Eight Reasons to Quit Alcohol – from the Experts

Most of my readers know that I do not drink alcohol at all and that I strongly urge the same practice for others. Often my discussions with Christians center, of course, on the scriptures. However, I have been impressed, even stunned, by the many recent warnings that have come from non-religious sources. Here’s one I recently discovered from AARP, the American Association of Retired Persons. It shows the findings of medical and scientific experts regarding the advantages of drinkers’ quitting alcohol for as little as one month.

8 Things That Happen to Your Body When You Stop Drinking Alcohol for a Month: Improvements in sleep, blood pressure, mood and more

By Barbara Sadick, AARP. Updated January 06, 2026.

“With a reduction of alcohol consumption, you have an opportunity to experience some important health benefits, which can serve as a starting point to meet your goals,” says Dr. Sandeep Kapoor, vice president for emergency medicine addiction services at New York’s Northwell Health. But if you drink every day, you should consult with a health professional before quitting cold turkey, he adds.

In addition to the health benefits listed below, research has found that those who give up alcohol for a month — whether it’s Lent, Dry January, Sober October or any other month — tend to drink less alcohol long term. Even if you cut back, there are still benefits, according to a 2025 report in the journal Alcohol and Alcoholism.

In fact, drinking hit an all-time low in 2025, according to a Gallup poll. Between 1997 and 2023, at least 60 percent of Americans reported drinking alcohol. In 2025, that dropped to 54 percent. (The previous low was 55 percent, in 1958, the poll showed.)

Here are eight things that happen to your body when you stop drinking for a month.

1. You’ll sleep better.

While it may initially make you drowsy and help you fall asleep faster, alcohol can also disrupt the body’s circadian rhythm, making it harder in the long run to fall asleep when you want to, says Dr. Manassa Hany, director of the division of addiction psychiatry at Zucker Hillside Hospital in Glen Oaks, New York.

Alcohol particularly disrupts rapid eye movement (REM) sleep, which is crucial for cognitive function, memory consolidation and overall restorative sleep. As your body metabolizes alcohol, it can cause you to wake up more frequently throughout the night, interrupting your sleep pattern and reducing overall sleep duration so you wake up feeling less rested.

Hany says that once you stop drinking, you may initially find it more difficult to fall asleep. Your sleep, he says, will be restored gradually during the first four weeks, but after that you’ll sleep more deeply and wake up more rested.

2. You’ll be more hydrated.

As you eliminate alcohol, which causes dehydration, your body will begin to absorb more water, improving the functioning of every organ, including your skin and your brain. Gradually, as cell turnover increases, the damage alcohol may have done will begin to be reversed.

Because alcohol deprives your skin of nutrients, when you stop drinking you may notice that your skin has a healthier glow. You’ll also see fewer wrinkles, less puffiness and an elimination of red blotches. Premature skin aging will subside, and if you have dandruff or eczema, they too may disappear.  

3. You’ll have better liver function.

The liver, your body’s largest internal organ, is a filter for everything you put into it. It aids in digestion, stores minerals and vitamins, regulates blood clotting and eliminates waste. It also helps fight infection, eliminates bacteria from the blood and maintains hormone balance.

Hany says that the ethanol from which alcohol is made is a toxin and that too much can tax, damage and even destroy your liver cells by causing fat to accumulate. If the damage isn’t too great, though, a monthlong break can allow your liver to recover.

4. Inflammation will decrease.

The ethanol in alcohol inflames your liver cells and causes the liver to swell, says Dr. Mohammad Alhabbal, the medical director at AdCare Hospital in Worcester, Massachusetts.

Because your liver is connected to your pancreas through biliary ducts, he says, your pancreas will begin to overproduce enzymes and become inflamed, as will your gastrointestinal system, your esophagus and your stomach. Continual inflammation of the organs, he warns, can eventually lead to them shutting down and then shutting off.

In a month’s time, Alhabbal says, inflammation will decrease significantly, and damage can be reversed.

5. You’ll likely lose weight.

If you stop drinking alcohol, you may lose weight. Because alcohol slows down your metabolism, you can easily gain weight when drinking. When your metabolism slows, your body needs to work harder to process fats and sugars. On its own, alcohol is high in sugar and empty calories, and when you add mixers, you’re likely to substantially increase your calorie intake. A 2018 report in BMJ Open noted improvements in insulin resistance in people who abstained from alcohol for one month.

