top of page
Search

The Forbidden Process: Why 'Just One Drink' Betrays Christian Sobriety

ree

One glass of wine. One beer. One shot. That’s all it takes to start losing control. Science shows that a single standard drink, a 5-ounce glass of wine, a 12-ounce beer, or a 1.5-ounce shot of liquor, raises blood alcohol by about 0.02–0.04%. That’s exactly the point where judgment, focus, and reaction time already begin to weaken. Please note that body size, sex, food, pace, and time all change outcomes.

 

Science doesn’t set the standard for Christians; Scripture does, but what’s remarkable is that modern research only confirms what the Bible has been saying all along. God told us to be sober-minded long before researchers discovered impairment begins at just 0.02%.  An even lower number comes from the research from the National Safety Council, which confirms that alcohol impairment starts at concentrations as low as 0.015%, affecting multitasking, focus, and reaction time. Similarly, the CDC and other studies note that at 0.02% BAC, individuals experience altered mood, relaxation, and a slight loss of judgment, which aligns with the biblical call for mental sharpness. Science catches up with what Scripture has always required.

 

In plain words, the very first serving of alcohol begins to take away the sharpness of mind God commands us to guard, but Scripture doesn’t tell Christians, “Stay under the limit.” It says, “Be sober-minded” (1 Peter 5:8). Sober doesn’t mean “not falling down drunk.” It means clear-headed, self-controlled, and Spirit-filled. If even one drink starts to dull your clarity, why would a Christian open the door to it at all?

 

Sobriety Is God’s Standard, Not Moderation

 

The world says, “You’re fine as long as you’re under 0.08.” God says, “Be sober.” Those are not the same thing.

 

Paul writes, “Do not be drunk with wine, but be filled with the Spirit” (Ephesians 5:18). The verb “be drunk” (methúskō) denotes the process of becoming intoxicated, not merely the final state. Standard lexical authorities define it as “to make drunk” or “to grow drunk,” an inceptive idea marking the onset and progression toward drunkenness (Vine, Expository Dictionary); “to become intoxicated” (Thayer, Greek–English Lexicon); “to begin to be softened” (Young); “to be moistened… saturated with drink” (Bloomfield); and “to grow drunk, marking the beginning of methúō” (Bullinger).

 

For example, in Luke 12:45, Jesus warns about a servant who “begins to beat the servants and eat and drink and get drunk (methuskō).” The context shows a progression, eating, drinking, and then sliding into drunkenness. So, the verb methúskō includes both the process of becoming drunk and the resulting state. In Luke 12:45, it clearly highlights the progression toward drunkenness.

 

So, Paul’s use in Ephesians 5:18 fits the same pattern: the command forbids stepping onto the path of impairment at all. In other words, the command speaks against the entire slide, from the first sip that starts to dull judgment all the way to full intoxication, while telling believers to be filled with the Spirit instead.

 

Think of it like walking into a fog. The fog doesn’t just appear all at once; you step into it, and slowly the world around you grows hazy. Paul’s command is clear: Don’t even take the first step into the haze. Instead of letting wine take even a little control, Christians are to be filled with the Spirit, so that God’s Word guides every thought, every decision, and everything we say.

 

This is why moderation doesn’t solve the problem. From God’s perspective, “a little buzz” is already disobedience, because it begins the very process He told us to avoid.

 

Formal Deductive Syllogism

Premise 1: God commands Christians to be sober-minded at all times (1 Peter 5:8; Titus 2:2–6; 1 Thessalonians 5:6–8).

Premise 2: The biblical concept of sober-mindedness (Greek: nēphō, sōphroneō) entails full mental clarity and sound judgment, unclouded by intoxicants.

Premise 3: Scientific research shows that cognitive and motor impairment begins at blood alcohol concentrations (BAC) as low as 0.015% - 0.02%.

Premise 4: For many adults, one standard alcoholic drink raises BAC to 0.02% or higher.


Conclusion: Therefore, consuming even one alcoholic drink results in measurable impairment and violates the biblical command to remain sober-minded.

 

The Christian life calls us to walk with wisdom, not flirting with the edges of temptation but keeping a safe distance from it (Romans 13:14; Proverbs 4:14–15). God commands us to be sober-minded and watchful (1 Peter 5:8), maintaining clear judgment and alertness at all times. Science shows that impairment begins at blood alcohol levels as low as 0.015% - 0.02%, and for many people, a single drink reaches or exceeds that point. In other words, even so-called “moderation” already compromises the very clarity God requires. The truly prudent response is not to test the limits, but to stay entirely clear of alcohol. That is how we “abstain from every form of evil” (1 Thessalonians 5:22) and keep ourselves ready for the Lord’s service.

