Jump to content
Online Baptist Community
  • Newest Sermon Entry

    • By Jim_Alaska in Jim_Alaska's Sermons & Devotionals
         14
      Closed Communion
      James Foley
       
      I Corinthians 11:17-34: "Now in this that I declare unto you I praise you not, that ye come together not for the better, but for the worse. For first of all, when ye come together in the church, I hear that there be divisions among you; and I partly believe it. For there must be also heresies among you, that they which are approved may be made manifest among you. When ye come together therefore into one place, this is not to eat the Lord's Supper. For in eating every one taketh before other his own supper: and one is hungry, and another is drunken. What? have ye not houses to eat and to drink in? or despise ye the church of God, and shame them that have not? What shall I say to you? shall I praise you in this? I praise you not. For I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you, That the Lord Jesus the same night in which he was betrayed took bread: And when he had given thanks, he brake it, and said, Take, eat: this is my body, which is broken for you: this do in remembrance of me. After the same manner also he took the cup, when he had supped, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood: this do ye, as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of me. For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do show the Lord's death till he come. Wherefore whosoever shall eat this bread, and drink this cup of the Lord, unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord. But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of that cup. For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord's body. For this cause many are weak and sickly among you, and many sleep. For if we would judge ourselves, we should not be judged. But when we are judged, we are chastened of the Lord, that we should not be condemned with the world. Wherefore, my brethren, when ye come together to eat, tarry one for another. And if any man hunger, let him eat at home; that ye come not together unto condemnation. And the rest will I set in order when I come."

      INTRODUCTION

      Historic Baptists, true Baptists, have believed in and still believe in closed communion. Baptists impose upon themselves the same restrictions that they impose on others concerning the Lord’s Supper. Baptists have always insisted that it is the Lord’s Table, not theirs; and He alone has the right to say who shall sit at His table. No amount of so called brotherly love, or ecumenical spirit, should cause us to invite to His table those who have not complied with the requirements laid down plainly in His inspired Word. With respect to Bible doctrines we must always use the scripture as our guide and practice. For Baptists, two of the most important doctrines are Baptism and The Lord’s Supper. These are the only two doctrines we recognize as Church Ordinances. The Bible is very clear in teaching how these doctrines are to be practiced and by whom.

      We only have two ordinances that we must never compromise or we risk our very existence, they are Baptism and The Lord’s Supper.

      The moment we deviate from the precise method God has prescribed we have started down the slippery slope of error. True Baptists have held fast to the original doctrine of The Lord’s Supper from the time of Christ and the Apostles.

      Unfortunately, in this day of what the Bible describes as the age of luke warmness, Baptists are becoming careless in regard to strictly following the pattern laid out for us in Scripture. Many of our Bible colleges are graduating otherwise sincere, Godly and dedicated pastors and teachers who have not been taught the very strict, biblical requirements that surround the Lord’s Supper. Any Bible college that neglects to teach its students the differences surrounding Closed Communion, Close Communion and Open Communion is not simply short changing its students; it is also not equipping their students to carry on sound Bible traditions. The result is men of God and churches that fall into error. And as we will see, this is serious error.

      Should we as Baptists ignore the restrictions made by our Lord and Master? NO! When we hold to the restrictions placed upon the Lord’s Supper by our Master, we are defending the "faith which was once delivered to the saints" Jude 3.

      The Lord’s Supper is rigidly restricted and I will show this in the following facts:

      IT IS RESTRICTED AS TO PLACE

      A. I Corinthians 11:18 says, "When ye come together in the church." This does not mean the church building; they had none. In other words, when the church assembles. The supper is to be observed by the church, in church capacity. Again this does not mean the church house. Ekklesia, the Greek word for church, means assembly. "When ye come together in the church," is when the church assembles.

      B. When we say church we mean an assembly of properly baptized believers. Acts 2:41-42: "Then they that gladly received his word were baptized: and the same day there were added unto them about three thousand souls. And they continued stedfastly in the apostles' doctrine and fellowship, and in breaking of bread, and in prayers."

      The church is made up of saved people who are baptized by immersion. In the Bible, belief precedes baptism. That’s the Bible way.

