Can God Use A Man That Drinks Wine?

[swathdiver]

And he's me thinking that Our Lord may use whomever He wishes to. Even those we may disagree with...

 

Different context.

[candlelight]

So the guests at Cana were all teetotalers? I don't believe that. And, if it was only grape juice why would people go back for seconds or thirds??? They must have been really thirsty for non-alcoholic grape juice. No, I believe the wine they had at Cana was fermented and people were have a good time and ran out. Then Jesus made them good wine., so good that the guests (who were not teetotalers) complemented the host.

 

You can either believe the word of God, or yourself Donillo.  We have been over this alcohol issue on OB so many times since you have been here.  It is getting very old.      If you want to drink alcohol, go ahead.  You will miss out on many blessings from God trying to being people to the saving knowledge of Jesus Christ.  Not to mention all the bad things that alcohol brings with it.  The choice is yours.

[Donillo]

You can either believe the word of God, or yourself Donillo. We have been over this alcohol issue on OB so many times since you have been here. It is getting very old. If you want to drink alcohol, go ahead. You will miss out on many blessings from God trying to being people to the saving knowledge of Jesus Christ. Not to mention all the bad things that alcohol brings with it. The choice is yours.

I don't drink. Maybe a sip of wine a couple times a year. Up till 10 years ago, I drank a lot. My kidneys failed and so that put an end to it. I received a transplant last year.


It bothers me when a church misrepresents what the bible says. Drinking's a sin, smoking's a sin, etc. It's a sin to some , not sin to others. For me, it's sin. But you cannot make laws like that for everyone. And yes we should consider the weak so as not to cause them to stumble.

[swathdiver]

It bothers me when a church misrepresents what the bible says. Drinking's a sin, smoking's a sin, etc. It's a sin to some , not sin to others. For me, it's sin. But you cannot make laws like that for everyone. And yes we should consider the weak so as not to cause them to stumble.

 

It's not a man-made law like those of the Catholics.  It's the Word of God that shows that boozin' n smokin' are sins.  

[heartstrings]

I don't drink. Maybe a sip of wine a couple times a year. Up till 10 years ago, I drank a lot. My kidneys failed and so that put an end to it. I received a transplant last year.


It bothers me when a church misrepresents what the bible says. Drinking's a sin, smoking's a sin, etc. It's a sin to some , not sin to others. For me, it's sin. But you cannot make laws like that for everyone. And yes we should consider the weak so as not to cause them to stumble.

Your kidneys failed and you had to have a transplant...from drinking? Isn't it a sin to abuse the body God blessed you with?

[Arbo]

Different context.

So you do not think that Our Lord cannot use whomever He wants whenever He wants?  Remember, He is omnipotent.
 

[Standing Firm In Christ]

So the guests at Cana were all teetotalers? I don't believe that. And, if it was only grape juice why would people go back for seconds or thirds??? They must have been really thirsty for non-alcoholic grape juice. No, I believe the wine they had at Cana was fermented and people were have a good time and ran out. Then Jesus made them good wine., so good that the guests (who were not teetotalers) complemented the host.

had the wine at Cana been alcoholic, then when Jesus made more of it, he would have disqualified Himself as the sinless sacrifzice He came to this Earth to be. Adding to man's drunkenness by giving more alcohol to man?

What Jesus do you serve? My Jesus came to save the world from sin, not to encourage sin.

[swathdiver]

So you do not think that Our Lord cannot use whomever He wants whenever He wants?  Remember, He is omnipotent.
 

 

Again, different context.

 

God will NOT call an adulterer to be a Pastor.  The context is that the man is currently committing adultery and does not want to stop and or thinks it's ok.  There's a double curse on booze by God.  The Lord will not call a drunkard either in the same context as above.  Not my God anyway.

[Donillo]

Your kidneys failed and you had to have a transplant...from drinking? Isn't it a sin to abuse the body God blessed you with?

Yes

[Alimantado]

That is a good point, Carl, but think with me on this...
 
