Alcohol Today: Abstinence in an Age of Indulgence by Peter Lumpkins

The publication of my book is now complete.  Even though the official release date is still June 1st, it is already available online at Barnes & Nobles, Amazon.com, and several Christian bookstores.  Soon Hannibal Books will have it up.

Also, if one is interested, I have some copies available.  You may order here if you like.

For those going to the Southern Baptist Convention, I have a scheduled book-signing Monday, June 22, 2009, from 11:00 am until noon at the convention Lifeway store.  Dr. Jerry Vines will accompany me.  I am grateful for his part in this much needed volume.

With that, I am…

Peter

Comments

[selahV]

Wish I could be in Louisville! I'd like to meet Dr. Vines. He'll be hanging out with a really neat friend of mine. Congratulations, Pete! selahV

[Jeff]

So now drinking is a sin, and thus would disqualify someone from being a good So. Baptist?

[peter]

Jeff,

Just a suggestion: if you're interested in understanding my position, it now is firmly entrenched in the public domain. If you do not want to buy a copy to understand it, that's cool. Perhaps you can borrow one or go to Lifeway, sit for an hour or so--with a delicious cup of Kenya AA, of course--and rummage through it for free. Either one of those is a respectable response. I'm sure there are other respectable responses.

Nonetheless, what is not acceptable to thinking people is logging on making passing remarks about someone's position concerning which you have not taken time to examine.

With that, I am...
Peter

[volfan007]

Jeff,

BTW, if you will look at history, the SBC has considered drinking alcohol as bad for a long, long time; and it would make one not a "good SB." Look at the historical evidence. This drinking is ok stuff just recently became popular.

Personally, I believe that drinking alcohol for pleasure is foolish at best...according to the book of Proverbs. And, to be high, or drunk, on alcohol is definitely a sin, according to Ephesians.

David

[Jeff]

WHOA!!! Now, short sentences are just passing comments. I simply asked a question.

David, to paraphrase what has been written on this blog (on other posts).

My convictions are based on the Bible, not SBC history.

Jeff

[Jeff]

Rabbi Peter, So you are telling me to go into Lifeway and read the book without paying for it and then leave. Am I understanding your post?

[peter]

Jeff,

To the contrary, you are the one who framed the question in non-biblical categories, David did not: "...disqualify someone from being a good So. Baptist?"

With that, I am...
Peter

[peter]

I'm saying you can do in LifeWay what you can do in Borders, Barnes & Nobles, and other large Christian/nonChristian bookstores--sit and survey the materials. Only in some smaller independents is the practice not acceptable. I think you know this, Jeff. If I am correct, why would you ask? If not, then you just learned something, did you not?

With that, I am...
Peter

[peter]

One final thing, Jeff. Do not attach Rabbi to my name again. I realize you're trying to be cute. For me, it is unacceptable.

With that, I am...
Peter

[Jeff]

Ok, Teacher Peter, no rabbi for you! Your the boss of this blog.

You agree that history has an important part in shaping who we are as baptist.

Student Jeff

[volfan007]

Jeff,

Have you been drinking?

David

:)

[Jeff]

Only when I am not sleeping. :)

So you agree to that our history as baptists should impact us today!!

Student Jeff

[volfan007]

Jeff,

Do you not think that we can learn from the past? Of course we can. We read commentaries, and we study what the Christian scholars of the past thought. But, of course, they are not our final authority. The Bible is.

Like, from what I understand, Martin Luther drank strong, green, German beer. Well, he was a product of this culture and environment, was he not?

Calvin had people imprisoned and even put to death for not being a part of his Church, or for even not attending Church. Just because it was Calvin, doesnt make it right...does it?

Zwingli was known for using the service of prostitutes. When confronted, he told the Church that he was not seducing virgins, nor married women. So, they said, "Oh, ok. That's fine then." Or, something to that effect. And, he continued to use prostitutes to meet a fleshly need, instead of marrying. Just because he was a leader in the reformation doesnt make it right....does it?

So, yes, we can learn from the past. Certainly. And, we would be foolish not to. But, our final authority should always be the Word of God. And, in Proverbs it teaches that someone is foolish to be drinking fermented wine. Ablsolutely foolish! And, Eph. tells us that being drunk, or high on alcohol is absolutely sinful. We should be high on Jesus thru the Holy Spirit, not on alcohol. The joy of the Lord is our strength, not the joy of Mogan David, or Jack Daniels.

David

[Jeff]

Thanks Dr. David

I concur with most of what you have written. A study of historical theology is important, but the Bible reveals to us the heart of God.

Dr. Lumpkins has every right to right a book on concerning his position on alcohol. I do not believe he has the right to exclude others based on this position.

Student Jeff

[selahV]

Jeff, what do you say defines a "good baptist"? does the BF&M qualify as a guideline for what Baptist is?

[Jeff]

There is no such thing as a good baptist. We are all sinners saved by grace thru faith, it is not our own doing but it is a gift of God.

[Jeff]

Selahv, Which BF&M?

[Jeff]

I am not interested in what makes me a good baptist---I tried to be one for the last 44 years, and it led me to legalism. I am more interested in how I can grow in grace. I am very far from it as my responses on this blog others reveal at times.

I think is one of the problems in our convention we are more worried about what makes a good baptist, when we ought to be more concern is growing as a Christian.

[Jeff]

Forgive my grammar, I need a nap.

Student Jeff

[peter]

Jeff,

First, you write "Dr. Lumpkins has every right to right a book on concerning his position on alcohol. I do not believe he has the right to exclude others based on this position." The assumption appears to be someone has suggested I've claimed the right to exclude others based on my position. If you would be so kind as to tease that out, I'd be grateful

Second, you write to SelahV, "There is no such thing as a good baptist." Yet, your very first comment in question form assumed just the opposite: "So now drinking is a sin, and thus would disqualify someone from being a good So. Baptist?"

