Biblical Holiness Vs. Prohibitionism
Scriptural study clashes with redneck theology, predictable results ensue
J.C. Thibodaux
Do not be carried away by varied and strange teachings; for it is good for the heart to be strengthened by grace, not by foods, through which those who were so occupied were not benefited. (Hebrews 13:9)
I have a certain acute loathing for Legalism. Coming from a Charismatic background, I've seen it all when it comes to man-made commandments replacing the commands of God. Most of it now is thankfully considered rather laughable, but I still know of groups that consider it 'licentious' for a woman to wear jeans. Sadly, a trend that's coming back into style is a throwback from the Prohibition-era madness: Abstentationism, or as I refer to it 'Teetotalitarianism.' This is really nothing more than legalism with a social reform flavor, and it's gotten a strong foothold in some Christian denominations, including many Pentecostal churches and the SBC.
Let me clarify why I say that Abstentationism is legalistic: it is not legalism in the sense that it is reliance on good works for salvation, it is legalism in that it is a standard of 'Christian conduct' based upon the commandments of men, not God's word. I'd also like to make one more important distinction here, when I address Abstentationism here, I am not incriminating everyone who abstains from alcohol use, else I'd be going after many good men in the Bible, including John the Baptist and probably Timothy. God does call certain people to abstain from all alcohol use, but this does not mean that such a command is delivered to everyone. What I am referring to is the doctrine that all Christians are required to abstain from any and all things fermented. Such a command is biblically untenable, as will be shown shortly.
I recently got into a rather spirited discussion with Peter Lumpkins at his blog. Peter's lately been writing a series of posts railing against any and all alcohol use (except possibly medicinal). I addressed several of his posts in the combox, and for all his zeal, he comes up just as short in scripturally backing his claim as every other Teetotalitarian I've talked with. Still, his case holds much commonality with how legalists in general operate and attempt to justify their errors, as well as the rhetoric and debate tactics they tend to use. We'll explore that further, but first, let's look at the biblical data:
The Bible talks about wine in quite a few places, an excellent analysis of the passages and usage of the words can be found in J.P. Holdings A Little Whine. I won't reinvent the wheel and list every passage here, simply a few key verses that the debate centers around. Mr. Lumpkins has addressed primarily the Old Testament thus far, citing especially Proverbs 23. They most often cite verse 31 and on,
Do not look on the wine when it is red, When it sparkles in the cup, When it goes down smoothly....
The case he then tries to extrapolate from this is that God was forbidding the use of any strong drink because it was a vile poison; but as with most bad doctrine, this interpretation requires ignoring the context:
Do not be with heavy drinkers of wine, {Or} with gluttonous eaters of meat; For the heavy drinker and the glutton will come to poverty, And drowsiness will clothe {one} with rags. ...Who has woe? Who has sorrow? Who has contentions? Who has complaining? Who has wounds without cause? Who has redness of eyes? Those who linger long over wine, Those who go to taste mixed wine. Do not look on the wine when it is red, When it sparkles in the cup, When it goes down smoothly.... (Proverbs 23:20-21, 29-31)
This view then requires a very strained removal of the words 'do not look upon the wine when it is red' from its context to stretch it into an all-encompassing prohibition on wine, since the words are obviously directed at drunkards. To compound the problem further, the legalist interpretation collides with the Mosaic law as well, as evidenced from Deuteronomy 14:26,
You may spend the money for whatever your heart desires: for oxen, or sheep, or wine, or strong drink, or whatever your heart desires; and there you shall eat in the presence of the LORD your God and rejoice, you and your household.
Here, 'strong drink' (Hebrew: shekar) is explicitly condoned in celebration of the yearly tithes. Some have contested that the use of shekar here denotes something non-alcoholic, but they've not been real forthcoming with evidence for such a claim.
