Friday, April 09, 2010

Billy Birch makes God the author of sin!

But such is the length and breadth one is willing to go to in order to defend an absolutist view of God's sovereignty. Never mind that God "cannot be tempted by evil, nor does he tempt anyone" (James 1:13 TNIV).

http://classicalarminianism.blogspot.com/2008/10/freedom-of-will-part-two.html

More than being indicative of a generation, the issue of the use of alcohol by Christians appears more prominent among the young neo-Calvinists as of late. Perhaps these young ones are merely imitating their present theological heroes Mark Driscoll or R. C. Sproul Jr, who advocate Christians using alcohol. Martin Luther (another link) himself is infamous for drinking alcohol while discussing theology, earning him the moniker "drunk little monk." If anything is clear in Scripture it is the sin of drunkenness (Rom. 13:13; 1 Cor. 5:11; 6:10; Gal. 5:21; Eph. 5:18; 1 Pet. 4:3). Abstinence is a wiser choice.

These actions will bring the wrath of God upon anyone -- whether or not he or she confesses to be a Calvinist. Perhaps some of these neo-Calvinists (those who were converted to Calvinism by merely reading a book by John Piper or Mark Driscoll) think that because they are unconditionally elected by God unto faith and salvation that they will escape the coming wrath. However, the apostle Paul exposed such persons as hypocrites (Rom. 2:1). They judged sinners but were indulging in sin themselves! Paul concluded: "But we know that the judgment of God is according to truth against those who practice such things" (Rom. 2:2 NKJV). He then added: "And do you think this, O man, you who judge those practicing such things, and doing the same, that you will escape the judgment of God?" (Rom. 2:3 NKJV)


http://classicalarminianism.blogspot.com/2010/04/believing-in-jesus-could-send-you-to.html

1On the third day there was a wedding at Cana in Galilee, and the mother of Jesus was there. 2Jesus also was invited to the wedding with his disciples. 3When the wine ran out, the mother of Jesus said to him, "They have no wine." 4And Jesus said to her, "Woman, what does this have to do with me? My hour has not yet come." 5His mother said to the servants, "Do whatever he tells you."
6Now there were six stone water jars there for the Jewish rites of purification, each holding twenty or thirty gallons. 7Jesus said to the servants, "Fill the jars with water." And they filled them up to the brim. 8And he said to them, "Now draw some out and take it to the master of the feast." So they took it. 9When the master of the feast tasted the water now become wine, and did not know where it came from (though the servants who had drawn the water knew), the master of the feast called the bridegroom 10and said to him, "Everyone serves the good wine first, and when people have drunk freely, then the poor wine. But you have kept the good wine until now." 11This, the first of his signs, Jesus did at Cana in Galilee, and manifested his glory. And his disciples believed in him
(Jn 2:1-11).

25 comments:

  1. So, have things changed, and drunkenness is not a sin any longer?

    ReplyDelete
  2. You went well beyond that. You said "More than being indicative of a generation, the issue of the use of alcohol by Christians appears more prominent among the young neo-Calvinists as of late. Perhaps these young ones are merely imitating their present theological heroes Mark Driscoll or R. C. Sproul Jr, who advocate Christians using alcohol...Abstinence is a wiser choice."

    So you condemned the "use" of alcohol, not merely the "abuse" of alcohol.

    Yet Jesus made wine for the wedding guests. Thus, by your own logic, he was enticing the wedding guest to sin. To act unwisely. Instead of advocating abstinence, Jesus was advocating alcohol consumption by his actions.

    ReplyDelete
  3. I think it is unwise for Christians to use alcohol (as does Piper, for those who care), and certainly sinful to abuse it, true.

    Is there any indication from the text that Jesus was drunk, or that the wedding guests were getting drunk? I've read that the wine in Jesus' day was mixed with six to ten parts water -- a much weaker wine than what we make today. I don't know how much "enticing" Jesus was doing.

    I did note that my context was the young Calvinists on campus at Southeastern (just so it's clear). All students have to sign a covenant here stating that they will not drink alcohol while they remain a student at SEBTS. Those same Calvinists violate the covenant.

    ReplyDelete
  4. I'm hardly a historian of wine, but since the text says the normal thing to do was to serve the good wine up front, then the cheap wine, doesn't that imply the wine is fairly alcoholic? That is, you can get away with cheaper wine once everyone has deadened their taste buds by getting a bit tipsy. Otherwise, what is the master of the feast getting at by observing Jesus was doing things backwards?

    ReplyDelete
  5. Does "good" wine necessarily mean a heavier amount of alcohol content? Could not "cheaper" wine indicate a quality rather than the amount of alcohol content? I'm not a wine expert either. I am genuinely asking.