Drinking alcohol tends to decrease your inhibitions, so it’s likely you’ll also eat more junk food. Alcohol enhances the taste of salt and fat. When you stop drinking, not only will you likely consume fewer calories. You’ll also have more energy, and that may even increase your activity level.

6. Your immune system will work better.

Your immune system keeps you healthy. Drinking alcohol weakens that system, making you more vulnerable to infections and diseases. You don’t have to be a regular heavy drinker for alcohol to affect your immune system. If you have five to six drinks in a single session, you can suppress your immune system for up to 24 hours, according to the Alcohol and Drug Foundation.

If you drink regularly, alcohol can also prevent nutrients from feeding your immune system. It also reduces the white blood cells in your body, making it more difficult to fight off disease. In a month’s time, though, your immune system will be able to recover.

7. Your blood pressure will improve.

Drinking too much alcohol can raise your blood pressure. If you already have high blood pressure or hypertension, you might be better off if you stop drinking. According to the American Heart Association, as you age, even one drink a day could raise your blood pressure, a risk factor for cardiovascular disease. 

8. Your mood will improve.

Ethanol is the main ingredient in alcohol. Initially, it tends to calm you, but eventually it leads to hangovers, mood swings, exhaustion and depression. Alcohol also raises cortisol levels in your brain, which increases stress. 

Ironically, the negative emotions you may have wanted to initially suppress when you drink may become heightened. But when you stop using alcohol, you’ll find yourself feeling motivated, and your mood will stabilize. The 2025 report in Alcohol and Alcoholism showed more positive feelings, a higher sense of control and more reported happiness. 

Based in New York, Barbara Sadick is a freelance health journalist. Her work has appeared in The Wall Street Journal, U.S. News & World Report and The Washington Post, among other publications.

Source: https://www.aarp.org/health/healthy-living/stop-drinking-for-a-month-benefits/?cmp=EMC-DSM-NLC-OTH-DLY-247401-320001-9895645-NA-01082026-TheDaily-MS3-NA-BTN-C-Health&encparam=leRqPKfOz0MQKWPD6y+gVQZptAEgngkt+6lEE++pYog=

 

The “Westminster Confession of Faith,” Specifically on Baptism

Recently I participated in a Bible class encouraging us ro share the simple, New Testament gospel to those who have “subscribed” to (accepted) various manmade creeds and confessions. We may not realize just how different we are from those who submit to these documents. In order to talk with them and reach them, we must understand the nature of the writings that they accept. One such document is known as the Westminster Confession of Faith (“WCF”).

As Wikipedia notes, “In confessional churches, office-bearers (such as ministers and elders) are required to “subscribe” (or agree) to the church’s confession of faith. In Presbyterian denominations, this is the Westminster Confession of Faith, while in Confessional Lutheranism it is the Book of Concord. The degree to which subscribers are required to agree with the confession varies from denomination to denomination”. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confessional_subscription

The WCF has received strong, unqualified support from many. Nick Batzig of Ligonier Ministries, which R. C. Sproul founded, writes, “… church history reveals that the Christian church has long perceived a need for creedal doctrinal statements (e.g., the Nicene Creed, the Apostles’ Creed, the Athanasian Creed, etc.). During the era of the Protestant Reformation, there was an increasing need for doctrinal clarity on account of the spurious teaching of the Roman Catholic Church. The Westminster Confession of Faith has long been the most well-known and most frequently appealed to Protestant confession of the seventeenth century. There are numerous reasons why believers should commit to a diligent study of the Westminster Confession of Faith. The first is its historical background; the second, its biblical priority; the third, its doctrinal fidelity; and the fourth, its spiritual applicability. https://learn.ligonier.org/articles/why-read-westminster-confession

It’s important to remember, as we study the Bible with those from these “confessional churches,” that they may (at least to some degree) have accepted such man-made, uninspired declarations of doctrine. So, are such creedal statements as the WCF really that different from the Bible itself?

Yes, in some areas, a confession such as the WCF, the teaching is quite different from the actual words of scripture. In fact, if the WCF simply restated what the Bible itself teaches, the WCF would not be necessary. 

To illustrate the kind of contradictions I find between the WCF and the Bible, I have chosen the section from the WCF on baptism. First I will quote the entire section (with the reference), so that you can read and consider it for yourself. Then I will discuss each numbered point and respond to it. First, here is the word-for-word teaching in the WCF.

