Hubris In The Pulpits: 14 Problems With Advocating Complete Abstinence Of Alcohol Consumption

It is quite obvious that those who are advocating complete abstinence on the consumption of alcohol have absolutely no foundation for their belief in this matter and very well know it. It is becoming quite obvious that they do not care whether Scripture teaches their position or not. Thus, I am seriously considering abandoning my exposition of this issue. Why? The continuous bombardment of Scriptural teachings contrary to their position is causing many to have their hearts hardened. In order to persist with their beliefs in this matter they are forced to adopt a liberal position on the nature of the Scriptures. Those who are advocating complete abstinence on the drinking of alcohol standing on the wrong side of the Word of God and that is an unpleasant position to be in, especially for conservative Christians. One wonders to what extremes these people will go to in order to persist in this un-Scriptural position.

Some people on either side of this issue may be wondering why this issue is such a bog deal at all. Now I myself am far more concerned about the “tongues” doctrine because it is far more important than the “alcohol” doctrine. True, both doctrinal issues concern the inerrancy and sufficiency of Scripture and both concern the a group of believers enforcing their preference upon other believers to abstain from a practice encouraged in Scripture; but the “tongues” doctrine involves the primary issue of a believers God-given right to worship his or her Creator while the “alcohol” doctrine merely involves the rejection of the liberty of the Christian to practice his or her Faith. Both are important but the “alcohol” doctrine is mere legalism when compared to the heinous and blasphemous manner by which believers in the IMB have set themselves up as the medium by which man communes with God.

But this difference does not mean that the rejection of the “alcohol” doctrine by the SBC is a minor matter in of itself; it is very important. Unfortunately, most believers are virtually ignorant of much that is generally important about the Faith. This general ignorance appears to escalate once a person gets a seminary education and climbs into positions of leadership within an ecclesiastical body. What becomes important is positional polity and public appearance, even to the detriment of one’s faith. In the common polity of the Church, the general consensus of the majority is based upon the most common denominator which is often mere surface cognizance and the results of “the tyranny of first beliefs”. Thus, individual believers do not give serious consideration to either the bases or consequences of their ignorant and obstinate false beliefs. And, unfortunately, the leaders of these ignorant believers instead of preaching the Word to their flock and correcting such “heresy” prefer either to overlook such “heterodoxy” in order to avoid criticism or to add stoke the fires of such “heterodoxy” in order to attain praise. Regardless, these “pastors” are deficient in their calling and ignorant of the serious hubris they are inflicting upon their flock’s faith.

What is the hubris to which I am referring?

Advocating complete abstinence of alcohol consumption is ...

1) Contrary to Scriptural teachings. This is a point that no one has seriously denied with any credibility. In fact, the arguments being made for such abstinence are conspicuously lacking in Scriptural teachings. This should not be surprising because any argument based upon Scriptural teachings runs the risk of being overwhelmed by Scripture itself. Thus, in order to avoid such a risk, Scripture is avoided.

2) Contrary to the principle of Christ as our example. This is no small point. Prior Southern Baptist confessions of faith held that Jesus was the criterion on which Scripture should be interpreted. This meant that the believer can separate commands of the OT which conflict with commands of the NT by the example of Jesus. Thus the command to honor the Sabbath is based upon Christ’s example and His interpretation of the command and not our own. Thus the dietary commands of Leviticus are negated by Christ’s proclamations of making all animals “clean”. However, the 2000 BFM removed this hermeneutic point.

If we actually believe that Jesus Christ is the fullest presentation of God in His example of word and action, then we must agree that what Jesus did in His earthly life as recorded in Scripture is an example by which we ourselves can live. Thus, Jesus drank alcohol, Jesus created alcohol, Jesus offered alcohol to others, and Jesus drank alcohol with others. Of course, the Pharisees criticized Jesus for doing these things. By requiring believers to abstain from alcohol, one is denying that Christ is our perfect example and the Word of God and siding with the Pharisees in this matter.

3) Adding to the Scriptures. The Bible is very clear about the dangers of adding to the teachings of Scripture. Furthermore, both Jesus and Paul spend a lot of time teaching against holding up the traditions of men on the level of the teachings of God. Read Luke-Acts and Galatians, in particular; the Judaizers that Luke and Paul are denouncing were attempting to force their cultural prerogatives upon Gentile believers. The Judaizers were so determined that every believer should honor Jewish cultural distinctives that were continually breaking fellowship with those who didn’t conform. Sound familiar?

4) A denial of “our freedom in Christ”. The believer has freedom to drink and eat despite the cultural conditions of man. This is a teaching taught by Jesus, Paul, Luke, Peter and James. Despite the blithering ignorance and demagoguery of many in the SBC, no one is abusing “our freedom in Christ” by following Christian teachings. One can abuse “our freedom in Christ” by acting in a manner contrary to Scripture or in a manner which the Scriptures are explicitly silent on, but no one can abuse “our freedom in Christ” by acting in accordance with both Scripture and the example set by Christ. Those who make this accusation are Judaizing.

