# Liquid to use for communion



## Paul Nowlan (Aug 19, 2009)

This poll I hope is different than the previous poll in 2008. This poll has an option for people to choose either wine or grape juice at the same communion.


----------



## JML (Aug 19, 2009)

Yeah, I'm not the only one anymore. Someone else voted for wine only. Our church uses grape juice but the leadership believes wine is the proper element and hopes to eventually move in that direction.


----------



## KMK (Aug 19, 2009)

Is the question which one 'should' be used, or which one 'must' be used?


----------



## Peairtach (Aug 19, 2009)

Red wine with alcohol only, unless someone has a good reason for requesting something else for him/herself like red grape juice, non-alcoholic.


----------



## Paul Nowlan (Aug 19, 2009)

KMK said:


> Is the question which one 'should' be used, or which one 'must' be used?



I meant "should."


----------



## PilgrimPastor (Aug 19, 2009)

I'm not saying that wine is not a valid option, if that is preferred. My thought is that since communion symbolizes the blood of Christ and His presence is by faith in the heart of believers, we need not be legalistic about requiring wine. At the same time we probably shouldn't be legalistic about requiring not wine. 

This is more practical than theological I guess is what I am saying. There may be younger people in the audience who are better off not being exposed to alcohol; even if it is "sanctified" alcohol. I'm not saying alcohol is inherently a problem, but why have something of questionable value brought into the service?


----------



## AThornquist (Aug 19, 2009)

PilgrimPastor said:


> why have something of questionable value brought into the service?



Some believe it's simple:


> Because it's commanded!




Although at this point I agree with you. At my church we see it as symbolism that is done justice whether with wine or grape juice--so we use grape juice as a matter of practicality and because we want to avoid causing any trouble for the recovering alcoholics.


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian (Aug 19, 2009)

In a perfect world wine only.


----------



## PilgrimPastor (Aug 19, 2009)

AThornquist said:


> PilgrimPastor said:
> 
> 
> > why have something of questionable value brought into the service?
> ...





Backwoods Presbyterian said:


> In a perfect world wine only.



I appreciate that very much. Both of your posts combined I think are a well suited explanation of a solid position. In this culture (this being the key idea in my mind) the use of wine can be a problem for some people. Surely the intention of Scripture is not to cause a recovering alcoholic a stumbling block in the celebration of communion. 

I suppose a church could offer non-alcoholic drink for such people, but how could that possibly be done discreetly; perhaps in some cases. Thanks.


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian (Aug 19, 2009)

I certainly believe the Scriptures teach we should be serving wine only in communion, however, it is not the first issue I am going to stake my pastoral life on in a congregation.


----------



## Scottish Lass (Aug 19, 2009)

Ideally, wine only, but I think a session could make an exception for an allergy.


----------



## fredtgreco (Aug 19, 2009)

Backwoods Presbyterian said:


> I certainly believe the Scriptures teach we should be serving wine only in communion, however, it is not the first issue I am going to stake my pastoral life on in a congregation.



Very wise. I would encourage you to think about what your "non-negotiables" are, and what they are not. You don't want to die on every hill (or the wrong hill), but there are hills worth dying on.


----------



## historyb (Aug 19, 2009)

I voted option 3. When I was growing up our church used Welchs grape juice, I have never been able to drink it without thinking about communion


----------



## PilgrimPastor (Aug 19, 2009)

fredtgreco said:


> Backwoods Presbyterian said:
> 
> 
> > I certainly believe the Scriptures teach we should be serving wine only in communion, however, it is not the first issue I am going to stake my pastoral life on in a congregation.
> ...



I shepherd a Congregational Church which was formerly United Church of Christ. While this congregation has biblical moorings, in Congregational circles such as the National Association of Congregational Christian Churches, the major concern is whether the Pastor believes that the Bible is inspired.  We have more immediately pressing concerns in our conferences I am afraid. 

Thankfully, these folks left the UCC a handful of years prior to my coming - and want to follow Christ and grow in the knowledge of His word. I love the heritage of the Congregational Church and will stick where I have been called, but the honest biblical shepherd in our churches must be cognizant of where we have been in the last 50 years and mindful of the needs of those whom they serve.

At least in principal, this probably rings true to varying extents for us all.

