Is it a SIN???

[rough_rider]

I know of a couple in leadership that got a unexpected visit from another couple in that church. The hosts were drinking wine, the visiting couple said they witnessed the hosts drink 3-4 glasses within an hour and a half.
The couple left and came back a few days later to confront them on their drinking, the drinking couple said they were raised on wine and have no intentions of stopping. They said they did not drink to get drunk, but I wondered if 3-4 glasses in that short of time frame was a bit to much for their statement of "I don't drink to get drunk". I'm wondering if they will lose their role in leadership once their Pastor gets involved, I understand they are pretty big "tithe payers". At one time this organization would have removed them from membership for such an offence.

[Russell Roberts]

Although I'm not a member of the COGOP, I think it is kinda sad that they would be removed from leadership because they had a few glasses of wine. If it was affecting their employment, marital relationship, etc. that would be one thing.

It's time for Christians to get a grip and quit looking for people to condemn. The only people Jesus condemned were the Pharisees who were always walking around condemning other people so they could look holy. History repeats itself.

Indeed, there is nothing new under the sun.

[Pastorbps]

Russel:
What a bunch of utter nonsense. I'm so sick of this devilish "Quit condemning" nonsense being used to prevent ministers from rebuking behavior inconsistent with being a Christian, to prevent accountability, and to prevent the protection of the integrity of the Gospel. I absolutely believe it is the church's responsibility to judge those who take to themselves the name of Christ and yet live in direct contradiction to those teachings. If one wants to be as sinner and call themselves a sinner and they don't want to receive the Christian message, that is their choice and God will take care of that. HOWEVER, if you decide to take the name of Christ to yourself and call yourself His child and yet you want to live sinfully then the church not only has the right but the responsibility to call you on it. So here you go folks. I believe we ought to judge those who live sinfully but call themselves a child of God. All you folks who want to continue to spout that "Don't judge" & "Stop condemning" nonsense, I'll see you on judgment day. I'm more than willing to take personal responsibility for doing so.
"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. For what have I to do to judge them also that are without? do not ye judge them that are within? But them that are without God judgeth. Therefore put away from among yourselves that wicked person." (1 Cor 5:11-13 KJV)

[Russell Roberts]

I'm well familar with that passage Pastorbps.

What does that have to do with a husband and wife that enjoy drinking a few glasses of wine?

Maybe, just maybe you are sick of it because you are the kinda guy that loves to condemn people.

Ever thought about that?

At this point, I'm just noting that as a distinct possibility.

[Pastorbps]

I know you wouldn't say it because that would be to condemn me and you know you can't do that right?

I'm well familar with that passage Pastorbps.
What does that have to do with a husband and wife that enjoy drinking a few glasses of wine?

Great! You are well familiar with that passage. Now, do you believe it? Do you think that is what ought to be done?

I believe (in today's context) in total abstinence. You say you believe in moderation. I'm saying your actions don't seem to be consistent with your beliefs. I don't consider the people rough rider mentioned to be practicing moderation nor do most states' lawmakers. I lived in Tennessee during the time I first got a driver's license. I can still remember the driver's manual section concerning drinking and driving. It stated 1 glass of wine was enough to impair an average sized driver while 2 glasses would make an average sized driver legally drunk. Here we are talking about 3-4 glasses of wine which should have at least gave you cause to consider they may have been drunk and yet you condemned (opps) rough rider for even considering to condemn them as being wrong. His point seems to have been that those people's behavior seemed more like drunkenness and not moderation and yet you condemn him for even thinking something should be done about it. To be consistent with your stated understanding and beliefs and your professed knowledge of 1 Cor. 5, you should have said, "Well if they were drunk then they should have been corrected and if unrepentant they should have been removed from leadership." You didn't take that stand. Instead you went into your whole speech about being sure not to condemn others. It doesn't seem to me that you believe (practically) in moderation.