 

What One Standard Drink Really Does

Let’s break this down so it’s easy to picture:

  • In most states, the legal driving limit is 0.08% BAC (0.05% in Utah, 0.04% for commercial drivers).

  • One standard drink, a glass of wine, a can of beer, or a shot of liquor, usually raises BAC by 0.02–0.04%.

  • A smaller adult, for example, a 110-lb woman, can hit about 0.042% from a single glass of wine with rapid intake and no food intake.

  • Scientists agree: impairment begins at 0.02%. At that point, your ability to multitask, focus, and respond quickly is already reduced.

  • Alcohol is deceptive, and it makes you feel fine when you’re not. The very part of you it affects first is the brain, which you rely on to judge whether you’re “okay.”


So let’s be honest: one drink doesn’t make you “a little more relaxed.” It makes you less sharp, less alert, and less sober. According to deductive logic, if impairment begins at 0.015% - 0.02% BAC and one standard drink causes 0.02–0.04%, then it logically follows that one drink enters the zone of impairment. Thus, it is not a “neutral act” but the first step in the prohibited process of mental dulling. Since God wants us to be sober-minded, then even one drink goes against His will.

 

God’s Expectation for His People

 

The New Testament consistently teaches that every group in the church: elders, deacons, their wives, older men, older women, younger men, and younger women, is supposed to be sober.

 

  • Elders/Overseers must be “not given to wine” (me paroinon) and “sober-minded” (nephalios) (1 Timothy 3:2–3; Titus 1:7). The word paroinos literally means “not alongside wine,” not even near it. The word nephalios means “holding no wine” or “wineless,” free from the influence of intoxicants. This doesn’t mean “don’t get drunk,” but “stay completely clear.”

  • Deacons are told not to be “given to much wine” (1 Timothy 3:8). Some take this to mean a little is allowed, but that logic collapses. If “not much” means “a little is fine,” then by the same logic, Ecclesiastes 7:17 (“Be not overmuch wicked”) would mean “a little wickedness is fine.” Absurd! Grammatically, “not much wine” (mē oinō pollō prosechontas) uses prosechō, which means “to turn one’s mind toward, to occupy oneself with.” It forbids attachment, not permits a lesser degree. Paul’s point is not, “Some is fine,” but “Don’t have your mind turned toward it at all.

  • Deacons’ wives (or women serving in a deacon-like role) are required to be “sober/temperate” (nephalious, 1 Timothy 3:11). The word literally means “abstaining from wine”. It’s the same word used for priests in the Old Testament who were not allowed to drink wine while serving God.

  • Older women are told not to be “enslaved to much wine” (Titus 2:3). Enslavement doesn’t begin at the tenth drink. It starts with the first taste, which sets the chain of influence in motion. They are instead to teach and model holiness for younger women.

  • Older men are commanded to be “sober” (nephalios, Titus 2:2), literally abstaining from wine.

  • Younger women are told to be “discreet” and self-controlled (Titus 2:5), and younger men are told to be “sober-minded” (Titus 2:6). Both terms emphasize clarity of thought, self-control, and freedom from anything that clouds judgment.


When considered collectively, a pattern emerges: all groups in the church are expected to abstain from drinking. Across Titus 2 and 1 Timothy 3, the sobriety terms nēphō / nēphálios / sōphroneō consistently emphasize clear-headed self-control and, at times, abstinence; taken together, they shape a church culture of sobriety, rather than social drinking. So, elders are expected to maintain clarity, as are deacons, their wives, older members, and younger members of both genders.

 

To argue otherwise leads to nonsense: elders can’t drink, but deacons can; older men can’t drink, but older women can; deacons can, but their wives can’t. Scripture does not contradict itself in that manner. The unified message is absolute: God calls His whole church to sobriety, not moderation.

 

Answering Common Objections

 

“Isn’t it okay as long as I don’t get drunk?”

 

No. Drunkenness isn’t a line you magically cross at 0.08; it’s a process that begins with the very first drink. Science shows impairment starts at 0.015% - 0.02%, which means even one standard serving is already pushing you in the wrong direction. God’s command is to avoid that process entirely.

