The Christian and Alcohol by John MacArthur

https://youtu.be/thXe-rtpl6U

In the above video John MacArthur does an excellent job comparing the alcoholic beverages of the Old and New Testament and the alcoholic beverages of the day. Also he argues for abstention from alcoholic beverages today because of the dangers resulting from them. Dr. MacArthur shows from research that the alcoholic content of wine is much higher than what we find in the old and the New Testament.

Whereas I have an issue with John MacArthur's Calvinism. I cannot argue with his reasoning from the scriptures he puts forth or his research presented in this video.

I believe this video will provide much insight given the ongoing discussion on the other thread. It is about an hour and 15 minutes long but well worth listening to.

Greg posted this on the other thread. I thought I would post this on a separate thread so it would not get lost in the discussion taking place.

Again I would encourage us to listen to this with humble submissive hearts. I find it hard to argue against Dr. MacArthur's wisdom. Partically on his wisdom to abstain from alcohol in this day and age. That being from its high alcoholic content.

Respectfully posted.

Okay I watched the video, open to changing my mind but it did not carry any weight for me.

Water was mainly brought up from wells when needed (the woman at the well)and will have been sanitised by the filtering action as it soaked through the earth. And also in those days people will have had much stronger immune systems, and more hydrochloric acid in their stomaches than us, after meals, so I do not accept the argument that all water had to contain wine in order for it to be safe. It still does not explain the fact that many pints of it would have had to have been drunk in order to have inebriated people.

I think that what you have today in America regarding the serious problems with drink is because of there being so much legalism in the past. It is a backthrow to this. I don't recall any more issues amongst British believers than in the past. Leaders of the CoE have taken moderate drink I believe, in fact the folk in the CoE in the times of Queen Mary, saved the church from destruction due to the long term practice of selling ale.

No, I think that your pigeons have come to roost.

The perspective from our European brethren has been very helpful. This does not seem to be an area in which they struggle with legalism.

In no way am I arguing that believers abstained fully from wine in the New Testament. But what I have been saying clearly and no one has even commented or desired to consider the fact that wine in the New Testament was much different then modern wine (the popular consumed elements).

It is conjecture that everyone Jesus created or drank wine that it was alcoholic. And when he went to hang around more seedy people such as tax collectors and prostitutes who were drinking probably the "strong drink" he in all probability did not drink it but his very association and being in the homes brought the accusation amongst the pharisees of being a wine bibber.

I cannot imagine someone watching the entire presentation from John MacArthur and shrugging the shoulders and saying nothing has changed in their minds.

We are quite deceived by modern beer, liquor and wine companies, the process has become alluring and has trapped many innocent victims. The alcohol is much higher and seeking to entrap saints who take liberties. We are essentially playing with fire.

I will exhort in the future all believers I see with a wine bottle to mix it at least half and half with water before serving as that would be the biblical wine that was consumed.

from Greg :

he in all probability did not drink it but his very association and being in the homes brought the accusation amongst the pharisees of being a wine bibber.

I doubt it very much that His detractors would give Him that nickname if He was not drinking with the sinners and the disciples were preaching against drink which they were not - just drunkeness. It seems clear to me that they were calling Him a glutton and wine drinker because of John the Baptist not doing those things in order to disprove what John was claiming about Him. They were saying that He drank which the scriptures supports.

Greg,
Brother I haven't watched it yet (I will, you have my word), but you still haven't answered my very common sense question: you are conjecturing that it was different. In previous discussions, you & others have used words like "trace amounts" of alchohol & the like. If modern beer is 4-6% & modern wine usually around 9-10%, then what is your conjectured percentage of their wine? Have you studied it out to know what percentage it would need to be to actually sterilize unsterile water? I believe that It's more than you think. And you still haven't followed through the logic. If it takes about at least 2-3 6-8oz glasses of 9% wine MINIMUM to even begin to say anyone is "drunk", that's like about 1/5 of a gallon (24oz) of modern day wine. So, if it was 1%, the believers in 1 Corinthains had to drink almost 1.5-2 gallons of "their 1% wine" to get drunk? Is that logical? Have you ever sat and drank 2 gallons of anything? And the Lord's supper wasn't an all day event, so they would be up front GUZZLING & LITERALLY CHUGGING 2 gallons of wine to get drunk? Say what? I heard of a man that died a couple years ago from chugging a full gallon of water. But we are to believe these believers in Corinth quickly chugged 1.5-2 gallons of wine in the ekklesia? Or that that was what was actually necessary so that the Pharisees were actually accusing the apostles of having drank 2 gallons of wine by 9am in the morning on pentacost? Do you see how illogical that is? It's because the details have been shoehorned (forced) upon the text to hold up the narrative. It makes a discussion about the warnings of alchohol totally illogical, irrational, & unscriptural, so what your attempting to do (warn against drinking too much alchohol) gets totally lost by straw men that cause logical, Bible reading believers to tune out entirely. Does that not make sense to you? Since you keep saying it's not the same, what % do you propose it was? Historians don't bear up what you're saying (it was maybe a little weaker possibly, but even if it was 1/2%, then 2 glasses = 1 glass today), but It's all totally speculative assumption.