Chapter XXVIII—Of Baptism

1.  Baptism is a sacrament of the new testament, ordained by Jesus Christ, (Matt. 28:19) not only for the solemn admission of the party baptized into the visible Church; (1 Cor. 12:13) but also to be unto him a sign and seal of the covenant of grace, (Rom. 4:11, Col. 2:11–12) of his ingrafting into Christ, (Gal. 3:27, Rom. 6:5) of regeneration, (Tit. 3:5) of remission of sins, (Mark 1:4) and of his giving up unto God, through Jesus Christ, to walk in newness of life. (Rom. 6:3–4) Which sacrament is, by Christ’s own appointment, to be continued in His Church until the end of the world. (Matt. 28:19–20)

2.  The outward element to be used in this sacrament is water, wherewith the party is to be baptized, in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, by a minister of the Gospel, lawfully called thereunto. (Matt. 3:11, John 1:33, Matt. 28:19–20)

3.  Dipping of the person into the water is not necessary; but Baptism is rightly administered by pouring, or sprinkling water upon the person. (Heb. 9:10, 19–22, Acts 2:41, Acts 16:33, Mark 7:4)

4.  Not only those that do actually profess faith in and obedience unto Christ, (Mark 16:15–16, Acts 8:37–38) but also the infants of one, or both, believing parents, are to be baptized. (Gen. 17:7–8, Gal. 3:9, 14, Col. 2:11–12, Acts 2:38–39, Rom. 4:11–12, 1 Cor. 7:14, Matt. 28:19, Mark 10:13–16, Luke 18:15)

5.  Although it be a great sin to condemn or neglect this ordinance, (Luke 7:30, Exod. 4:24–26) yet grace and salvation are not so inseparably annexed unto it, as that no person can be regenerated, or saved, without it: (Rom. 4:11, Acts 10:2, 4, 22, 31, 45, 47) or, that all that are baptized are undoubtedly regenerated. (Acts 8:13, 23)

6.  The efficacy of Baptism is not tied to that moment of time wherein it is administered; (John 3:5, 8) yet, notwithstanding, by the right use of this ordinance, the grace promised is not only offered, but really exhibited, and conferred, by the Holy Ghost, to such (whether of age or infants) as that grace belongeth unto, according to the counsel of God’s own will, in His appointed time. (Gal. 3:27, Tit. 3:5, Eph. 5:25–26, Acts 2:38, 41)

7.  The sacrament of Baptism is but once to be administered unto any person. (Tit. 3:5) [1]

Now I will review and respond to each of these numbered paragraphs one by one.

1. A “sacrament” is defined as “a sign or symbol of a spiritual reality”. This word is not found in the New Testament (“NT”), nor is baptism ever called a sign or a symbol in the Bible itself.

The WCF views baptism as a sign or seal of a prior covenant relationship that one already has with God. Because Old Testament (“OT”) circumcision was such a sign and seal for Abraham (Rom 4:11), the WCF claims that baptism fulfills the same role in the NT. The passage cited, Col 2:11-12, does not refer to baptism as a sign or seal of a previous covenant relationship with God. It simply notes that, while OT circumcision was the removal of the flesh, in baptism God by grace removes one’s personal sins.

2. The WCF is correct in noting that the element in which baptism occurs is water. However, note the scriptures that are excluded. These include “born again of water and spirit (John 3:3-5)”, the Ethiopian beginning to rejoice after his baptism (Acts 8:26-40), the mention of “washing away sins” with baptism (Acts 22:16), and “the washing of rebirth (Tit 3:5)”. These scriptures connect baptism with one’s actual, personal rebirth and reception of the remission of sins and the gift of the Holy Spirit (Acts 2:38).

The WCF says that one is to be baptized by “a minister of the Gospel, lawfully called thereunto”. This statement implies that those who are not "official" ("ordained") ministers are not authorized to baptize. The scriptures noted (Matt. 3:11, John 1:33, Matt. 28:19–20) do not state any such limitation or restriction.

3. The WCF dictates that dipping (immersion) in water as the mode of baptism is not necessary, but that it’s equally right simply to pour or sprinkle water on an individual. Read each of the sources that are cited in paragraph 3. Not one of these biblical texts describes baptism as a pouring or sprinkling of water.

Heb 9:10 … since they relate only to food and drink and various washings, regulations for the body imposed until a time of reformation.

Heb 9:19 For when every commandment had been spoken by Moses to all the people according to the Law, he took the blood of the calves and the goats, with water and scarlet wool and hyssop, and sprinkled both the book itself and all the people, 20 saying, “This is the blood of the covenant which God commanded you.” 21 And in the same way he sprinkled both the tabernacle and all the vessels of the ministry with the blood. 22 And according to the Law, one may almost say, all things are cleansed with blood, and without shedding of blood there is no forgiveness.