 

To avoid the fallacy of the slippery slope, let me clarify: this is not an argument that “one drink always leads to drunkenness,” but that the biblical definition of drunkenness includes the beginning of impairment. The Greek verb methusko in Ephesians 5:18 is inceptive, and it prohibits entering the condition, not just the endpoint.

 

And think about it: if “a little is fine as long as you don’t lose control” were true, then why stop with alcohol? Could a Christian justify “just a little” cocaine? “Just a little” marijuana? “Just a little” meth? Of course not. We know that the very nature of those drugs makes them off-limits for believers, because even in small amounts, they cloud the mind and open the door to bondage. Alcohol is no different. The fact that it’s legal and socially accepted doesn’t make it spiritually safe.

 

The Bible doesn’t call us to manage sin or substances that impair us; it calls us to stay sober-minded and Spirit-filled. That means the only safe and obedient path is not moderation, but abstinence.

 

“But Paul told Timothy to use a little wine for his stomach.”

 

True, but we need to look closely at what’s happening in that passage (1 Timothy 5:23). First, the word “wine” (oinos) in the Bible can mean either fermented or unfermented grape juice, so we can’t assume it was alcoholic, but even if some fermentation was present, the instruction was strictly medicinal, not social or recreational. Taking medicine for health is not the same as drinking to relax, to celebrate, or to fit in.

 

And notice something important: Paul actually had to tell Timothy to use a little wine for his stomach. Why? Because Timothy had been avoiding wine altogether. He was determined not to give the wrong impression, not to be a bad example, and not to open himself up to accusations, so he completely refrained from touching it. Paul had to urge him to make an exception for his health.

 

That tells us two things:

1.     Timothy lived in such a way that no one could accuse him of misusing wine.

2.     His default pattern was total abstinence, so much so that even when it might have helped his health, he still stayed away until Paul encouraged him otherwise.


If Timothy avoided wine to keep a pure example, shouldn’t we do the same?

 

“Didn’t Jesus turn water into wine at Cana?”

 

This is one of the most common defenses for drinking, but it doesn’t hold up when we look carefully. First, the word “wine” (oinos) in Scripture is a generic term. It was used for both fermented and unfermented grape juice. So the word alone doesn’t prove it was alcoholic. To claim (oinos) always means alcoholic wine” is an example of equivocation, assigning a single definition across all contexts without justification. This violates sound lexical methodology.

 

Ancient writers like Pliny the Elder, Columella, and even Jewish sources (like the Mishnah) describe methods for preserving grape juice unfermented, by boiling, filtering, sealing, or storing it in cool places. For example, Pliny the Elder described boiling and filtering grape juice to prevent fermentation, while Columella noted sealing it in cool storage to maintain its sweetness without the addition of alcohol. The Mishnah references wine filters for similar purposes, confirming that unfermented options were common. Thus ‘oinos’ is a generic term; unfermented wine was known and used. Nothing in John 2 forces an intoxicating reading, and everything about Christ’s holiness resists it.

 

So when the Bible uses the word oinos, it doesn’t force us to assume fermentation. Both Scripture and history show that unfermented wine was well-known and available.

 

Second, consider the setting: Jesus made 120–180 gallons of this drink for people who had already “drunk freely.” Are we to believe the sinless Son of God created a massive supply of intoxicating drink that could push an already well-supplied group into drunkenness? That would directly contradict His own Word, which pronounces woe on the one who gives drink to his neighbor and causes drunkenness (Habakkuk 2:15) and condemns drinking parties as works of the flesh (1 Peter 4:3).

 

Note: ‘had drunk freely’ can also be rendered ‘had plenty’; the verb (methysthōsin) varies in translation and does not require inebriation. And since Peter condemns the drinking-party (pótos), it is inconsistent to read John 2 as Jesus facilitating a forbidden setting.

 

Jesus never promoted sin, nor would He encourage behavior that leads people closer to it. His first miracle was not an endorsement of social drinking but a display of His glory and power. The most consistent understanding is that Jesus made the highest quality, fresh grape juice that brought happiness without making anyone drunk or dishonoring His Father.

 

Doesn’t the Bible call wine a blessing?

 

People often point to Deuteronomy 14:26 and Psalm 104:15 and say, “See, wine is a blessing, so moderate drinking must be fine.” But when we read carefully, these passages actually support sobriety, not social drinking.

