>Re: >Re: wine

Eduardo G. Moros (moros_eg@castor.wustl.edu)
Fri, 31 Aug 1956 02:43:31 -0600

I think the issue of wine is crucial to the debate. If a common word such as
"wine" can be interpreted as anyone likes in order to hold a particular
position, we'll never get anywhere because we cease to be interested in the
truth and are more interested in defending our particular position
close-mindedly. John Macarthur, the famous preacher from Grace to You in
California, who I considered to be in the extreme conservative crowd, has a
good treatment on wine. His conclusion was that the Bible does not forbid
fermented wine drinking although his recommendation is to avoid it as the
plague. So here you have it, even a well-educated conservative theologian can
admit to the type of wine at Cana.

Salu2

> Re: >Re: wine
>
> Terry M. Gray (grayt@lamar.colostate.edu)
> Mon, 27 Oct 1997 15:41:32 -0700
> Art,
>
> As one who "considered" Seventh Day Adventism for over three years while in
> college and graduate school, I know where you are coming from. I think
> that it's only fair to the group and to the debate to let people know where
> you are coming from.
>
> While I embrace Seventh Day Adventists as fellow believers, I think that at
> crucial points in their theology (7th day sabbatarianism, 1844 theology,
> vegetarianism, foot washing as sacrament, the "non-existence" of the
> intermediate state, annihilationism, young-earth creationism, and even
> wine=unfermented grape juice, to name a few), the doctrines of the church
> derive more from the writings and "visions" of Ellen G. White than from a
> study of scripture.
>
> Adventist scholars try mightily to find Adventist doctrine in the Bible
> and, no doubt, those scholars and people like yourself truly believe that
> these things are taught in scripture. But, let's face it, Adventist
> theology on its most distinctive points is a odds with the rest of
> christendom and most Christian scholars and even evangelical Christian
> scholars do not share your conclusions. Adventist scholars who begin to
> question these things and drift to more traditional evangelical belief are
> branded as heretics. I'm thinking of Desmond Ford, Robert Brinsmead, and
> Ron Numbers--perhaps there are others.
>
> Of course, some of these doctrines are found in other communions, e.g.
> innovative eschatology, young-earth creationism, and "wine=unfermented
> grape juice". I believe that this has a lot to do with the state of
> American evangelicalism in the mid 1800's.
>
> By the way, while I haven't read Bacchiochi on Biblical wine, I have read
> "From Sabbath to Lord's Day", and while it certainly is a scholarly work,
> and has some commendable features, in the end, I must reject its basic
> premise.
>
> While this post doesn't settle the debate--I don't want to be guilty of any
> genetic fallacy--I do think it sheds light on some of the presuppositions
> of the debate.
>
> TG
>
> >At 06:56 PM 8/30/70 -0600, you wrote:
> >>I'm aware of the different meanings of "wine". At Cana's wedding party,
> >>however, it is obvious from the text that the *good* wine was fermented.
> >
> >Obvious to whom? Possibly it may be obvious to one inculcated in western
> >decadent thought about what is "good" in wine. Personally I would not
> >choose fermented wine or reconstituted preserved wine over the fresh
> >variety, in any circumstance, and I would suggent the wedding guests in
> >Cana felt likewise.
> >Art
> >http://chadwicka.swau.edu
>
> _________________
> Terry M. Gray, Computer Support Scientist