Five Solas Posted January 18, 2018 Posted January 18, 2018 53 minutes ago, Okrahomer said: I used the term "Christian Liberty", because I see it used frequently in Reformed online sources; and I wanted to speak directly to you so that you would better understand what troubles me. I apologize if I gave the impression that it has any sort of LDS context. I had thought (wrongly as it turns out) that the "scare quotes" would indicate that. I agree that it is not an LDS term, and I have never read or heard it used in LDS teaching. With respect to the CFR: Please see John Piper's sermon, "Total Abstinence and Church Membership" where he says this: "For myself and my family the way I have decided to go is total abstinence. I also believe, in general, that this is the best way for all believers in America today to go." Also, please see John MacArthur's Sermon, "Interrogating Alcohol" where he says this: "I will never use my liberty to offend someone else. I’m happy to put my liberty aside. After all, it’s not necessary to drink and it’s not the best to drink, it’s not the highest and the best. And that leads me to the seventh, will it harm my testimony? Can it harm my testimony? And I’ve already answered that question, it can. I want to do all to the glory of God. I don’t want any…anybody to think less of me as a Christian. I’m happy to set aside any freedom for the sake of a clear, clean, Christian testimony." MacArthur's blog post "Beer, Bohemianism and True Christian Liberty" is also worth a read. This article from Focus on the Family concludes with this: "Finally, the advice Paul gives regarding "scandals" and "stumbling-blocks" in I Corinthians 10:23-33, bears special application here. The question should always be not what might or might not be "permissible" for me - a self-centered approach - but how my choice (and especially how I communicate my perspective) might impact other people (Philippians 2:3-4). To put it another way, Christians have a responsibility to regulate all of their behavior in every area of life according to the royal law of love (James 2:8)." And with that, I'll simply close with a heart-felt, "Amen!" Appreciate the references, Okrahomer. I was aware that Piper personally abstains as a matter of conscience, while not making this a requirement for membership at Bethlehem Baptist. I haven't followed MacArthur closely and was not aware of his position. That said, I don't think either of these statements are in conflict with the late R.C. Sproul and his ministry (the link I shared). Neither Piper not MacArthur is arguing Christian liberty should never be exercised. Neither is saying Christians must conform to other people's beverage and dietary preferences out of concern for being a stumbling block (the Hindu, Muslim and LDS examples I used previously). And at this point, I'm not at all sure what your objection to me actually is. It's pretty clear you find me objectionable--but what exactly did I write that offends you? --Erik
Okrahomer Posted January 18, 2018 Posted January 18, 2018 (edited) 3 hours ago, Five Solas said: Appreciate the references, Okrahomer. I was aware that Piper personally abstains as a matter of conscience, while not making this a requirement for membership at Bethlehem Baptist. I haven't followed MacArthur closely and was not aware of his position. That said, I don't think either of these statements are in conflict with the late R.C. Sproul and his ministry (the link I shared). Neither Piper not MacArthur is arguing Christian liberty should never be exercised. Neither is saying Christians must conform to other people's beverage and dietary preferences out of concern for being a stumbling block (the Hindu, Muslim and LDS examples I used previously). And at this point, I'm not at all sure what your objection to me actually is. It's pretty clear you find me objectionable--but what exactly did I write that offends you? --Erik First: please accept my apologies. I do not object to you personally. I'm sure you're a fine fellow, a good husband and father, and a valuable member of your community. I'd probably love having you as a neighbor, and I personally would have no problem with you enjoying an adult beverage in my presence. It does not offend or hurt me. I grew up in Oklahoma around all kinds of Christians who drank, and it has never caused a problem for me. Second: I have been the recipient of an SOS call in the wee hours of the morning to pick-up a friend (a life-long Lutheran) who had gone a little too far with his "Christian Liberty"; and I saw firsthand how alcohol impacted his life in a very negative way. We had been friends since childhood, and so he trusted me; and he was right to do so. We love each other as brothers to this day; and he has told me that it was his faith--more than anything--that helped him get sober. But what I have difficulty with is using scripture to justify a lack of empathy and love with respect to those who do not believe as I do--including Jehovah's Witnesses. This is exactly the point (among others) Piper, MacArthur and others make in their sermons. Third: I did not say that Piper and MacArthur argue that abstinence should be a requirement for Christians. What I said is that they advocate for it as the best choice for most Christians; and much of the reasoning they use (Piper's is the easiest to follow) is the same. But the idea of abstinence is not the primary issue here, is it? At least that's not what I was trying to explore with you. I was much more interested in the idea of "stumbling blocks" and how that impacts (or not) your decisions about drinking. Finally: There was an interesting article in Christianity Today a few years back which may be relevant to you. It was written by an Evangelical woman--not sure she mentioned a particular denomination. She described how she and her husband had moved to a poorer part of a city in the Midwestern US. She described the terrible addictions (alcohol, tobacco, and drugs) that plagued their new neighborhood. She and her husband eventually came to the conclusion that they simply could no longer feel good about "looking people in the eye" when they went to purchase alcohol at their local liquor store. Their conversion (if you will) to total abstinence was complete when they realized their purchases were supporting an industry that had purposely enslaved so many of their new neighbors [not to mention millions of their countrymen.] Her rhetorical question to other Christians [paraphrased]: How is it so many of you seem never to have met an alcoholic? Edited January 18, 2018 by Okrahomer 2
