Wednesday, September 06, 2006

Another Round For SBC Resolution 5

Folks have asked me about my precise opinion regarding Resolution 5 at the SBC. I've written my thoughts briefly on some of the SBC blogs and I noted in passing in an article I wrote for Strange Baptist Fire awhile back, so what I say will be brief.

I think that Dr. James White captured the essence of my opinion on the matter on the Dividing Line this past Tuesday. He noted that those that are dogmatically certain about the percentage of alcohol in the wine referenced in Scripture, are, for the most part those can't agree amongst themselves about the texts discussing the basis of predestination and election in Scripture, for which there is far more exegetical material. Think about that long and hard, and then ask yourself why anybody should accept anything the supporters of Resolution 5 say when they try to appeal to Scripture to support absolute tea-totalling without raising our eyebrows and shining a bright light on what they say.

That said, it would be wise for those who do not support Resolution 5 and its rationale to remember that those of stronger conscience, per Romans 14 and 1 Cor. 8 should not lord that freedom over those of weaker conscience. By the same token, this does not give license to the other party to do the same to those of stronger conscience.


  1. Also, as Dr. White noted on the DL, there is the direct contradiction in the arguments of those who support the resolution:

    On the one hand, they want to tells us that fermented wine couldn't possibly have existed in the NT era for whatever reasons, but then they appeal to Scripture for the prohibition against drunkenness. How could drunkenness exist without fermented wine?

  2. Perhaps the imbibers had one too many Pixie Stix !!

  3. I'm reminded of a John Piper article in a March 2006 Tabletalk:

    His colleague, Charles Erdman, publicly accused Machen of "unkindness,suspicion, bitterness and intolerance" (see Ned B.Stonehouse, J Gresham Machen, p. 375). When he voted against a church resolution in favor of the national Prohibition and the 18th Amendment, he was criticized as a secret drunkard and promoter of vice. Since he was single, he was criticized as being naive and unaware of the responsiblilities of the family.