# Juice is not the element!



## Andrew P.C. (Jan 11, 2018)

I used this title to hopeful draw more people to this discussion.

Knowing that wine in the Lords Supper was not disputed in the Christian Church for close to 1800 years, and that every commentary you pick up (that I know of) says “fruit of the vine” is wine, what justification does one have for substituting wine for grape juice, knowing that the Lord Himself instituted the Supper with wine?

I should also note that I have heard the argument that once you open the cap of juice, it starts the fermentation process. Well, knowing first hand how the fermentation process works, this is not true. Also, there is quite a big difference between “just starting the fermentation process” and already aged wine, which was instituted by Christ.

I also find the “what about alcoholics in the church” argument misplaced. It suggests there weren’t alcoholics for 1800 years before the pasteurization process, in my opinion.

Thanks in advance!

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## OPC'n (Jan 11, 2018)

My sister is highly allergic to alcohol (very sad story I know lol), so there would be no way that she could partake of the Lord's Super if they didn't offer grape juice along with wine. Also, think about men in prison for their faith. They aren't going to have wine....water if they are lucky. The women in prison for their faith are out of luck since they can't perform the Lord's Super.


----------



## Logan (Jan 11, 2018)

One possible reason every commentary in the past assumed wine is that there was really no other method of preserving "the fruit of the vine".

I'm curious what percentage alcohol content determines whether it is acceptable "wine" or not?

Reactions: Like 2 | Informative 1


----------



## Andrew P.C. (Jan 11, 2018)

Logan said:


> One possible reason every commentary in the past assumed wine is that there was really no other method of preserving "the fruit of the vine".
> 
> I'm curious what percentage alcohol content determines whether it is acceptable "wine" or not?



The question isn’t about percentage of alcohol. Never has been. Welch’s grape juice was never meant to be fermented so the underlying principle of grape juice is specifically to have unfermented juice.

Fruit of the vine, especially given in the context of the Lords Supper during Passover, means nothing else but wine. Keith Mathison, for example, covers this well in his book on the Lords Supper.


----------



## Logan (Jan 11, 2018)

By the way, I'm certainly not opposed to using wine, but here's some more things to think about. The term "wine" is not as easy to define as we might think. 

The cupbearer in Gen 40 is generally assumed to be speaking of wine when in his dream he squeezes the grapes into his hand. No fermentation. It could have been left out for the sake of simplification but Matthew Henry comments "Probably it had been usual with him to press the full-ripe grapes immediately into Pharaoh's cup, the simplicity of that age not being acquainted with the modern arts of making the wine fine." (note he implicitly refers to unfermented grape juice as "wine").

Trapp likewise comments on this verse "That he might have his wine fresh and new." (once again note that he calls unfermented grape juice "wine").

Other commentators, such as Clarke and Barnes (sometimes helpful) believed the Jews drank unfermented grape juice. Still others point to passages in the Mishna as evidence that the wine Jews drank was not fermented, but rather boiled. I can't find the original citation but someone I found online quoted Horace (c. 65 BC) praising a non-intoxicating wine. 

So what does "wine" mean? I don't think it's nearly as straightforward as saying "wine then was what we call wine now." Would we advocate boiled grape paste in communion if that's what wine actually was at that time? But that it was made from grapes I think we can all agree on.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Andrew P.C. (Jan 11, 2018)

OPC'n said:


> My sister is highly allergic to alcohol (very sad story I know lol), so there would be no way that she could partake of the Lord's Super if they didn't offer grape juice along with wine. Also, think about men in prison for their faith. They aren't going to have wine....water if they are lucky. The women in prison for their faith are out of luck since they can't perform the Lord's Super.



What specifically is she allergic to? Is it the red wines? If that’s the case, what about using white wine? 

For the color issue, Turretin gives a good response in that the wine used is “common” wine. Color was never an issue.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Logan (Jan 11, 2018)

Andrew P.C. said:


> What specifically is she allergic to? Is it the red wines? If that’s the case, what about using white wine?
> 
> For the color issue, Turretin gives a good response in that the wine used is “common” wine. Color was never an issue.