For some reason, Jeff, I get the impression you are not here to discuss but to tit/tat.

With that, I am...
Peter

[Jeff]

Dr. Lumpkin, You are wrong. The question was for you, not for me I never stated that I believe one can be a good So. Baptist.

Jeff

[Jeff]

Dr. Lumpkin, Are you saying you would not have a problem a so. baptist missionary who drinks alcohol?

[volfan007]

Jeff,

I would.

David

[peter]

Jeff,

I never said you did; I wrote you assumed such. If you did not assume such, your question to me was bogus.

Furthermore, your insistence to both me and David to affirm/not-affirm "history has an important part in shaping who we are as baptist" is once again questionable if all you wanted to say was, "The Bible reveals to us the heart of God."

If that's what you would like to say, you will not get any dissent from us here, Jeff, I assure.

With that, I am...
Peter

[peter]

Jeff,

I'd suggest you follow the advice I offered above.

With that, I am...
Peter

[Jeff]

Dr. Lumpkin, You do not understand me. Wow! That sounds familiar....

Dr. David, Thanks for a simple honest answer. I admire you for having the conviction to make a statement without a million extra words added to the answer.

Student Jeff

[Jeff]

Dr. Lumpkin, Does Baptist history shape us today?

Student Jeff

[selahV]

Jeff, as I understand things, most folks who are baptist are baptist by choice. No one makes them be one, unlike some faiths that baptize infants and from that day forward are recognized as being of that faith. I am Baptist because I find it a faith most consistent with the NT teaching of the early church as I understand it when I read the Bible. Other fellowships follow things I find contrary to scripture.

I agree with you that there is no one good, because our Savior said so. The best part of being saved by grace is knowing one is made righteous in Christ and He gives us the joy of living for Him. And one of the blessings of that grace is it is sufficient to keep us. The grace He bestows most certainly compels us to bestow it upon others, do you not agree? Likewise our words, attitudes and actions should exemplify the light which is in us. Once we recognize that we are less than gracious, do you think it is not a good time to rethink how we continue in our walk with Him? No matter where we are? a pew? a check-out line? a blog stream?

Thanks for answering me. Pick either BF&M you like. Blessings to you and may grace abound in your life. selahV

[peter]

Good bye, Jeff.

With that, I am...
Peter

[Jeff]

I didn't know I was going anywhere. Are you banning me like you did Wade?

[peter]

Jeff,

Do not mention Wade on this thread again. I judge this as simply baiting for a brawl. Drop it. Period.

With that, I am...
Peter

[volfan007]

Jeff,

Lay off the bottle. Nobody likes a mean drunk.

David

:)

[Jeff]

Nor slanderous sentences with :) at the end of them.

[Jeff]

I won't mention the pastor who lives west of the Mississippi who has posts deleted/unpublished by a ex-pastor who lives east of the Mississippi with a Dmin in expository posting, and recently published a book on the evils of fire water. :) I put a :) at the end of it so that makes it ok right? :)

[peter]

Jeff,

I like a good sense of humor. I don't even mind cutsey stuff. This is your second warning. Don't mention Burleson on this thread again, in any way.

With that, I am...
Peter

[Joe Donahue]

Jeff - I think your sarcasm is derogatory and demeaning. Peter only suggested that you read the book before making a comment about the book.

This makes complete sense to me.

[Jeff]

Same old arguments. Read of it in various forms. ______________.

[Jeff]

David for the sake of those who have been beaten by mean drunks that is a joke of poor taste which should have been noted by the Dr. Lumpkins.

Dr. L Did you get your dmin from SBTS?

[Jeff]

Dr. L Will a rebuke for a poor joke be given to David? ______________.

[Jeff]

Lumpkins silence toward David's joke about mean drunks is telling. __.

[peter]

All,

I am patient here concerning commenting. Those who've followed this blog for anytime at all is aware of my record--good or bad--in dealing with questions.

I just emailed a commenter, making it clear a second warning was issued. I was instructed by the commenter a) not to email him again b) I had been filtered c)I would not intimidate him like I had some others.

I encourage all to note my guidelines in place for commenting here that have been in place since I started blogging 3 or so years ago. They have remained unchanged (look under 'peter's old stuff' and 'guidelines'---perhaps I need to put the guidelines in a more conspicuous place.)

With that said, I require a legitimate email and ID from every commenter. If I use that email, it is for a legitimate purpose, one purpose of which is to email a commenter if I feel I need to. Thus, I am under the impression, if one comments here, I may use the email address if I think I need to personally communicate with the commenter. Know also, I rarely, if ever, do so.

Even so, when I do take the time to forewarn someone he or she is about out of favor in commenting--at least on the post presently considered--I do not expect to be told a) don't ever email me again b) I've filtered you c) you will not bully me.

[The present, very funny paradox is, the commenter has boldly informed me he a) wants absolutely no correspondence with me about matters pertaining to my blog on which he is commenting as a guest b)he is banning me (via filtering my address) c)wants me to nevertheless answer personal questions! Go figure:^]

Once again I insist commenting is a privilege not a right. And, I will say this without the least bit of hesitation: no one has, is, or will log on to SBC Tomorrow and think he or she can unload anything, anyway with immunity. There are blogs who post nonsense. SBC Tomorrow will not be among them.

I am proud of the readership here and commit to continue making SBC Tomorrow a healthier place to dialog.

With that, I am...
Peter

[Debbie Kaufman]

Peter: Come down to earth a little bit. I know this will be deleted, but this is for your eyes only. You cannot have your cake and eat it too. You are the very person in your comments that you are condemning. You know that, I know that, whether you admit it or not.