Hi

Ian and I have emailed about the BRF forum and he knows what there doing so we don't have to worry too much about them plugging up holes in there doctrine. Anyway heres the entire thread on alcohol in 3 parts.

Ian's first post:

Righto my 'nameless-and-faceless' collective of friends, it's time for my first 'serious' post in this new format. The RF completely eschews the consumption of alcoholic beverages in any form, but further, actively disciplines those members who choose to partake of the same (but in moderation, one would hope).

Now I offer to you that Scripture doesn't command abstinence as a necessary corollary to godliness at all. Further, that your fellowship's enforced 'teetotalism' is the result of naively furthering certain cultural baggage that was carried over from the puritanical 'wowserism' of the early Pentecostal movement.

So on what (biblical/theological) grounds does the RF prescribe enforced abstinence from alcoholic beverages to all within your fellowship? Is this a teaching from Scripture that was promoted from the earliest of times, or is it a very recent novelty that owes more to post Victorian-era 'wowserism' than to apostolic command?

I await your reasoned (and collective) reply ;o)
Blessings,
Ian

Heres the second post where the BRF answers

Thankyou for you question.

First a disclaimer: Parts of the following response may not necessarily be endorsed, nor agreed upon by "The Revival Fellowship". It is a conglomeration of responses made by active members of the Revival Fellowship. Their intention is to respond truthfully, but the opinions contained therein may differ from any official opinion of "The Revival Fellowship" (if such an opinion does in fact exist).

For those readers who are less scholarly than Ian, here are some definitions of words used in his enquiry:

teetoalism - the principle or practice of total abstinence from intoxicating drink.
puritanical - very strict in moral or religious matters, often excessively so; rigidly austere.
wowserism - (Aus. slang) an excessively puritanical person.

Alcohol - the Bible and the Revival Fellowship
By Pastor Chris Jose, Melbourne Revival Fellowship, May 2005

Could you go over the Scriptures about not drinking alcohol?

Ephesians 5:14-20
14 Wherefore he saith, Awake thou that sleepest, and arise from the dead, and Christ shall give thee light.
15 See then that ye walk circumspectly, not as fools, but as wise,
16 Redeeming the time, because the days are evil.
17 Wherefore be ye not unwise, but understanding what the will of the Lord is.
18 And be not drunk with wine, wherein is excess; but be filled with the Spirit;
19 Speaking to yourselves in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing and making melody in your heart to the Lord;
20 Giving thanks always for all things unto God and the Father in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ;

. Note that this instruction is given in the context of a direction to leave aside various evil practices that are a part of the world (see Eph 5:1-16).
- the chapter starts with a direction to be followers of God (v.1)
- having at one time been in darkness we are now the children of light (v.8)
- we are not to have fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness (v.11)
- there is within wine, excess

Drunkeness is a work of the flesh (Galations 5:21) - alcohol is the source.
"Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are these...drunkenness..."
It is in this context that we should understand the direction not to drink alcohol.

. People debate as to whether the Bible absolutely prohibits the drinking of alcohol. But there can be absolutely no doubt that the Bible strongly identifies the evils of alcohol.

To Aaron and the priests - an absolute prohibition:
Lev 10:8-10 8And the LORD spake unto Aaron, saying, 9Do not drink wine nor strong drink, thou, nor thy sons with thee, when ye go into the tabernacle of the congregation, lest ye die: it shall be a statute for ever throughout your generations: 10And that ye may put difference between holy and unholy, and between unclean and clean

Isaiah 28: 7But they also have erred through wine, and through strong drink are out of the way; the priest and the prophet have erred through strong drink, they are swallowed up of wine, they are out of the way through strong drink; they err in vision, they stumble in judgment. 8For all tables are full of vomit and filthiness, so that there is no place clean.

To kings - an absolute prohibition:
Proverbs 31 4It is not for kings, O Lemuel, it is not for kings to drink wine; nor for princes strong drink: 5Lest they drink, and forget the law, and pervert the judgment of any of the afflicted. 6Give strong drink unto him that is ready to perish, and wine unto those that be of heavy hearts.
We are made kings and priests unto God - Revelation 1:5-6.