That's interesting, because I would think the color far more relevant to the symbolism ("this is my blood") than whether it was fermented or not.

Reactions: Like 2 | Amen 1


----------



## Andrew P.C. (Jan 11, 2018)

Logan said:


> By the way, I'm certainly not opposed to using wine, but here's some more things to think about. The term "wine" is not as easy to define as we might think.
> 
> The cupbearer in Gen 40 is generally assumed to be speaking of wine when in his dream he squeezes the grapes into his hand. No fermentation. It could have been left out for the sake of simplification but Matthew Henry comments "Probably it had been usual with him to press the full-ripe grapes immediately into Pharaoh's cup, the simplicity of that age not being acquainted with the modern arts of making the wine fine." (note he implicitly refers to unfermented grape juice as "wine").
> 
> ...



The issue is that your taking specific portions of scripture that don’t deal with the Passover or the Supper and using them as what can be used for the Lords Supper. Jewish tradition and scripture point to the fact that wine was used in the Passover and is used in the Lords Supper because I’d the Passover.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Andrew P.C. (Jan 11, 2018)

Logan said:


> That's interesting, because I would think the color far more relevant to the symbolism ("this is my blood") than whether it was fermented or not.



If I recall, that would be a zwinglian approach to the Lords Supper. I’ll have to find the portion in Turretins Institutes. It’s worth the read.


----------



## Logan (Jan 11, 2018)

Andrew P.C. said:


> The issue is that your taking specific portions of scripture that don’t deal with the Passover or the Supper and using them as what can be used for the Lords Supper. Jewish tradition and scripture point to the fact that wine was used in the Passover and is used in the Lords Supper because I’d the Passover.



No, please re-read what I wrote and think about the point I was trying to make. I spelled it out clearly.


----------



## Andrew P.C. (Jan 11, 2018)

Logan said:


> No, please re-read what I wrote and think about the point I was trying to make. I spelled it out clearly.



I did... 4 times. 

Asking what the “word” meant doesn’t deal with the context. Context dictates usage.

So again, knowing how the Passover was done, where is the justification for grape juice in the Lords Supper, exegetically.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Logan (Jan 11, 2018)

Andrew P.C. said:


> I did... 4 times.



So...what does "wine" mean when both Henry and Trapp apply the term to unfermented grape juice? How do you know what the content of the "wine" in the Lord's Supper was? There's nothing in the context that says, you have to infer somewhere and I'm trying to ask what the right inference is, or if it even matters.

As an additional thought: we even have to infer that it was wine used at the Lord's Supper, because the context doesn't say that specifically. That seems fairly straight-forward and there's little argument, but once again, I don't think it's nearly as easy as saying "the wine used in the Bible is what I mean when I say 'wine'".


----------



## Andrew P.C. (Jan 11, 2018)

Logan said:


> I don't think it's nearly as easy as saying "the wine used in the Bible is what I mean when I say 'wine'".




Sure, except, as you point out, the word isn’t “wine”. The phrase used is “fruit of the vine”.

The issue is that this in the context of the Passover: “With desire I have desired to eat this passover with you before I suffer“ (Luke 22). Fermented “wine” was used in the Passover. 

It should also be pointed out that hebraists such as John Lightfoot comment that the tradition was wine.


----------



## Logan (Jan 11, 2018)

Andrew P.C. said:


> Sure, except, as you point out, the word isn’t “wine”. The phrase used is “fruit of the vine”.
> 
> The issue is that this in the context of the Passover: “With desire I have desired to eat this passover with you before I suffer“ (Luke 22). Fermented “wine” was used in the Passover.
> 
> It should also be pointed out that hebraists such as John Lightfoot comment that the tradition was wine.



I have already posted far more in this thread than I should have.

When the Bible says to sing hymns, does that mean "Come Thou Fount" and "Amazing Grace"? No. How would the first readers have understood the term?

