Tag: Fundamentalism

Jack Hyles Meets JackHammer

~ fundyreformed ~ 6 Comments

I’ve been absent from the blogworld for a few weeks, and I’m making my way back.

I came across some interesting, hard-hitting posts at JackHammer directed against the legacy of Jack Hyles and his current successor Jack Schaap. I thought I’d point the articles out, since they are much more level-headed and Scripturally motivated than Tom Neal’s unChristian criticisms I pointed out a while back.

Here is a listing of the articles so far.

And on a final note, now might be a good time to share this link. It includes a scanned copy of a very sad letter by former Sword of the Lord editor, Curtis Hutson. In it, Hutson admits Hyles’ guilt in the scandal surrounding Jack Hyles and his son’s infidelity. And worse yet, Hutson rationalizes why he will continue supporting Hyles. The letter exposes the worst of fundamentalist politics gone a muck.

Hyper Fundamentalism and the Family

~ fundyreformed ~ 13 Comments

A few weeks ago I received the following comment on my blog:

I am not sure what your blog was talking about, but I gather that you understand about the strictness of fundamental Baptist churches.
My son is in one, and I am gathering information about this church. It is independent and the pastor controls everything the members do. I only see my son Thanksgiving and Christmas. Probably not at all now, since I will not attend his church. I was saved in that church and immediately left soon after, when I realized what it was about. I am attending another church. If you can help me, I would appreciate it. —A Reader

I wish the predicament that this dear lady finds herself in were uncommon. But, sadly, this is all too common in hyper fundamentalism. I have encountered several examples to a greater or lesser degree myself, personally. And I am sure my readers have their own sad stories to add here.

Long before I ever made a break from fundamentalism, I felt this was wrong. A certain relative of mine treated his wife’s parents very badly—with great disrespect, I believe. Although at the time they were driving a long distance to go to a fundamental Baptist  church they could agree with, he apparently viewed them as not good enough for him to spend any time with them. The decency of visiting and loving the family God gave him was downplayed and evidently separation and loyalty to his own church and movement emphasized. But hey, isn’t Deut. 5:16 still Bible?

My Dad always warned me to be on the lookout for any emphasis to distrust your family or to not go home over the holidays. And indeed among some students, the implication was that if you stayed over the summer, or if you stayed over the Christmas break that you were a more devoted Christian. Or at least that is the impression one could get (especially if they did not come from one of the churches which strongly supported the college).

I can’t say the church and college I went to explicitly taught us to distrust your family or to separate from them. In fact they emphasized that we go home and be a help to our churches. But in the teaching they gave concerning the family, they made it very clear that your family could be very wrongly influenced by your relatives and you needed to be extremely careful. Generally, I would agree, to an extent. But that advice was often taken to an extreme.

People whose children are still faithful Christians, albeit not fundamentalists (or not as much a fundamentalist as the parents would like), practice a firm separation from them. It is unnatural and ungodly. And yes, I have heard first hand of such goings on. And in this lady’s example above, she is facing such separation from her children.

Can’t strict fundamentalists appreciate that God is at work in their families’ lives—even if they aren’t fundamentalists? Can’t they agree on the big things like love for Christ, mutual faith, salvation, the fundamentals, etc., and then agree to disagree on the minor issues which define them as fundamentalists?

Does anyone else see this as a big problem for hyper fundamentalists (IFBx)? Is the problem wider than just this segment of fundamentalism? Does anyone else think that this trait of IFBx is one which seems very similar to a cultish characteristic?

I am interested in your responses. And lastly, does anyone have any hope to offer this reader? I encourage her to look to Christ and trust Him for support and love. She should also get involved in a good church where she can be ministered to. And then, she should try to love her son and family and try to show them she is a dedicated Christian, albeit not a fundamentalist. Any other thoughts?