The evils of alcoholic drink identified:
Proverbs 20:1 "Wine is a mocker, strong drink is raging: and whosoever is deceived thereby is not wise."
Proverbs 23 29Who hath woe? who hath sorrow? who hath contentions? who hath babbling? who hath wounds without cause? who hath redness of eyes? 30 They that tarry long at the wine; they that go to seek mixed wine. 31Look not thou upon the wine when it is red, when it giveth his colour in the cup, when it moveth itself aright. 32At the last it biteth like a serpent, and stingeth like an adder. 33Thine eyes shall behold strange women, and thine heart shall utter perverse things. 34Yea, thou shalt be as he that lieth down in the midst of the sea, or as he that lieth upon the top of a mast. 35They have stricken me, shalt thou say, and I was not sick; they have beaten me, and I felt it not: when shall I awake? I will seek it yet again.

Jesus' clear warning:
Luke 21 (AMP) 34But take heed to yourselves and be on your guard, lest your hearts be overburdened and depressed (weighed down) with the giddiness and headache and nausea of self-indulgence, drunkenness, and worldly worries and cares pertaining to [the business of] this life, and [lest] that day come upon you suddenly like a trap or a noose;

A way of the past:
1 Pet 4:3-5 3For the time past of our life may suffice us to have wrought the will of the Gentiles, when we walked in lasciviousness, lusts, excess of wine, revellings, banquetings, and abominable idolatries: 4Wherein they think it strange that ye run not with them to the same excess of riot, speaking evil of you: 5Who shall give account to him that is ready to judge the quick and the dead.

The consequence of excess alcohol:
Isaiah 5: 11Woe unto them that rise up early in the morning, that they may follow strong drink; that continue until night, till wine inflame them! 12And the harp, and the viol, the tabret, and pipe, and wine, are in their feasts: but they regard not the work of the LORD, neither consider the operation of his hands. 13Therefore my people are gone into captivity, because they have no knowledge: and their honourable men are famished, and their multitude dried up with thirst.
22Woe unto them that are mighty to drink wine, and men of strength to mingle strong drink:

Qualifications for a leader in the church:
1 Tim 3:2-3 2A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach; 3Not given to wine, no striker, not greedy of filthy lucre; but patient, not a brawler, not covetous;
8Likewise must the deacons be grave, not doubletongued, not given to much wine, not greedy of filthy lucre;
Titus 1:7 For a bishop must be blameless, as the steward of God; not selfwilled, not soon angry, not given to wine, no striker, not given to filthy lucre;

Don't drink wine that may cause a brother to stumble, be offended or made weak:
Rom 14:21 It is good neither to eat flesh, nor to drink wine, nor any thing whereby thy brother stumbleth, or is offended, or is made weak.

Abstinence observed under the Nazarite vow:
Numbers 6 2Speak unto the children of Israel, and say unto them, When either man or woman shall separate themselves to vow a vow of a Nazarite, to separate themselves unto the LORD: 3He shall separate himself from wine and strong drink, and shall drink no vinegar of wine, or vinegar of strong drink, neither shall he drink any liquor of grapes, nor eat moist grapes, or dried.
See also Judges 13:4, 7, 14 re Samson and 1 Samuel 1:11 re Samuel and Luke 1:15 re John the Baptist

Abstinence is a sign of particular observance to God:
Deut 29 6Ye have not eaten bread, neither have ye drunk wine or strong drink: that ye might know that I am the LORD your God.
1 Samuel 1:15 And Hannah answered and said, No, my lord, I am a woman of a sorrowful spirit: I have drunk neither wine nor strong drink, but have poured out my soul before the LORD.

Don't give alcoholic drink others:
Habakkuk 2:15 Woe unto him that giveth his neighbour drink, that puttest thy bottle to him, and makest him drunken also, that thou mayest look on their nakedness!

Alcoholic wine is a lure to the foolish and ungodly:
Micah 2(AMP) 11If a man walking in a spirit [of vanity] and in falsehood should lie and say, I will prophesy to you of wine and strong drink, O Israel, he would even be the acceptable prophet of this people!

