at first to see if the context is shown.  Before you ever jump to another chapter, or book or Testament, you look at verses before and after.  Was John not drinking alcohol???

 

The Pharisees false accusations here was not in dreaming stuff up.  Did Jesus eat, yes.  Did Jesus eat with sinners and publicans, yes.  The Pharisees just took it to an extreme and accused Jesus of being a glutton and a friend of sinners.  So why the need to point out drinking?  If the Son of God needed to eat, I would assume He needed to drink. If all he drank was water, why would they point out he was a winebibber?  Looking at the other two accusations, there was some partial truth.  If there was absolutely no truth, then that could have been pointed out as a total lie and the Pharisees would have lost total credibility with their 2 other statements about glutton and "friend of sinners".  There needed to be some partial truth.  "Wisdom is justified of her children" because Jesus was not a winebibber, nor a glutton, nor a "friend of sinners". 

A winebibber is someone who drinks alcohol.  The word "alcohol" is not there, so by your reasoning, because I added alcohol to the definition of winebibber, I am dishonest, deceived and disobediant????

[Heir of Salvation]

Can I ask you a question? Do you like and think CCM music is ok?
 

 

I do not lump all "CCM" into an all-consumming category .... Some which is "Contemporary" is perfectly good, some of it is not.  It all depends on the artist or the song itself.  There are hymns in my Broadman I wouldn't sing because they hold one or two doctrinal errors, (usually minor, but nonetheless) so I do not judge it simply upon it's being either "Contemporary" or "Old".

 

A lot of the "Non-Contemporary" music sung in even the most "conservative" Baptist Churches is often quite a bit more modern than you might think.  I would bet your Church regularly sings songs by Gloria Gaither......is she not "Contemporary"?.....maybe, maybe not, it's a relative term. 

[Heir of Salvation]

WOW!!  Really????  Wow! 

¹⁸ For John came neither eating nor drinking, and they say, He hath a devil.

 

What was John not drinking?  What is this verse talking about?  Was John not drinking water?  Was it Mt. Dew?  If I add "alcohol"  to this, am I deceived, dishonest or am I just being disobediant???  What was John not drinking??  CAn you tell me?  But becareful because hermaneutics teaches us to look at verses before and after at first to see if the context is shown.  Before you ever jump to another chapter, or book or Testament, you look at verses before and after.  Was John not drinking alcohol???

 

The Pharisees false accusations here was not in dreaming stuff up.  Did Jesus eat, yes.  Did Jesus eat with sinners and publicans, yes.  The Pharisees just took it to an extreme and accused Jesus of being a glutton and a friend of sinners.  So why the need to point out drinking?  If the Son of God needed to eat, I would assume He needed to drink. If all he drank was water, why would they point out he was a winebibber?  Looking at the other two accusations, there was some partial truth.  If there was absolutely no truth, then that could have been pointed out as a total lie and the Pharisees would have lost total credibility with their 2 other statements about glutton and "friend of sinners".  There needed to be some partial truth.  "Wisdom is justified of her children" because Jesus was not a winebibber, nor a glutton, nor a "friend of sinners". 

A winebibber is someone who drinks alcohol.  The word "alcohol" is not there, so by your reasoning, because I added alcohol to the definition of winebibber, I am dishonest, deceived and disobediant????

Ding Ding Ding!!! You Win the Game

Unfortunately, He elected not to  answer  these questions for me:

In order for your position to be consistent you must then believe that in verse 18...Jesus was using a different definition for "drinking" with reference to John the Baptist than he was using for himself...see it again:

For John came neither eating nor drinking, and they say, He hath a devil.

In order for your position to be accurate you are forced to take this parrallel statement and assert either 1 of these two available options:

1.) Jesus said that John ate absolutely no food whatsoever at any time (which I assume must include locusts and honey as well) and that he did not ever even drink water or any non-alcoholic beverage or fruit whatsoever.

or

2.) Jesus' definition of "eating and drinking" with reference to John is different than the definition he uses in the very next obviously parrallel statement in reference to himself in verse 19 despite the fact that the text uses precisely the same word for each case.

 

I would like to ask which position you espouse?

 

I would very much like for him to engage this passage more clearly as you are correct in your exegesis of the passage.  He ignored them and moved on, because this passage kills the tee-totalling argument.

[robmac68]

Who cares about history and what a denomination may think?  I care about the Word of God.  I want to follow what the Lord says and not man.  God forbids alcohol, period.  These sipping saints won't let go of their beloved enemy now will they?

Yes, who cares.  Oh wait.  No.   Who cares unless we are talking about a subject like CCM and musical instruments.  Yes, that sounds better!  Heir of Salvation, who cares about history and what a denomination may think unless I want to bash you for your beliefs about CCM, then I will change my tune and care. 

Nah, that wont work either.  There have been some IFB greats from the past 20-50 years that have preached sermons on how are standards have changed and gotten more worldly.  If fact, I have heard where most IFB's are at today on their standards, even the world wouldn't have been there 100 years ago.  But the world has gotten more sinful and slipped ever closer to SAtan, and the church has been keeping the same distance from the world, so when the world moves closer to satan, so does the church. So now the church stands where the world 100 years ago would never stand.

[Standing Firm In Christ]

Sorry robmac, but the context shows what Jesus was speaking of when He said He came eating and drinking was not alcoholic. 

Jesus answered the foolish accusations of both the Pharisees, Hos, and you with the statement "But wisdom is justified of all of her children."

 

The Lord was telling His accusers that they should watch the Disciples to see that He was not an alcoholic wine drinker.

And the Disciples demonstrated His abstinence by their own abstinence.

Further, Jesus came to fulfill the Law.  He would not have partook of alcohol since alcohol deceives and causes one to forget the Law.