Stomping Toes and Stomping Souls: The Moralistic Bent to Fundamentalist Preaching

~ Bob Hayton ~ 32 Comments

DISCLAIMER: Although I am dealing specifically with fundamentalist preaching, the problem of moralistic messages without explicit reference to the redeeming work of Christ permeates all of evangelicalism.

Billy SundayIndependent Fundamental Baptists love preaching! And when I say preaching, I mean hell-fire and brimstone, Bible-waving, Satan-trouncing PREACHING! Amen? The best preaching is usually accompanined by the most screaming, hollering, spitting, snorting, and a good dose of preaching “antics”.

An example of this I’ll never forget would be the preaching of George Griffis, camp director of Camp Victory in Somerset, KY. My church made the long drive from the Detroit area to Camp Victory every summer when I was a teen. There would be various preachers, but always Bro. George would preach. When he got worked up, he would be screaming and crying at the same time. He had a knack of jumping from the edge of the platform and grabbing the rafters of the old-fashioned tabernacle, where the preaching was done. He would swing and scream with all his might! A few hundred wide-eyed teens was always the result…. He had his heart and soul involved in his preaching for sure!

toes.jpgNow another aspect of the kind of preaching fundamentalists savored was what is called toe-stomping. Yes, if you are thinking of the image of someone stomping on your toes–that is what is meant. It seems the preachers job was to make us feel guilty about all of our failures. If we really felt like he had put us through the ringer, so to speak, it was thought the preacher had really done his job well. This is why a full altar meant a great sermon. When all kinds of people felt the weight of their guilt to the point of coming forward and “getting things right” with God, the preacher had done his job well. No pain, no gain! Amen?

This view of preacing had many direct and indirect results. In many spheres of extreme fundamentalism, theatrical antics, brashness, an almost uncouth mouth, and emotional manipulation became the tools of the trade for the kings of the sermon. And even among those who were not so keen on showmanship, Billy Sunday remained a hero. Still, in most IFBx churches, if one does not holler one is not really a preacher. “We need preachers not teachers”, as the saying goes. Expositional preaching does not serve this view of preaching as easily as topical preaching, and so in many spheres of fundamentalism expositional preaching was outright condemned, while in others it just became more and more rare.

While the loss of expositional preaching is great indeed, I would venture to say another result of IFBx’s view of preacing is even more troubling. I would say the tactic of heaping guilt on the hearers and calling them to reform and seek revival, has led to a kind of moralistic preaching which is most perilous indeed!

Fundamentalist preaching mirrors the fundamentalist view of sanctification by keeping rules. While not all IFBs and IFBxs claim to believe in sanctification by keeping rules, to one degree or another the fundamentalist emphasis on external conformity to standards conveys the idea that the more one adheres to these standards the more right with God he is. This results in the unconscious view that our own level of performance plays a big part in God’s acceptance of us. As I said in an earlier post,

“Often, the solution to struggling against sin was provided as merely gritting one’s teeth, and working harder. Character was the means to accomplishing my moralistic goals….IFB/IFBx churches stressed the importance of duty. But they did not address the question of human inability and depravity, so much. We all could do it, and if we didn’t we weren’t filled with the Spirit enough. Blame and guilt was applied as a means to motivate us to do right.”

What do I mean by moralism? I mean the mere attempt to be good. I have heard countless fundamentalist messages on having character, giving, being truthful, loving others, obeying one’s parents, reading the Bible, praying, going to church, courage, not quitting, leadership, and on and on the list goes. Yet many of these same virtues are extolled among people who have no true claim to the name Christian. Mormons extol family values, and Jehovah’s Witnesses are for many of the things on that list. In fact, non religious groups extol sacrifice, leadership, truthfulness, loving others, courage, even meditation, etc. These things are moral issues, and Christians do not have the market cornered on morality.

Recently, I came across another ex-fundamentalist blog called The Misadventures of Captain Headknowledge. In a few of his posts he emphasizes this very thing: how Christ needs to be central in preaching. Let me quote him in-depth from his post, “What am I Hearing in this Sermon?”, as he sums it up well.