Alcoholic wine is a tool of the blind watchman:
Isaiah 56: 10His watchmen are blind: they are all ignorant, they are all dumb dogs, they cannot bark; sleeping, lying down, loving to slumber. 11Yea, they are greedy dogs which can never have enough, and they are shepherds that cannot understand: they all look to their own way, every one for his gain, from his quarter. 12Come ye, say they, I will fetch wine, and we will fill ourselves with strong drink; and to morrow shall be as this day, and much more abundant.

Overall, therefore we are given ample guidance and instruction about something (wine and its excesses) that is inherently evil, ungodly and not 'expedient' for us. The logical conclusion to be drawn from all of that is that we ought not to partake of it, indeed that it is sinful to do so.

The case is strong, wine with its inherent excesses, is not good for us physically and spiritually. As such it should be avoided and not be part of our life.

But people strongly argue against total abstinence. They say that it is not wine that is evil but only when it is drunk in excess. So moderation is ok, they say. But that really misses the point and errs in many ways to entice us to see how far we can go. It assumes control when control is so often not possible. It assumes virtue when there is none. It seeks to blend the clear spiritual instruction (i.e. leave it alone) with the accepted social norms.

It is bad principle to try to identify how much of a bad thing is ok in order to try and be more accommodating to social customs. We should not dabble with evil, the social custom should give way to the Bible instruction.

It is not God's purpose to give us such clear instructions to stay away from alcoholic drinks so that we might then test to see how much of it we might indulge in. This is a classic trick employed by Satan and his world - have a look at the temptation in the Garden 'Ye shall not surely die', Genesis 3:4. Eve saw the natural appeal in something she characterised as 'good', 'pleasant' and 'to be desired'. This appeal to what we as natural beings see as the pleasurable consequences of taking a bite (or taking a drink) is what the call for having a little bit of an evil thing is all about.
It is just wrong to suggest that a little bit of a bad thing is ok. It is not.

There is but one example in the scripture where some virtue is identified for wine where Paul instructs Timothy to do something about his sickness that would appear to have been connected with bad water. He says in 1 Timothy 5:23 that Timothy should stop drinking the water and use wine so as to avoid the risk. It is possible that he is referring to new wine, i.e. unfermented grape juice. But even if he is not, this verse provides no basis to suggest that we should therefore ignore all of the other clear direction as to the evils of wine and use this as a basis to partake of social drinking (let alone drunkenness).

Finally, it is important to note that Jesus did perform the miracle of converting the water into wine at the wedding feast at Canaan (John 2:1-10). The question is, in circumstances where Jesus created wine how can it be said that we should be prohibited from drinking it? In my view the answer is quite simple.
First, it is quite possible that the wine referred to is not alcoholic (certainly not to the degree of alcoholic content that is common today). Bear in mind that the word translated wine is a generic term that can be applied to either alcoholic or non-alcoholic grape juice.
But the real issue is whether it is conceivable in light of all of the Bible teaching on this issue that Jesus was, in effect, providing the substance to allow the 'party to rage'. Is the message to be drawn from this miracle that we should ignore the evils of alcoholic wine and consider that Jesus has endorsed its 'social' use? I doubt it.
When you read this passage in John 2, it is clear that at the stage when Jesus performed his miracle the people were already ?well drunk' (see the governor's analogy in John 2:10). In circumstances where the people were drinking freely it would be astounding to suggest that Jesus would give them an alcoholic drink and thereby induce a state of drunkenness.
Thus it would be wrong to rely upon this miracle as suggesting that Jesus endorsed 'social' drinking and the potential ills that flow from that.
In our church community we say .00 alcohol. Society as whole would also be better off with such a stipulation. But society cannot handle that. The church can.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~End of Pastor Chris' Response~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Generally, the discussion amongst RF members centered around the theme:

People within the RF don't drink alcohol primarily to not offend or put a stumbling block before unbelievers or weak people within the church; and to be an example and a testimony to unbelievers.

Some key points raised are quoted below:

PHILIPPIANS 1:9-10 (AMP)
9 And this I pray: that your love may abound yet more and more and extend to its fullest development in knowledge and all keen insight [that your love may display itself in greater depth of acquaintance and more comprehensive discernment],
10 So that you may surely learn to sense what is vital, and approve and prize what is excellent and of real value [recognizing the highest and the best, and distinguishing the moral differences], and that you may be untainted and pure and unerring and blameless [so that with hearts sincere and certain and unsullied, you may approach] the day of Christ [not stumbling nor causing others to stumble].