God has offered the gift of salvation freely to all who will come to Him.  Christ did the work of redemption on the cross, and so no man needs to do anything to have this gift - except realize that one is a sinner and turn to Christ.
 
Now, God has promised that salvation is eternal, and that it is a gift. Gifts can only be received, not worked for (or they are no longer a gift).  That we can all agree on, no?
 
Okay....so, salvation is only through Christ.  And that necessarily includes the eternal aspect of it, because God has said that the life He gives is eternal, everlasting.

Fine!
 

If there were any way to lose that salvation, there would be conditions put on that salvation - and necessarily so, because it wouldn't be fair of God to give us something that we could lose if we did or didn't do something and didn't know about it. (hope that's clear...).  And God is completely just, so always fair.

It's true that these people are putting conditions on salvation: they are saying you have to accept it. But then you, HC, also believe that the gift of salvation is conditional on a person accepting it, unless you are a universalist or a calvinist. Moreover, these people--I forget their names--are not saying that a person's salvation can be lost through simply neglecting to do things, or unwittingly getting a ritual wrong or something like that. They are saying it's lost by a person choosing to reject the gift they once accepted. So is that a work? And if acceptance/rejection of a gift is a work, then how are we not doing a work when we first accept Christ?
 

Once salvation is given, there is no more free will to walk away from it (as in losing it...there is free will to backslide).  Why? Because salvation is from God, is eternal, and God will not go back on His word.
 
If a person could walk away by free will, and thus lose his/her salvation, that person would exhibit more power than the blood of Jesus and more power than the word of God who says salvation is eternal.

 

Fine, but those two paras only refute the idea that one can lose one's salvation. They don't explain why changing one's mind about something should be considered a work.
 

Thus, what they are teaching is a works-based salvation because keeping it is contingent upon the will of the person being saved rather than the One doing the saving.

 

But you and I also believe that salvation is contigent on the will of the person who accepts it. What you've just said there is exactly the same argument that calvinists lever against us and anyone who believes we have the free will to accept or reject the gift of salvation. They say that means the work of man is involved (accepting the gift) and God therefore doesn't get the whole glory.

[Arbo]

Again, different context.
 
God will NOT call an adulterer to be a Pastor.  The context is that the man is currently committing adultery and does not want to stop and or thinks it's ok.  There's a double curse on booze by God.  The Lord will not call a drunkard either in the same context as above.  Not my God anyway.

But we are not talking about adultery, are we.  There are different opinions on what is permitted by Scripture concerning alcohol consumption, unlike Its condemnation as declared in the sixth Commandment (of which there no credible dispute).  It is a completely different subject.

 

I am curious about your claim of a "double curse on booze".  Please explain.

[HappyChristian]

No, Carl - please note that I said "keeping it is contingent upon the will of the person being saved rather than the One doing the saving.

 

To claim that one can choose to walk away and become unsaved puts the power of eternity into the hands of the one walking away.  Why would it be considered a work?

 

Here is another explanation (by a Nazarene) about what choosing is...

However, if you mean "lose" through rejection, living in willful disobedience to God's known will, or breaking fellowship with Him, I'd answer, "Absolutely." God respects our free will too much to force His plan of salvation upon us. He invites us to receive this awesome gift by forgiving us of our past sins. Then He enters into relationship with us. Forgiveness and relationship characterize two necessary features of salvation. 

God can save us only if we maintain relationship with Him. Trusting Christ for salvation involves a seeking heart and faithfulness to that relationship. Vital union with Christ protects us against losing our salvation for any reason. 

 

 

Choose to walk away or choose to "maintain" = works because the emphasis is on what the person does.  

 

It sounds good for them to say God respects our free will too much to force His plan of salvation on us. I don't know that I would say He respects our free will too much. Maybe that is what it is, but I don't know....Anyway - No-one is forced to accept salvation. But once they do, it is forever.  Any teaching that a person can change that is works, because it adds what a person does or does not do to salvation.  Even when they word it as "exercising free will to choose to walk away."  Walking away is something that they do. 