 

1) What Deuteronomy 14 is really talking about (worship, not recreation)

 

Deuteronomy 14:23–26 is about bringing the tithe to the place God chooses so His people can worship and rejoice before Him.

 

  • Verse 23 lists what is brought from the harvest: grain, new wine (Hebrew: tirosh), and oil. “New wine” points to the fresh product of the vine, the grape harvest itself.

  • If the place of worship is too far, verse 26 says they can convert the tithe to money and buy what’s needed when they arrive: oxen, sheep, wine (Hebrew: yayin), or strong drink (Hebrew: šēkār).

  • Then God gives the key instruction: “You shall eat there before the LORD your God and rejoice.” Notice the action word: eat. The command is about a holy meal in God’s presence, not about sipping alcohol to relax.


This fits the pattern seen elsewhere in the Law: when “wine” is linked to worship, it is often poured out to the LORD as a drink-offering (a libation), not passed around to the people to drink (see Numbers 28:7; Exodus 29:40). So Deuteronomy 14 is describing what to bring and use in worship, not giving a green light for recreational drinking.

 

2) Why the words in verse 26 don’t require alcohol in the cup

 

Verse 23 uses tirosh (“new wine,” fresh produce). Verse 26 switches to wider marketplace labels: yayin (“wine”) and šēkār (“strong drink”). That shift doesn’t automatically mean “alcoholic beverage in your hand.” In this worship setting, many readers understand “wine and strong drink” to be a generic purchasing phrase, a catch-all for grape/fruit products available in the town, including unfermented options like fresh juice or concentrated syrups used in offerings and festival meals.

 

Think of it like a shopping list on a receipt: “meat, bread, and drinks.” The word “drinks” is generic and it doesn’t tell you whether it’s soda, juice, or tea. In the same way, yayin and šēkār can function as broad labels; context tells you what kind.

 

Three clues in the passage push us toward non-intoxicating use:

1.     The place: this is God’s presence. Priests were forbidden to drink wine or strong drink while serving (Leviticus 10:9; Ezekiel 44:21). Holiness requires clear heads.

2.     The action: God specifically commands them to eat before Him (v. 26). Even if “eat” can sometimes include drinking in a general way, the stated verb plus the holy setting point away from worshipers consuming intoxicants.

3.     The pattern: elsewhere in worship, the wine is poured out to God as a libation (Numbers 28:7; Exodus 29:40). The people eat; the libation is God’s.

Put together: Deuteronomy 14 is about God’s table, God’s offerings, and God’s people eating with joy and clarity, not about “having a drink.”

 

3) Plain-language meanings of the key Hebrew words

 

  • Tirosh (“new wine”): fresh grape product from the harvest; naturally points to unfermented produce.

  • Yayin (“wine”): a generic word for grape drink; depending on context, it can be fermented or unfermented.

  • Šēkār (“strong drink”): a broad category for fruit-based beverages (date, pomegranate, barley, etc.). Most lexicons say it often refers to an intoxicating drink, and early writers like Jerome described it as covering “every kind of drink that can intoxicate.” The root of the word is connected to “sugar” and “cider,” and some passages suggest it was initially valued for its sweetness (Isaiah 24:9 mentions šēkār turning “bitter” after fermentation). That means, at least in some cases, it could have been unfermented.

    Modern reference works and studies concur that šēkār functions as a generic beverage term whose exact sense is decided by context: Samuele Bacchiocchi notes its linkage to sweetness (with Isaiah 24:9 depicting bitterness as fermentation sets in), Louis Rushmore, citing Robert Young’s Analytical Concordance, states it may denote fermented or unfermented drink, W. D. Jeffcoat treats the Bible’s beverage words as generic rather than inherently alcoholic, and discussions drawing on A. R. S. Kennedy, Moses Stuart, and Frederick R. Lees describe šēkār as a comprehensive “sweet/cider” category that could be kept unfermented; therefore in Deuteronomy 14:26 the phrase “wine and strong drink” can naturally operate as a generic purchasing label that includes unfermented grape products for worship use, not a warrant for recreational alcohol.


Since the context of Deuteronomy 14 is worship, with tirosh already named in verse 23, it is reasonable to read the phrase “wine and strong drink” in verse 26 as generic, including unfermented grape products, which align with what the people were originally instructed to bring. Even if it could be proven to be fermented, again, it was for the purpose of pouring it out to God, not drinking.

 

4) What about Psalm 104:15?