Matthew 15:10-18
And he called the multitude, and said unto them, Hear, and understand: Not that which goeth into the mouth defileth a man; but that which cometh out of the mouth, this defileth a man. Then came his disciples, and said unto him, Knowest thou that the Pharisees were offended, after they heard this saying? But he answered and said, Every plant, which my heavenly Father hath not planted, shall be rooted up. Let them alone: they be blind leaders of the blind. And if the blind lead the blind, both shall fall into the ditch. Then answered Peter and said unto him, Declare unto us this parable. And Jesus said, Are ye also yet without understanding? Do not ye yet understand, that whatsoever entereth in at the mouth goeth into the belly, and is cast out into the draught? But those things which proceed out of the mouth come forth from the heart; and they defile the man.

So the emphasis is on the heart and the behavior and character of those who say they are Christians. If our character and behavior are not rooted in Christ it does not matter what we abstain from for the kingdom of God is not about meat nor drink, but RIGHTEOUSNESS.... peace and joy. Romans 14:17

in most European cultures, if a man claims to be a Christian and consumes wine at a meal, the non-believers will see absolutely no inconsistency. As long as his consumption is not in excess, the believer would not damage his witness to the non-believer at all by his liberty. Brenda, perhaps you can correct me if this observation is wrong.

It is correct. In fact the opposite often would apply.

Someone who refuses drink, can be seen to be a recovering alcoholic by many and someone to distrust. Especially in the culture I am from because drinking has been such a part of industrial working class community, where life was hard and dangerous, especially for coal miners, and a man would be out with his work mates on a Friday evening (Saturdays out with the wife) to relieve the pressures of a hard life, and the consumption of 10 pints of ale or more was common.

They could drink more in those days as they were lean and fit, at least for some years but anyone who did not drink would not be trusted and would not give the impression that he was more moral as morality had nothing to do with alcohol. I don't think that there were many alcoholics in those days and people were family orientated. Of course they were sinners, but commiunity spirit was strong and decent behaviour was expected and adultery for example was frowned upon.

We never had the after effects of the Holiness Movement sinking into legality here. The CoE has always been tolerant of drinking in fact brewing it for funds. There has always been the belief that a man's beliefs are private and he would only be considered a hypocrite if he was criminally inclined or a bitter angry person.

It seems that the ingrained impression of a drinker in America is that of a shady charcter but here, it is more likely to be that of a hard working man.

The thing that counts as witnessing here, is never if you drink or not - it is how you treat others.

So the emphasis is on the heart and the behavior and character of those who say they are Christians. If our character and behavior are not rooted in Christ it does not matter what we abstain from for the kingdom of God is not about meat nor drink, but RIGHTEOUSNESS.... peace and joy. Romans 14:17

Yes Julius that is the test.

I don't believe, after some further thought, that wine was weaker in those days. I think it was stronger and that is why there was so much warning about drunkeness. If it was mixed with water, then that tells me that it was too strong to drink without it if one wanted to avoid fast intoxification..

And the water, coming from wells, was a precious commodity. Greece and Israel are both dry countries with low rainfall.

If wine was used to santise water, and I don't believe that at all, then it would have been fermented for longer, in order to keep the water usage as low as possible, and don't forget they had honey to use for fermentation and as I said elsewhere could easily make air locks.

.

Thank you brother. That post was from Paul West and I think that his statements highlight what the agenda or purpose of these threads ought to be. To discuss how to walk in a manner that glorifies Christ, that does not bring His name into disrepute nor cause another to stumble.