    ReplyDelete
  6. It's well-known that the wine back then was strong enough. Ceasars used to let wine flow from the fountains so that the people could get drunk and forget about the problems with the government. Drunkeness was a sin and it would seem quite hard to fall into this sin if the mix was as Birch says. The Bible repeatedly claims that wine is good for making the heart merry, and the king is told to give wine to the downtrodden so that they may forget their troubles. Moreover, distillation was unknown in the ancient world and wine frequently had a alcohol content of 15-16%. Wine was mixed with water, but I've never seen the numbers Birch cites. the higest I've seen are the Greeks who had a 3 or 4:1 ratio, but mostly it was 2:1. The main purpose was to be get buzzed and enjoy flowing conversation. This is easy to see considering the dilution ratio yields a content of about 3-5% (same as many beers). We know the alcohol content was pretty high since the wine could be said to be "good." That Birch is unfamiliar with wine is evident, then. I assume he'll drink grape juice on occassion. If so, next time Birch does I have a challenge: dilute your grap juice with 10 parts water and see how "good" it is.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Billy:

    The wine was strong enough for people to get drunk by drinking it. So I assume that doesn't mean they had to drink 10 gallons an hour to achieve that end. Agree?

    ReplyDelete
  8. Why do you believe it is unwise for Christians to use alcohol? There's using and using, and not every form of use has a slippery slope to abuse.

    For instance, I can't stand the taste of alcohol - even a very mild cider tastes horribly strong and acrid to me. But I'm learning to cook with wine to expand my culinary repertoire. I also use alcohol to keep my homemade ice cream going rock-hard in the freezer, and to make fruit cakes. How is that possibly "unwise"? What, exactly, is it going to tempt me to do?

    Or there's my husband, who does enjoy the taste of alcohol. What peril is he in by having a cider with dinner? Really?

    I agree that Calvinists shouldn't be reneging on an agreement to teetotal, but I'd be more worried about why they signed such an agreement in the first place. I would suffer not a whit from abstaining from alcohol - as I say, I don't like the stuff - but I'd be wary about going to a place with such a reactionary and legalistic attitude towards alcohol. It's an attitude Jesus certainly didn't share.

    Did the students also have to sign pledges not to indulge in gluttony? The Bible's against that too.

    ReplyDelete
  9. "All students have to sign a covenant here stating that they will not drink alcohol while they remain a student at SEBTS. Those same Calvinists violate the covenant."

    Knowing young adults, you can bet there's Arminians who imbibe too.

    Anyway, no one should violate covenants they've signed. They should never have went to the school in the first place since the school is sinfully violating conscience and stepping on Chritian liberty. Why isn't anyone posting on the sinful habit of Christians who trample on Christian liberty and add to the law of God?

    Don't drink, don't dance, don't chew, or go out with girls who do.

    ReplyDelete
  10. My own personal opinion, and I'm not very dogmatic about it, is that drinking alcohol is fine as long as is not abusive to your body (liver, etc) or used to get drunk, which is condemned in Scripture.

    My parents do not drink. Mainly they choose not to because they don't want to be a stumbling block to those who have a weakness for alcohol. Well, that's why they started not drinking. Now, it's been a tradition in their lives for so long it just never would occur to them to drink.

    On the other hand, I do drink. Only safe and moderate amounts, of course, and my older brother does the same. My parents don't object at all.

    I see getting drunk condemned in Scripture, and I see abusing one's body forbidden (our bodies are the temple of the holy spirit) but I don't see that drinking alcohol is forbidden.

    If someone has a conviction against drinking, though, then by all means they should stick by it!

    ReplyDelete
  11. There is clearly a distinction between drunkenness--which, what exactly is the sin? once-in-a-while getting drunk? or regular alocholism? or what?--and a nice buzz. And it is nowhere near obvious that even using, while never getting to the point of drunkenness, is itself sinful.

    ReplyDelete
  12. "If someone has a conviction against drinking, though, then by all means they should stick by it!"

    No one denies that, the issue here is forcing others to live by your scruples.

    ReplyDelete
  13. WILLIAM WATSON BIRCH SAID:

    "Is there any indication from the text that Jesus was drunk, or that the wedding guests were getting drunk?"

    Now you're trying to weasel out of your own argument. You didn't merely object to intoxication. Rather, you took the sin of intoxication as your starting point, then reasoned back from there to argue against intoxicants in general. You reasoned that because intoxication is sinful, we should abstain from alcohol consumption altogether inasmuch as alcohol consumption carries the risk of intoxication.

    Therefore, by your own logic, Jesus was enticing the wedding guests to sin by encouraging them to indulge in risky behavior.