 

Psalm 104 celebrates God’s good gifts in creation:

  • “wine that makes glad the heart of man,”

  • “oil to make his face shine,”

  • “bread to strengthen man’s heart.”


The point is God’s provision and joy, not “God approves impairment.” Joy can come from refreshment, taste, nourishment, and harvest abundance. In other places, Scripture even speaks of “wine” in the presses, which is fresh juice before fermentation (see Isaiah 16:10; Jeremiah 48:33). So “wine” language doesn’t have to mean “alcohol you drink to feel it.”

 

5) The takeaway

  • Deuteronomy 14 is about worship, not weekend recreation.

  • The people are told to eat before the LORD, while “wine” tied to worship is poured out to God.

  • The phrase “wine and strong drink” can be a generic shopping phrase that includes unfermented grape products, especially since tirosh (new wine) was already in view.

  • Psalm 104 praises God’s provision; it doesn’t invite Christians to cloud their minds.


So, when the Bible calls wine a “blessing,” it celebrates the fruit of the vine as God’s good gift and the joy of His table, not endorsing social drinking. Everywhere else, God warns that intoxicating drink is a mocker and a curse (Proverbs 20:1; Habakkuk 2:15). So, we should keep a clear mind for God, for others, and for the work He’s called us to do.

 

“Isn’t this legalism?”

 

No. Legalism occurs when people add man-made rules in an attempt to earn salvation. Sobriety is not legalism; it is obedience to what God clearly commands. The call to be sober-minded runs throughout the New Testament (1 Peter 1:13; 5:8; 1 Thessalonians 5:6). This is not about trying to get saved by following rules; it’s about living in holiness because we are saved.

 

Think of it this way: A father who tells his child, “Don’t play in the street,” isn’t being legalistic; he’s being loving. In the same way, God’s warnings about alcohol aren’t to steal our joy but to protect us from harm and keep us filled with His Spirit. Choosing sobriety isn’t legalism, it’s wisdom. It’s love for God, love for others, and love for your own soul.

 

Love Raises the Standard

 

Even if someone says, “I can handle one drink,” or “I don’t think one drink is sinful,” the real question is: what about others?

 

Paul writes, “It is good not to drink wine or do anything that causes your brother to stumble” (Romans 14:21). Paul’s logic implies a form of conditional syllogism:

If an act may cause my brother to stumble,and if love requires me to protect my brother,then I must avoid that act, regardless of my liberty.

This isn’t trying to make you feel guilty; it’s a logical conclusion based on simple truths: caring for others matters more than personal freedom, and keeping others safe is more important than personal preferences. Perhaps you could limit yourself to one drink, but what if someone sees your example and is unable to stop? What if your liberty becomes their downfall? Love doesn’t say, “I can handle it.” Love says, “I won’t risk hurting you.”

 

Paul didn’t just teach this principle; he lived it. In 1 Corinthians 8:13, he said, “If food makes my brother stumble, I will never eat meat again.” If Paul would abstain from something as neutral as meat for the sake of others, how much more should we abstain from alcohol, a substance that ruins lives daily, for the sake of love?

 

Beyond the church, look at the broader picture. Alcohol has left a trail of devastation: broken families, abused children, wrecked marriages, violent crimes, and lives cut short on highways. In the U.S. alone, excessive alcohol use causes over 178,000 deaths annually, including from diseases, accidents, and violence. It's a factor in 40% of violent crimes, and up to 73% of homicides in some studies. Globally, it claims 3 million lives yearly, often shattering families through abuse and addiction. As Christians, participating even moderately normalizes a substance that wreaks such havoc, so why not model the higher path of sobriety? To drink socially is to play with the very thing that destroys so many lives. Why would a Christian, who is to be salt and light, willingly give alcohol a seat at the table?

 

True love raises the bar higher than personal preference. It says, “Even if I could, I won’t because I care more about God’s glory and my neighbor’s good than I do about a drink.”

 

Alcohol is like a snake in the grass. Some people say, “It’s harmless if you don’t get too close,” but Scripture doesn’t tell us to flirt with the snake; it tells us to stay away from it. Why risk the first bite when God has already warned us of the poison?

 

Conclusion: The Only Right Choice

 

While some Christians interpret specific passages to allow moderation in non-addictive contexts, the weight of lexical, historical, and scientific evidence points toward never using fermented drink socially or recreationally.

Let’s put it as simply as possible:

  • One standard drink begins the process of drunkenness.

  • The Bible calls us to sobriety, not moderation.