“…the Law (what God is and does, and so what man ought to be and do) is imperative, and the Gospel (what Christ has done for sinners) is indicative.

In Christ-centered preaching, the logic will flow from indicative to imperative; from what God does, in Christ, to what man ought to do. We derive the proper motive and power to perform the imperatives of Scripture from the proclamation of the indicatives of Scripture.

Whenever the focus of the sermon is imperative, what we can or should be doing, and the indicatives of God’s work on our behalf rates as a secondary concern in the sermon, we unintentionally slip into thinking we’ll earn the indicatives (that which God grants by his grace) by performing the imperatives (that which God gave us to prove to us we must rely only on his grace). This is the danger of man-centered preaching.

Is Jesus mentioned in the sermons you hear? If he is, is he the subject of the verbs; is he the one doing the work, or is Man? If Jesus is the one doing the work, what work of his is being proclaimed? Is he proclaimed as our Problem-Solver, Example (WWJD), Therapist or Sugar Daddy? Or is he proclaimed as our Creator, Redeemer, Advocate, Mediator, Judge, Prophet, Priest or King?

The reason this matters is because ‘the gospel is the power of God for salvation to everyone who believes’ (Romans 1:16). Salvation is an all-encompassing work, including not only our justification, but also our sanctification and our glorification. Preaching on sanctification is vitally important; there is much for us to do, in dependence on God’s gracious empowerment, to grow in sanctification, but this is not achieved by majoring on detailing all the imperatives alone, but the imperatives of preaching, what we normally call ‘application’ of God’s Word, must be built on the foundation of the indicative of the Gospel preached alone.” (emphasis his)

I believe he leans heavily on Bryan Chapell‘s book Christ-Centered Preaching. Chapell emphasizes that in every sermon one must relate the explanation of the Scripture passage to the redeeming work of God in the present. Otherwise, he insists, all you have is “simply a ‘sub-Christian’ call ‘to be’ or ‘to do’ something in one’s own strength” (quoted from an online summary of Covenant Theological Seminary‘s homiletical programs). Chapell’s book is simply a homiletical application of the Reformed approach to hermeneutics–redemptive historical interpretation, which I have discussed elsewhere. UPDATE: To listen to a message by Bryan Chapell which summarizes well his book, click here [or right click on it and select “save target as” to download it and listen to it later].

Captain Headknowledge goes on to say in another post:

“…and this is the point of my incessant howling about basing all application… in preaching on the basis of the Gospel preached…, and not only preached as an evangelistic appeal directed toward unbelievers, but preached also to the believers as the foundation and reason and source of the particular application of each and every ‘practical and relevant’ sermon. If application is preached as separate from the gospel, you have legalism. It’s not good enough to assume the listeners understand the foundation, it must be presented as a unified, package deal. It is ‘wickedness of the deepest darkness’ to preach application without explicitly basing it on the gospel. Imperative comes from Indicative; application comes from gospel; ‘do’ comes from ‘be’. Kind of like that old saying, ‘we sin (do, imperative) because we are… sinners‘. Likewise, we walk in righteousness because we are righteous, not ‘we become righteous by walking in righteousness’. How did we become righteous? Righteousness was given to us by God as a free gift of his grace (Romans 1:17; 3:24). Hello! Indicative! Followed by Imperative!” (emphasis his)

So what am I driving at? I am not concluding one should never encourage believers to obey God’s Word. Believers do need to be truthful, godly, etc. The Holy Spirit certainly may convict believers of their need to “do better”. But ultimately, we need to preach how the gospel touches each area of the believer’s life. We cannot, apart from God’s Spirit given to us based on the Gospel work on our behalf, ever be wholly truthful and godly. And even if we could, it would avail us nothing! We need to be reminded that God accepts us based on Christ and because of Christ we can obey and become all that we already are in Christ.