From these two scriptures, our lives as Christian (Christ-following, Christ-like) people should be striving to be:
- untainted
- pure
- unerring
- blameless
- sincere
- certain
- unsullied
- not stumbling
- not offending
- a constant proof
- in contrast to the world
- comprehensive in discernment
- sensible
- morally different from the world
- pleasing to the Lord!

What is the difference between taking a small hit of heroin or smoking a bit of pot "in moderation", and drinking alcohol? Surely these activities do not convey an image of someone who has been transformed by the power of the Holy Spirit. We have dozens upon dozens of testimonies of people who have been healed of a desire for alcohol upon receiving the Holy Spirit, or shortly after.

It is worth noting that the Revival Fellowship would seek to assist someone who struggled with alcohol, only resorting to "discipline", in extreme and rare cases (and only in accordance with the scriptures). We aren't out to "enforce laws" - this is something the Pharisees specialised in. We are here to help people walk in the freedom of Christ.

Admin

Heres Ian's answer:

Admin, good morning.

For whatever reason, I'm unable to respond to your posts within the same thread. So herein is my feedback on where your argument lacks 'punch'.

You started by quoting an article written by Chis Jose, which commenced with Ephesians 5:14-20. However, verse 18 of that passage specifically prohibits drunkenness, and not the use of alcohol in moderation (a recurring error in Chris' essay).

Drunkeness is a work of the flesh (Galations 5:21) - alcohol is the source.

"Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are these...drunkenness..." It is in this context that we should understand the direction not to drink alcohol.

Again, the issue remains drunkenness, in contradistinction to moderation.

. People debate as to whether the Bible absolutely prohibits the drinking of alcohol. But there can be absolutely no doubt that the Bible strongly identifies the evils of alcohol.

Only insofar as it is abused through excess, but the Bible gives even greater indication that wine is a blessing from God. So one needs to be very careful as to how one ?picks-and-chooses' verses when trying to prove a point.

To Aaron and the priests - an absolute prohibition: Lev 10:8-10 8And the LORD spake unto Aaron, saying, 9Do not drink wine nor strong drink, thou, nor thy sons with thee, when ye go into the tabernacle of the congregation, lest ye die: it shall be a statute for ever throughout your generations: 10And that ye may put difference between holy and unholy, and between unclean and clean

Aaron and the priests were forbidden wine only when they were officiating in the Tabernacle. They were not forbidden wine in perpetuity. Again a distinction is clearly made, and clearly intended.

Isaiah 28: 7But they also have erred through wine, and through strong drink are out of the way; the priest and the prophet have erred through strong drink, they are swallowed up of wine, they are out of the way through strong drink; they err in vision, they stumble in judgment. 8For all tables are full of vomit and filthiness, so that there is no place clean.

The above passage refers once again to drunkenness in opposition to moderation.

To kings - an absolute prohibition:
Proverbs 31 4It is not for kings, O Lemuel, it is not for kings to drink wine; nor for princes strong drink: 5Lest they drink, and forget the law, and pervert the judgment of any of the afflicted. 6Give strong drink unto him that is ready to perish, and wine unto those that be of heavy hearts.

We are made kings and priests unto God - Revelation 1:5-6.

First, Proverbs 31 wasn't understood to present a complete prohibition on the consumption of wine to kings at all. Second, Jesus Christ was both Prophet, (High) Priest and King. He drank wine. Was he guilty of misunderstanding Scripture? Did he sin in doing so? Further, since we too are 'kings and priests', wouldn't we be expected to follow all of the prescriptive commands that befall such people? Do you fellows? Or is it possible that Revelation implies something a little more involved than you guys give it credit for? I wonder ;o)

The evils of alcoholic drink identified:
Proverbs 20:1 "Wine is a mocker, strong drink is raging: and whosoever is deceived thereby is not wise."