Ac 2:41 So then, those who had received his word were baptized; and that day there were added about three thousand souls.

Ac 16:33 And he took them that very hour of the night and washed their wounds, and immediately he was baptized, he and all his household.

Mk 7:4 (… and when they come from the market place, they do not eat unless they cleanse themselves; and there are many other things which they have received in order to observe, such as the washing of cups and pitchers and copper pots.)

There is nothing in these scriptures that authorizes pouring or sprinkling for baptism. Rather, the WCF authors drew inferences that were not actually stated in the Bible. Why? Look at history.

The practice of sprinkling or pouring water on infants was first introduced by the Roman Catholic Church. The Protestant Reformers (such as John Calvin and Martin Luther) were formerly Catholics, already accustomed to this practice. 

However, John Calvin, a recognized authority in churches influenced by the WCF, insisted that "the term baptize means to immerse, and that this was the form used by the primitive Church." See the fuller quotation and citation here:

“Whether the person baptized is to be wholly immersed, and that whether once or thrice, or whether he is only to be sprinkled with water, is not of the least consequence: churches should be at liberty to adopt either according to the diversity of climates, although it is evident that the term baptize means to immerse, and that this was the form used by the primitive Church”. (John Calvin and Henry Beveridge, Institutes of the Christian Religion, vol. 3 (Edinburgh: The Calvin Translation Society, 1845), 344).

So, Calvin understood that the Greek term baptize meant to immerse! He further knew that the first-century church practiced immersion as “the” form of baptism! Yet he also said that the mode of baptism was “not of the least consequence” and that “churches should be at liberty to adopt either (mode)”. Calvin in effect overruled the Bible’s clear teaching on immersion. 

Hence lies a root problem of manmade confessions such as the WCF. These confessions take the conclusions of fallible men and then write them in stone. Leaders in these confessional churches are then required to “subscribe to” (agree with) them.

Here's a significant irony. The Protestant movement, in opposition to Catholicism's human traditions, initially declared its emphtic commitment to sola scriptura (the authority of “scripture alone”). Yet the Protestants went on to create their own additional traditions and authorities! They wrote and relied upon uninspired confessions – not scripture alone – to define further their beliefs and practices.

One more thought. If the NT actually did authorize pouring and/or sprinkling for baptism, there would be no controversy. But it does not. The same is true of the next claim made by the WCF, that infants of one or more believing parents are to be baptized.

4. Read the scriptures cited in support of infant baptism. These include Gen. 17:7–8, Gal. 3:9, 14, Col. 2:11–12, Acts 2:38–39, Rom. 4:11–12, 1 Cor. 7:14, Matt. 28:19, Mark 10:13–16, and Luke 18:15. If any of these scriptures, even one, clearly taught that infants are to be baptized – and only the infant children of believing parents! – that would settle the question. There is no such scripture. For that reason, confessions such as the WCF were designed to declare and enforce beliefs and practices that were not clearly taught in the Bible.

Based on their mistaken belief that NT baptism was parallel to OT circumcision in every way except one* (see below), the WCF authors actually used Gen 17:7-8 to justify infant baptism. Since circumcision was administered to every newborn male as a sign of the covenant, they surmised that baptism fulfilled the same purpose in the NT.

In this way, they disconnected baptism from personal faith, personal repentance, and personal confession of Jesus Christ. None of these elements was to them a necessary part of baptism, because these elements were not necessary for OT circumcision.

*Obviously, OT circumcision was only for males. If NT baptism were parallel, it would logically follow that only newborn males are to be baptized. This discrepancy is not resolved or even mentioned in the WCF.

The WCF maintains that it is a “great sin” to “neglect this ordinance” (of baptism). This is based in part on Ex 4:24-26, which notes that Moses had failed to circumcise his son. Again, this is based on the alleged circumcision/baptism parallel. Ironically, for Moses not to circumcise his son was not just a “great sin;” it was a matter of life or death! The parallel with baptism – if it were accurate – would necessarily mean that baptism is also a matter of life or death.

5. However, the WCF, in the very next paragraph, denies that baptism is necessary for one to be regenerated or saved. Strangely, it cites the record of the conversion of Cornelius in Acts 10, in which God took extraordinary steps to show Peter and his companions that Cornelius and his companions had to be baptized. After the Holy Spirit fell miraculously, Peter recognizes this necessity. He says, “Surely no one can refuse the water for these to be baptized who have received the Holy Spirit just as we did, can he?” And he ordered them to be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ (Acts 10:47-48).

