tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20213892.post742385710303332257..comments2023-12-22T08:29:29.230-08:00Comments on WHAT IS TRUTH: The Debate over the Prohibition of Alcoholic Beverage part fourKent Brandenburghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13419354741455959191noreply@blogger.comBlogger11125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20213892.post-8854800635053441742020-01-21T22:53:14.916-08:002020-01-21T22:53:14.916-08:00Unknown,
This isn't a book. Jesus didn't...Unknown,<br /><br />This isn't a book. Jesus didn't create alcoholic beverage. It goes along with the two wine view. The story doesn't add anything to the one wine or the two wine view, either one. My series was showing the two wine view from scripture. With that being proven, Jesus created non-alcoholic beverage.Kent Brandenburghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13419354741455959191noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20213892.post-78447583401560162702020-01-20T08:33:47.332-08:002020-01-20T08:33:47.332-08:00Why have you not addressed wine at the wedding at ...Why have you not addressed wine at the wedding at Cana?Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03215150543616994696noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20213892.post-50090088749389913872011-04-08T18:01:18.295-07:002011-04-08T18:01:18.295-07:00I really don't understand why moderationist sc...I really don't understand why moderationist scholarship is referred to so sarcastically in this article. Kenneth Gentry, for example, wrote an excellent book outlining the moderationist view, called "God Gave Wine." <br /><br />I also have a hard time understanding why, if God is ssying in Deut 14:26 that it is okay to buy and consume alcohol, God is essentially encouraging drunkennesss. Isn't that like arguing that, because God permits people to spend money on food in the same verse, He is encouraging gluttony?Michaelnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20213892.post-2690894748642260452009-08-20T16:49:03.242-07:002009-08-20T16:49:03.242-07:00Kent, I'm glad that you're using Waltke, e...Kent, I'm glad that you're using Waltke, even though he's an evangelical(!!). I enjoyed reading both volumes a couple years ago.<br /><br />But I would suggest going back and re-reading his introduction, particularly regarding the <i>function</i> of the short saying proverbs. They're not universal. They're contextual and situational and thus not all proverbs apply at all times. This isn't just some excuse for getting around this verse for me. You can't do justice to the entire corpus of sayings if you try to treat them as universals.Mike Aubreyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04335768638306462369noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20213892.post-53868743057307170662009-08-19T14:49:41.784-07:002009-08-19T14:49:41.784-07:00Gary,
I'll be dealing with some of the other ...Gary,<br /><br />I'll be dealing with some of the other places. Thanks.<br /><br />Thanks Don.Kent Brandenburghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13419354741455959191noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20213892.post-11548450263191482962009-08-18T22:20:30.367-07:002009-08-18T22:20:30.367-07:00Hi Kent (and Gary)
Well, on these two passages I ...Hi Kent (and Gary)<br /><br />Well, on these two passages I agree with Kent, although I would perhaps arrive at the conclusions somewhat differently.<br /><br />In any case, those for moderation will often bring these passages up as "gotcha verses". Kent has done a good job with Ps 104 and a pretty good job with Dt. I don't think these are all that triumphant for the moderationist view.<br /><br />I might have more time to explain slight differences of approach on the Dt passage later, we are in the middle of replacing gutters at our church building and I am feeling rather weary.<br /><br />But as far as these verses go, I agree that they don't prove what the moderationists think they prove.<br /><br />Perhaps some would like a little more controversy from me on this, but that's about all I can do for right now.<br /><br />Maranatha!<br />Don Johnson<br />Jer 33.3Don Johnsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03332212749734904541noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20213892.post-75606553003249649192009-08-18T20:22:47.775-07:002009-08-18T20:22:47.775-07:00This has been very interesting. I had always thou...This has been very interesting. I had always thought that all wine in the bible contained alcohol,but that Christians in the United States should not drink it, because of the stumbling block issue. I laughed at our church's doctrinal statement when in regards to the Lord's supper it said "wine(grape juice)". I thought that meant we used grape juice instead of wine, I didn't know that the statement meant that the wine was grape juice. I'll have to speak to my pastor and get his take on this.<br /><br />I'm still interested in how you explain 1 Timothy 3:8. Why would he be againt the deacon's drinking "much wine"(grape juice)?<br /><br />I hope that Don and Mike keep debating this with you, they seem to have some knowledge on the subject and it's good to see both sides.<br /><br />Like I said in the past post, I don't drink, so personally it doesn't effect my walk with the Lord if the wine in the bible was alcoholic or not. Unfortunately, if you prove yourself to be right, I don't think that the drinking Christians are going to admit it and change their ways. <br /><br />Good Luck!Garynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20213892.post-14059284334235968602009-08-18T12:49:15.782-07:002009-08-18T12:49:15.782-07:00Mike,