I have seen so many talk about their doctrinal beliefs and how they differ from mine. I hear them say you shouldn't condemn people for not living up to your misguided standard of conduct and yet when it comes to confronting those who still don't live up to their standards of conduct, they still won't tell them they are wrong. At that point, it is no longer a matter of what one believes but it is a matter of whether one is willing to stand up for the truth as they see it (conviction) and tell professing Christians they are not living right.

You say it is possible I don't like the whole "don't condemn others" idea because I have a problem in that I condemn others. Maybe, by the same token, (And I'm just saying maybe), you defend the consumption of intoxicants because you have a problem with intoxicants.

[Russell Roberts]

Pastorbps,

I never condemned rougrider at all.

His comment didn't indicate that they were DRUNK. It indicated that they had 3-4 glasses of wine. Was that per person? Were they going to drive afterwards? Was someone's life in danger?

This sounds hauntingly like a conversation the Pharisee's would have had.

If our over-riding principle is to love God and love our neighbor, maybe we would spend a little more time trying to help somebody than figure out how many glasses of wine somebody can drink before they technically meet the states defintition for being 'impaired'.

And no, I don't have a problem with intoxicants (just for the record). I know what drunk is (did that plenty in the army).

[Pastorbps]

I never condemned rougrider at all.

Sure you did. Why else did you bring up the condemnation comment?

His comment didn't indicate that they were DRUNK. It indicated that they had 3-4 glasses of wine. Was that per person?

And you didn't ask either because it seems to me it is more important to you to condemn those who believe in total abstinence than those who get drunk.

Were they going to drive afterwards? Was someone's life in danger?

That has nothing to do with it except to multiply the sin. That is like saying, "They had sex and weren't married but it wasn't really sin because nobody got a sexually transmitted disease." The act is wrong and the consequences of the actions are wrong as well.

This sounds hauntingly like a conversation the Pharisee's would have had.

Nope. It is addressing a vital question. Is the person drunk or not drunk? You are the one drawing Pharisaical lines and saying at this amount it is wrong but if you limit it to this number it is right. That's the whole concept of teaching moderation. I'm saying it isn't right period.

If our over-riding principle is to love God and love our neighbor,
Don't stop there. You might want to add in that "as yourself" part.

maybe we would spend a little more time trying to help somebody than figure out how many glasses of wine somebody can drink before they technically meet the states defintition for being 'impaired'.

Use that argument with the police officer the next time he pulls you over and gives you the breathalizer test. I think we help people by bringing them to the place of confessing they have sinned but its pretty hard to help them when people keep saying, "Quit drawing lines and condemning people for their behavior."

And no, I don't have a problem with intoxicants (just for the record). I know what drunk is (did that plenty in the army).

Then why don't you just stay away from intoxicants? Sounds like a good idea for someone who has had trouble with it in the past.

[Russell Roberts]

What makes you think that moderate consumption is sinful?

[Pastor Gary]

What makes you think that moderate consumption is sinful?

Russell: Please define "moderate." I suspect that one beer would put me under the table. I know people who drink a 6-pack and try to drive. Asking what "moderate" means is like asking "how long is a piece of string?"

Also, I don't think I have ever asked this, but have you, personally ever consumed alcohol past the point of moderation? Ever been drunk?

[Russell Roberts]

Pastor Gary,

Yes sir. I have been drunk. It's pretty miserable brother. Maybe that's how I learned moderation. I don't like being drunk. But I don't mind getting a nice little buzz. Along with the Psalmist, I thank God for the wine that 'makes me feel so good'! Like the Psalmist, I consider wine and other alchololic beverages to be a gift from God.

It is funny, and a bit amusing to me, when people want to make another rule. How many beers can I drink? How much ink can I carry on the Sabbath? Is it lawful to pick grain on the Sabbath? People have an extremely difficult time dealing with liberty. We want hard and fast rules so as to not cross the boundaries. Liberty is dangerous.

If we carefully consider Paul's argument in Galatians, he notes that it was Sin through the law that enslaved the Jews to the 'stoicheia' or elemental spirits of this world. He explains the same principle in Romans 7. Sin was able to exploit the rules, or, in the case of the Jews, the Torah, to elicit forbidden behavior. That's how rules work. They give sin the opportunity to enslave people bringing forth death.

