John Macarthur on Alcohol

[student ad x]

Hello DD, Kenith Erin & all

All things can be abused: the internet, sex, ect. Does that mean that we should refrain from using or doing everything that COULD be used for evil?

By the way Spurgeon, being English, both drank and smoked. He could do that because the American Temperance movement had not made it across the Atlantic. Of course, I think Spurgeon would not have accepted the movement even if it had gotten over to England.

Kenith

I don't think he would have accepted it either.

If we take the issue of alcohol to the furthest extent, and since we're speaking of impairment: wouldn't we have folks telling those who suffer panic attacks that they cannot take Klonopin, nor those in chronic pain that they cannot take percocet..... because they will be impaired with the medication.

 

[actionsub]

If we take the issue of alcohol to the furthest extent, and since we're speaking of impairment: wouldn't we have folks telling those who suffer panic attacks that they cannot take Klonopin, nor those in chronic pain that they cannot take percocet..... because they will be impaired with the medication.

Oh, you've met some of the "nouthetic counseling" crew? They would tell the panic attack sufferers that they need to rest in the sufficiency of Christ and to get rid of the psychotropics.

 

[DD2008]

Ok, you need to stop NOW.

i challenge you to look at the immediate context of those passages you've just quoted and find where the subject of alcohol consumption is referenced.

i further challenge you to do a search on the Greek word translated as 'sober' in those passages, and prove that they are a reference to the abstention from alcohol.

i fear that you will fail to make your case.

While you are certainly NOT in sin over your choice to abstain from the consumption of alcoholic beverages, you have committed the sin of twisting scripture to suite your preconceived doctrinal view. It is popularly referred to as eisegesis --reading one's interpretation INTO scripture-- as opposed to exegesis, which is the reading of doctrine from OUT OF scripture.

It is not eisegesis to believe that being of a sober mind means refraining from alcohol which steals your sobriety, it is common sense.

For crying out loud.

It is eisegisis to say that scripture encourages you to drink after telling you wine is a mocker, drunkards will not inherit the kingdom of God, and constantly appealing for you to be sober!

It is amazing how upset people get when their pet vices are shown to be vices. The homosexuals over on the liberal side of the tree have even rejected the authority of scripture over it.

 

[DD2008]

Hello DD, Kenith Erin & all



I don't think he would have accepted it either.

If we take the issue of alcohol to the furthest extent, and since we're speaking of impairment: wouldn't we have folks telling those who suffer panic attacks that they cannot take Klonopin, nor those in chronic pain that they cannot take percocet..... because they will be impaired with the medication.

Medication is treating a medical condition in the body. The body is chemically broken and medication is there to patch that hole. Alcohol consumption breaks a chemically fine body by destroying the natural sober state that God intended and replacing it with impaired judgement, aggression, loose inhibitions, and addiction.

If you make it to Texas, I hope you don't mind if we subsitute sweet decaf tea for the beer at the barbeque

 

[student ad x]

Medication is treating a medical condition in the body. The body is chemically broken and medication is there to patch that hole. Alcohol consumption breaks a chemically fine body by destroying the natural sober state that God intended and replacing it with impaired judgement, aggression, loose inhibitions, and addiction.

Yet these meds do affect the mind/personality and body and have effected/impaired in treating the condition none the less. Addiction to the medicine along with the stealing and/or violence to get more is definitely an extreme example of impaired judgment, but IMHO no different than someone being an extreme drunkard.

Since all people don't abuse medications or alcohol, when do we place the burden back on the person for his actions, and not the medicine/alcohol?

If you make it to Texas, I hope you don't mind if we subsitute sweet decaf tea for the beer at the barbeque

I'd have to have sweet-n-low in my tea

 

[DD2008]

Yet these meds do affect the mind/personality and body and have effected/impaired in treating the condition none the less. Addiction to the medicine along with the stealing and/or violence to get more is definitely an extreme example of impaired judgment, but IMHO no different than someone being an extreme drunkard.

Since all people don't abuse medications or alcohol, when do we place the burden back on the person for his actions, and not the medicine/alcohol?

I'd have to have sweet-n-low in my tea

Persons are given medication by doctors to give them a chemical they should have that they don't have, or to lessen the pain of an injury, or to kill infection..etc.

Alcohol is something you drink voluntarily on purpose that effects your brain function.