-----Added 8/19/2009 at 10:19:33 EST-----



historyb said:


> I voted option 3. When I was growing up our church used Welchs grape juice, I have never been able to drink it without thinking about communion



I love Welch's grape juice. I drink it every evening. My wife recently told me that she thinks that I drink it because then I feel like I am taking communion every evening... she's probably right!


----------



## Edward (Aug 19, 2009)

What about wine without alcohol?


----------



## Reformed Thomist (Aug 19, 2009)

Edward said:


> What about wine without alcohol?



What's the point?


----------



## KMK (Aug 19, 2009)

fredtgreco said:


> Backwoods Presbyterian said:
> 
> 
> > I certainly believe the Scriptures teach we should be serving wine only in communion, however, it is not the first issue I am going to stake my pastoral life on in a congregation.
> ...



Exactly! Whatever you do, don't mess with the annual Ladies Christmas Brunch or the Memorial Day Garage Sale!!!!!


----------



## Paul Nowlan (Aug 19, 2009)

Reformed Thomist said:


> Edward said:
> 
> 
> > What about wine without alcohol?
> ...



Does this mean that if the communion cup has no alcohol, the communion is not valid.

Does communion revolve around the *physical element* of alcohol or the *spiritual element* of focusing on Jesus?


----------



## Edward (Aug 19, 2009)

Reformed Thomist said:


> Edward said:
> 
> 
> > What about wine without alcohol?
> ...



Just trying to find some common ground between the 'wine only' crowd and the 'no alcohol' crowd. And perhaps to show that it really isn't about wine. 
'


----------



## PilgrimPastor (Aug 19, 2009)

KMK said:


> Exactly! Whatever you do, don't mess with the annual Ladies Christmas Brunch or the Memorial Day Garage Sale!!!!!



Did that once, messed with the annual garage sale... didn't bode well for me, but the funny thing was that the very sweet and gentle ladies who were upset had a completely different tune upon my confrentation of their poor attitudes than the song they were singing just prior to my arrival...


----------



## Jesus is my friend (Aug 19, 2009)

Wow,I was really surprised so many folks went with wine w/alcohol,I was an alcoholic and I dont know what I would do if that were my only option,excellent support for this viewpoint though thanks for the help with understanding this.


----------



## Pergamum (Aug 19, 2009)

fredtgreco said:


> Backwoods Presbyterian said:
> 
> 
> > I certainly believe the Scriptures teach we should be serving wine only in communion, however, it is not the first issue I am going to stake my pastoral life on in a congregation.
> ...



I wish you or someone else would post an entire thread on your sentence above, Pastor Fred.


----------



## Wannabee (Aug 20, 2009)

We wrestled with this Brian, for the very reason you state. But we considered it the exception and that the exception, especially in light of the fact that it's a repercussion of sin, could not drive the rule. Win symbolizes too much to miss out on the blessing and opportunity to proclaim Christ in the communion remembrance. It is celebratory, which continually reminds us of the past, present and future aspects of the observation. Grape juice doesn't carry the same powerful statement. And, of course, Scripture simply states wine. Why bother with changing it?


----------



## puritanpilgrim (Aug 20, 2009)

> Originally Posted by Reformed Thomist
> Quote:
> Originally Posted by Edward
> What about wine without alcohol?
> ...



That's what I say about Decaf.


----------



## Igor (Aug 20, 2009)

Years ago I used to attend a Church whish was also attended by American missionaries on a regular basis. In our Baptist Churches we use wine and wine only for the Lord's Supper, but for those missionaries an exception was made and while everybody was served wine they were given grape juice - the pastor refered to "their tradition to abstain from alcohol". To me it was totally unacceptable: if you come as a missionary to another country and work with local congregations, respect and accept THEIR traditions (especially if they are Biblically based), not bring yours. Or just stay home. And if you belive that wine should be used for the Lord's Supper, why make any exceptions like this?
I doubt that the pastor would be served wine in the missionaries' home Church in the US!
That was one of the reasons I left that Church.


----------



## PointingToChrist (Aug 20, 2009)

I asked this in the other thread on wine and people have asked it here, but nobody seems to want to step up and answer the question:

Is it invalid and/or sinful to use grape juice/non-alcoholic wine in communion?


----------



## Glenn Ferrell (Aug 20, 2009)

PointingToChrist said:


> Is it invalid and/or sinful to use grape juice/non-alcoholic wine in communion?