We don’t need more toe-stomping sermons. We need more sermons that direct sin-laden believers to feast their eyes on the glories of Christ. A greater appreciation of Him, a greater understanding of His work–these will give us hope and faith and courage to keep pressing on.

So whatever standards you hold, and whatever group you identify with, beware of moralism. Make much of Christ! Glory in the cross!

Picture of Billy Sunday borrowed from here.

∼striving for the unity of the faith for the glory of God∼ Eph. 4:3,13 “¢ Rom. 15:5-7

Happy Birthday from the Texas Baptist Underground

~ Bob Hayton ~ 5 Comments

Happy Birthday to Me!

Okay. I just celebrated my birthday on Wednesday, May 3. My wife informed me that I was 9496 days old, by the way. Anyway, today I found out about a great birthday gift I received–sort of a blogging birthday gift. For a long time now, I have enjoyed and respected James Spurgeon’s posts on his blog devoted to fundamentalism called The Texas Baptist Underground. I have linked to that blog almost from the inception of my blog. Anyway, on Wednesday, James added six new links to his blog and two of them were to my blogs–my main blog as well as my new KJV Only Debate Resource Center blog. Now James did not know it was my birthday, but I thanked him for the gift anyway!

While I am on the subject, let me recommend James’ new book, The Texas Baptist Crucible: Tales from the Temple. It is the published version of a compilation of stories that James published on the internet under the title “Tales from the Temple”. The Temple would be Longview Baptist Temple, and the stories were of James’ days at Texas Baptist College (a ministry of LBT). The book was published by a company specializing in helping individuals self-publish their books, and so it is a little costly–starting at around $24.95. But believe me, it is worth every penny. I am gobbling the book up as you read this!

The stories are fascinating reading, but they teach a sobering message. They point out the worst in extreme fundamentalism, but do so in a graceful and healthy way. While laughing at his own troubles, James’ tells his own story in the hope of disclosing the doctrinal and practical errors which abound in certain sectors of fundamentalism. For me, reading James’ book helped me to see how some of the same ungodly leadership tactics, misplaced emphases, and wrong attitudes about ministry were present (albeit in a less blatant form) in my own experience in extreme fundamentalism. James’ experience was extreme, mine was not, yet many of the root problems were identical.

I encourage my readers to get this book and read it thoughtfully. It will entertain, yes. But it will also enlighten. Ponder your own experiences in light of James and see anew what the errors of extreme fundamentalism can produce. Be warned and move away from the error into a life of grace. The encouraging thing about James’ book is that he did not bail out on God when faced with the problems he endured. Rather, he continued in his faith and therefore is able to see God’s hand at work in his life and encourage others in similar situations to follow the Lord and His Word to such a degree that they are willing to test their own leaders and church by His teachings.

Oh, and lest I forget, let me challenge you fundamentalist readers of mine to get this book. Read what an ex-IFB thinks of you and see if there is any truth to it. Don’t be afraid of the truth. Honestly evaluate your own beliefs and practices. When you place yourself outside of outside scrutiny and Scriptural evaluation, you have placed yourself in a dangerous position. Check out James’ blog, as well as mine. Take the haughty smirk off your face and be willing to see if there is any truth in what ex-IFBs are saying. You may find some truth at least, and be equipped to change a little to better line up with God’s Word. Isn’t that what you are all about anyway?

"Wine to Gladden the Heart of Man": Thoughts on God’s Good Gift of Wine

~ fundyreformed ~ 86 Comments

There is an interesting discussion on alcohol going on over at Bob Bixby’s blog, Pensees. It has been mentioned over on Sharper Iron, as well.

I have been meaning to post for some time on this topic, and now seemed like the appropriate time. Some of my research for this article was helped by a cousin-in-law of mine, Nathan Grant. I plan to post an edited version of his own study on this topic in the future.

Okay, you will probably want to go over and read Bixby’s article on the issue, “Drinking Beer and My Right to Read the Bible in The Middle of the Street”, first. Then you can read my response verbatim below.