Five Solas Posted January 21, 2018 Posted January 21, 2018 On 1/18/2018 at 11:20 AM, Okrahomer said: First: please accept my apologies. I do not object to you personally. I'm sure you're a fine fellow, a good husband and father, and a valuable member of your community. I'd probably love having you as a neighbor, and I personally would have no problem with you enjoying an adult beverage in my presence. It does not offend or hurt me. I grew up in Oklahoma around all kinds of Christians who drank, and it has never caused a problem for me. Second: I have been the recipient of an SOS call in the wee hours of the morning to pick-up a friend (a life-long Lutheran) who had gone a little too far with his "Christian Liberty"; and I saw firsthand how alcohol impacted his life in a very negative way. We had been friends since childhood, and so he trusted me; and he was right to do so. We love each other as brothers to this day; and he has told me that it was his faith--more than anything--that helped him get sober. But what I have difficulty with is using scripture to justify a lack of empathy and love with respect to those who do not believe as I do--including Jehovah's Witnesses. This is exactly the point (among others) Piper, MacArthur and others make in their sermons. Third: I did not say that Piper and MacArthur argue that abstinence should be a requirement for Christians. What I said is that they advocate for it as the best choice for most Christians; and much of the reasoning they use (Piper's is the easiest to follow) is the same. But the idea of abstinence is not the primary issue here, is it? At least that's not what I was trying to explore with you. I was much more interested in the idea of "stumbling blocks" and how that impacts (or not) your decisions about drinking. Finally: There was an interesting article in Christianity Today a few years back which may be relevant to you. It was written by an Evangelical woman--not sure she mentioned a particular denomination. She described how she and her husband had moved to a poorer part of a city in the Midwestern US. She described the terrible addictions (alcohol, tobacco, and drugs) that plagued their new neighborhood. She and her husband eventually came to the conclusion that they simply could no longer feel good about "looking people in the eye" when they went to purchase alcohol at their local liquor store. Their conversion (if you will) to total abstinence was complete when they realized their purchases were supporting an industry that had purposely enslaved so many of their new neighbors [not to mention millions of their countrymen.] Her rhetorical question to other Christians [paraphrased]: How is it so many of you seem never to have met an alcoholic? Appreciate it, Okrahomer. I respect the choice to not consume alcoholic beverages. There are many good reasons to not do so, and I'm glad you're there for your Lutheran friend. Christian liberty is a real thing--and its power is shown through both its exercise and its restraint. It's interesting that LDS don't share such a concept - and probably merits a thread of its own at some point, time permitting. As a side note, it's also interesting to recall it was Christian temperance movements which propelled public opinion in the United States to adopt the 18th Amendment, Prohibition. And the arguments in favor of it really haven't changed. It's our understanding and appreciation of the consequences that changed. --Erik 1
Calm Posted May 12, 2018 Posted May 12, 2018 (edited) On 1/7/2018 at 5:29 PM, Robert F. Smith said: I have long been aware of such research, including the carcinogenic effect of alcohol on the body (which people cannot believe when told). A friend pointed out this video I thought some might be interested in: http://www.wbur.org/hereandnow/2018/05/10/alcohol-breast-cancer-risk Quote "Just for the basics, alcohol is implicated in about seven different types of cancer. It's responsible I think for about 15 percent of all breast cancer deaths in the United States. The number is even higher for cancer that's a little more rare, like head and neck cancers, esophageal cancer, alcohol is responsible for about 50 percent of those. And we don't talk about it in this country, even though it's one of the few things that people have some control over." On alcohol's risks for women "Women get kind of a double whammy. Alcohol can damage DNA, and it can really screw up your cells in a lot of ways. But for women, it also raises estrogen levels in the body, and in kind of the same way that hormone replacement therapy worked — it raises hormone levels. The cells multiply faster, and so there are more opportunities for tumors to develop, and the subtype that alcohol is most connected to is also the same kind of subtype that hormone replacement therapy caused. So they think that the mechanism there is very similar."... The industry really fought the cancer message. That is something they really, really did not want plastered all over their products. They didn't want to be like the tobacco industry and have big warning labels to scare people, and so they launched a really interesting campaign." Edited May 12, 2018 by Calm 1
Recommended Posts