One must distinguish between “invalid” and “illicit,” the later meaning not authorized or warranted. For example, kneeling at a rail to receive communion does not make it “invalid,” but such practice is “illicit.” To this practice, John Knox objected while serving a congregation in England, and declined appointment as a bishop in the Church of England. Sitting or reclining is the proper posture for receiving the Lord’s Supper. 

Wine is the proper element warranted by scripture. Unfermented , unfinished, immature, unprocessed “wine,” or its component grape juice, is not warranted by scripture, but not necessarily invalid.

“Sin” is any lack of conformity to the revealed will of God. All sins are not presumptuous; many are done in ignorance or without forethought or intent to sin. They’re still “sin.” In this life, none of us are without such to a greater or lesser degree.


----------



## Pergamum (Aug 20, 2009)

Igor said:


> Years ago I used to attend a Church whish was also attended by American missionaries on a regular basis. In our Baptist Churches we use wine and wine only for the Lord's Supper, but for those missionaries an exception was made and while everybody was served wine they were given grape juice - the pastor refered to "their tradition to abstain from alcohol". To me it was totally unacceptable: if you come as a missionary to another country and work with local congregations, respect and accept THEIR traditions (especially if they are Biblically based), not bring yours. Or just stay home. And if you belive that wine should be used for the Lord's Supper, why make any exceptions like this?
> I doubt that the pastor would be served wine in the missionaries' home Church in the US!
> That was one of the reasons I left that Church.



I wonder which is worse, personally abstaining from wine when in a land of drunkenness, or leaving a church over secondary issues?


----------



## JonathanHunt (Aug 20, 2009)

Pergamum said:


> Igor said:
> 
> 
> > Years ago I used to attend a Church whish was also attended by American missionaries on a regular basis. In our Baptist Churches we use wine and wine only for the Lord's Supper, but for those missionaries an exception was made and while everybody was served wine they were given grape juice - the pastor refered to "their tradition to abstain from alcohol". To me it was totally unacceptable: if you come as a missionary to another country and work with local congregations, respect and accept THEIR traditions (especially if they are Biblically based), not bring yours. Or just stay home. And if you belive that wine should be used for the Lord's Supper, why make any exceptions like this?
> ...



What is your evidence for such a cutting reply? One secondary issue has been raised. Our brother refers to a number of issues.


----------



## Igor (Aug 20, 2009)

Pergamum said:


> I wonder which is worse, personally abstaining from wine when in a land of drunkenness, or leaving a church over secondary issues?


Well, for me at that moment it was neither a secondary issue nor the only one. And though I am not sure I would do the same thing now, after many years, I am still sure it was totally wrong for many reasons. Communion, besides other things, symbolizes the unity of believers. I understand that missionaries from the US were kind of VIPs and treated accordingly (nothing wrong with that - they did help a lot), but it does not mean that they should have had the VIP-communion apart from the rest of the congregation.
"I may be wrong, no doubt I am, I generally am wrong, but this is my opinion" (c) Bernard Shaw


----------



## Pergamum (Aug 20, 2009)

Igor,

I am not decided as to the right or wrong of your action. 

I give no judgment, but I do want to give an alternative perspective and give the possibility that equal or greater fault COULD (but maybe not) been yours. The elements, being a secondary issue, are much less of an issue than your willfull walking away from this church (i.e. divisiveness).

Were there other reasons as well for you leaving this church? You make it appear that the element of the Lord's Supper (wine or grape juice) was THE deciding factor, which appears troublesome.



Also,

I would love to hear your thoughts on these teetotalling missionaries, the reasons for their actions and how they interacted with local Russions. Did they try to make grape juice the norm or did they merely abstain from wine (i.e, where they disruptive and did they try to dominate, or did they fit in as much as their own peculiar convictions allowed). Was there VIP status resented by the locals, and did the missionaries encourage or discourage this status (i.e. were they trying to cultivate this status or trying to dissuade others from viewing them this way?)

How can these missionaries better bless the Russians? What lessons can you give us about Western missionaries from your experience and how can their practice become better?


----------



## Igor (Aug 20, 2009)

Pergamum said:


> I give no judgment, but I do want to give an alternative perspective and give the possibility that equal or greater fault COULD (but maybe not) been yours. The elements, being a secondary issue, are much less of an issue than your willfull walking away from this church (i.e. divisiveness).
> 
> Were there other reasons as well for you leaving this church? You make it appear that the element of the Lord's Supper (wine or grape juice) was THE deciding factor, which appears troublesome.


