Oh, I wasn’t saying they were wrong in the least, I was just wondering how they got to the theological doctrine of no dancing and no drinking.
Totally agree, drunks to the degree in which they lose control of their ability to control sin, we call that perfect inebriation, totally true!
Just wondering why the zero tolerance policy. Understand about the medicinal quality of alcohol. Even modern people knew that if you drank the water you’d get sick, so a lot of people just drank beer. The first time we had chlorine in the water to sanitize was in Europe, about 1900, in Chicago, one of the first cities to chlorinate water was very early 1900’s as well. So, totally understand about the whole water and alcohol as a medicine thing.
But, to prohibit it altogether because some people abuse it? If we proceeded with this zero-tolerance policy for all things that could be bad, what would be left?
Not that I agree nor don’t agree with the Baptist practice of no-alcohol, just wondering where such a strict policy came from. I’m guessing the leaders of the Baptist church don’t think the people can handle themselves and thus impose a rule to control the people. In a way, there is a corollary between the general concusses (speaking very broad here, with Calvin in mind) that we, the faithful, do not deserve to have free will.
Drink wine? drink as you may with moderation, it’s your responsibility. But, if you want to remove the ability to be responsible, then prohibit all alcohol and remove the ability for the individual to make their own choice. Thus, the corollary here is that most Protestants don’t believe in free will and thus when they remove it, it’s the way it’s supposed to be because we are not meant to have free will … something like that.