      Acts 8:12-13, "But when they believed Philip preaching the things concerning the kingdom of God, and the name of Jesus Christ, they were baptized, both men and women. Then Simon himself believed also: and when he was baptized, he continued with Philip, and wondered, beholding the miracles and signs which were done."

      When we say properly baptized, we mean immersed. No unbeliever should take the Lord’s supper, and no non-immersed believer should take the supper. Those who are sprinkled are not baptized and cannot receive the supper. The Greek word for baptize is baptizo, and it always means to immerse.

      "In every case where communion is referred to, or where it may possibly have been administered, the believers had been baptized Acts 2:42; 8:12; 8:38; 10:47; 6:14-15; 18:8; 20:7. Baptism comes before communion, just as repentance and faith precede baptism".

      C. The Lord’s Supper is for baptized believers in church capacity: "When ye come together in the church," again not a building, but the assembly of the properly baptized believers.

      D. The fact that the Lord’s Supper is a church ordinance, to be observed in church capacity, is pointed out by the fact that it is for those who have been immersed and added to the fellowship of the church.

      E. The Lord’s Supper is never spoken of in connection with individuals. When it is referred to, it is only referred to in reference to baptized believers in local church capacity I Cor. 11:20-26).

      I want to quote Dr. W.W. Hamilton,

      "The individual administration of the ordinance has no Bible warrant and is a relic of Romanism. The Lord’s Supper is a church ordinance, and anything which goes beyond or comes short of this fails for want of scriptural example or command".

      “The practice of taking a little communion kit to hospitals, nursing homes, etc. is unscriptural and does not follow the scriptural example.”

      IT IS RESTRICTED TO A UNITED CHURCH

      A. The Bible in I Cor. 11:18 is very strong in condemning divisions around the Lord’s table. For first of all, when ye come together in the church, I hear that there be divisions among you; and I partly believe it.
      19 For there must be also heresies among you, that they which are approved may be made manifest among you.
      20 When ye come together therefore into one place, this is not to eat the Lord's supper.

      There were no less than four divisions in the Corinthian church.
      I Cor. 1:12: "Now this I say, that every one of you saith, I am of Paul; and I of Apollos; and I of Cephas; and I of Christ."

      Because of these divisions, it was impossible for them to scripturally eat the Lord’s Supper. Division in the local church is reason to hold off observing the Lord’s Supper. But there are also other reasons to forego taking the Lord’s Supper. If there is gross sin in the membership we do not take it. Here is scriptural evidence for this: 1Co 5:7 Purge out therefore the old leaven, that ye may be a new lump, as ye are unleavened. For even Christ our Passover is sacrificed for us:
      8 Therefore let us keep the feast, not with old leaven, neither with the leaven of malice and wickedness; but with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth. 9 I wrote unto you in an epistle not to company with fornicators:
      10 Yet not altogether with the fornicators of this world, or with the covetous, or extortioners, or with idolaters; for then must ye needs go out of the world. 11 But now I have written unto you not to keep company, if any man that is called a brother be a fornicator, or covetous, or an idolater, or a railer, or a drunkard, or an extortioner; with such an one no not to eat.

      B. At this point, I want to ask these questions: Are there not doctrinal divisions among the many denominations? Is it not our doctrinal differences that cause us to be separate religious bodies?

      IT IS RESTRICTED BY DOCTRINE

      A. Those in the early church at Jerusalem who partook "continued stedfastly in the apostles’ doctrine" Acts 2:42. And they continued stedfastly in the apostles' doctrine and fellowship, and in breaking of bread, and in prayers.

      B. Those that do not hold to apostolic truth are not to partake. This means there is to be discipline in the local body. How can you discipline those who do not belong to the local body? You can’t. The clear command of scripture is to withdraw fellowship from those who are not doctrinally sound.

      II Thes 3:6: "Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye withdraw yourselves from every brother that walketh disorderly, and not after the tradition which he received of us."
      Rom. 16:17: "Now I beseech you, brethren, mark them which cause divisions and offences contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned; and avoid them."
      To commune together means to have the same doctrine.
      II Thes. 2:15: "Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle."
      II John 10-11: "If there come any unto you, and bring not this doctrine, receive him not into your house, neither bid him God speed: For he that biddeth him God speed is partaker of his evil deeds."