Well, again, for me it WAS important. And you are right, this became the deciding factor. I believed the pastor was totally wrong and violated the Scripture, showing favoritism (James, 2) - we discussed the issue in his study later. I am not insisting it was the only right thing for me to do, but my conscience was hurt, I just could not stay there any longer. 
We are now in good terms with the pastor and never remember that issue.



> I would love to hear your thoughts on these teetotalling missionaries, the reasons for their actions and how they interacted with local Russions. Did they try to make grape juice the norm or did they merely abstain from wine (i.e, where they disruptive and did they try to dominate, or did they fit in as much as their own peculiar convictions allowed). Was there VIP status resented by the locals, and did the missionaries encourage or discourage this status (i.e. were they trying to cultivate this status or trying to dissuade others from viewing them this way?)


It was so many years ago, I can hardly remember the details. I was not very well familiar with those particular missionaries (I had joined that Church a few months before), but what I do know is that they did not try to dominate and impose their convictions on the congregation. And I do not remember their encouraging that "VIP-status" (though it was sometimes the case with others). As far as I know they only asked the pastor to give them grape juice because they abstained from wine and were not used to it. And I believe it was their big mistake. As well as the pastor's. I cannot think of anybody else who was also offended but me. But I was.



> How can these missionaries better bless the Russians? What lessons can you give us about Western missionaries from your experience and how can their practice become better?


Oh, it will be off topic here, still I will try very briefly. First, a missionary must know the culture, the history, the language, and the traditions of the country, even become the part of the culture (avoiding sinful habits, of course) - otherwise he will remain an alien to locals and will never be trusted and respected. Then, he must regard the local Christians and remember he is here to help, not to lord it, even if he is a sponsor. It does not mean he should conform to legalistic prejudices, foolish traditions, and all, but he should be very considerate. Nothing hurts more than disrespect.
To be a missionary is a calling, it is a great sacrifice, not just a short trip to an exotic country.


----------



## Pergamum (Aug 20, 2009)

Thanks Igor. 

Your responses were a blessing to me. I would love to hear more from you about your perspectives as a Russian believer, especially when it comes to western missionaries and mission practices. 

As iron, help sharpen me brother. God bless.


----------



## Reformed Thomist (Aug 20, 2009)

Paul Nowlan said:


> Does this mean that if the communion cup has no alcohol, the communion is not valid.?



It is probably valid -- the partaker in good faith may receive all of the spiritual benefits of the Sacrament -- but I am inclined to think that it is probably not _licit_.

We should be more concerned with Christ's wish than with whether something _does the job_.


----------



## SolaScriptura (Aug 20, 2009)

I think wine is preferable... but please... use _good_ wine.


----------



## Reformed Thomist (Aug 20, 2009)

And if you must use grape juice... please... don't use _this_:


----------



## Robert Truelove (Aug 20, 2009)

If the element Christ used in the institution of the Lord's supper was wine, we have no more authority to change it than we do to change the element of baptism to apple juice.


----------



## Paul Nowlan (Aug 20, 2009)

Robert Truelove said:


> If the element Christ used in the institution of the Lord's supper was wine, we have no more authority to change it than we do to change the element of baptism to apple juice.




So, what do you tell a person suffering from an alcohol allergy?


----------



## DonP (Aug 20, 2009)

Same thing you tell a person with a grape juice allergy. 

Also don't forget all of you wine only folks, to be consistent and not hypocritical, you have to use whole grain bread too, none of that modern altered bleached white flour stuff. 
That was not used in the Bible. 

So if the actual substance matters, we should use common table wine of a similar alcohol content made naturally without preservatives or fermentation additives. 

And a nice homemade whole grain bread. 

I happen to agree all of this would be preferable. 
But is it vital to the honorable celebration of the Supper?


----------



## Edward (Aug 20, 2009)

Glenn Ferrell said:


> Wine is the proper element warranted by scripture. Unfermented , unfinished, immature, unprocessed “wine,” or its component grape juice, is not warranted by scripture, but not necessarily invalid.



Unprocessed? Don't you mean processed? They make the wine, then they take the alcohol out. Ariel: The World's Best Non-alcoholic Wines


----------



## PilgrimPastor (Aug 20, 2009)

DonP said:


> I happen to agree all of this would be preferable.
> But is it vital to the honorable celebration of the Supper?



Clearly it is not vital. This debate is on such a minute scale that I am baffled by the fervency with which some make their point. Consider the throngs of people who will NOT be in church the next time the local fellowship celebrates communion. 