When the Bible says "wine" does it mean the same thing you mean? Possibly, but you have to at least allow that it does not. Then you have to ask what it _does_ mean: how would the first readers have understood the term? How do you know that wine was used in the Passover? How do you know it was fermented? How do you know that what Hebrews referred to as "wine" was fermented? How do you know that Lightfoot was right? How do you know that Lightfoot means fermented wine when both Trapp and Henry call unfermented grape juice "wine"? The list goes on.

Aren't you making a rather large assumption? Can you give a definition for "wine" and prove that this definition has been used consistently and universally throughout all history, keeping the above counter-examples in mind? Can you describe the exact process of making the "wine" used at the Passover celebrated with the disciples? There is just too much we don't know. 

So therefore, the question is no longer "wine vs not-wine" but what is wine? What would be considered "fruit of the vine"? And do various forms of it make a difference? That would be a much more interesting and helpful discussion.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Ryan&Amber2013 (Jan 11, 2018)

I think Logan might have you on this one, brother

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## KMK (Jan 11, 2018)

There was no biblical reason for 19th and early 20th century American churches to substitute grape juice for wine. But, as can be seen from this thread, now that the substitution has been made, it is no so easy to find a biblical way to change grape juice back into wine.

In my experience, alcohol issue continues to be one of the most controversial issues in the modern American churches.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## JimmyH (Jan 11, 2018)

As long as I have been partaking in the Lord's Supper grape juice has been the symbol of His Blood. I am comfortable that this is within the RPW and will continue to be the normative practice.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## VictorBravo (Jan 11, 2018)

I'll toss in a grape grower's observation. Whatever wine was or is, one thing I'm sure about is that there were not any fresh grapes in the Spring. Fruit of the Vine consumed during Passover had to come from the previous Fall.

So, it was either fermented alcoholic wine, or it was vinegar. I'm pretty sure they weren't using refrigeration or pasteurized canning back then.

Reactions: Like 6


----------



## Romans922 (Jan 11, 2018)

Summary of what is written below:

When dealing with this topic it is always easy to go to hypotheticals and those situations that are possible exceptions to the rule. We need to train ourselves to handle the principles of Scripture first and then dealing with hypotheticals and scenarios.



OPC'n said:


> My sister is highly allergic to alcohol (very sad story I know lol), so there would be no way that she could partake of the Lord's Super if they didn't offer grape juice along with wine. Also, think about men in prison for their faith. They aren't going to have wine....water if they are lucky. The women in prison for their faith are out of luck since they can't perform the Lord's Super.



Sad to hear this but that is an exception to the rule/principle. I’m sure there are many allergic to grape juice? Then what? That’s up to local elders to decide how to handle on case by case basis.



Logan said:


> I'm curious what percentage alcohol content determines whether it is acceptable "wine" or not?



Great question but again a distraction from the main issue of grape juice vs wine. God doesn’t tell us the exact amount of alcohol if one holds to wine. So the rest of Scriptures’ principles would guide this for a Session to decide.


If any want to PM me I have done some work looking at the symbolism of Scripture from OT to NT with understanding the cup of the Lord’s supper. I am more than willing to send you my findings.


----------



## Romans922 (Jan 11, 2018)

As to what wine is: it is absolutely impossible for a grape to be broken and it not to begin fermenting immediately. Pasteurization was not invented until 1861 or ‘62. Pasteurization of grapes was not invented until 1869. Thus, before that date all wine had some amount of alcohol in it. This is clearly evidenced in 1 Cor. 11 where men were becoming drunk on the cup (not waiting for all to join),

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Logan (Jan 11, 2018)

VictorBravo said:


> I'll toss in a grape grower's observation. Whatever wine was or is, one thing I'm sure about is that there were not any fresh grapes in the Spring. Fruit of the Vine consumed during Passover had to come from the previous Fall.
> 
> So, it was either fermented alcoholic wine, or it was vinegar. I'm pretty sure they weren't using refrigeration or pasteurized canning back then.