You can continue to falsely accuse Jesus of drinking alcohol if you wish.  I will not be so foolish.

One ounce impairs the mind.  You obviously serve a Jesus who had an impaired mind.

I don't.

[Eric Stahl]

I had a grand father who was an alcoholic and perscription drug user. He died when I was 6 years old. I have neve tasted beer.

 

Some people get hooked quickly. I would recommend that no one drink. What if your kids see you and say I can too. What if they get hooked?

 

 

1 Corinthians 10:23

23 All things are lawful for me, but all things are not expedient: all things are lawful for me, but all things edify not.

[Heir of Salvation]

Yes, who cares.  Oh wait.  No.   Who cares unless we are talking about a subject like CCM and musical instruments.  Yes, that sounds better!  Heir of Salvation, who cares about history and what a denomination may think unless I want to bash you for your beliefs about CCM, then I will change my tune and care. 

Nah, that wont work either.  There have been some IFB greats from the past 20-50 years that have preached sermons on how are standards have changed and gotten more worldly.  If fact, I have heard where most IFB's are at today on their standards, even the world wouldn't have been there 100 years ago.  But the world has gotten more sinful and slipped ever closer to SAtan, and the church has been keeping the same distance from the world, so when the world moves closer to satan, so does the church. So now the church stands where the world 100 years ago would never stand.

G.F. Handel's Messiah was initially not permitted to be sung in Churches, but was rather considered a "secular" work...LOL

I guess Baroque 4-part harmony of a text entirely composed of direct quotes from the KJV was essentially "Rock-n-Roll"   to them at the time.  History is inded, quite informative.

[Heir of Salvation]

I had a grand father who was an alcoholic and perscription drug user. He died when I was 6 years old. I have neve tasted beer.

 

Some people get hooked quickly. I would recommend that no one drink. What if your kids see you and say I can too. What if they get hooked?

 

 

1 Corinthians 10:23

23 All things are lawful for me, but all things are not expedient: all things are lawful for me, but all things edify not.

THERE'S a Biblical argument for abstaining from alcohol   It is perfectly reasonable to (in good conscience) refrain and encourage others to refrain given this reasoning!  The key is that it is perhaps not expedient.....but we cannot pretend that it is "un-lawful" if the Scriptures do not.  Great Post!

[robmac68]

Sorry robmac, but the context shows what Jesus was speaking of when He said He came eating and drinking was not alcoholic. 

Jesus answered the foolish accusations of both the Pharisees, Hos, and you with the statement "But wisdom is justified of all of her children."

 

The Lord was telling His accusers that they should watch the Disciples to see that He was not an alcoholic wine drinker.

And the Disciples demonstrated His abstinence by their own abstinence.

Further, Jesus came to fulfill the Law.  He would not have partook of alcohol since alcohol deceives and causes one to forget the Law.

You can continue to falsely accuse Jesus of drinking alcohol if you wish.  I will not be so foolish.

One ounce impairs the mind.  You obviously serve a Jesus who had an impaired mind.

I don't.

His disciples ate and did not fast (remember?).  Your way of thinking is saying Jesus told the Pharisees to look at His disciples because they would not eat.  Also, the Pharisees could look at His disciples and see them treating the publicans like the plague.  Both are wrong assumptions because the disciples ate and talked to sinners to spread the Gospel.  Look at the disciples because they eat, but are not gluttons, they talk with sinners but aren't "friends of sinners" they drink but aren't "winebibbers." The verse is talking about being a drunk or "winebibber" not an "alcoholic wine drinker" like you state.  Talk about adding words that aren;t there.

 

One ounce of wine on an empty stomach to a 100 pound weakling would definately impair the mind.  One ounce of wine with a big meal and a 200 pound man will not impair the mind.  Do you serve a jesus that is a weakling?

[Standing Firm In Christ]

No, but you serve a drunken Jesus. That is, if your Jesus drank alcohol.

Mine did not.

[Heir of Salvation]

Sorry robmac, but the context shows what Jesus was speaking of when He said He came eating and drinking was not alcoholic. 

The CONTEXT suggests that Jesus' definition of "drinking" would be precisely the same for himself as with John......if, then, Jesus meant that he "drank" only non-alcoholic beverages....then he would have to have been saying that John did NOT drink ANYTHING.  Perhaps that's true, but then John's ministry would have only lasted for about 72 hrs. or so, as he would then be dead.  This is bad hermeneutic.  You are simply helping yourself to two different definitions of of the same Greek word in a parrallel phrase in the same immediate passage.....

In the real World, that's called "special pleading"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_pleading

The Lord was telling His accusers that they should watch the Disciples to see that He was not an alcoholic wine drinker.
And the Disciples demonstrated His abstinence by their own abstinence.

This is a circular argument you are basically saying

1.) Jesus didn't drink

2.) We know this because his disciples did what he did and they did not drink

3.) We know his disciples didn't drink because Jesus didn't drink

4.) Therefore Jesus didn't drink

Circular Reasoning http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circular_reasoning

Further, Jesus came to fulfill the Law.  He would not have partook of alcohol since alcohol deceives and causes one to forget the Law.

Question begging http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Begging_the_question

Another fallacy:

1.) Jesus didn't drink, because drinking is against the Law

2.) The Law forbids drinking

3.) Therefore Jesus didn't drink

 

It is precisely that contention which is up for debate.  It adds nothing to simply reassert your own conclusion as a premise.  I deny that it is against the Law, thus, you are simply question begging to assume that Jesus didn't drink based upon that assumption.

[Standing Firm In Christ]

Doesn't say alcohol in that passage, HoS.

I know you want it so badly to say so, but it does not.

As I told robmac.  You can serve your drunken Jesus if you wish.

I will not.  Mine was not so foolish as to drink alcohol.