What gives us liberty is the indwelling presence of the Holy Spirit. Not the liberty to sin but the the liberty to love. It is the indwelling presence of the Holy Spirit that bears the fruit of love. I'm pretty sure you will find this response humorous but I am being serious (maybe that's why you might find it to be humorous). But my argument is well founded in scripture.

[Pastorbps]

Your response has convinced me that you are indeed a person who thrives on condemning people.

You don't see it do you? That statement condemns me for condemning. Doesn't something seem inconsistent about that?
On top of that you had to sort of twist the dagger and add the "feel holy now" comment. Still not condemning right?

I've got no problem with God having forgiven you for your days of getting drunk. We all need forgiveness and I think you have admitted that was wrong. What I will confront you about is your continual efforts to tell people it is alright to choose intoxicating beverages. I am really a fun guy to be around but when I think people are being led astray I become very protective.

[Russell Roberts]

Pastorbps, that's why I deleted my comment. It was made in anger. I'm sorry that you saw it.

My efforts to convince people that moderate consumption is ok is not continual. I actually take a break every now and then to write a nice article about Romans or some other fascinating aspect about scripture. I wish they elicited the same kinds of passionate responses that alcohol did.

Those who advocate a total abstinence position have no scriptural grounds to stand on. One might try to use 'proof-texting' but I can do that too. What we need to find is a position that considers all the relevant scriptures as well as the underlying theology.

You could list a lot of scriptures that bemoan the misuse of alcohol. I could list fewer scriptures that speak of the virtues of beer and strong drink. We could go back and forth for a while like that. But to be quite honest with you, I have no interest in that kind of debate. I want to know the truth and I want others to know the truth.

Having examined ALL the relevant scripture, my opinion is that people should not feel bad or guilty if they have a few glasses of wine. If they do, they should stay away from it. If you choose to abstain and you believe that what you are doing is pleasing to God, I applaud you. But neither should I be condemned for whatever liberties I might find in Christ.

The really weird thing about this subject is that you can't possibly discuss it...teach the principle of Romans 14 without being accused of leading people astray or flaunting your liberty. Am I flaunting a liberty when I maintain that people shouldn't be condemned for moderate consumption?

I don't think so. And if you do, I doubt I can change your opinion. What I love though, is to have lively discussions with other Christians, like yourself, about issues like this.

[Poimen]

Russell, I appreciate your passion for truth -- no more, no less. However, on this issue, it seems to me (after multiple discussions with you here and abroad on the subject) that you are essentially operating under the assumption that sloppy drunk is the only kind of drunk.

I propose that being "tipsy" qualifies biblically as a state of drunkenness. At any time or point the consumption of alcohol causes one to be impaired or influenced in any degree then at that point they have consumed such in excess and are consequently drunk.

[Russell Roberts]

Poimen,

That doesn't surprise me. I'm pretty sure that you have scoured the scriptures, googled the internet, and studied each Hebrew and Greek word in order to firm up your position.

[Edit] I meant to say ...to support your foregone conclusion.

[Poimen]

Poimen,

That doesn't surprise me. I'm pretty sure that you have scoured the scriptures, googled the internet, and studied each Hebrew and Greek word in order to firm up your position.

I'm not sure how to take the above response, but yes, essentially I have done just that, except that I try to keep an open mind and allow the findings to inform my view or position rather than the opposite. I can't say I'm completely successful at that, but I do intentionally make the effort.

Also, I wasn't trying to heap judgment or such with my last comment (just in case you thought so). I was really trying to further the exchange and point out an impression I have received over the course of various exchanges on the issue. I think defining drunkenness, biblically, is paramount to a proper understanding or happy medium on the issue of the use and/or abuse of intoxicating beverages among Christians of divergent opinion. In short, if teetotalers and loosey-goosey moderation represent extremes for what is or is not acceptable for Christan behavior then understanding what drunkenness is, biblically, should help us all get closer to the center. No?