Proverbs 23 29Who hath woe? who hath sorrow? who hath contentions? who hath babbling? who hath wounds without cause? who hath redness of eyes? 30 They that tarry long at the wine; they that go to seek mixed wine. 31Look not thou upon the wine when it is red, when it giveth his colour in the cup, when it moveth itself aright. 32At the last it biteth like a serpent, and stingeth like an adder. 33Thine eyes shall behold strange women, and thine heart shall utter perverse things. 34Yea, thou shalt be as he that lieth down in the midst of the sea, or as he that lieth upon the top of a mast. 35They have stricken me, shalt thou say, and I was not sick; they have beaten me, and I felt it not: when shall I awake? I will seek it yet again.

All this is perfectly true. Wine does present as too great a temptation for some to exercise in moderation. But anything taken to excess can have the same effect: food, exercise, coffee...

Jesus' clear warning:
Luke 21 (AMP) 34But take heed to yourselves and be on your guard, lest your hearts be overburdened and depressed (weighed down) with the giddiness and headache and nausea of self-indulgence, drunkenness, and worldly worries and cares pertaining to [the business of] this life, and [lest] that day come upon you suddenly like a trap or a noose;

There's a recurring theme to all of these Bible passages (including the ones I've ?snipped', and that is drunkenness.

Overall, therefore we are given ample guidance and instruction about something (wine and its excesses) that is inherently evil, ungodly and not 'expedient' for us. The logical conclusion to be drawn from all of that is that we ought not to partake of it, indeed that it is sinful to do so.

Nonsense. Chris has made the blunder of failing to differentiate between the excessive consumption of wine (which is strongly condemned throughout Scripture), and the moderate consumption of wine (which is not).

The case is strong, wine with its inherent excesses, is not good for us physically and spiritually. As such it should be avoided and not be part of our life.

Again, nonsense. There is nothing inherently ?excessive' about wine at all. The issue is one of a lack of personal responsibility and self-control in its use and application.

But people strongly argue against total abstinence. They say that it is not wine that is evil but only when it is drunk in excess. So moderation is ok, they say. But that really misses the point and errs in many ways to entice us to see how far we can go. It assumes control when control is so often not possible. It assumes virtue when there is none. It seeks to blend the clear spiritual instruction (i.e. leave it alone) with the accepted social norms.

Remarkable. Do you guys recall that a fruit of the Spirit is self-control. I would also remind you that Scripture clearly presents wine as being a ?gift from God', one to be used and enjoyed in moderation, just as is true of the use of all his gifts.

It is bad principle to try to identify how much of a bad thing is ok in order to try and be more accommodating to social customs. We should not dabble with evil, the social custom should give way to the Bible instruction.

The Bible nowhere prohibits the moderate use of alcohol, only its abuse through excess. Chris hasn't presented a single Bible passage that supports his contention that complete abstinence is the biblical command. All he has done is demonstrate that he can't differentiate between 'drunkenness' and 'moderation'. Now try this small exercise: delete ?wine' and insert ?coffee'.

There is but one example in the scripture where some virtue is identified for wine where Paul instructs Timothy to do something about his sickness that would appear to have been connected with bad water. He says in 1 Timothy 5:23 that Timothy should stop drinking the water and use wine so as to avoid the risk. It is possible that he is referring to new wine, i.e. unfermented grape juice. But even if he is not, this verse provides no basis to suggest that we should therefore ignore all of the other clear direction as to the evils of wine and use this as a basis to partake of social drinking (let alone drunkenness).

Just the one positive example? We must be reading different Bibles if that's the case! Anyway, ?new wine' (oinos neos) was fermented. The term actually refers to the wine produced from the most recent harvest, in distinction to ?old wine' which was from the harvest before. But it was still wine. There was a perfectly acceptable Greek word to describe the freshly expressed juice of the grape--moustos. But it was never used. Funny that, eh?

Finally, it is important to note that Jesus did perform the miracle of converting the water into wine at the wedding feast at Canaan (John 2:1-10). The question is, in circumstances where Jesus created wine how can it be said that we should be prohibited from drinking it? In my view the answer is quite simple.

First, it is quite possible that the wine referred to is not alcoholic (certainly not to the degree of alcoholic content that is common today). Bear in mind that the word translated wine is a generic term that can be applied to either alcoholic or non-alcoholic grape juice.