I hate to post another long comment, but… I think this should be said, in the context of this discussion.Why drink wine?? Good question! I respect your arguments from common sense and Biblical principles. These are not light-weight arguments. Yet I think there is a big Scriptural argument for the use of wine that you are overlooking.Before presenting that argument, let me hasten to say that I can only imagine the sorrow liquor has caused many people and many families. Drunkenness is a sin which Scripture strongly condemns and warns us against. And more than many sins, it can affect innocent bystanders, and unfortunate family members. It should be no laughing matter for such an argument to be raised. The injury and harm alcohol has caused so many deserves no scorn from the eyes of young fundamentalists eager to partake in another activity they deem permissible from Scripture.If I agree so much with your argument, why then would I go on and seek to argue for the use of alcohol? Why not just stay quiet, and agree to disagree privately? I cannot remain quiet, because truthfully I feel the argument I have to present is of such a nature that to disregard it would be to despise God and His Word.

Ps. 104:14-15 presents my argument: “You cause the grass to grow for the livestock and plants for man to cultivate, that he may bring forth food from the earth and wine to gladden the heart of man, oil to make his face shine and bread to strengthen man’s heart.” Here the Psalmist praises God for the gift of wine. And he declares that God gave us wine to gladden our hearts. My argument is that Scripture abundantly declares this truth: God gave us wine to bring us joy. I want to present 8 points which combine to make this truth extremely clear. God gave us wine for our joy. [Scriptures are taken from the ESV, unless otherwise indicated.]

1) Wine is a gift of the goodness of God.

Jeremiah 31:12-14 “They shall come and sing aloud on the height of Zion, and they shall be radiant over the goodness of the LORD, over the grain, the wine, and the oil, and over the young of the flock and the herd; their life shall be like a watered garden, and they shall languish no more. Then shall the young women rejoice in the dance, and the young men and the old shall be merry. I will turn their mourning into joy; I will comfort them, and give them gladness for sorrow. I will feast the soul of the priests with abundance, and my people shall be satisfied with my goodness, declares the LORD.”

See also Ps. 104:14-15 above. 1 Tim. 4:1-5 applies also, I believe.

2) Wine produces joy–it “gladdens the heart”.

Judges 9:13 “But the vine said to them, ‘Shall I leave my wine that cheers God and men and go hold sway over the trees?'”

Ecclesiastes 10:19 (NASB) “Men prepare a meal for enjoyment, and wine makes life merry, and money is the answer to everything.”

Zechariah 10:7 “Then Ephraim shall become like a mighty warrior, and their hearts shall be glad as with wine. Their children shall see it and be glad; their hearts shall rejoice in the LORD.”

It should be clear that even the intoxicating nature of wine is being praised, here. Wine lifts the spirit and gladdens the heart long before it actually overtakes you and makes one drunk. Wine can be enjoyed and its effects relished without losing control and becoming drunken. Prov. 31:6-7 encourages Lemuel to give wine and strong drink to the sick and the sorrowful of heart. And Jer. 16:7-8 points to a practice of comforting those who are mourning over the death of loved ones with wine and a feast–“the cup of consolation”. Rabbinical literature declares that such was a common practice–particularly in obedience to Prov. 31:6-7.

3) Wine is used in rejoicing before God.

It is also used in offerings and must be tithed on.

Deuteronomy 14:22-26 “You shall tithe all the yield of your seed that comes from the field year by year. And before the LORD your God, in the place that he will choose, to make his name dwell there, you shall eat the tithe of your grain, of your wine, and of your oil, and the firstborn of your herd and flock, that you may learn to fear the LORD your God always. And if the way is too long for you, so that you are not able to carry the tithe, when the LORD your God blesses you, because the place is too far from you, which the LORD your God chooses, to set his name there, then you shall turn it into money and bind up the money in your hand and go to the place that the LORD your God chooses and spend the money for whatever you desire–oxen or sheep or wine or strong drink, whatever your appetite craves. And you shall eat there before the LORD your God and rejoice, you and your household.”

