Doug Wilson Nails It

Since my last two articles on alcohol this is exactly what I've been dealing with. So without further ado here are some extremely helpful words from Doug Wilson:

The Bible is a discomfiting book, for lots of people. It often says and teaches things we would rather not hear about, and represents God in ways that are disconcerting to those who would like to be known for their piety. But because man is devious, and has sought out many devices (Ecc. 7:29), we have developed various ways to work around this problem that the Bible creates. In theological circles, the ways of getting around what the Scriptures actually teach can be reduced to two broad categories—the liberal and the conservative approach.

The liberal approach rejects the practical authority of Scripture, but is oftentimes more to be trusted with what the text of Scripture actually says than the conservative approach is. This is true even though the conservatives are the ones who stoutly profess that the “Bible is the inerrant Word of God, without error in all that it affirms.” The reason is because the liberal approach is not actually stuck with having to live with the results of the exegesis. Liberalism is the way of rejection, reserving the right to say that while the Bible may teach thus and such, “we have all grown past that now.” This is why the liberal can acknowledge that the Bible teaches a particular doctrine, or sets before us a particular example, and then go on to say, “Wasn’t that quaint? ho, ho, ho.”

 The conservative, on the other hand, has to live with what he claims the Bible says. If he doesn’t want to live with it, if it conflicts with his traditions or most deeply cherished beliefs, then he has to make sure that his interpretation comes out in an acceptable fashion. Unlike the liberal, he does not have the option of acknowledging that Jesus drank wine, “but that He would have come to a more suitable position had His life not ended so tragically and so soon.”

 Thus it is ironic that many conservatives, who stand for the infallible authority of Scripture on every topic it addresses, are simply unwilling for the Bible to be okay with an amber bottle of Glenfiddich in a godly man’s cabinet. But the Bible is okay with it (Dt. 14:26), and my chances of getting a liberal exegete to tell me what the text actually says on this point are better than getting a tee-totaling conservative to do so.

 Ironically, many conservatives sheepishly acknowledge that the Bible does not prohibit the drinking of alcohol (quite the opposite), but go on to say that for the sake of a “good testimony” we should still swear off the stuff. Apart from the problems created by trying to have a better testimony than the Bible has, there is also the difficulty caused by the fact that tee-totalism provides its very own kind of bad testimony (emphasis mine).*

This is from Wilson's foreword to Joel McDurmon's book What Would Jesus Drink? A Spirit Filled Study. It is a very short book (145 pages). It is quite expensive for a hardcover copy and cheaper for the Kindle version. It is quite worth the read. It gives a great theological and exegetical presentation for the positive view of the proper consumption of alcohol. It also warns of the abuses and dangers of it and deals masterfully with the proof texts presented by prohibitionists.

When one side cannot answer for passages presented to them but only present their misunderstandings of their own, it is quite revealing of a position. McDurmon presents biblical proof that alcohol is a blessing from the Lord while answering the objections, from Scripture, of it's opponents.

Soli Deo Gloria!

For His Glory,
Fernando


*McDurmon, Joel; Wilson, Douglas (2011-08-19). What Would Jesus Drink? A Spirit Filled Study (Kindle Locations 91-1115). Tolle Lege Press. Kindle Edition.