  • All of God’s people are commanded to stay sober-minded.

  • Love means choosing clarity, not compromise.


So why risk it? Why drink what God calls a mocker and what science proves dulls the mind from the very first glass or shot?

 

The best life is the sober life that is Spirit-filled, clear-headed, and ready for every good work. If it clouds my mind, weakens my example, or can cause my brother or sister to stumble, I don’t need it. I will stay sober on purpose for God, for others, and for the joy of living clear.

 

Questions for Self-Examination

 

Here are some questions for you to consider, both academically and personally. Let them challenge your conscience and bring the Word of God to bear on your choices.

 

A. Wisdom & Sobriety (General)

1.     If God calls wine “a mocker” and warns that whoever is led by it is “not wise,” why would a Christian choose to flirt with it at all?

2.     If the Spirit commands “do not be drunk with wine, but be filled with the Spirit,” why would I start the process that leads to drunkenness by taking the first drink? (Note: the verb for “become drunk” marks the beginning of intoxication.)

3.     Peter condemns drinking parties (πότος). If the New Testament forbids the setting, what room is left for “social” drinking?

4.     If Scripture says to “abstain from every form of evil,” and alcohol dulls judgment from the first sip, isn’t abstinence the safest obedience?

5.     If kings and leaders needed clear heads, how much more do Christians who represent Christ as salt and light need unimpaired minds?

B. “Jesus Made Wine at Cana” – Was It Alcoholic?

6.     If “wine” in the Bible is a generic term that can mean fresh grape juice or fermented drink, why assume the Cana wine was intoxicating?

7.     If ancients like Pliny the Elder, Columella, and the Mishnah record methods of preserving grape juice unfermented, why think Jesus had to make an alcoholic beverage?

8.     Would the sinless Christ create 120–180 gallons of intoxicant for guests, when some translations suggest they had already “drunk freely”? Or is it better to read it as “had plenty,” with no drunkenness implied?

9.     Habakkuk pronounces “woe” on the one who gives drink to his neighbor to make him drunk; would Jesus produce a beverage that moves people in that direction?

10. If Jesus calls us to avoid fellowship with darkness, is it reasonable that He supplied more alcohol to a “drinking party” (which Peter condemns)?

C. The “Moderation” Idea

11. If “not given to much wine” permitted some wine, would “be not over much wicked” (Ecclesiastes 7:17) permit some wickedness? Isn’t that the fallacy of turning a warning into permission?

12. If drinking parties and wine-drinking itself are listed among the behaviors Christians have left behind (1 Peter 4:3), why would “a little moderation” reopen the very door Christ closed?

D. Church Roles & the Greek Terms (1 Timothy 3; Titus 1–2)

13. Elders: Why does God require an overseer to be μὴ πάροινον (mē paroinon, “not alongside wine”) and also νήφαλιον (nēphalion, “sober/free from wine”)? What picture does that paint?

14. Deacons: If μὴ οἴνῳ πολλῷ προσέχοντας (mē oinō pollō prosechontas) means “not devoted/attentive to much wine,” does that sound like permission, or like a demand to have no attachment at all?

15. Older women: If μὴ οἴνῳ πολλῷ δεδουλωμένας (mē oinō pollō dedoulōmenas) means “not enslaved to much wine,” and they’re to train the young women, what example does that call for?

16. Older men: Titus 2:2 uses νήφαλιος (nēphalios), literally “abstinent, sober.” If older men must be abstinent, is it plausible that Scripture simultaneously blesses “a little” for others?

17. Women (1 Timothy 3:11): If “women likewise… νηφαλίους” (sober/temperate) parallels the elder’s and older men’s sobriety, do these clustered terms suggest a consistent trajectory of total sobriety across all groups?

18. Taken together, paroinos (not near wine), prosechō (not attending/devoted), dedoulōmenai (not enslaved), nēphalios (abstinent), do these words sound like the Holy Spirit is carving out a safe space for casual drinking, or urging a church culture of clear-headed abstinence?

E. Influence & Love for Others

19. If love avoids causing a brother to stumble, why would I normalize what ruins so many lives and weakens Christian influence? (Romans 14:21)

20. If even minimal alcohol influences the brain’s higher judgment centers, why would a Christ-follower choose to dull discernment?

21. If every passage, every example, every warning, and even love for others points toward abstinence, why would I still look for reasons to justify “just one drink”?

 

 

 
 
 

Comments

bottom of page