Skip to main content

Once an Alcoholic, Always an Alcoholic




If you know anything about the group Alcoholics Anonymous (AA) you probably know their famous slogan, “Once an alcoholic, always an alcoholic.”

People will stand up in their groups and introduce themselves: My name is _________, and I am an alcoholic. Some of the ones making that introduction have gone years without so much as a sip of beer, and yet they still refer to themselves as alcoholics.

While I do not want to be overly critical of a group that is committed to helping people overcome serious addictions, I do want to scrutinize their label of “alcoholic.”

My issue with that term is that it labels people in the present with a sometimes past diagnosis. Cancer survivors don’t say they have cancer, they say they beat cancer. In the same way, why continue to give credit to alcohol when you have beaten it’s seductive powers?

What do you expect an alcoholic to do? The answer is obvious: drink alcohol.

But what do you expect a former alcoholic to do? Abstain from alcohol.

So why call yourself an alcoholic when you are sober? I preached on this topic several years ago, and a man approached me later and told me I was wrong. He said he would always be an alcoholic, even though he had been sober for six months. I asked him why he would give credit to the devil instead of Jesus; through the power of God he broke the chains of bondage, but he still referred to himself by what he used to do. Today that man has returned to his old ways of daily drunkenness, and I always wonder if the fact that he refused to stop calling himself an alcoholic contributed to him actually becoming one.

The “always an alcoholic” line stands in direct contradiction to the Bible. Notice how Paul addressed those former alcoholics in 1 Corinthians 6:9-11:

“Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality, nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. And such WERE some of you. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God.”

Paul addressed people who had formerly been drunkards. He did not say they would always be alcoholics because they had been washed, sanctified, and justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ!

If you have been delivered from the sin of alcoholism, or any other sin, then don’t continue to label yourself by your past sin. That gives Satan the bragging rights in your life. Instead, stand up and proudly testify about the Lord Jesus Christ and what He was able to do in your life.

Your story of deliverance can serve as a catalyst to encourage someone else to turn to God for help. But if you keep calling yourself an alcoholic, or any other type of sinner, than you are not offering hope and deliverance to those still in chains of sin.

Are you a former alcoholic? Then join Paul in “forgetting those things which are behind and pressing on towards what lies ahead (Philippians 3:13).”

Comments

Unknown said…
This comment has been removed by the author.
Unknown said…
You are arguing against a time tested, honored and very successful program. Members know they are just one drink away from alcohol destruction. Alcoholism is not a sin. It is a disease.

Rev. Dr. Wm. H. Phillips
Rev. Dr. Phillips, you are arguing against the Bible, which is a time tested, honored, very successful book. Unfortunately, many people today depart from the Word to embrace the word of man.

Bible-centered programs like Celebrate Recovery reject the "always an alcoholic" line and use only Scripture to help people beat their sin.

Yes, it is a sin. The Bible does not command us to repent of diseases; it says no drunkards will inherit the kingdom of God.

All humans are one sin away from spiraling out of control. But believers are no longer sinners, but saints.

Thank you for your comment. And as I said in the post, I am not trying to be overly critical because I acknowledge how much good has come from AA. But my point is that when psychology contradicts the Bible, as for me and my house, we will stick to the Bible.

Popular posts from this blog

The “Christians Hate Gays” Myth

During these Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) hearings before the Supreme Court I keep hearing how much Christians hate gay people. This was news to me since I am a Christian and I don’t hate gay people. I also go to church with over 1000 other Christians, and if any of them hate gay people, they sure haven’t told me. Before moving to South Carolina I worked at or attended several churches in Texas; prior to that I spent a decade going to church in Florida. Guess what? No one hated gay people. In fact, I don’t know any Christians who hate anybody. The very uniform of a believer is his love, and if a person does not show consistent love, then he is not actually a believer. Are there non-believers who hate gay people and claim to be Christian? Of course. But that doesn’t represent Jesus or His church. Equating  hateful sign-wavers with Christianity is like equating a kindergarten baseball team to the New York Yankees. They may claim to be playing the same

Famous Frauds in Homosexual Science Part 2: Twin Studies

A second piece of shoddy science has been heralded as proving people are born gay. This time, instead of cadavers, living twins were studied. This study compared male identical twins to male fraternal twins; in each set of twins, at least one man was homosexual. 22% of the fraternal twins showed both brothers to be gay, compared to 52% of the identical twins. Since identical twins are closer genetically than fraternal twins, this study claimed that genetics play in to homosexuality, or that people are born gay. But an obvious question that arose from this study is, why did 48% of the identical twins only have one gay brother? If they are so close genetically, then 100% of the identical twins should have two gay brothers. This study does more harm than good to the argument from genetics. There are other factors to be considered. One is that the men doing the study (Richard Pillard and Michael Bailey) could have intentionally picked fraternal twins that the

The Rose of Sharon and Lily of the Valley

If you have spent much time in church you have probably sung some songs with lyrics like these: “He leads me to his banqueting table, his banner over me is love… Jesus is the rock of my salvation, his banner over me is love.” “Sweetest rose of Sharon, come to set us free.” “He’s the lily of the valley, the bright and morning star…” But are those songs biblical? They come out of the writings of the Song of Solomon, but are we to understand those lines as describing Christ? The Song of Solomon is a collection of love poems that were written between two people who were deeply in love and about to be married. While we know that King Solomon is one of the writers, the other’s name has escaped us, and we know her today simply as the Shulamite woman. Some people believe that since this woman is not named then she never existed; some teach that this book is pure allegory, only existing to serve as symbolism. King Solomon, they say, represents