Okay, so God allowed the use of alcohol in moderation under the old covenant. What about the new? Could the drinking of actual wine have been merely a provision for the weakness of the flesh (as the Assemblies of God claim), or is it an acceptable aspect of Christian liberty? The New Testament speaks plenty against drunkenness, but there are no prohibitions on Christians drinking in moderation. The fact that many of the early Christians did drink in moderation appears to be something of a given actually. In his letters to Timothy and Titus, Paul gives instructions on both how members of the church and deacons are supposed to live,
the older women likewise, that they be reverent in behavior, not slanderers, not given to much wine, teachers of good things... (Titus 2:3)
Likewise deacons must be reverent, not double-tongued, not given to much wine, not greedy for money, (1 Timothy 3:8)
'Not given to much wine' is rather telling in that it implies that some wine is acceptable. There have been a few Teetotalitarians who have tried to deal with these passages, though not with much success. One argument is that this is simply a loose way of expressing total abstinence, I'd advise them to 'not be given to much dishonesty' with the text. Another argument is that this is actually a warning against excessive drinking of grape juice, which would constitute gluttony; of course why only grape juice would be of concern or be listed instead of food in general is never really explained. So there's really no solid ground for Prohibitionists to stand on in the New Testament either. That's pretty much the biblical case in a nutshell: Explicit permission in the Old Testament, implicit in the New; and the Old Testament backing for total prohibition can only stand if divorced from its immediate and larger contexts. The logic's pretty airtight there, and despite decades of effort, even the scholars who push this legalistic view have never been able to put up a tenable defense against such evidence. The Moderationist position harmonizes all the passages with no difficulties to speak of, while the Abstentionist arguments rely on forced over-extrapolation of warnings against drunkenness to find any support, while at the same time completely mitigating passages that don't fit their framework. I've had numerous conversations with Teetotalitarians that have come this, and it ends the same way pretty much every time: Moderationism always wins the day biblically, and the legalist resorts to even greater logical fallacies or accusations of harboring bad motives.
So now we get to where I actually corresponded with Mr. Lumpkins. I brought these passages to his attention, especially the New Testament quotes, but he would not discuss anything from the NT yet (this should be sending up red flags right about now), so I switched to showing how his view of Proverbs 23 constituting total prohibition could not stand up to biblical scrutiny either in light of the chapter's context or Deuteronomy 14. Shortly after I adopted this route, Peter started screening all comments, and let's just say that mine don't go through any more ;) He stated defensively in a recent post that he's only been trying to say that "moderationists do not possess the exclusive, final word on wine and wine drinking" (Wine, the Bible and the Believer: Crossing the Threshold to the New Testament), but such a benign sentiment is belied by his other posts, in which he states things like, "The latter, God neither created nor commended but outright condemned not only the drunkenness as a result but the consumption of the poisonous substance itself which man made in his own fallen image." (To Drink or Not Drink: A Great Teaching Resource on Drinking Wine) Such inflammatory rhetoric stands as a condemnation both of God-given liberty and Christian brothers who are doing no wrong.
But if ye had known what this meaneth, I will have mercy, and not sacrifice, ye would not have condemned the guiltless. (Matthew 12:7)
Mr. Lumpkin's absurd pretesion at being on the defense and stark refusal to deal with facts is merely a cloak for the unbiblical, legalist doctrine he is propagating, and a defense mechanism geared to draw attention away from the fact that what he is teaching can't stand up to biblical examination as my conversation with him has plainly demonstrated, Peter's defense for his legalism being little more than playing ostrich and complaining that I think I'm right (I don't see him jumping up and down claiming that his opinion is wrong). His playing the victim demonstrates the childish "stop bothering me and let me condemn you in peace!" mentality that's quite common among those who wish to load down other Christians with their own commands as doctrine. It indicates that he holds to a belief system that cannot tolerate its 'vital truths' being scripturally challenged because such teachings cannot survive comparison against biblical concepts. I have nothing personally against Peter, but if one is going to play Grand Inquisitor with other Christians, then rebuke is called for; he's no exception. To those Christians dealing with people pushing such doctrine, my advice is this: Rebuke them sharply. Whoever teaches such a doctrine is a legalist who has a high regard for his own tastes and opinions, and a relatively low regard for scriptural truth. The only way it can survive is by selectively hyper-literalist backwater eisegesis and ignoring relevant biblical evidence. Peter's personal crusade to bring other Christians into bondage stems from an egocentric view of Christianity that cannot handle the concept of variation of conscience among church members. Such a view is not what scripture teaches at all; concerning things that are in question, Paul writes,