      C. Some Baptists in our day have watered down this doctrine by practicing what they call “Close Communion.” By this they mean that they believe that members of another Baptist church may take communion with us because they are of the same beliefs. Once again, this is unscriptural.

      The welcome to the Lord's Table should not be extended beyond the discipline of the local church. When we take the Lord’s Supper there is supposed to be no gross sin among us and no divisions among us. We have no idea of the spiritual condition of another church’s members. If there is sin or division in the case of this other church’s members, we have no way of knowing it. We cannot discipline them because they are not members of our church. This is why we practice “Closed” communion, meaning it is restricted solely to our church membership. 
      So then, in closing I would like to reiterate the three different ideas concerning the Lord’s Supper and who is to take it. 
      Closed Communion = Only members of a single local church. 
      Close Communion = Members of like faith and order may partake. 
      Open Communion = If you claim to be a Christian, or simply attending the service, you may partake. 
      It is no small thing to attempt to change that which was implemented by our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. 
      Mt. 28:20 Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world. Amen. 
      Many of our Baptist churches have a real need to consider the gravity of the act of observing The Lord’s Supper. It is not a light thing that is to be taken casually or without regard to the spiritual condition of ourselves or our church.
      1Co. 11:27 Wherefore whosoever shall eat this bread, and drink this cup of the Lord, unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord.

       28 But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of that cup.

       29 For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord's body.

       30 For this cause many are weak and sickly among you, and many sleep.

Alcohol: A Biblical Case For Abstinance


TheSword

Recommended Posts

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

Ok, that's one reason to stay away from booze but do you agree that the Scriptures teach prohibition or as the OP suggests, abstinence?  I think these are far more important on how we view and act towards booze.

How do I view and act towards booze?  In all seriousness, I abstain from drinking any alcoholic beverage.  I prohibit it from being in my house. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 119
  • Created
  • Last Reply
  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

I think what swathdiver is asking is whether you agree with the reasoning for abstinance laid out in the OP.

Abstinance and prohibition are 2 different views.  I think he was wanting me to comment on which one I agree with.  As far as the OP, it states reasoning for abstinance.  You did a nice job with the outline to open this OP and I agree with it. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

But....it's just "part of a larger trend of wanting cultural acceptance." 

 

http://www.religionnews.com/2013/09/19/moody-bible-institute-drops-alcohol-tobacco-ban-employees/

 

So the prohibition on alcohol consumption is no longer an absolute at Moody.  Not surprising since they do not have the Word of God anymore, just a new and better translation every year.  It's like watching an earthquake and watching the buildings fall down like dominos, block by block.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

So the prohibition on alcohol consumption is no longer an absolute at Moody.  Not surprising since they do not have the Word of God anymore, just a new and better translation every year.  It's like watching an earthquake and watching the buildings fall down like dominos, block by block.

Moody has long been lurching to the Left. I saw a story a couple years ago about this girl looking to get into the ministry and she was attending a very strict Bible college (her family was of the biblically strict sort) until she was finally accepted at Moody. She was thrilled, her family was thrilled that she could go to such a good, prestigious Bible college. She said she was totally shocked when she got there. She was expecting something similar to the strict Bible college she had been in. When she got to Moody she instantly noticed there were no standards of dress, modesty didn't seem to be an issue. Students were allowed to do almost as they pleased, cigarettes and alcohol were easy to obtain and many students partook. Eventually she found out biblical standards were open to question, most of the students didn't come from the sort of strict background she did.

 

Long story short, she eventually experimented with homosexuality as she got a lesbian roommate. Eventually she decided she was homosexual, God had made her that way, and she decided God wanted her to be an open homosexual and become a "priest" in a denomination that accepted such (I think she went Presby or it may have been Episcopal).

 

No big surprise. When Moody and Sankey were first going around with their meetings, many (often most) of the more conservative churches rejected his modernistic preaching and music, saying it watered down the Word and the Gospel while presenting worldly music. His successor embraced an MV and things continued to where we see them today.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 months later...