Isaiah 62:8-9 “The LORD has sworn by his right hand and by his mighty arm: ‘I will not again give your grain to be food for your enemies, and foreigners shall not drink your wine for which you have labored; but those who garner it shall eat it and praise the LORD, and those who gather it shall drink it in the courts of my sanctuary.'”

Deuteronomy 12:17-19 “You may not eat within your towns the tithe of your grain or of your wine or of your oil…but you shall eat them before the LORD your God in the place that the LORD your God will choose….”

Notice that in the Dt. 14 passage above, even strong drink [everyone agrees that this is alcoholic] can be drunken before the Lord with rejoicing! Strong drink is also used as a drink offering in conjunction with certain sacrifices, see Num. 28:7. Wine, of course, is also used for drink offerings, see Ex. 29:40, Num. 15:5, 2 Chron. 31:5, Dt. 8:4.

4) Abundance of wine was a particular blessing from God.

Joel 2:24-26 “The threshing floors shall be full of grain; the vats shall overflow with wine and oil. I will restore to you the years that the swarming locust has eaten, the hopper, the destroyer, and the cutter, my great army, which I sent among you. “You shall eat in plenty and be satisfied, and praise the name of the LORD your God, who has dealt wondrously with you. And my people shall never again be put to shame.”

Joel 3:18 “And in that day the mountains shall drip sweet wine, and the hills shall flow with milk, and all the streambeds of Judah shall flow with water; and a fountain shall come forth from the house of the LORD and water the Valley of Shittim.”

See also Gen. 27:28 (part of Isaac’s blessing for Jacob) and Dt. 7:13.

5) Having no wine was a hardship or a judgment of God.

Amos 5:11 “Therefore because you trample on the poor and you exact taxes of grain from him…you have planted pleasant vineyards, but you shall not drink their wine.”

Deuteronomy 29:2-6 “And Moses summoned all Israel and said to them: ‘You have seen all that the LORD did before your eyes in the land of Egypt, to Pharaoh and to all his servants and to all his land, the great trials that your eyes saw, the signs, and those great wonders. But to this day the LORD has not given you a heart to understand or eyes to see or ears to hear. I have led you forty years in the wilderness. Your clothes have not worn out on you, and your sandals have not worn off your feet. You have not eaten bread, and you have not drunk wine or strong drink, that you may know that I am the LORD your God.'”

The above passage has Moses describing the glories of God that the people saw and also stressing that they had endured trials in the wilderness. He speaks of the miraculous provision for them, but also of God’s keeping them from the normal joys of life–eating bread and drinking wine and strong drink. God did all of this so they would know that He was their God, yet they had no spiritual circumcision of heart to appreciate that. The point I am drawing out is that not having wine and strong drink was a hardship, exactly parallel to not having bread. Bread is good, and so is wine and strong drink. (See also Dt. 28:39, Micah 6:15, and Zeph. 1:13)

6) The absence of wine results in the absence of joy.

No wine, no joy.

Isaiah 24:7-11 “The wine mourns, the vine languishes, all the merry-hearted sigh. The mirth of the tambourines is stilled, the noise of the jubilant has ceased, the mirth of the lyre is stilled. No more do they drink wine with singing; strong drink is bitter to those who drink it. The wasted city is broken down; every house is shut up so that none can enter. There is an outcry in the streets for lack of wine; all joy has grown dark; the gladness of the earth is banished.“

Jeremiah 48:33 “Gladness and joy have been taken away from the fruitful land of Moab; I have made the wine cease from the winepresses; no one treads them with shouts of joy; the shouting is not the shout of joy.”

See also Is. 16:10.

7) Drinking wine is singularly festive, joyful, and celebratory.