They will receive neither juice nor wine. They will choose to mow the grass rather then honor the living God of the Holy Scripture or to partake of some other kind of alcoholic beverage at the lake on their 25 thousand dollar boat rather than put a pence in the plate to support the Lord's work. 

In light of that, why argue too strongly over the material elements of the Lord's supper? Rather, celebrate the beauty of life in the local fellowship.

Now, I appreciate that we are talking the praxis of the righteous and not such matters, but that practical perspective seems helpful to me at least.


----------



## Jake (Aug 20, 2009)

Honest question: why does it matter if the juice is pasteurised or left to ferment? From my understanding, this is the only difference. They're both from the grape. I know Jesus instituted wine, but is grape juice really different enough for it to be a problem?


----------



## JennyG (Aug 21, 2009)

*an illuminating example?*

I recall years ago reading an account of an incident in a POW camp during the second world war, though unfortunately I can't give a reference for it. 
A handful of Christians (I think British) wished to celebrate communion together there. I can't now recall what edible/drinkable elements they were able to find, but I know it was nothing remotely resembling wine (nor grape-juice) and I'm not sure if it was even bread. An army chaplain prayed and blessed the whatever-it-was and they went ahead.
Can that have been invalid, or unacceptable to God?
I would really like to know what anyone thinks.


----------



## NaphtaliPress (Aug 21, 2009)

It was invalid and it wasn't the Lord's supper whatever else may have occurred. The right thing to do was wait until they had the proper elements; because the Lord's supper is not so necessary to have it unlawfully against God's prescription. At least grape juice is un-fermented fruit of the vine. The Westminster Larger catechism rules out "good intent" as an excuse to worship God in a way beyond his appointment.

Q101.What are the sins forbidden in the second commandment?
The sins forbidden in the second commandment, are, all devising, (a) counselling, (b) commanding, (c) using (d) and anyways approving any religious worship not instituted by God himself; (e) tolerating a false religion; (f) the making any representation of God, of all, or of any of the three Persons, either inwardly in our mind, or outwardly, in any kind of image or likeness of any creature whatsoever, (g) all worshipping of it, (h) or God in it, or by it; (i) the making of any representation of feigned deities, (k) and all worship of them, or service belonging to them; (l) all superstitious devices, (m) corrupting the worship of God, (n) adding to it, taking from it, (o) whether invented and taken up of ourselves, (p) or received by tradition from others, (q) though under the title of antiquity, (r) custom, (s) devotion, (t) good intent, or any other pretence whatsoever; (u) simony, (w) sacrilege, (x) all neglect, (y) contempt, (z) hindering, (a) and opposing the worship and ordinances which God hath appointed. (b)
a NUM 15:39
b DEU 13:6-8
c HOS 5:11; MIC 6:16
d 1KI 12:33 [Because of an error in some early printings some texts add 1KI 11:33.]
e DEU 12:30-32
f DEU 13:6-12; ZEC 13:2-3; REV 2:2, 14-15, 20; REV 17:12, 16-17 
g DEU 4:15-19; ACT 17:29; ROM 1:21-23, 25
h DAN 3:18; GAL 4:8
i EXO 32:5 
k EXO 32:8 
l 1KI 18:26, 28; ISA 65:11
m ACT 17:22; COL 2:21-23
n MAL 1:7-8, 14
o DEU 4:2
p PSA 106:39
q MAT 15:9
r 1PE 1:18
s JER 44:17
t ISA 65:3-5; GAL 1:13-14
u 1SA 13:11-12; 1SA 15:21 
w ACT 8:18
x ROM 2:22; MAL 3:8
y EXO 4:24-26
z MAT 22:5; MAL 1:7, 13
a MAT 23:13
b ACT 13:44-45; 1TH 2:15-16​


JennyG said:


> I recall years ago reading an account of an incident in a POW camp during the second world war, though unfortunately I can't give a reference for it.
> A handful of Christians (I think British) wished to celebrate communion together there. I can't now recall what edible/drinkable elements they were able to find, but I know it was nothing remotely resembling wine (nor grape-juice) and I'm not sure if it was even bread. An army chaplain prayed and blessed the whatever-it-was and they went ahead.
> Can that have been invalid, or unacceptable to God?
> I would really like to know what anyone thinks.


----------



## JennyG (Aug 21, 2009)

Thanks for all that. 


