The Instigator
Pro (for)
3 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
0 Points

Can A Christian Get Drunk According To Scripture?

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 1 vote the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/4/2014 Category: Religion
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,724 times Debate No: 54012
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (6)
Votes (1)




Here goes one of my pet-peeves if you will. Christians who use Eph. "Be not drunk with wine..." to state emphatically believers can not get drunk are plain wrong. I will go to the Greek and argue Scripture (Greek) states differently.

Without use of the Greek you simply have, "Be not drunk" It never says 'get not drunk'. This is where the Greek comes in and explains it very nicely. Before anyone accepts this challenge please do a little research into the Greek and note the words used; Methuo and Methusko. Methuo is the state of intoxication and Muthusco is the prolonged state of Methuo.
Saying a person who gets drunk on occasion, (say a wedding feast) is a drunkard is categorically false.
If one does this research and still would like to debate this issue, based on Scripture only, please do!


Hello and I accept your challenge. May we debate calmly as I imagine we are both Christians and have no reason to become overly emotional. My basic arguements against you will be this

1. The difference between Greek and original translations
2. Scripture for and against liquor
3. philosophies.
4. anything else that comes to mind that has clear evidence.
Debate Round No. 1


Very Nice,

Yes, I believe in an Almighty Creator and am His.
I figured this would be a debate with the Scripture for, the supposed against and then the people vote a winner. I am new at this but willing.
As far as the original and the Greek translations: I am not sure what you mean as we get our translation from the Greek but I am interested in hearing what you have.
All this being well and good, it all still boils down to what I have given already. The Original Greek is what I gave, clearly the differences in the languages can be seen. We have a word for drunk, a word for drunkard and so on, I don't know why the translations could not have been more in our favor but we have what we have. If Jesus gave wine to those who were according to the Scripture, "Well drunk" then who are we to say it is wrong, bordering on blasphemy however I know this is not your intent. If Jesus does something and we call it wrong because of our teachings is this not blasphemy?
You stated you would post the for and against verses but I believe I have cleared up any argument the against crowd has but again, I am eager to hear from you.
May the Mercy of Jesus be glorified,


Hello and I am new to this too but look forward too this. Just to let you know that I have my own set of code when it comes to debating. So do not be surprised if I in fact discount my own argument or say that you were right about something. Honor in debating is a biggie for me. So let me collaborate a little more about my saying the difference between the Greek translation and its original text, I did not write correctly what I meant by that. While a lot of the New testament was written in Greek the old testament and parts of the new testaments was written in Hebrew. I believe you got that part of scripture from Ephesians 5:18 am I correct? While I will not argue that this book wasn't written in Greek because it almost surely was and I would be a fool to argue that. What I meant by the original language was that there are other scriptures in the bible that talk about alcohol consumption that were written in Hebrew and Aramaic. (The old testament.) because while Ephesians 5:8 has been inaccurately translated and you are completely right about that subject, there are other the bible that also go against it. But again I may be wrong about this and please bring a counter example or argument and I will say I was wrong about it. But through my looking of the bible in the original Greek writings the bible did speak of methou. In Galatians 5:21 it says (In English translations)

"Envyings, murders, drunkenness, revellings, and such like: of the which I tell you before, as I have also told you in time past, that they which do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God."

or in greek

"`6;_2;P57;_7;_9;_3; _6;P51;_2;^5;_3; _4;Q82;_6;_9;_3; _4;^5;P54; `4;P48; P05;_6;_9;_3;^5; `4;_9;P59;`4;_9;_3;`2; O39; `0;`1;_9;_5;P51;^7;`9; P17;_6;Q50;_7; _4;^5;_2;P60;`2; `0;`1;_9;^9;Q50;`0;_9;_7; P05;`4;_3; _9;O85; `4;P48; `4;_9;_3;^5;Q66;`4;^5; `0;`1;P49;`3;`3;_9;_7;`4;^9;`2; ^6;^5;`3;_3;_5;^9;P55;^5;_7; _2;^9;_9;Q66; _9;P16; _4;_5;_1;`1;_9;_7;_9;_6;P53;`3;_9;`5;`3;_3;_7;"