But the real issue is whether it is conceivable in light of all of the Bible teaching on this issue that Jesus was, in effect, providing the substance to allow the 'party to rage'. Is the message to be drawn from this miracle that we should ignore the evils of alcoholic wine and consider that Jesus has endorsed its 'social' use? I doubt it.

When you read this passage in John 2, it is clear that at the stage when Jesus performed his miracle the people were already ?well drunk' (see the governor's analogy in John 2:10). In circumstances where the people were drinking freely it would be astounding to suggest that Jesus would give them an alcoholic drink and thereby induce a state of drunkenness.

Thus it would be wrong to rely upon this miracle as suggesting that Jesus endorsed 'social' drinking and the potential ills that flow from that.

In our church community we say .00 alcohol. Society as whole would also be better off with such a stipulation. But society cannot handle that. The church can.

What I note in Chris' comments on the wedding at Cana above, is nothing more than tendentious supposition and assumption. And it isn't based on what the text states, but on RF philosophy. Instead of drawing his theology from the Bible text, Chris has read his theology into the same. That's bad (

Generally, the discussion amongst RF members centered around the theme:

People within the RF don't drink alcohol primarily to not offend or put a stumbling block before unbelievers or weak people within the church; and to be an example and a testimony to unbelievers.

An admirable and virtuous approach to be sure. But to take it to the stage where one says that to drink wine is to sin (as Chris Jose did above), is to go well beyond the bounds of Scripture, and to fall into human legalism. The Bible clearly teaches that one is to choose for oneself when to partake or abstain. Your fellowship's leaders have arrogated that personal right and responsibility, and have made it into a corporate ?rule'. That, my friends, is legalism.

What is the difference between taking a small hit of heroin or smoking a bit of pot "in moderation", and drinking alcohol? Surely these activities do not convey an image of someone who has been transformed by the power of the Holy Spirit. We have dozens upon dozens of testimonies of people who have been healed of a desire for alcohol upon receiving the Holy Spirit, or shortly after.

So what is the difference between banning alcohol due to its addictive qualities, and allowing the excessive use of coffee (which can be just as addictive)? One claims not to pander to societal norms with the one, but falls down headlong when it comes to the other. Isn't that hypocrisy?

It is worth noting that the Revival Fellowship would seek to assist someone who struggled with alcohol, only resorting to "discipline", in extreme and rare cases (and only in accordance with the scriptures). We aren't out to "enforce laws" - this is something the Pharisees specialised in. We are here to help people walk in the freedom of Christ.

The 'freedom of Christ' that you laud includes the freedom to choose for oneself according to the guide of Scripture and the dictates of one's own conscience. When it comes to the subject of alcohol, you fellows fail on both counts.

God bless,

Ian

$%*'`[Jiffy Lawdog Sullivan]%*'`@Reply to : MothandRust

---

 Nah, their blindly following their leader's doctrines.

---

 

agreed. and ian wins hands down, good response ian

$%*'`[L]%*'`@Well the BRFs starting to prove there not intersted in anyone showing up there doctrine. Ian's response that I posted above was taken off the site. He emailed me with what hes going to post today and its below.

L
Admin,

Okay, let me see if I read you correctly: we may ask you a question. You then respond to the question, but we're not allowed to raise obvious and important issues with said response? That seems fair.

Righto, then in keeping with your guidance, I'd like to seek further clarification on the issue. The response that you fellows put together seemed to turn the biblical prohibition against drunkenness into a general prohibition against the moderate consumption of alcohol (which I contest is unbiblical). Are there any Bible passages that support your broad and sweeping prohibition, or do you rely solely on those that discuss drunkenness?

Your response also attempted to appeal to the supposed meanings of certain underlying Hebrew and Greek words when attempting to defend your view on the subject. I'd like to introduce some important additional information so that we may all look at where the evidence points.