> ....... corrupting the worship of God, ...... under the title of....... good intent, or any other pretence whatsoever;



Do you think the "good intent" clause is the relevant one, since there was really no actual _intent_ to _change_ the form at all? "Any other pretence whatsoever" covers it! 
The most important thing would be whether they were right to try to hold a communion, if as you say it's never necessary.

But I think it would be a hard thing to have to tell men in that position, who very likely might not live to see it done properly again, that they did wrong even to attempt it.

What does anyone else think?
And maybe I should have separated the two last terms. If it is invalid does that mean it's automatically and totally unacceptable to the Lord?


----------



## NaphtaliPress (Aug 21, 2009)

I'm presuming good intent as far as good motives in desiring to have the Lord's supper; but the "whatsoever" does indeed cover all the basis. The Lord may accept imperfect and corrupted worship in Christ but that shouldn't justify or excuse not following His prescriptions.


----------



## Glenn Ferrell (Aug 21, 2009)

NaphtaliPress said:


> ...The right thing to do was wait until they had the proper elements; because the Lord's supper is not so necessary to have it unlawfully against God's prescription.



From today's M'Cheyne:

*1 Sam. 13:13a--* And Samuel said to Saul, Thou hast done foolishly: thou hast not kept the commandment of the LORD thy God, which he commanded thee:​


----------



## Paul Nowlan (Aug 21, 2009)

JennyG said:


> Thanks for all that.
> 
> 
> > ....... corrupting the worship of God, ...... under the title of....... good intent, or any other pretence whatsoever;
> ...



I agree with Jenny.

In my humble opinion communion revolves around thankfulness to Jesus, not alcohol content, bread ingredients or whatever. 

In my humble opinion communion is primarily a spiritual exercise, not physical.

I think that it is wonderful that these men could remember Jesus in such trying circumstances. Their "good intent" looks pretty good to me.


----------



## Skyler (Aug 21, 2009)

I picked "choice", but I think it should be the ministry's decision whether or not to provide wine(some ex-alcoholics can be "set off" so to speak by merely smelling alcohol, not even tasting it)


----------



## JennyG (Aug 21, 2009)

Glenn:


> 1 Sam. 13:13a-- And Samuel said to Saul, Thou hast done foolishly: thou hast not kept the commandment of the LORD thy God, which he commanded thee:


-I use Murray M'Cheyne too, so I also read that this morning! I don't think it's the same though. Saul usurped the priestly office in taking it on himself to offer the sacrifice. The Lord's supper is for all believers to partake of.

If those POWs had survived the war, gone home and attempted to introduce a similar practice there, they would have been clearly in the wrong, but where they were, they had no bread or wine.
However, "do this in remembrance of me" - check, they did.
"ye do show forth the Lord's death until he come" -- I think they did that too. And I could never disagree with Paul when he says:



> In my humble opinion communion revolves around thankfulness to Jesus, not alcohol content, bread ingredients or whatever.
> 
> In my humble opinion communion is primarily a spiritual exercise, not physical.



The Sabbath is a Creation ordinance that preceded the institution of the LS by some 4000 years, yet still Jesus could say it was made for man and not viceversa (and point to the example of David and the shewbread).

I remember when I first read of that prison camp incident, discussing it with an extremely zealous Roman Catholic. He was adamant that however meritorious, the act could never be a valid sacrament. Except that he didn't appeal to the Westminster Confession, he enforced his view in terms very similar to some expressed here, and I must admit that the vivid recollection weighs with me even now!


----------



## Prufrock (Aug 21, 2009)

JennyG said:


> I remember when I first read of that prison camp incident, discussing it with an extremely zealous Roman Catholic. He was adamant that however meritorious, the act could never be a valid sacrament. Except that he didn't appeal to the Westminster Confession, he enforced his view in terms very similar to some expressed here, and I must admit that the vivid recollection weighs with me even now!



Realistically speaking, the view expressed by the Roman Catholic and the views of Chris and Glenn expressed above have almost _nothing_ in common. For the Roman Catholic, it is invalid in that it (literally) "isn't happening." A priest is required for the elements to undergo transubstantiation. This is in no-wise similar to the reasoning expressed above. The RC is focused upon the physical act, and the absolute necessity thereof, placing far too much emphasis upon it; whereas the view expressed above would be accused (by the RC) of placing far too _little_ emphasis upon the act: since the act is not physically necessary, it can be safely refrained from when circumstances do not permit the proper exercise thereof. Thus, since the Supper is administered ecclesiastically to the church (and accordingly by a minister of the church), it can be argued that it is better to refrain from the sacrament to avoid superstition (as though the act were absolutely necessary) until such a time as it can be administered properly in an ecclesiastic setting by a lawfully ordained minister of word and sacrament.