Totally different scenario.

 

[ReformedChapin]

MacArthur in this and many other issues (like dispensationalism) is wrong.

He fails in a number of areas to provide strong argumentation for his position.

1.From an exegetical perspective.

2. Historical perspective.

3. Logic and consistancy

 

[Calvinist Dark Lord]

It is not eisegesis to believe that being of a sober mind means refraining from alcohol which steals your sobriety, it is common sense.

For crying out loud.

No, it is eisegesis to presume to read a meaning into a word that is not supported by the context of the passage as you have done in this particular case.

It is eisegisis to say that scripture encourages you to drink after telling you wine is a mocker, drunkards will not inherit the kingdom of God, and constantly appealing for you to be sober!

No, it is eisegesis to suggest that consumption=drunkeness, when the scriptures clearly teach that consumption is not a sin. It is also eisegesis to suggest that Jesus did not create wine at the wedding of Cana, rather some form of 'grape juice' just to fit your preconceived notions of non-consumption, when they are two separate words in the Greek Language.

It is amazing how upset people get when their pet vices are shown to be vices. The homosexuals over on the liberal side of the tree have even rejected the authority of scripture over it.

It is amasing how fast some will resort to making assumptions about persons who present a reasoned argument that they cannot answer against their pet doctrine and bondage to legalistic traditions of men that have no basis in scripture.

 

[DD2008]

No, it is eisegesis to presume to read a meaning into a word that is not supported by the context of the passage as you have done in this particular case.

When it says be sober over and over again, condemns drunkenness, and calls wine a mocker, it's pretty natural to understand that the bible is directing us to be sober, not be drunkards, and steer clear of alcohol.

No, it is eisegesis to suggest that consumption=drunkeness, when the scriptures clearly teach that consumption is not a sin. It is also eisegesis to suggest that Jesus did not create wine at the wedding of Cana, rather some form of 'grape juice' just to fit your preconceived notions of non-consumption, when they are two separate words in the Greek Language.

Read this: Seven Good Reasons Christians Should Not Drink

It is amasing how fast some will resort to making assumptions about persons who present a reasoned argument that they cannot answer against their pet doctrine and bondage to legalistic traditions of men that have no basis in scripture.

I see plenty of reasons to remain sober and no good reason to become a drunk.

 

[DD2008]

MacArthur in this and many other issues (like dispensationalism) is wrong.

He fails in a number of areas to provide strong argumentation for his position.

1.From an exegetical perspective.

2. Historical perspective.

3. Logic and consistancy

Actually, I'm quite comfortable with his views these days. He knows more about the bible than I'll ever have the time to learn.

 

[Thaeoles]

MacArthur in this and many other issues (like dispensationalism) is wrong.

He fails in a number of areas to provide strong argumentation for his position.

1.From an exegetical perspective.

2. Historical perspective.

3. Logic and consistancy

That reminds me, I've been wanting to study dispensationalism vs other eschatological thoughts, being that I was raised dispensationalist.

But yeah, what little I've read from MacArthur I have not liked and very much disagreed, particularly his polemics against Driscoll and other Reformed teachers.

My local Theology Pub wouldn't be as fun without a few beers.

 

[Calvinist Dark Lord]

[/font][/size][/color]

When it says be sober over and over again, condemns drunkenness, and calls wine a mocker, it's pretty natural to understand that the bible is directing us to be sober, not be drunkards, and steer clear of alcohol.

You still haven't proven that the word translated as 'sober' has anything to do with alcohol consumption. The context of the passages quoted, and the most common usages of the word in the Greek mitigate against such an interpretation. You're resorted to eisegesis to read a meaning into both a word and the text that is simply not there.

Read this: Seven Good Reasons Christians Should Not Drink

So you've found a sycophant that makes the same interpretive mistakes and identical presuppositions that you make. Am i supposed to be impressed by an "appeal to authority" fallacy? (Yes, i did read the article).

I see plenty of reasons to remain sober and no good reason to become a drunk.

Excellent! i encourage you to continue to maintain your resolve. However, don't presume that God's desire for you on this particular issue has anything to do with God's desire for anyone else on this particular issue. The latter is simply not supported by the right dividing of scripture.

 

[DD2008]

You still haven't proven that the word translated as 'sober' has anything to do with alcohol consumption. The context of the passages quoted, and the most common usages of the word in the Greek mitigate against such an interpretation. You're resorted to eisegesis to read a meaning into both a word and the text that is simply not there..