That's a good point Victor. I can't vouch for the validity of this, but I stumbled across a website that had this claim about methods of preservation in biblical times:



> One method involved boiling the juice and reducing it to a syrup that could later be diluted with water. Another was to boil the juice with minimum evaporation and then immediately seal it with beeswax in airtight jars. Drying the fruit in the sun and then reconstituting it with water, adding sulfur to the fruit juice, or filtering the juice to extract the gluten were also methods that would prevent the juice from fermenting. These means of preservation were known to the ancients, who also practiced boiling fermented juice to eliminate the alcohol. Referring to reconstituting grape syrup to make grape juice, Aristotle, who was born around 384 b.c., wrote “The wine of Arcadia was so thick that it was necessary to scrape it from the skin bottles in which it was contained and to dissolve the scrapings in water” (quoted in Nott’s Lectures on Biblical Temperance, p. 80).


----------



## KMK (Jan 11, 2018)

Romans922 said:


> God doesn’t tell us the exact amount of alcohol if one holds to wine.



But, God does tell us that alcohol is present in such quantity that...

1) It improves with age. "The old is better." Luke 5:39

2) It has medicinal properties. "bound up his wounds, pouring in oil and wine..." Luke 10:34

3) It increases merriment. "Wine maketh merry." Ecc 10:19

4) In excess it impairs health (Hos 4:11), judgment (Isa 28:7), and self-control (Isa 5:11).

Sounds a lot like the modern wine of today. 

I am not sure why there must always be a discussion of alcohol content except to distract from the main question.

Reactions: Like 4


----------



## Logan (Jan 11, 2018)

Romans922 said:


> Great question but again a distraction from the main issue of grape juice vs wine. God doesn’t tell us the exact amount of alcohol if one holds to wine.



I appreciate your comments, but if grape juice _is_ a form of wine, as Trapp, Henry, Clarke, Gill, and Barnes think (some call fresh juice "new wine"), then it isn't a distraction. Like I said, I don't have an issue either way but I don't think we are nearly as well-informed on what constitutes biblical wine as we think.

I would be fascinated to read about what was used at the Passover, but I'm not sure we can actually know. The 1 Cor 11 passage you bring up may be the strongest evidence in favor of fermented wine...or that could just be the fruit of the vine they had on hand. I don't know.

I'm adding this because I find it very interesting: out of the eight terms used to refer to wine in the New Testament, the term "fruit of the vine" is the most ambiguous and yet it is the only indication of what was used at the Lord's Supper. Interesting! Are we to infer what was used from extra-biblical sources, or take the words at face-value? I have no idea but how fascinating! Similarly, if it was wine, and yet wine was apparently drunk at every stage of the fermentation process (including new wine, immediately) then at what point of the process was Passover celebrated at or would it matter? Any theses out there on this I can read? 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alcohol_in_the_Bible#Greek


----------



## Andrew P.C. (Jan 11, 2018)

Romans922 said:


> Thus, before that date all wine had some amount of alcohol in it.



And this is the point. Grape juice, heated, bottled, and refrigerated is specifically done so it won’t ferment. 

According to John Lightfoot, the practice among the Jewish Talmudists and Jewish people before and during Christ’s time was the use of fermented drink in the Passover.

https://renopres.com/2017/09/28/john-lightfoot-if-he-drinks-wine-pure/


----------



## Andrew P.C. (Jan 11, 2018)

Logan said:


> When the Bible says "wine" does it mean the same thing you mean?




It’s interesting that you use one passage to come to a “juice” conclusion for an element of worship.

What about John 2 and Luke 7 where wine literally means fermented drink? Or 1 Cor. 11 where Paul says “For I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you”, concerning the Lords Supper. Clearly they were using fermented drink. It seems not only consistent, but necessary to conclude that fermented drink was instituted at the Lords Supper, or Paul lied when he said he got it from the Lord Himself.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Logan (Jan 11, 2018)

Andrew P.C. said:


> It’s interesting that you use one passage to come to a “juice” conclusion for an element of worship.



I don't think you're understanding what I'm saying. At all.


----------



## earl40 (Jan 11, 2018)

One thing I do know. If a member of a proposed reformed congregation wishes to have wine (as is proposed in our standards) and not grape juice it is against our standards to violate that persons conscience by at least not serving both.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## NaphtaliPress (Jan 11, 2018)

A tangent, but are there not issues with the Talmudic writings? Are they not all later than 1st century or reconstructed (I'm forgetting who I heard say something along those lines). And I think it was Schlissel who tried to use Christ's use of the cups in the passover to refute the regulative principle of worship. There is no prescription for four cups or sayings to go with them.