----------



## JennyG (Aug 22, 2009)

Prufrock said:


> JennyG said:
> 
> 
> > I remember when I first read of that prison camp incident, discussing it with an extremely zealous Roman Catholic. He was adamant that however meritorious, the act could never be a valid sacrament. Except that he didn't appeal to the Westminster Confession, he enforced his view in terms very similar to some expressed here, and I must admit that the vivid recollection weighs with me even now!
> ...



Yes, I did realise that the basis for his conclusion was way different. I expressed it badly. What stuck with me so painfully was not his theological infrastructure but his utter determination to allow nothing outside of it.


----------



## toddpedlar (Aug 22, 2009)

JennyG said:


> Yes, I did realise that the basis for his conclusion was way different. I expressed it badly. What stuck with me so painfully was not his theological infrastructure but his utter determination to allow nothing outside of it.



I'm not sure I understand. If the Westminster Confession states clearly that the Lord's Supper is to be administered within certain limits, then why, in a confessional church, among confessionally Reformed folks, would it ever be desired/favored to consider anything outside those limits to be a proper administration of the Lord's Supper? 

The WCF clearly describes Scriptural doctrine of the sacraments - private baptisms, private taking of the Lord's Supper are neither baptism nor the Lord's Supper. I'm not sure why you seem to be concerned that there be openness to "alternative practices".


----------



## JennyG (Aug 22, 2009)

Todd:
(my computer's playing up and won't do the proper quotes for some reason)
"...why, in a confessional church, among confessionally Reformed folks, would it ever be desired/favored to consider anything outside those limits to be a proper administration of the Lord's Supper?"
It wouldn't, for anything that I can think of besides the reason(s) discussed above. That's what this thread has been all about, after all.

"I'm not sure why you seem to be concerned that there be openness to "alternative practices"..."
That's not how I would put it, that's loaded! It's not how I _did_ put it, either. If you're quoting there, you aren't quoting me. 
I haven't, and wouldn't even consider advocating "openness to alternative practices".

All i'm saying is that if those guys remembered and showed forth the Lord's death even in dirty water and rice husks, it was not sin in them (nor was it a precedent, except just possibly for any others equally in extremis).
To say otherwise seems like legalism to me.


----------



## HokieAirman (Aug 22, 2009)

Port please.


----------



## Glenn Ferrell (Aug 22, 2009)

JennyG said:


> Glenn:
> 
> 
> > 1 Sam. 13:13a-- And Samuel said to Saul, Thou hast done foolishly: thou hast not kept the commandment of the LORD thy God, which he commanded thee:
> ...



The situations are comparable. Both sacrifices in the OT and the Lord’s Supper in the NT are ordinances of God, given to the people of God, to be performed as God warrants. Neither is a private ceremony to be used to satisfy personal sentiments, or as some vehicle of supernatural power in difficult circumstances, except as God has indicated in his word. 

Saul thought he had good reason to offer sacrifice outside of the God prescribed manner. After all, he was surrounded by the enemy and his army was becoming discouraged and deserting. So, he takes it upon himself to offer a sacrifice contrary to God’s warrant, to gain some benefit which would have been his if he had simply trusted in God’s provision. Non-sacrifice in this case would have been an indication of faith. 

Likewise, today, when we refrain from worship according to our own desires and devices and follow God’s warrant, we show obedient faith, and receive all the benefits of such, even when we are not able to observe a particular ordinance.

While these POW’s may have been sincere in their desires, and perhaps sinned in ignorance and misunderstanding, they would have done better to refrain from the sacrament until it could be done according to God’s warrant.


----------



## Paul Nowlan (Aug 22, 2009)

Glenn Ferrell said:


> While these POW’s may have been sincere in their desires, and perhaps sinned in ignorance and misunderstanding, they would have done better to refrain from the sacrament until it could be done according to God’s warrant.



This is at the heart of our disagreement.

Glenn, you seem to believe that if you can't perform a Sacrament perfectly or near perfectly, it is better to not perform the Sacrament at all. You look at Saul's life and how greived God was at Saul, and seem to come to the conclusion, "Hey we better be very very careful about not degrading this Sacrament in any way, or else."

