John Broadus on Drinking Alcohol

The idea that the word wine in the Bible sometimes means an unintoxicating beverage is without any sufficient foundation. Some men have written to that effect, but no man who is a thorough Hebrew or Greek scholar, as far as I know, at all takes any such position. It seems to me a great pity that advocates of the great cause of total abstinence should take up so utterly untenable a position. The pure wine of Palestine, in our Lord’s time, taken as was the custom with a double quantity of water (a man who ‘drinks unmixed,’ among the Greeks, meant a hard drinker), and used in moderation, was about as stimulating as our tea and coffee, and was used by the Saviour and by others just as we use them. The case is altered now, for such pure and mild wines would be very hard to get, and they are not needed because we have tea and coffee, and their use would tend to encourage the use of distilled liquors, which are so much more powerful and dangerous. Therefore it is better to abstain from the use of wine for our own sake and as an example to to others.

J. A. B. to B. W. N. Simms on Nov. 28, 1894 cited in A. T. Robertson, Life and Letters of John A. Broadus (Philadelphia: American Baptist Publication Society, 1910), 426-427.

Alan Jacobs on Browsing a Dictionary

“The great blessing of Google is its uncanny skill in finding what you’re looking for; the curse is that it so rarely finds any of those lovely odd things you’re not looking for. For that pleasure, it seems, we need books.”

Alan Jacobs, “Bran Flakes and Harmless Drudges,” in Wayfaring: Essays Pleasant and Unpleasant (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2010), 38.

On Why Inerrancy Does not Die the Death of a Thousand Qualifications

Second, there are not “a thousand” qualifications; there are only two: (1) only the original text is inerrant, and (2) only what is affirmed as true in the text is true and not anything else. The rest of the so-called “qualifications” simply address misunderstandings by noninerrantists.

 

It should have been sufficient to say simply, (1) the Bible is the Word of God. However, because some have denied the obvious, it is necessary to add another sentence, (2) the Bible is the inspired Word of God. However, when some use “inspired” in a human sense, it becomes necessary to say, (3) the Bible is the divinely inspired Word of God. But since some deny that such a book is infallibly true, it is necessary to add, (4) the Bible is the divinely inspired infallible Word of God. Then when some claim that the Bible is infallible only in intent but not in fact, it is necessary to clarify that, (5) the Bible is the divinely inspired infallible and inerrant Word of God. Even here some have argued that it is only inerrant in redemptive matters; hence it is necessary to add, (6) the Bible is the divinely inspired infallible and inerrant Word of God in all that it affirms on any topic. When someone denies the obvious, it is necessary to affirm the redundant.

Geisler, Norman L. “An Evaluation of McGowen’s View on the Inspiration of Scripture.” Bibliotheca Sacra 167, no. 665 (Jan-Mar 2010): 34-35.

John A. Broadus on Liberal Theology

In Germany, and in some parts of Great Britain and America, it requires great independence of mind and carefully maintained devoutness, in order to stand firm against—not the arguments, but—the cool assumptions, that all ‘traditional’ views of the Bible are antiquated, and that the orthodox are weak and ignorant.

J. A. B. cited in Archibald Thomas Robertson, Life and Letters of John Albert Broadus (Philadelphia: American Baptist Publication Society, 1910), 383.