In my post here I will start off by saying that i don't expect to win anyone to my side. In my 20 yrs in the IFB I heard countless sermons on positions  against alcohol and the consumption thereof and know the position of most IFB churches.  I have the utmost respect for my brothers and sisters in Christ that it is not my intent to rub liberty or anything in faces to to make angry or instigate any fighting as such.

 This was started when someone went on my profile page and saw the church I belong too and saw that our church has a ministry called Theology Pub. Once a month a local tavern in town lets one of our elders go there and "have the floor" for about an hour to discuss topics of the day,(war, politics etc.) it is the attempt of my elder to turn the conversation to things of the Lord and an opportunity to give the Gospel. I personally never attended one of these due to my work schedule but I have heard they have given many opportunities to share Christ with people, I was questioned about this and asked about my position. It was recommended by ukulelemike to bring the discussion here.

 One more thing, as I mentioned in my "Hello" post, I am not here to fight and argue. I don't mind debating, but lets keep it Biblically based. Do not quote from a book or person living or dead. Because for every book or person you quote, I can find one that backs my position as well.

I will start off by conceding the point that Proverbs has its share of verses in the dangers of alcohol abuse, no question about it.  

 

It started off by debating somebody at work on the issue of alcohol, specifically the wedding that Jesus performed His first miracle. I held the position that it was grape juice. I found in the Strongs that the word used for it was oinos, same word in Eph5, and I wondered why would Jesus make juice but we are told not to get drunk on it.

 Eph 5:18 says 18 And be not drunk with wine, wherein is excess; but be filled with the Spirit;

Why would we even drink grapejuice I thought. I was reading on the internet and people kept talking about Deuteronomy 14:26 And thou shalt bestow that money for whatsoever thy soul lusteth after, for oxen, or for sheep, or for wine, or for strong drink, or for whatsoever thy soul desireth: That word wine, yayin,is the same word that Noah drank and got drunk on.

 I believe that God allows for the consumption of it. there are many unsaved people,(my family and in-laws for example) who can drink without getting drunk and can control themselves

God said that He would even bless us with it, Psalm 104: 1He 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;

15 And wine that maketh glad the heart of man, and oil to make his face to shine, and bread which strengtheneth man's heart.

And the Bible tells us that it cheers God, Judges 9:13 And the vine said unto them, Should I leave my wine, which cheereth God and man, and go to be promoted over the trees?

 

to be continued.... I gotta be up at 4:30, Im sure we will discuss more

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

I like to look at the examples used in the bible. For an argument against this new "Christian Rock" I look to the use of music in Daniel. Also when the ark was returned and they were dancing and playing much music then the oxen stumbled and Uzza ended up dead. So with the alcohol I look back to Noah after the flood. The king and all the rulers in Esther and the bad decisions made there. Also remember to be totally sold out as a Nazarite you couldn't partake of the vine at all (Numbers Ch. 6). Now I'm not condemning grapes just giving an example. We're supposed to be a separated people called out by the Lord himself. Come out from among them and be ye separate and touch not the unclean thing is what the Lord said. Also remember the verses about being a stumbling block to others. A man once said he could worship God just as good from his boat on Sunday as anyone could in church. That may be so but everyone else thinks you're fishing. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Hello TheSword,

 

I am new to this forum and posted my first new topic today.

 

You are not wrong at all on your primary point or your motive.

 

The ONLY Biblical exception to the promotion of abstinence from alcohol is in Proverbs 31:6-7:

 

Give strong drink unto him that is ready to perish, and wine unto those that be of heavy hearts.

Let him drink, and forget his poverty, and remember his misery no more.

 

By comparing Scripture with Scripture, we see that this exception applies ONLY to those who are terminally ill and are in unbearable pain. "Those with heavy hearts" does NOT refer to people who are mourning or otherwise sad or depressed.

 

Sadly, if you were to purchase booze for these people, you would be supporting the same booze industry that has contributed to too many needless deaths, heartbreaks, and ruined lives to count. This is the same booze industry that uses provocative imagery and advertisements to dupe "regular" people into thinking they can have great pleasure and "fun" by drinking their poison.