Andrew P.C. said:


> And this is the point. Grape juice, heated, bottled, and refrigerated is specifically done so it won’t ferment.
> 
> According to John Lightfoot, the practice among the Jewish Talmudists and Jewish people before and during Christ’s time was the use of fermented drink in the Passover.
> 
> https://renopres.com/2017/09/28/john-lightfoot-if-he-drinks-wine-pure/

Reactions: Informative 1


----------



## KGP (Jan 11, 2018)

Logan said:


> That's interesting, because I would think the color far more relevant to the symbolism ("this is my blood") than whether it was fermented or not.



I think it is the bitterness of the cup that bears the most relevance, more so than the color, though I believe that to be relevant also.

I grow weary of sweet grape juice. It was a bitter cup Christ drank, it was a bitter fate he suffered, and he did it for me, praise his name. I drink Welch's happily when that is what's prepared, though I feel that wine would just be more fitting. 99% of my life it's been Juice.

Above my personal wishes are the other people whom Christ drank that cup for. He did it so that we can come together with him now, and so that ultimately we will all be together with him where he is. Let's look to Christ and look to the family we have been adopted into with love and not be divisive. I say that as a reminder to myself.


----------



## Andrew P.C. (Jan 11, 2018)

Logan said:


> When the Bible says "wine" does it mean the same thing you mean? Possibly, but you have to at least allow that it does not. Then you have to ask what it _does_ mean: how would the first readers have understood the term? How do you know that wine was used in the Passover? How do you know it was fermented? How do you know that what Hebrews referred to as "wine" was fermented? How do you know that Lightfoot was right? How do you know that Lightfoot means fermented wine when both Trapp and Henry call unfermented grape juice "wine"? The list goes on.
> 
> Aren't you making a rather large assumption? Can you give a definition for "wine" and prove that this definition has been used consistently and universally throughout all history, keeping the above counter-examples in mind? Can you describe the exact process of making the "wine" used at the Passover celebrated with the disciples? There is just too much we don't know.





Logan said:


> I don't think you're understanding what I'm saying. At all.



Well then either you aren’t understanding my response or you need to explain to this idiot.

You’re asking for uses of wine in scripture. I literally just quoted you. It’s there. I gave you New Testament examples including what was passed down to Paul. Yet your only response is calling me stupid. Nice.


----------



## Andrew P.C. (Jan 11, 2018)

NaphtaliPress said:


> A tangent, but are there not issues with the Talmudic writings? Are they not all later than 1st century or reconstructed (I'm forgetting who I heard say something along those lines). And I think it was Schlissel who tried to use Christ's use of the cups in the passover to refute the regulative principle of worship. There is no prescription for four cups or sayings to go with them.



Right and I understand that there are issues with certain aspects of the Talmudists. However, the particular practice of using fermented wine hasn’t been a dispute among the reformed churches. Which was my point for Lightfoot.


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon (Jan 11, 2018)

This might be of help: Wine Vs. Grape Juice in the Lord's Supper.

And this: Wine in the Talmud.

Does anyone know what Puritan or Reformer used grape juice in the Lord's Supper?

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon (Jan 11, 2018)

Turretin, Volume 3, 431.

"The wine is common, not diluted with water. The rites connected with the symbols are either the acts or the words of Christ. The acts are the taking of the bread and blessing it. Common “wine” is instituted, of indifferent color, undiluted with water because it is called simply the “fruit of the vine” (Mt. 26:29; Mk. 14:25). Thus the Romanists here without reason urge the mixture of water with the wine, which although according to them is not of the integrity of the sacrament, still is of its congruity, nor can it be omitted without mortal sin (as Bellarmine holds). For although it may seem to be indifferent (which may be equally omitted or retained, provided the order of the church is not disturbed; and it is clear that by the ancients water was mixed with the wine because the use of pure wine is rare among the orientals); still they are deservedly to be censured because (without authority from the word) they invent mortal sins and condemn the liberty of others."