By citing Acts 8:13, 23, the WCF implies that Simon the sorcerer, though he believed and was baptized, was not actually saved at that point. Why not? After he was baptized, he sinned so as to be back in “the bondage of iniquity.” In other words, according to the WCF, if Simon had truly been regenerated, he could not have been later bound by his personal sin.

6. The sixth paragraph is hard to process, at least for me. It mentions the “efficacy” of baptism, but how can a mere “sign” or “seal” (as previously claimed) baptism have any real efficacy? Then the WCF says that this “efficacy” is not tied to the moment at which one is baptized. Yet it also says, “by the right use of this ordinance, the grace promised is not only offered, but really exhibited, and conferred, by the Holy Ghost.” So, the “efficacy” seems to be “the grace promised” to one who is baptized. In that case, the WCF connects the reception of God’s grace to baptism! Yet the WCF had just said that baptism was not necessary! So this one left me confused.

7. In the final paragraph, the WCF says that one is to be baptized only once. Read carefully the scripture cited. It is an important one.

Tit 3:5 He saved us, not on the basis of deeds which we have done in righteousness, but according to His mercy, by the washing of regeneration and renewing by the Holy Spirit …

Note the words “on the basis of” and “by”. God saves us according to his mercy to sinners, not “on the basis of” our own righteous deeds. Nothing we do pays any part of our salvation. It comes based on God’s grace and the sacrifice of Jesus Christ.

While God saved only and always “one the basis of” his mercy, note the “by”. God saves us “by” the washing of regeneration (new birth) and renewal by the Holy Spirit.” The WCF is correct in seeing this as a reference to baptism.

So, why don’t we all set aside the WCF (and other confessions and creeds) as an authoritative document and just go back to the Bible teaching about baptism? It’s simple. It’s clear. It’s from God and not man.

Acts 22:16 “Now why do you delay? Get up and be baptized, and wash away your sins, calling on His name.”

---

^[1] The Westminster Confession of Faith (Oak Harbor, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc., 1996).

 

Moses and Israel – God’s Amazing Provisions for Them Then and for You Now

 

I have edited this material. The original author is unknown to me.

What God did for Moses and Israel is overwhelming when you think about it. Moses and the people were in the desert, but what was he going to do with them? They had to be fed, and feeding two or three million people requires a lot of food. The answer? God's presence with them, His awareness of their circumstances, and His ability to meet their needs.

The Quartermaster General in the Army at one time reportedly estimated that Moses and the people would have to have had 1,500 tons of food each day. To bring that much food each day would have required two freight trains, each at least a mile long.

Of course, since they were out in the desert, so they would have needed firewood to use in cooking all this food. This would take 4,000 tons of wood and a few more freight trains, each a mile long, just for one day.

And just think, they were forty years in transit. That would be 14,600 days!

And oh yes! They would have to have water. If they only had enough to drink and wash a few dishes, it would take 11,000,000 gallons each day and a freight train with tank cars, 1,800 miles long, just to bring it!

And imagine this. They had to get across the Red Sea at night. Now, if they went on a narrow path, double file, the line would be 800 miles long and would require 35 days and nights. So there had to be a space in the Red Sea, three miles wide, so that they could walk 5,000 abreast, just to get over to the other side in only one night.

But then, there is another problem. Each time they camped at the end of the day, they would require a campground two-thirds the size of the state of Rhode Island. That is a total of 750 square miles long … think about it!

Do you think Moses figured all this out before he left Egypt? Probably not! Moses believed in God, and God took care of these things for him and for the people he led. Now do you think God has any problem taking care of all your needs? 

Let us take courage; we have the same God! We think our problems are so big, even insurmountable. Remember what God can do! Remember what He has done! Team up with God, follow His lead, and submit to His will. Then your problems will be His.

He brought Israel through their wilderness. He will bring you through yours.

Mark 9:23 And Jesus said to [the father who said, “If You can …”], “‘If You can?’ All things are possible to him who believes.”

Mark 11:22 And Jesus answered saying to them, “Have faith in God. 23 “Truly I say to you, whoever says to this mountain, ‘Be taken up and cast into the sea,’ and does not doubt in his heart, but believes that what he says is going to happen, it will be granted him. 24 “Therefore I say to you, all things for which you pray and ask, believe that you have received them, and they will be granted you.