Ecclesiastes 9:7 “Go, eat your bread in joy, and drink your wine with a merry heart, for God has already approved what you do.”

Isaiah 22:13 “And behold, joy and gladness, killing oxen and slaughtering sheep, eating flesh and drinking wine. ‘Let us eat and drink, for tomorrow we die.'”

It goes without saying that wine is associated with times of joy and feasting (Job 1:13, Esther 1, 1 Chron. 12:39ff., Gen. 27:25 [a special occasion–the passing on of the blessing]). The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia (ISBE) [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1988; edited by Geoffrey Bromiley] points out, “A banquet hall is called a bet misthe hayyayin (lit. ‘house for drinking wine’ Est. 7:8), and a ‘feast’ is literally a ‘drinking’ (Heb. misthe, Gen. 21:8; Jdg. 14:10; 1 S. 25:36; 2 S. 3:20)” (vol. 4, pg. 1070). Further it states, “wine…was an essential part of feasting in the biblical tradition” (pg. 1071).

(Another point, similar to this is that the joys of sexual intimacy and love are compared to the joy produced by wine. See Song of Solomon 1:2-3; 4:10; 7:1-2, 9; 8:2.)

8) Wine will be part of the future feasting in Christ’s kingdom.

Isaiah 25:6-9 “On this mountain the LORD of hosts will make for all peoples a feast of rich food, a feast of well-aged wine, of rich food full of marrow, of aged wine well refined. And he will swallow up on this mountain the covering that is cast over all peoples, the veil that is spread over all nations. He will swallow up death forever; and the Lord GOD will wipe away tears from all faces, and the reproach of his people he will take away from all the earth, for the LORD has spoken. It will be said on that day, ‘Behold, this is our God; we have waited for him, that he might save us. This is the LORD; we have waited for him; let us be glad and rejoice in his salvation.'”

Jeremiah 31:12-14 “They shall come and sing aloud on the height of Zion, and they shall be radiant over the goodness of the LORD, over the grain, the wine, and the oil, and over the young of the flock and the herd; their life shall be like a watered garden, and they shall languish no more. Then shall the young women rejoice in the dance, and the young men and the old shall be merry. I will turn their mourning into joy; I will comfort them, and give them gladness for sorrow. I will feast the soul of the priests with abundance, and my people shall be satisfied with my goodness, declares the LORD.”

Matt. 26:29 “I tell you I will not drink again of this fruit of the vine until that day when I drink it new with you in my Father’s kingdom.”

See also Lk. 22:28-30, Mt. 8:11, and Lk. 13:29. It is worthwhile to mention here that from the above verse, it is clear Jesus drank wine. The celebration of the Passover had developed into including 4 cups of wine. From the passage in Luke you see they drank at least two cups of wine (Lk. 22:17 and 20). In Lk. 7:33-34 Jesus himself says that he came “eating and drinking”. Since John the Baptist was specifically said to have abstained from alcoholic drinks (Lk. 1:15), and since Jesus contrasts himself with John in this text, Jesus is saying he came drinking alcoholic drinks. While it is obvious Jesus was no drunkard, the charge of “drunkard” would sound ridiculous if Jesus had been a tee-totaller. Not only did Jesus drink wine, but he was concerned to produce the best kind of wine for those at the wedding feast in Cana (Jn. 2).

Also, the feast of the Lord’s supper looks forward to the feast with Jesus in His kingdom (see the Mt. 26:29 passage above). And it is clear from 1 Cor. 11:21 that the beverage used at the Lord’s table in Corinth could make some drunk. Paul in no way castigates them for using the wrong kind of beverage. He even points out that they could drink in their own houses (v. 22). So it makes Biblical sense to expect that the feast in Christ’s glorious New Kingdom will include alcoholic drinks.

Now I have presented my Biblical argument–that God has given us wine to make our hearts glad. So I say we should glorify God by the wise use and enjoyment of his good gifts to us (see 1 Tim. 4:1-5).