So it isn't a prohibition. Hmmmm. I m...Mike,<br /><br />So it isn't a prohibition. Hmmmm. I might respect your Hebrew abilities more than mine. And you might respect your abilities more than mine. But I don't respect either of our Hebrew abilities more than Bruce Waltke, who actually has an often used Hebrew syntax book out there to use. And he says this about Proverbs 23:31:<br /><br /><br />"At the semantic center of the saying is the command not to yield to wine's temptation. . . . The circle of validating consequences is reinforced lexically by the repetition of the root ‘hr in the initial words of the verses surrounding the command (v. 31)."<br />p. 262 The Book of Proverbs: Chapters 15-31 Bruce Waltke<br /><br />"The prohibition arms the youth against addiction by nipping the temptation at the bud. . . . The prohibitions synthetic parallels command the son to stop drinking the wine."<br />p. 264 The Book of Proverbs: Chapters 15-31 Bruce Waltke<br /><br />He's not the only one who says it is a prohibition, but I thought you might respect him.<br /><br />Jason,<br /><br />Someone else actually asked about Acts in the comments and you'll find that it isn't the word oinos in Acts 2, while it is in the gospel passages I referred to. That does debunk Acts 2 for you. Thanks for the comment though.Kent Brandenburghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13419354741455959191noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20213892.post-74180552599406262512009-08-18T10:09:11.726-07:002009-08-18T10:09:11.726-07:00Kent,
I've enjoyed your series on this issue....Kent,<br /><br />I've enjoyed your series on this issue. In fact I was thinking about it this morning while reading in the book of Acts. Acts 2 seems to argue against the two wine view at least as much that "new wine" was non-alcoholic. At pentecost the onlookers response was "they must be filled with new wine." In other words they thought they were drunk. In fact Peter says a few verses later in so many words "they're not drunk, it's only the third hour of the day." What are your thoughts on this passage as it relates to the two wine view. <br /><br />I don't drink alcohol for several reasons but I wrestle with the fact that our position is not the historical one. In fact we're the only country in the world (that I'm aware of) where believers read wine in Scripture and think grape juice. I wonder if this is not directly result of our context over the last 200 years with Welch's invention of grape juice (can't even get the stuff in Poland)and then the subsequent push for prohibitionJason Stovernoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20213892.post-82271582604099855672009-08-18T09:05:52.557-07:002009-08-18T09:05:52.557-07:00Of course, to start, this clashes with what Prover...<i>Of course, to start, this clashes with what Proverbs 23:29-35 says about alcohol. This is where the "alcoholic scholarship" comes in. It would say that Proverbs 23 must be something other than a prohibition of alcohol</i><br /><br />No it wouldn't.<br /><br />It would say that the Proverbs past chapter 9 aren't prohibitions at all. They're advice - even when they're in the imperative: hence "Answer a fool according to his folly" and "Do not answer a fool according to his folly" are right beside each other.Mike Aubreyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04335768638306462369noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20213892.post-1337001914487948022009-08-18T01:52:26.898-07:002009-08-18T01:52:26.898-07:00Kent,
I've enjoyed this series on your blog. ...Kent,<br /><br />I've enjoyed this series on your blog. In fact I was thinking about it today as I was reading in Acts. Chapter 2 of Acts seems to argue against a two wine view doesn't it, at least in arguing that new wine is non-alcoholic or juice?<br />It's Pentecost,and the response of the onlookers to what is taking place is recorded in vs.13 "others mocking said, these men are filled with new wine"--they're accusing them of being drunk with this new wine and this drunkenness has altered their speech. Peter's response confirms this in vs.15.<br />For these are not drunken, as ye suppose, seeing it is (but) the third hour of the day." I'm not trying to play "gotcha" but I thought about this issue as I was reading today. This passage seems fairly straightforward on the issue of new wine being alcoholic rather than merely grape juice. <br /><br />I don't drink alcohol for several reasons but the other thing I struggle with is the fact that I don't know of another country in the world where God's people make the two wine distinction in Scripture. Our interpretation is not the historical one, and it seems that without Welch's invention and the subsequent prohibition push this wouldn't even be up for debate. Just my 2 cents.Jason Stovernoreply@blogger.com