The following Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek words are used in Scripture to describe the product we call 'wine':yayin (the most common), sobe (see Isaiah 1:22; Hosea 4:18; Nahum 1:10), chamar/chemer (see Deuteronomy 32:14; Isaiah 27:2; Ezra 6:9; 7:22; Daniel 5:1-2, 4, 23), tirosh (see Isaiah 65:8; Hosea 9:2; Joel 2:24; Micah 6:15; Habbakuk 1:11; Zechariah 9:17), oinos/oinos neos and gleukos. One thing all these words have in common, is that they describe the product that results from the fermentation of grape juice?alcoholic wine. As I mentioned in my ?scrubbed' post, there existed a perfectly suitable word in Greek to describe the immediately expressed juice of the grape, and that word was moustos. However that particular word isn't found anywhere in the Greek Old or New Testaments, so the Bible knows nothing of the Revivalist's grape juice!

Next, the biblical 'new wine' was fermented. He term referred to the product of the most recent vintage, whilst 'old wine' referred to the product of the previous year's vintage. This can be verified from the Jewish Mishna (if you're interested, see Baba Batra 6.3). The Mishna was written during the early 2nd century AD, and it provided something of a running commentary on how good Jews were to live. The distinction and meaning between the 'old' and 'new' wines can be further verified from certain commentaries that make up part of the Dead Sea Scrolls (specifically1QS 6:4-6; 1QSa 2:17-18, 20; 1QH 10:24). These were written by the hyper-legalistic Essene monastics who lived at precisely the same time as Jesus, and the original Church. Their penchant for legalism aside, they too drank wine. So, according to the evidence, the principal difference between 'new wine' and 'old wine' was the degree of fermentation, and not the fact of the same (intoxication from 'new wine' is referred to in Isaiah 49:26; Hosea 4:11; and Acts 2:13). It's probably also wise to briefly consider the 'old versus new' wineskin issue. According to contemporary Jewish and Greek sources, four to six days after the grapes were crushed, the juice was drawn off the press and placed in stone jars lined with pitch (the Greek amphorae), or in whole tanned goatskins. As the wine fermented and released carbon dioxide the skin expanded, with the entire process of frementation taking between two to four months. Old wineskins couldn't be reused to store 'new wine' because they had already expanded to their limit, and the expansion required in the fermentation of new wine would burst them.

Jesus drank wine (see Matthew 11:18-19). Further, he instituted its use in Communion. Paul directed Timothy to drink wine (1 Timothy 5:23), just as he directed church leaders to be responsible in their moderation when using the same (3:3; 3:8; Titus 1:7 and 2:3). And, of course, Peter too taught moderation (rather than abstinence) as a sign of Christian maturity (see 1 Peter 4:3).

So, are you fellows trying to be holier than Jesus? And are you more spiritual than Paul and Peter? The evidence doesn't seem to support your contention that the moderate consumption of alcoholic beverages is forbidden to Christians, and it certainly doesn't support Chris Jose's contention that to do so is to sin. So I ask you again, on what biblical/theological grounds do you fellows base your policy?

God bless,

Ian

$%*'`[L]%*'`@Reply to : L [Anonymous]

WOW! The above post of Ian's didn't even last 3 hours on the BRF forum before it was gotten rid of

Shame shame shame!

L

Reply to : MothandRust

---

I like the way Ian put this... thought I'd post it here before they delete it.Admin,A very simple question: is the RFafraidof people like me asking questions about your doctrines? Twice now you've seen fit to deleteperfectly reasonable questionsthat I raised, which resulted from your response to my post on alcohol.This indicates to me that (a) you're notreallyinterested in dialogue in the first place, (b) that you've absolutelyno intentionof openly engaging with others when it comes to obvious problems with your group's teachings, and (c) that you wish to exercisecomplete controlover all the information presented here, because you're well aware that you're on very shaky ground doctrinally.So, which is it? Is this 'Q

---

Poor Ian boy...
Who is saved by your argumentations and discussions...this "i am the best" or "i want do be right" attitude is very boring...
What are you doing for your own salvation? Only talking...?
Are you feel better with alcohol or without? Where would be the border, one glass, two or maybe three? What is more "a temple of the holy spirit"? One with alcohol or one without.
Is it more important to win a discussion rather than a soul?

God bless

$%*'`[L]%*'`@Reply to : Anonymous

Hi anonymous

Don't you think its important for Christians to get what the Bible teaches right? Or do you think its ok to invent doctrines that aren't biblical and then twist the scriptures to try and support them? What do you reckon God thinks about people who do this and abuse his word to promote legalism?

Really I'm interested in hearing what you think about the importance of truth.