 

Those who choose to "modernize" their views on this subject are basing their thoughts, words, and opinions on their feelings/emotions rather than the Lord's Word or proven scientific facts, just like lost people do.

 

Keep standing strong for the Lord and the precious KJV!

 

In His service,

Alex

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

The problem with your view of "oinos" is your failure to realize that there are two different classes of "oinos" in the Bible.  Fermented and non-fermented. 

Just supposing that the wine served at the wedding feast were alcoholic.  John 2 tells us that the guests had "well drunk" that wine that the governor provided.  In fact, they had drunk so much that they literally emptied the house of the supply of wine..

Now, every Jewish wedding feast lasted for days, and it was considered a disgrace for the bridegroom not to provide enough wine to last the entire time of the festivities.  Yet, the guests had drunk so much that they literally ran out of wine.

Imagine how bad that would look on the bridegroom if news got out.  Thankfully, Jesus was on the scene.  But wait!  If the guests had "well drunk" the wine that was provided to them to the point that there was no more, what would Jesus and His Disciples do?

Jesus had a solution.  He made more by turning water into wine. 

So, the picture we have is a bunch of people drinking more then their share of wine and Jesus providing more for them... 120 to 180 gallons more?

Jesus makes enough wine for those who had "well drunk" to get drunker?  Adding to their drunkenness?  Impossible!

Proverbs 23:21 For the drunkard and the glutton shall come to poverty: and drowsiness shall clothe a man with rags.

 

My Lord came to seek and to save that which was lost, not help them further down the road to destruction.  The wine Christ made was new.  It was not alcoholic in the least.

Ephesians 5 is speaking of an alcoholic wine.  And the reader is warned not to get drunk on it.  The best way to assure not getting drunk is to not partake of it at all.

Alcohol begins its deception from the very first sip of it.  Being absorbed into the bloodstream and traveling through the circulatory system of the body.  When it hits the brain, it kills brain cells. (perhaps this is why so many try to defend it today, it has killed the brain cells that cause them to know the full potential of its deceptive power until it is too late)  The more one drinks, the closer one becomes to being smashed. 

The wise king Solomon told his son not to look upon the wine when it was fermented.  And yet, so many blindly defend the drinking of alcohol. 

As Christians, we should be preaching against man putting that deadly drink to his lips, not giving his excuses to partake of it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Deuteronomy 14:26 And thou shalt bestow that money for whatsoever thy soul lusteth after, for oxen, or for sheep, or for wine, or for strong drink, or for whatsoever thy soul desireth:
 
That word wine, yayin,is the same word that Noah drank and got drunk on.
 

Jeffrey,

 

Noah was a sinner as well. He was not God.

 

My brethren, have not the faith of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Lord of glory, with respect of persons. - James 2:1

 

Furthermore, Deuteronomy 14:26 was describing Old Testament law that applied to the Israelites before Christ came. We are under New Testament law and most of us, as gentiles, were NEVER under Old Testament law.

 

Polygamy was also legal under Old Testament law. Care to defend that? Did not think so.

 

Please perform your due diligence before attempting to poke holes in the Lord's Word with unsubstantiated claims such as this one.

 

Thanks.

 

In His service,

Alex

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Excerpt from "Wine in the Bible and the Scriptural Case for Total Abstinence" by Leighton G. Campbell, pp. 91-93:


And thou shall bestow that money for whatsoever thy soul lusteth after, for oxen, or for sheep, or for wine, or for strong drink, or for whatsoever thy soul desireth: and thou shalt eat there before the Lord thy God, and thou shalt rejoice, thou, and thine household. (Deuteronomy 14:26)

Those proponents of moderation with respect to intoxicating beverages might suggest that this text sanctions and encourages the drinking of beer and alcoholic wine. To be fair, it appears to be so, but this is not the case. In examining this passage we will learn that the book of Deuteronomy furnishes us with a perfect example of the following:

  1. A correct understanding of the generic words which are
    used for "wine" and "strong drink" respectively.
  2. A proper application of the law of context.
  3. A complete understanding of God's view on the subject
    of drinking.