 

"Trusting Christ for salvation involves a seeking heart and faithfulness to that relationship."  I don't see that anywhere in scripture, do you?

 

BTW - this quote is from Frank Moore, director of the Center for Faith and Culture Studies at Olivet Nazarene University.

 

~~~~

 

Good thing TLG doesn't care if his threads get hijacked. 

[Alimantado]

No, Carl - please note that I said "keeping it is contingent upon the will of the person being saved rather than the One doing the saving.

Ok, but you are giving this 'will of the person' as the reason for it being salvation by works. Therefore, you are saying that it is free will, i.e. making choices, that is the work. So what I'm saying is: if we say that making a choice is a work, don't we then have to say that about all choices, including the choice to accept the gift of salvation in the first place?
 

To claim that one can choose to walk away and become unsaved puts the power of eternity into the hands of the one walking away.  Why would it be considered a work?

 

Well that's what I'm asking, why would it? Wrong maybe, but not an example of a works salvation doctrine.
 

Here is another explanation (by a Nazarene) about what choosing is...
 
'However, if you mean "lose" through rejection, living in willful disobedience to God's known will, or breaking fellowship with Him, I'd answer, "Absolutely." God respects our free will too much to force His plan of salvation upon us. He invites us to receive this awesome gift by forgiving us of our past sins. Then He enters into relationship with us. Forgiveness and relationship characterize two necessary features of salvation. God can save us only if we maintain relationship with Him. Trusting Christ for salvation involves a seeking heart and faithfulness to that relationship. Vital union with Christ protects us against losing our salvation for any reason.'
 
Choose to walk away or choose to "maintain" = works because the emphasis is on what the person does.

If what they are saying is that you've got to do stuff well enough, e.g. do the rituals right and do them often enough, or not commit any more sins, then I'd agree that they are espousing works salvation. But what your previous website seemed to be saying was that a person had to make a very deliberate and conscious choice to reject salvation.
 

Even when they word it as "exercising free will to choose to walk away."  Walking away is something that they do.

 

If a decision to reject is a work, then why isn't a decision to accept?
 

"Trusting Christ for salvation involves a seeking heart and faithfulness to that relationship."  I don't see that anywhere in scripture, do you?

 

No I don't, HC. :-)

[HappyChristian]

Ok, but you are giving this 'will of the person' as the reason for it being salvation by works. Therefore, you are saying that it is free will, i.e. making choices, that is the work. So what I'm saying is: if we say that making a choice is a work, don't we then have to say that about all choices, including the choice to accept the gift of salvation in the first place?
 

 

Well that's what I'm asking, why would it? Wrong maybe, but not an example of a works salvation doctrine. I was actually asking that as a precursor to the next quote.  
 

If what they are saying is that you've got to do stuff well enough, e.g. do the rituals right and do them often enough, or not commit any more sins, then I'd agree that they are espousing works salvation. But what your previous website seemed to be saying was that a person had to make a very deliberate and conscious choice to reject salvation.  
 

 

If a decision to reject is a work, then why isn't a decision to accept?  They are being disingenuous with their choice of words. It is not just a decision to reject, but a walking away. One person explains it one way, another explains it another. But it all comes down to their idea of sanctification: sinless perfection.  Without it, one is lost.  Ergo - what one does is what keeps one saved.  Works.
 

 

No I don't, HC. :-) 

 I guess I'm not really getting my point across.  Sorry.  Sometimes I know what I want to say, and it just doesn't come out.  Anyone else out there want to give it a shot?

[swathdiver]

But we are not talking about adultery, are we.  There are different opinions on what is permitted by Scripture concerning alcohol consumption, unlike Its condemnation as declared in the sixth Commandment (of which there no credible dispute).  It is a completely different subject.

 

I am curious about your claim of a "double curse on booze".  Please explain.

 

We're talking sin and adultery and drunkeness are sins.  The Bible shows that if one drinks booze, one sip even, one is a drunkard.  Opinions don't matter, just God's Word.

 

As for the double curse, see Isaiah 28:1-3 and Habakkuk 2:15-16