I’m writing in response to an article written by Clint Dowland in the Oct. 24 issue of The Back Row. I regret having to respond in the Pacer rather than The Back Row, but the next issue wouldn’t have been put out before Nov. 5.

In the article, he tries to scripturally authorize the act of drinking by making several arguments. And this doctrine can be found if you misinterpret the Bible as he does. But the truth is that nowhere in the Bible does God authorize or allow stipulations for drinking, social or not.

He makes one extremely good point in saying that scriptures do condemn drunkenness (Luke 21:34; Romans 13:13; and Eph-esians 5:18). But from there, his doctrine goes downhill.

The doctrine that Biblical silence allows anything does not hold up. Just because scriptures don't specifically say “thou shalt not drink alcohol” doesn't mean that the Bible allows this vile sin. Mr. Dowland’s first argument says that only once could he find a passage that opposes drinking, Proverbs 20:1, which does oppose drinking.

But consider just a few chapters late in Proverbs 23:29-35. These verses are devoted to opposing drinking. Habakkuk 2:15 says, “Woe unto him that giveth his neighbor drink, that puttest thy bottle to him, and makest him drunken also that thou mayest look on their nakedness.”

Is this not exactly what is going to happen if we allow liquor-by-the-drink to corrupt our town? We are basically giving our neighbors alcohol that may also make him drunk, which also cancels out the second argument.

Mr. Dowland’s second argument says that we can drink as long as it is not to the point of drunkenness. But Habakkuk 2:15 says giving drink to them that may also make them drunk. That means that even if they drink it without getting drunk then they are violating holy scriptures. Also, please consider I Corinthians 6:12; 6:19-20; 10:31 concerning the immorality of drinking, and I Timothy 3 when giving qualifications for elders and deacons.

And even though there are numerous other mistakes from that article, I will close with this. Mr. Dowland’s final argument says that Christ both drank and produced alcohol for others to consume, which this argument completely shocked me as I read it.

He first claims that Christ drank alcohol in Matthew 27:34. But if you simply read the verse it says, “They gave him vinegar to drink mingled with gall; and when he had tasted thereof, he would not drink.”

Christ certainly did not drink alcohol, but rather it was vinegar that was extremely bitter and when he realized it was vinegar he refused it. But also, he claims that Christ made alcohol in John 2 and to the naked eye it would seem so. But let's look at it deeper.

In John 2, every instance in which the word wine is used is translated from the Greek word oinos which has no intoxicating affect, but meant the juice from grapes in an unfermented form.

When the New Testament refers to an intoxicating wine, it is translated from the Greek word gleukos, which means the same grape juice but having fermented over time and having an intoxicating effect. So, in that, we see that Christ had nothing to do with alcohol in either of these situations.

I write none of this to show harsh feelings from myself and I hope that he has no harsh feelings for me, but the truth needs to be there for us to consider. On Nov. 5, we need to vote NO on liquor by the drink and the lottery (II Thessalonians 3:10; Matthew 7:12; Romans 6:12) so we can keep our town and our state, respectively, free from these immoral actions.

Andy Brewer is a sophomore Communications/English major from Martin.