Reactions: Like 5


----------



## Andrew P.C. (Jan 11, 2018)

Here is a hypothetical: if unfermented drink is used at the institution, what does that say about the testimony of the church? Can we find one example where unfermented juice is said to be ok for the sacrament, in church history? If so, what are their justifications? If not, then 1800 years of church testimony has to mean something.


----------



## Southern Presbyterian (Jan 11, 2018)

**Moderation**



Andrew P.C. said:


> Well then either you aren’t understanding my response or you need to explain to this idiot.
> 
> You’re asking for uses of wine in scripture. I literally just quoted you. It’s there. I gave you New Testament examples including what was passed down to Paul. Yet your only response is calling me stupid. Nice.



Andrew,

The only one using pejoratives here is you. Let's please not get carried away in frustration. You both seem to be talking past one another on this subject.

If this unfruitful portion of the discussion continues, I'll close the thread.

Thank you,

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Logan (Jan 11, 2018)

Andrew P.C. said:


> Well then either you aren’t understanding my response or you need to explain to this idiot.
> 
> You’re asking for uses of wine in scripture. I literally just quoted you. It’s there. I gave you New Testament examples including what was passed down to Paul. Yet your only response is calling me stupid. Nice.



I do apologize for offending. I do not think or call you stupid. However, I do feel like you are responding to things you think I'm saying, rather than what I actually am.

I'm an engineer. My job is to make hypotheses, poke holes in them, make them stronger, and always challenge assumptions. I've been challenging yours and I don't think you've understood that.

If I could break down what I've been saying, it would simply be this: "I don't think we can know enough to _exclude_ the possibility that what was drunk at the Last Supper was unfermented. That is _not_ to say that I think it should be or was.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Andrew P.C. (Jan 11, 2018)

Logan said:


> I do apologize for offending. I do not think or call you stupid. However, I do feel like you are responding to things you think I'm saying, rather than what I actually am.
> 
> I'm an engineer. My job is to make hypotheses, poke holes in them, make them stronger, and always challenge assumptions. I've been challenging yours and I don't think you've understood that.
> 
> If I could break down what I've been saying, it would simply be this: "I don't think we can know enough to _exclude_ the possibility that what was drunk at the Last Supper was unfermented. That is _not_ to say that I think it should be or was.



Thank you for that. I apologize if I’ve caused anything.

I agree the questions are valid, however it would seem (from different passages), at least from looking at the New Testament, that wine is consistent with “fermented drink”.

For example, in the places wine is specifically address:

John 2- where water was turned into “wine” I.e. fermented drink

Like 7 - where Christ was called a drunkard for drinking “wine”

1 Cor. 11 - where Paul passed down to them what was passed down to Paul I.e. fermented drink in the Lords Supper.

Especially in the gospels, but also the New Testament, I don’t find one instance where wine is used, and it means unfermented. Keeping with this, the only conclusion is that Christ instituted fermented drink at the Lords Supper.

With that, my process is this: if Christ instituted it for the church, we are to do what Christ commands, right?


----------



## OPC'n (Jan 11, 2018)

Andrew P.C. said:


> What specifically is she allergic to? Is it the red wines? If that’s the case, what about using white wine?
> 
> For the color issue, Turretin gives a good response in that the wine used is “common” wine. Color was never an issue.



Any type of alcohol. Doesn't matter what it is


----------



## Andrew P.C. (Jan 11, 2018)

OPC'n said:


> Any type of alcohol. Doesn't matter what it is



I’m sorry to hear that. Truly. I suppose this issue would be the same for baptism with someone who has aquagenic urticaria or water allergies.

Should we substitute water for something else? I ask for anyone to answer, not to be insensitive.


----------



## OPC'n (Jan 11, 2018)

Romans922 said:


> Sad to hear this but that is an exception to the rule/principle. I’m sure there are many allergic to grape juice? Then what? That’s up to local elders to decide how to handle on case by case basis



Then they can drink the wine.