Glenn, I see where you want to obey God, and I see your good intentions. 


When I look at Saul's life, I see a man who didn't just didn't innocently mess up a Sacrament. I see a man who's heart wasn't right. He seemed to commit some huge sins - like build at statute to himself. (Not a good way to honour God.)

When I see a pastor offer grape juice to a weaker brother, I think that whatever possible sin against a Sacrament has been committed if any is far outweighed by the Godly desires to give thanks to Jesus and prevent a brother from stumbling. (A very good way to honour God.)

Its sort of like the possible sin of lying to the Gestapo in 1944 in Nazi Germany is far far outweighed by the Godly good of protecting Jews from harm.

I think the possible sin of failing to properly execute Communion is far outweighed by the Godly good to honour Jesus in difficult circumstances.

That is my position. I hope you understand it - but I suspect you still disagree with it. 

Oh well, I suspect there are 1,000 things we probably agree about. It's too bad certain aspects of Communion ain't one of them.


----------



## KMK (Aug 22, 2009)

JennyG said:


> I recall years ago reading an account of an incident in a POW camp during the second world war, though unfortunately I can't give a reference for it.
> A handful of Christians (I think British) wished to celebrate communion together there. I can't now recall what edible/drinkable elements they were able to find, but I know it was nothing remotely resembling wine (nor grape-juice) and I'm not sure if it was even bread. An army chaplain prayed and blessed the whatever-it-was and they went ahead.
> *Can that have been invalid, or unacceptable to God?*
> I would really like to know what anyone thinks.





JennyG said:


> Todd:
> (my computer's playing up and won't do the proper quotes for some reason)
> "...why, in a confessional church, among confessionally Reformed folks, would it ever be desired/favored to consider anything outside those limits to be a proper administration of the Lord's Supper?"
> It wouldn't, for anything that I can think of besides the reason(s) discussed above. That's what this thread has been all about, after all.
> ...



Your original question was to the 'validity' of their actions, not whether they 'sinned'.


----------



## Paul Nowlan (Aug 22, 2009)

It seems a number of pastors think using grape juice for Communion is inappropriate and at least one likened it to sins Saul committed (serious stuff). At least one pastor seems to think that a Communion without wine is worse than no Communion at all.

Question: why give your flock the option to use grape juice?

Perhaps the only options should be 1) Communion with wine 2) no Communion (If you can't handle wine, no Communion for you!)


P.S. Jenny,I thought your POW story was really cool


----------



## TheocraticMonarchist (Aug 22, 2009)

Paul Nowlan said:


> This poll I hope is different than the previous poll in 2008. This poll has an option for people to choose either wine or grape juice at the same communion.




I’ve had some time to consider this since the communion threads were posted and I’ve come to the conclusion that the alcohol content content, or lack thereof, of the fruit of the vine doesn't really matter. The red liquid that comes from the grape serves as a visual sign representing the blood of Christ. What purpose does invisible alcohol serve? 

At this time I favor nonalcoholic fruit of the vine over alcoholic fruit of the vine. I think both are acceptable. My concern with the use of alcohol is that it is almost guaranteed to make people uncomfortable in a ceremony where alcohol doesn't play a significant role. Further, offering both types of juice represents division at the Lord’s Table. You have those with a strong conscience are able to drink alcohol up against those with a weak conscience, alcohol problem, too young, etc.. Plus, if we are to only use one cup (i.e. not two cups, one with alcohol and the other with no alcohol) it is really an either/or situation. Whatever choice a church makes it needs to be carried out in unity.

I'm open to correction on this issue-- I know God is serous about the way he is worshipped-- but in my readings of Scripture I have not found anything to indicate that the alcohol is as equally important in the Lord's Supper as the actual juice that comes from the grape.


----------



## BertMulder (Aug 22, 2009)

With all due respect Paul,

(no I am not a moderator)

but I do believe you are entirely much to persistent on this issue. Especially as you found it necessary to start numerous threads on this one issue, that you seem to wish to convince people of your viewpoint simply by your much speaking and bullying.

And berating everyone that does not agree with you as lacking in the love and charity department.

Sit back and listen to people on this forum with more experience and wisdom than yourself, and perhaps you might learn something.


----------



## KMK (Aug 22, 2009)

This thread needs a breather...at least for the Lord's Day.


----------