As you can see Methe or methou is used in this line, which tells about getting intoxicated instead of getting repeatedly intoxicated (Drunkard)

and sorry for my miswriting or mis-phrasing last round. I apologize. And about your message about Jesus giving wine to his followers. That is completely true and is a major hole in any prohibitionist argument. While I am not a prohibitionist in any sense of the word and I have no qualm against alcohol. So maybe Jesus did not mind giving his men wine but never gave them enough to lose their heads. In general I would like to say that almost any human desire that we allow to happen is a sin (Fornication, gambling, jealousy, lust, lying) getting drunk is included. But we the followers of the lord and his son are cleansed from these sins and are forgiven. So in the end while it is a earthly desire that in gods eyes is a sin can easily be forgiven and we his followers can be cleansed of our inherent evil.
Debate Round No. 2


Wow, a debate with honor. I am happy to be involved in this.
Yes, it was Eph 5:18 and I must apologize but my study of this topic was many years ago and since I have lost my Greek translation however, I know for a fact this was cross-referenced with many verses and I know for a fact that there was at least one cross-reference that used Methusko with regards to inheriting eternal life...possibly 1Cor 6:10. As far as the one verse (more than likely the one you referenced) that may state Methou when thinking about eternal life, I can not refute however there is a different one with the opposite. So, is there a fault in the translation? Possibly, but I do not believe it is an error. That being said, there is one verse (memory serves me) that would seem to contradict. There are many supposed contradictions in Scripture for one; James says we know then our father Abraham was justified by works and in Hebrews It states our father Abraham was not justified by works. If we get stuck on these 'contradictions' we loose. God's Word does not contradict however a finite being trying to understand the Infinite will indeed contradict. I am willing however to entertain the fact of translational error. When dealing with so called errors we need to be very careful as we are finite dealing with an Infinite Book and search the Scripture. Scripture will always (in my humble opinion) clarify Itself. If you take just one verse you are in danger of becoming a snake handler in the south (wonderful people I am sure and even believers).
Read the wedding feast and the supporting verses, the master of the feast was upset because Jesus' wine was so good and he wondered why they withheld the best wine until the persons at the feast were already 'well drunk' (Methou). You would serve the best wine first and then when the guests were drunk the inferior would be served. It is just common sense you would want the guests to have the best wine while they could still understand taste, the inferior would suffice the drunk crowd.
While you correctly assert that there are many sins; fornication, drunkenness...ect, we must realize that "Whatever is not of faith is (also) sin" and when we live by this Truth we are simply destined for hell without the Blood of His Son Jesus! We, as Christians, state we can be better tomorrow than we were today. This is extremely dangerous, if this were true we only would need an endless amount of time not a Savior. If we do not come to the realization that we are filthy, wretched and in need of His mercy, we loose. Alcohol included. We (I) can do no good in human flesh, I can however do right. Right will never make me holy but is a simple reflection of Jesus in me. If one believes he can do good, look at Rom 7 and Paul's fight. Paul couldn't do it but we think we can...?
Some may use this debate to indulge their desire to drink (BTW I do not drink often and have been drunk just a few times) however if we as Christians are constantly looking for a way to indulge the flesh we may want to consider a look at our hearts. We see that, "All things are indeed lawful for me but not all are profitable". This means we, according to grace, can do anything but we are not to be brought under the power of anything. This is another argument for my position that it is not sin to get drunk, only to become a drunkard. This is not achieved easily! It takes work to become a drunk. If one looks at almost all sin, it starts as temptation and when we give in blossoms into sin. Another debate, Christians say if we continue in sin we can not be saved but I am here to tell you we continue in sin all day every day. This verse in 1 John 3:9 is a mistranslation. If it used the same Greek word as in Rom 6 "Continue in sin" this would be a different mater but this has since been translated wrongly because we do not understand the Infinite so we think messing with the translation can better do what the original couldn't?
Back to the subject at hand. We are His but live in sinful flesh and there is none righteous...not one. I am sinful, I sin. I am worthy of nothing but death and hell but because of the Blood I am whole. I am a Child of the King. I am forgiven!