Now some will be hanging onto a weak argument here. They will be trying to convince themselves that wine most often does not mean intoxicating juice of grapes, but rather non-intoxicating juice similar to the Welch’s variety. Yet much evidence exists that this is not correct. Modern grape juice was not really available until the late 1800s when Mr. Welch began marketing his variety. ISBE says, “Both yayin and tiros are fermented grape juice with alcoholic content; hence both are able to cause intoxication (cf. Hos. 4:11) and are to be distinguished from ‘must’ or unfermented grape juice….The ‘new wine’ (Gk. gleukos) of the Pentecost account (Acts 2:13) was the vintage of the recent harvest; the thrust of the taunt requires that it refer to wine that can cause intoxication.” (vol. 4 pg. 1069) The New Unger’s Bible Dictionary [Chicago: Moody Press, 1988; edited by Merrill F. Unger] states, “In most of the passages in the Bible where yayin is used (83 out of 138), it certainly means fermented grape juice; and in the remainder it may fairly be presumed to do so. The intoxicating character of yayin in general is plain from Scripture.” Now it is true that ancient wine was not as alcoholic as wine today. Yet it is also clear it could intoxicate. In NT times, wine was a common table beverage (diluted of course). Yet ISBE says, “Wine is not attested as the normal table beverage of OT times. It seems generally to have been reserved for special occasions…” (vol. 4 pg. 1070). More evidence could be cited, I am sure, but I agree with Unger that it is plain that wine was quite able to intoxicate. Yet God says this is good–it gladdens our hearts.

I have two further counter arguments. One counters the argument you (Bob Bixby) have brought up in this post. The other counters another common argument, which has been brought up in the comment thread. I will start with the latter argument.

Should we not refrain from alcohol and wine, strong drink, etc. out of deference to weaker brothers who might stumble? Is not this the point of Rom. 14:21? In a sense I would agree. But the context speaks to situations where you know a brother will be observing you drink in such a way that he may stumble and offend his conscience. If one happens to stumble upon me and find that I am drinking, I could charitably explain my reasoning for doing so. But for me to disregard his conscience and deliberately challenge him or cause him to be offended would be quite another thing. Applying 1 Thess. 5:22 to this case is a false application of that text. It refers to actual cases of evil–avoiding actual evil. Not avoiding what appears to be evil but in fact is neutral or not evil. And it also specifically in context refers to the judging of each prophecy in the setting of a church or Christian gathering.

My second counter argument deals with your argument concerning the great potential harm that alcohol can cause families and individuals. Yes, this is a strong caution and particularly listens to the warnings of Prov. 20:1 and other like passages. However, let me ask something. Is total abstinence the best preventative course for me to pursue with regard to the rearing of my children? Since Scripture does not forbid alcohol, and actually encourages its moderate consumption, how can I in good conscience teach against its use period? Would the argument you propose be received as sufficient from my children? Or could it not be as effective (or more) for me to model the moderate use of wine in front of my children and family? My children would learn by example that wine and liquor is not to be consumed frivolously, but rather to be enjoyed in moderation–always thanking God for the blessing of wine when we partake of it. This also seems to be more in line with being controlled by the Spirit in this dispensation of the new covenant, in my opinion.

Before closing, let me point your attention to two articles on this topic written by a friend of a friend of mine. Alcohol and the Christian, and Alcohol and the Christian Part Deux. In the second article there is an extended discussion which approaches the topic from many perspectives and seeks to apply Biblical principles to the decision whether or not to enjoy God’s gift of wine, this side of heaven. I think you (and your readers) may find the discussion beneficial in thinking through this issue.

UPDATE: Check out two later posts I did on this topic: “Will You Be Having Some Wine?” and “Welch’s Grape Juice, Worldly Wisdom and Wine”.

Recommended Resource: God Gave Wine: What the Bible Says About Alcohol by Kenneth L. Gentry.