Sober, sober minded....what is it about sober that is so hard for you to understand? Is isn't that difficult. It means be sober minded. Don't be unsoberminded. So count the ways you could volutnarily wreck your sobriety and don't do them, instead be sober that's all. You are acting like an arminian when they read the word "predestinate" for crying our loud. Next you'll be telling me God only predestinated those he knew would choose him without him choosing for them to choose him...etc C'mon man. You're not making any sense.

So you've found a sycophant that makes the same interpretive mistakes and identical presuppositions that you make. Am i supposed to be impressed by an "appeal to authority" fallacy? (Yes, i did read the article).

Am I to assume that you are more authoritative than Dr. Brown on the issue?

Excellent! i encourage you to continue to maintain your resolve. However, don't presume that God's desire for you on this particular issue has anything to do with God's desire for anyone else on this particular issue. The latter is simply not supported by the right dividing of scripture.

If not I find it amazing that he said that drunkards will not inherit the kingdom of God, wine is a mocker and strong drink a deceiver, and gave many directives to be sober and watchfor the Lord. If we are to drink it up then there must be a very liberal hermeneutic I missed somewhere along the way that changes the meaning of those passages entirely.

 

[Orange_County_Chopper]

I like Johnny Mac a lot; however let's keep things in proper perspective, he isn't Reformed, and the Bible condemns drunkenness, not alcohol. Jesus drank real alcohol, not grape juice.

 

[Thaeoles]

"Drink on drop, you're one drop drunk." I dare anyone to try to make this sound rational.

 

[Orange_County_Chopper]

Just skimming through this thread and further evidence is that the scripture twisting tradition exists and is real.

 

[GQ Chris]

Just goes to show even a Pastor whom I have a high amount of respect for, I can still disagree with him on things, this one about alcohol is a major point of contention.

 

[theFijian]

Sober, sober minded....what is it about sober that is so hard for you to understand? Is isn't that difficult. It means be sober minded. Don't be unsoberminded. So count the ways you could volutnarily wreck your sobriety and don't do them, instead be sober that's all.

DD, your argument seems to be summed up thus: if one consumes a single drop of alcohol one is by definition in a state of drunkeness. This is patently and demonstrably untrue. It is indefensible by scripture, logic or reality. clearly you are convincing no one here. I wish you every blessing in your abstinence from alcohol but it is indeed a yoke of slavery if you wish to place it on your non-abstaining brethren also. The pharisees also twisted and added to scripture to place burdens on the people they needn't have carried.

 

[DD2008]

DD, your argument seems to be summed up thus: if one consumes a single drop of alcohol one is by definition in a state of drunkeness. This is patently and demonstrably untrue. It is indefensible by scripture, logic or reality. clearly you are convincing no one here. I wish you every blessing in your abstinence from alcohol but it is indeed a yoke of slavery if you wish to place it on your non-abstaining brethren also. The pharisees also twisted and added to scripture to place burdens on the people they needn't have carried.

Well, thanks for using the word SEEMS....as that is obviously not what I presented. Notice the past tense as well.. I've said all I'm going to say about this.

Our case is summed up in this post: http://www.christianforums.com/t7483009-3/#post55239392 #22 on this thread.

I'm tired of this topic. I've presented my view and now the tread is so long I'm having to re-present it. Ya'll can agree or disagree. There is plenty of reading material here, but I won't reply to this thread again no matter how vulgar the attack against me is from this point forward. Good day.

 

[heymikey80]

I appreciate the thought, in both directions.

The Temperance movement in the US was heavily supported by the Presbyterian Church at the time because of the general evil it introduced.

At the same time, there are occasions where alcohol is a practical alternative.

I generally don't drink. I don't like it, I don't like the impact it's had on the kids I've worked with, in all its different forms (even moderate drinking).

I have zero need to find it in Scripture, and I have no trouble with others drinking. But I've seen the damage from misusing alcohol, and for that I'll probably never use it, even recreationally.

My mentors are varied on the issue -- one who served in the NY bowery district warned me away from it, my parents are noncommittal, there are involvements in all directions among my teachers and mentors.

As with drugs, it's not a prohibition -- but it's trouble when it's not used with some consideration of its hazards.