5) A misinterpretation and misapplication of the doctrine of avoiding “stumbling blocks to them that are weak”. While the Scriptures are clear about avoiding stumbling blocks for weak brothers it does not give the “weak brother” carte blanche to enforce his personal preference upon other believers, particularly with regards to that which is advocated in Scriptural teachings. If a weak brother could stumble by consuming alcohol in his presence, then do not consume alcohol in his presence (1 Cor 8:7-13). However, this doctrine does not mean that one is to abstain from drinking alcohol even when a weak brother is absent. If that was the case, then both Jesus, the disciples, Paul and Timothy sinned when they advocated and consumed alcohol.

6) An abuse of the “holiness” doctrine. Some are arguing that to drink alcohol does not make one “holy”. Neither drinking alcohol nor not drinking alcohol is considered “holy” in Scripture. To say that total abstinence makes one appear more holy is to set up a false standard of what it means to be holy. If this was even remotely true, then Jesus is not “holy”.

7) Against the cultural traditions of our national culture. Some have argued that consuming alcohol is contrary to our culture. First, Scripture is above culture. Second, abstaining from alcohol is a recent addition to Christian culture which began in the early 1800s. Even then, it began as a movement to moderate drinking (which is Scriptural) and not eliminate it. Only later did Baptists (in the South) move beyond and contrary to the teachings of Scripture and advocate total abstinence. Third, it is largely the very recent traditions of fundamentalists and Baptists in the Southern part of the United States which insists upon total abstinence. The rest of Christendom only insists upon moderation and non-intoxication which, again, is Scriptural. To claim that total abstinence is the cultural tradition of our culture is not true.

8) Presenting to the world a false view of our Faith. To insist upon total abstinence is to present to the non-Christian world a false picture of the Christian Faith. The Christian Faith and the Scriptures on which it is based does not advocate total abstinence on drinking alcohol. To do so adds to the gospel message. To do so adds practices contrary to discipleship. To do so publicly dismisses and negates true Scriptural commands and prohibitions regarding the consumption of alcohol. To do so cheapens our claim to follow the teachings of Christ and the Scriptures.

9) Dismissing and negating true Scriptural commands and prohibitions regarding the consumption of alcohol. By advocating additional commands to the Scriptural teachings, its true teachings of moderation, non-intoxication and avoiding the stumbling of a weak brother becomes irrelevant matters of no importance.

10) Denying the inerrancy of the Scriptures. To insist upon total abstinence is to make the practical claim that the Scriptures are incorrect when teaching upon this issue. Thus the authority of the Scripture is diminished and made irrelevant.

11) Denying the sufficiency of the Scriptures. To insist upon total abstinence is to make the practical claim that the teachings of Scripture is not sufficient in matters of the Faith and that extra-Biblical teachings are required to make the man of God may be perfect. Thus the authority of the Scripture is diminished and made irrelevant.

12) Hypocritical. Many who advocate total abstinence argue that we need to present a “holy” outward appearance. This is a hypocritical stance denounced in Scripture because neither drinking alcohol nor not drinking alcohol is considered “holy” in Scripture. To say that total abstinence makes one appear more holy is to set up a false standard of what it means to be holy and then present oneself as meeting that standard. This is hypocrisy.

13) Avoids the actual problem those who advocate total abstinence seek to address. All of the problems that those advocate who total abstinence seek to address (alcohol dependency, physical and sexual abuse, destroyed families, etc.) are not caused by using alcohol but by abusing alcohol. The social and spiritual problems that need to be addressed by the Church need to be addressed in the manner taught by Scripture and not by a manner of man’s own devising. It is the height of man’s arrogance to think that we can address the problems of man better than God. In His Scriptures, God has dealt with the abuse of alcohol and given His command on how its abuse should addressed by the Church. Do we believe that we know more than God? Do we believe that God has not sufficiently addressed this problem? To apply the teachings of man over and against the teachings of God is to doom both individuals and a culture to their sin while we avoid the actual problem.

14) Selfish. Those who advocate total abstinence are being selfish. How so?

a. They are elevating their own personal preference to the level of Scripture and, thus, claiming it to be the Word of God.

b. They are forcing the minority of believers to conform to their un-Scriptural prerogatives in order to maintain both fellowship and service in the Church.


In essence and to sum all of this up, this is hubris on the grandest scale possible by a sincere believer. Those who advocate total abstinence are rejecting Scripture and elevating their own cultural preferences as the Word of God. In reality, they are standing on the wrong side of the Word of God and teaching a gospel contrary to that which was proclaimed by Christ (Gal 1:6-13).