L

$%*'`[mack]%*'`@Reply to : Anonymous

---

Poor Ian boy...Who is sa

---

Hi guys I'm guessing that Ians attempt at engaging in a meaningful way with BRF is not about promoting his own ego,rather its an effort to get people who use this site to question their beliefs and what they've accepted as truth.The linchpin to the majority of people within RF is their belief that they are filled with the Holy Spirit when they speak in tongues ( born again).Most discussion if not based around this point will not result in good communication because while Ian presents a very good case based in research there is a general mood in the wider communitee which leans toward a healthy lifestyle anyway.Correct me if I'm wrong it seems that most people leave their ranks because of shoddy treatment not because they found a discrepency in what the bible says and doctrine.To do that you need to study the word of God in all its forms eg hebrew to get a balanced veiw of its intent.

$%*'`[L]%*'`@Reply to : mack [Anonymous]

Hi guys I'm guessing that Ians attempt at engaging in a meaningful way with BRF is not about promoting his own ego,rather its an effort to get people who use this site to question their beliefs and what they've accepted as truth.The linchpin to the majority of people within RF is their belief that they are filled with the Holy Spirit when they speak in tongues ( born again).Most discussion if not based around this point will not result in good communication because while Ian presents a very good case based in research there is a general mood in the wider communitee which leans toward a healthy lifestyle anyway.Correct me if I'm wrong it seems that most people leave their ranks because of shoddy treatment not because they found a discrepency in what the bible says and doctrine.To do that you need to study the word of God in all its forms eg hebrew to get a balanced veiw of its intent.

Hi Mack

The moment anyone questions speaking in tongues with the Revs they just shut down and stop listening so its actually counter productive trying to talk with them on that topic. Ian's questions to the BRF show that there beliefs aren't based on what the Bible really says but comes from incorrect interpretations made by men who simply don't have the knowledge or skills to interpret the Bible correctly. I know he tries to get them to think about where this fact leads. (If they can't get a simple teaching about alcohol right then how can we trust them to get a much more important teaching about salvation right?)

Not everone leaves the RF just because of shoddy treatment. I left because of the doctrine. Quite a bit of stuff just didn't seem to add up for me and when I was pointed to Ian's webpage (www.pleaseconsider.info) it convinced me that what I thought was true wasn't true. People will still need to sort out the doctrine stuff sooner or later even if they do leave for other reasons.

L

$%*'`[mack]%*'`@cheers L , thanks for your reply just to clarify a point I said most not all people leave because of shoddy treatment.Its easy for people to fob of what they consider smaller doctrinal issues if they believe in the so called evidence of tongues.Revelations states that many will be decieved by miricles by the beast.I guess I like to get to the heart of the issue because you cant change what you dont acknowledge.Tongues is the bread and butter of the RF in dealing with their QandA sites I like to present a question in such a way so as reduce their credibility  on the site, lots of unanswered questions is not a good look .

Reply to : MothandRust

---

Reply to : AnonymousWhere would be the border, one glass, two or maybe three? What is more "a temple of the holy spirit"? One with alcohol or one without. Is it more important to win a discussion rather than a soul?Yes, better keep the temple clean eh? Are you relating the fat, meat, skin and bones of our body the temple where theSpirit resides? If so, I think that's a bit literal.It's all squashed up amongst the intestines and stuff is it? I would have thought the temple was more a spiritual concept and that we would be asked to keep our mind, heart and soul clear of impurity.But if you want to consider the human body as the literal vessel of the Spirit and want to keep it clean (Gee... overweight people are gonna be really sorry on judge

---

Me 1 / you 0
Bye looser...

$%*'`[L]%*'`@Heres the latest post to the BRF forum

L


Craig,

Given your actions of late, this is a question that I find I must ask. Are you fellows even remotely interested in finding out the truth concerning the issues being discussed, or are you only interesting in defending your fellowship's doctrines, come what may? You really do present the very distinct impression that you believe there's nothing that you can learn from people outside of your own small circle, even from someone who considerbly more knowledgeable in the contexts of Scripture than are you fellows. That smacks of pride bolstered by arrogance, my friend.

And that saddens me far more than simple ignorance.

Ian