    "I've read that the wine in Jesus' day was mixed with six to ten parts water -- a much weaker wine than what we make today."

    Well, that's simply incoherent. You quoted Biblical condemnations of drunkenness to justify your teetotalism. But if you're now going to claim that intoxication was not a serious risk because the wine was cut with water, then that undermines your appeal to Biblical condemnations of drunkenness. What were drunks getting drunk on? Goat milk?

    "I did note that my context was the young Calvinists on campus at Southeastern (just so it's clear). All students have to sign a covenant here stating that they will not drink alcohol while they remain a student at SEBTS. Those same Calvinists violate the covenant."

    Which is a classic case of extrascriptural legalism. Why don't you honor sola Scriptura?

    ReplyDelete
  14. A similar argument:

    Lying is a sin; therefore, one should never use words at all. Better to abstain than to risk lying.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Gluttony is a sin; therefore, one should never use food at all. Better to abstain than to risk gluttony.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Adultery is a sin; therefore, one should never make love in marriage. Better to abstain than to risk adultery.

    ReplyDelete
  17. "No one denies that, the issue here is forcing others to live by your scruples."

    I agree, of course, that one shouldn't force another to live by their extra-biblical convictions.

    We should obey God's law, but should make extras laws to ensure that others don't disobey God's laws. That's what the Pharisees did. They constructed an extra set of laws to make it harder for people to even get near breaking the real laws. Then when Jesus broke their extra set of laws, they got really upset about it. That's not how it was meant to be.

    I've even heard it said Eve's first mistake was by not quoting God as saying "you shall not EAT the fruit" but rather "you shall not it... neither shall you TOUCH it." I don't know exactly what Eve did hear, because the Bible only records God speaking to Adam about it. Adam could have been the one to stretch the truth. Anyway, the point it, creating extra laws (no touching) around God's real laws (no eating) was never a healthy practice.

    As for the college students agreeing not to drink, and then breaking that agreement, I do think that is their own fault. "A righteous man swears to his own hurt and does not change." If they freely chose to agree not to drink, and freely chose to go to perhaps a legalistic school, then they should also choose to honor their agreement.

    That's what I do when I am, for a period of time, under the authority of a legalistic group. I don't know if you guys are familiar with ATI (IBLP) but they are very legalistic. Ladies wear long skirts, no drinking, no smoking, no short hair (or on guys, no beards etc) and girls aren't even allowed to talk to guys. It's actually quite suffocating, but still, during the times I am under their authority, I do follow all their rules... even to the point of not chewing gum(another random rule).

    ReplyDelete
  18. I meant to type that we Shouldn't make extra laws...

    ReplyDelete
  19. For what it's worth, I'd argue there is some indication in the "Wedding of Cana" narrative that people were getting drunk. The Master of the Feast's astonishment that the good wine is appearing now, after the guests have "drunk freely," seemingly implies that the guests' ability to discern between good and bad wine is on some level impaired and thus the good wine has been wasted.

    ReplyDelete
  20. Further to Ryan's point, the NASB gives "have become drunk" as an alternate translation for "have drunk freely."

    ReplyDelete
  21. SKARLET SAID:

    "...even to the point of not chewing gum(another random rule)."

    Well, even if chewing gum in moderation is forgivable, addictive gum-chewing paves the way to perdition. So we must draw the line somewhere!

    ReplyDelete
  22. Steve says:

    "Well, even if chewing gum in moderation is forgivable, addictive gum-chewing paves the way to perdition. So we must draw the line somewhere!"

    Yes - I must repent of my evil gum-chewing ways. As we know, "what the parents allow in moderation, the children will excuse in excess!" I am just paving a road with hell with my good-intentioned gum-chewing ideals and actions...

    ReplyDelete
  23. "Perhaps these young ones are merely imitating their present theological heroes Mark Driscoll or R. C. Sproul Jr, who advocate Christians using alcohol... Abstinence is a wiser choice."

    I'm not an abstainer. Yet I must sadly acknowledge that, at least with respect to RC Sproul Jr, abstinence of alcohol would clearly be his wiser choice.

    The use of alcohol is not condemned anywhere in Scripture. However abuse of alcohol is clearly condemned, as well as any abuse of our Christian liberties that would stumble a "weaker brother." Each of these is a major problem with RC Sproul Jr. His reputation as an abuser of alcohol and a stumbler of weaker brethren is scandalous.

    Sadly, Sproul Jr gives Arminians an easy target for shooting Calvinists, when the real problem has nothing to do with Calvinism but, rather, that RC Jr makes such an unfit spokesman for Calvinism.

    ReplyDelete