Hello again and if you don't mind me saying out of all my debate associates you have been the quickest to send a argument back. So thanks! Also wanted to bring up another thing, in that time drinking wine and other alcohol was actually safer than drinking water. And in my eyes our god is a understanding god and understands that wine was safer than water, just as he looked down on many of his servants with understanding and love, but this does not mean that he loosens his judgment of a sin. During this time of the bible he knew that for his servants to worship him and spread his word of love they would have to be alive to spread it (I am speaking about us the sinful not Jesus who died for our sins making the greatest sacrifice in history.) and in order for them to survive they needed to safely drink. While he did understand that they could drink alcohol safely he did not loosen his views on drunkardness and drunkedness. Because while we can change he can not for he was already perfect and infinite to begin with. I hope that made sense, I am in the autism spectrum so sometimes I have a problem with phrasing things correctly. So while he understood his followers needed to drink he wanted his followers to be above human and sinful desires and weaken the heart and mind. Another amazing thing is that our god gave us free choice (I personally believe so but if you disagree that's fine :) ) He allows us to make wrong decisions so that we may become the people he wanted us to be through trials, like what he did to job. ANd he is a forgiving god and has given us a means to forgiven of our sins and our mistakes. So while getting drunk is wrong god has even us a chance to learn from our mistakes and be forgiven for our mistakes. And about your lines about the bible having contradictions because of us mortals trying to understand a book that can never be fully understood. Because the original writers themselves even though guided by the trinity could not fully understand and write an infinite being with an finite mind, then not only that but finite beings then try to translate a infinite book written by finite people guided by an infinite god makes contradictions almost certain. And we can not and should not scripture pick. Picking some stories and verses but ignoring the rest. You either have to use all of it or find a different church that has more or less books like Catholics or Mormons. (Which I have nothing against those religions, though I do not believe will smith was a prophet they are entitled to their own belief. Jesus was a man who looked upon the sinful and gave them light. On his short time living as Jesus of Nazareth he gave so many people enlightenment. And still loved the people who refused his light and loved his murderers just like he loved the prostitutes, the pagans, the murderers and the thugs. He also gave people a choice to follow him and did not hurt them if they picked the wrong choice. SO Jesus might have very well in his time as Jesus of Nazareth given wine in great bounty to his followers, so that they may have the choice of staying true and resisting the urges of the body and mind or falling into temptation. If you disagree with anything I said or wish to continue this debate or want to challenge me to a completely different debate please do! I am almost certain that have made factual mistakes or miswrote something.
Debate Round No. 3
6 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Posted by PlainTruth 2 years ago
I may have won but I give credit to my opponent for the battle well fought!
Posted by athenaforce 2 years ago
Thank you I have very much enjoyed this debate and hope we talk/debate again in the near future!
Posted by PlainTruth 2 years ago

I would welcome a debate with you anytime sir/madam. You are articulate, understanding and very wise for the challenges you have been given. You should give hope to many!
Thank you very much for the debate.
Plain Truth
Posted by PlainTruth 2 years ago
To put it plainly, I am not saying anything just trying to convey Scripture.
The Bible is very clear, It says to not be a drunkard, It says nothing about getting drunk! There is a big difference.
Posted by applefreak7777777 2 years ago
so are you saying that Christians can or cannot get drunk?
Posted by TheChucks 2 years ago
The Son of man came eating and drinking, and they say, Behold a man gluttonous, and a winebibber, a friend of publicans and sinners. But wisdom is justified of her children.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Geogeer 2 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Reasons for voting decision: I would have thought one of you would have used Noah being drunk, or proverbs: ?Wine is a mocker and strong drink is a brawler; whoever goes astray by them is not wise? (Prov 21:1) It is my understanding that this word was used in Genesis 43:34 "So they feasted and drank freely with him." And if you were Catholic you'd see Maccabees 16:16 "And when Simon and his sons had drunk plentifully..." So I would personally argue that drunk freely doesn't necessarily mean really drunk, it could still mean that they have proper use of their faculties. However in terms of this debate it is very tricky. There was no knockout punch per se. However, Pro makes the argument that the wedding guests are so drunk that they can no longer tell the quality of the wine. This is a very good argument that is not refuted by Con. As such I award the arguments to Pro.