Let not him that eateth despise him that eateth not; and let not him which eateth not judge him that eateth: for God hath received him. Who art thou that judgest another man's servant? to his own master he standeth or falleth. Yea, he shall be holden up: for God is able to make him stand. (Romans 14:3-4)
Treat others as you would like to be treated; for just as we are to treat others who eat differently, so we are not to despise one who chooses not to drink, nor are we to judge someone who does, but whatever you do, do for God's glory,
Conscience, I say, not thine own, but of the other: for why is my liberty judged of another man's conscience? For if I by grace be a partaker, why am I evil spoken of for that for which I give thanks? Whether therefore ye eat, or drink, or whatsoever ye do, do all to the glory of God. (1 Corinthians 10:29-31)
People occupied with food and drink don't understand that "the kingdom of God is not meat and drink; but righteousness, and peace, and joy in the Holy Ghost" (Romans 14:17), this is why scripture tells us,
Therefore no one is to act as your judge in regard to food or drink or in respect to a festival or a new moon or a Sabbath day-- (Colossians 2:16)
And then admonishes us,
If you have died with Christ to the elementary principles of the world, why, as if you were living in the world, do you submit yourself to decrees, such as, "Do not handle, do not taste, do not touch!" (which all [refer to] things destined to perish with use)--in accordance with the commandments and teachings of men? These are matters which have, to be sure, the appearance of wisdom in self-made religion and self-abasement and severe treatment of the body, [but are] of no value against fleshly indulgence. (Colossians 2:20-23)
And concerning those who try to push such practices as gospel truth, Paul writes,
This matter arose because some false brothers had infiltrated our ranks to spy on the freedom we have in Christ Jesus and to make us slaves. We did not give in to them for a moment, so that the truth of the gospel might remain with you. (Galatians 2:4-5)
A religion built around trying to define acceptable food and drink for our brethren is contrary to the gospel of Christ, for it seeks to supplant the commandments of God with elements of human conscience and personal preference. Such doctrines have no place whatsoever in Christianity, and as Paul did, we are not to give them even the slightest space for a moment, for such teachings are a hindrance to the gospel message. I therefore firmly urge Mr. Lumpkins as well as any others trying to promote Prohibition as a point of holiness for all Christians to repent of this legalistic and unbiblical teaching. I do, as I have stated, believe that God calls some to abstain from all alcohol, this does not give such people the right to judge their brothers for not following a call we have not likewise received. In doing so they spite the liberty of Christ.
Omake time again: Here's some quick answers to some of the common dumb arguments that Teetotalitarians often employ:
Teetotalitarian: Alcohol is a poisonous!!!!
Moderationist: Only in sufficient quantities, as are vitamin A, iron, and table salt. So what?
T: Alcohol is a drug!! Can you use cocaine or heroin moderately?!?!?
M: Caffeine is also a drug. Are you saying we can't drink tea or coffee either?
T: Alcohol isn't the same thing as caffeine!!!
M: Nor is it the same thing as cocaine or heroin. (I've actually had a rabid legalist use this lame, self-defeating line of reasoning before)
T: The Bible says that strong drink is a mocker and a serpent!! How can you say it's okay?!?!?
M: The Bible also indicates that riches are deceitful and compares it to thorns and briars (Matthew 13:22). This does not amount to a total prohibition on money, as many things have a good and bad side to them.
T: Alcohol is rotted and decayed!! It's a corruption of good, natural juice!!
M: Cheese is made by process of decay as well. I suppose now Kraft is going to have to account for all their sins of corrupting so much milk....
T: Even if you take only one sip of alcohol, you're still a small percent drunk!
M: This is only assuming completely linear effect. So what percentage of a glutton does one become with one bite of food?
By this point, the Teetotalitarian will probably be accusing you of liking to get buzzed on alcohol or say that you're just trying to justify getting away with as much as you can, but neither our motives or our convictions in how we live unto God are another's to judge. If you have a problem with alcohol or the propensity to abuse it, then I urge you not to drink at all, and yes, to not even look at the stuff. If you don't have a problem with it, then remember to not become a stumbling block to those who do. Therein is true Christian holiness.
Copyright © 2005-2008, InDeathorLife.org
The information on this page may not be reproduced or republished on another website, webpage or other printed media without express permission from the author of this site. Other material(s) referenced on this site are the property of their respective authors or copyright holders, and where applicable are used by permission.