Now in returning to the text, we will see that the Bible itself conclusively refutes any suggestions whatsoever that this text endorses the use of alcoholic drinks.

We have already learnt in our studies that the words trans­lated "wine" (yayin) and "strong drink" (shekar) here are generic, and may refer to fresh grape juice and a sweet pleasant drink

 


more to come...
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

...continued
 

which was unfermented. What kind of beverage is this verse referring to? Since it may be argued that this text can be inter­preted according to one's own particular bias. The answer is very simple. Deuteronomy 29:6 explains:

Ye have not eaten bread, neither have ye drunk wine or strong drink: that ye might know that I am the Lord your God.

Here this passage proves that the "wine" and "strong drink" in chapter 14:26, cannot be the same as that mentioned here! The inspired text later goes on to explain in no uncertain terms exactly what kind of wine the Jews did drink. It reads:

Butter of kine, and milk of sheep, with fat of lambs, and rams of the breed of Bashan, and goats, with the fat of kidneys of wheat; and thou didst drink the pure blood of the grape. (Deuteronomy 32:14)

Here Moses names among the many blessings of the Lord, pure fresh grape juice, known as "the blood of the grape," which was highly esteemed. We will now take a look at some comments on this. Adam Clarke's Commentary states:

  Red wine, or the pure juice of whatever colour, expressed from the grapes, without any adulteration or mixture with water: blood here is synonymous with juice. This intimates that their vines should be of the best kind, and their wine in abundance, and of the most delicious flavour.  

The Reverend B. Parsons also gives an interesting explanation:

Red was considered the best juice; pure, that which was unfermented and unmixed; thick that which had been boiled or spissated; or, rather, that the juice was very thick, saccharine, or sirupy. The text, therefore, means thou didst drink the purest, the sweetest, and the richest blood, or juice, of the grape.

We thus learn from examination of these three passages (Deut. 14:26; 29:6; 32:14) that the children of Israel in their

 

 

more to come...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

...continued


wilderness wanderings were blessed with the most finest and nutritious delicacies from God. They did not eat bread as part of their regular diet, but were blessed with manna (Deut. 8:3,16; 29:6). They did not drink intoxicating wine (Deut. 29:6), but pure fresh grape juice (Deut. 14:26; 32:14). Neither did they drink other strong intoxicating drinks (Deut. 29:6) but drank the sweet, unfermented and pleasant juice of other fruits (Deut. 14:26).

We also learn that God approved of unfermented drinks of health giving character, these were highly esteemed among the Jews. We also learn a vital and valuable lesson that the original words used for "wine" and "strong drink" may refer to an intoxi­cating substance as well as a non-intoxicating one, and that these must be judged in context.

Most good scholars understand that the word usually translated "wine" (yayin) refers to unfermented as well as fer­mented wine. An example of this is The Bible Knowledge Commentary, which states the following concerning its use in Deuteronomy 14:26:

The Hebrew word for "wine" is yayin, which sometimes means an intoxicating beverage and other times means a nonintoxicating drink.

Few however, realize that the same applies to "strong drink" (shekar) Its permissible use in Deut. 14:26, and the statement later in 29:6, that the Jews never drank it or wine, is not a con­tradiction, but is a confirmation which declares without a shadow of a doubt that "strong drink" (shekar) and "wine" (yayin) referred to a fermented juice as well as an unfermented one, depending on the context.

 

 

END

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

I don't drink alcohol so this doesn't apply to me but I am curious still whether the wine in the Bible is fermented or unfermented.

 

In Judaism they use the Torah which are the first five books of Moses.  Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers and Deuteronomy. They drink fermented wine in their celebrations.  Are they interpreting the OT scriptures incorrectly?

 

Just an observation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

If a man dies drunk, that man has revealed his true fruit.

And we know no drunkard will inherit the kingdom of God

Neither will gluttons but it doesn't stop some Christians from inhaling big macs, donuts or any other harmful fatty, high cholesterol and chemically induced foods that can cause obesity and potentially clog arteries and cause certain forms of cancers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
  • Who's Online   1 Member, 0 Anonymous, 9 Guests (See full list)

×
×
  • Create New...