----------



## OPC'n (Jan 11, 2018)

Andrew P.C. said:


> I’m sorry to hear that. Truly. I suppose this issue would be the same for baptism with someone who has aquagenic urticaria or water allergies.
> 
> Should we substitute water for something else? I ask for anyone to answer, not to be insensitive.



Sprinkling with water would be the answer. Not even pouring water on the head but only sprinkling.


----------



## Andrew P.C. (Jan 11, 2018)

OPC'n said:


> Sprinkling with water would be the answer. Not even pouring water on the head but only sprinkling.



If this is the case, would you say one or two drops of wine would be a good remedy? Hypothetically if only wine was used.


----------



## OPC'n (Jan 11, 2018)

Andrew P.C. said:


> If this is the case, would you say one or two drops of wine would be a good remedy? Hypothetically if only wine was used.



I don't see the point when there's nothing wrong with serving grape juice for the Lord's Supper. I think water would even be acceptable if there was no other choice i.e. imprisoned for your faith so you have no access to wine or grape juice.


----------



## Logan (Jan 11, 2018)

Andrew P.C. said:


> I agree the questions are valid, however it would seem (from different passages), at least from looking at the New Testament, that wine is consistent with “fermented drink”.
> 
> For example, in the places wine is specifically address:
> 
> John 2- where water was turned into “wine” I.e. fermented drink



And this is what I was getting at with my earlier comments. In John 2 you are assuming it means fermented drink. I agree that is likely, but isn't it possible it is not?

What does the "new wine" in old wineskins mean? Just before starting the fermentation process? During? After? Perhaps Victor can answer but I would suspect it's earlier in the process (so that it causes the wineskins to burst from the gas caused by yeast eating the sugar?). Yet it's still called "wine". So it seems that the term "wine", as used in Scripture, can describe more than just one type of drink, regardless of alcohol content (or lack of). We can't necessarily assume that the biblical writers were just as specific in their usage of terms as we are today and remember that we are deducing or inferring quite a bit on this.

When there are eight Greek terms in the New Testament apparently referring to various levels of "wine" all the way from non-intoxicating "new wine" (apparently freshly pressed) to "strong drink" (obviously intoxicating) then it's not at all clear to me where on the spectrum of non-intoxicating-to-intoxicating the wine (we infer) used at the Lord's Supper is, or if it is important. I don't see any reason to _exclude_ the possibility that it could be anywhere on that spectrum of "fruit of the vine" and that the exact position on the spectrum is irrelevant.


----------



## Andrew P.C. (Jan 11, 2018)

Logan said:


> When there are eight Greek terms in the New Testament apparently referring to various levels of "wine" all the way from non-intoxicating "new wine"



But where is “non-intoxicating” wine in the NT? I assume the same can be said of you in that you’re “assuming” this.


----------



## Andrew P.C. (Jan 11, 2018)

Logan said:


> In John 2 you are assuming it means fermented drink.




I’m not assuming when the passage says it was: “and saith unto him, Every man at the beginning doth set forth good wine; and when men have well drunk, that which is worse: _but_ thou hast kept the good wine until now”.


----------



## VictorBravo (Jan 11, 2018)

Logan said:


> What does the "new wine" in old wineskins mean? Just before starting the fermentation process? During? After? Perhaps Victor can answer but I would suspect it's earlier in the process (so that it causes the wineskins to burst from the gas caused by yeast eating the sugar?).



When you harvest the grapes still on bunches, not much happens. The minute you de-stem them or press them, fermentation begins. I'm pretty sure it is because the natural yeast found on the grape skins does not have contact with the juice until the skin is breached in some way.

If you take some freshly pressed grape juice and pour it into a bucket, it will be frothing with obvious fermentation within an hour in moderately warm conditions. The bubbles come from carbon dioxide as a product from the fermentation. If you leave it open to the air, the must (fermenting grape juice) will oxidize and become vinegar. This is because of acidifying bacteria also found in the air.

The "new wine, new skins" idea can be demonstrated with a bottle and balloon on top. You pour freshly pressed grape juice into a bottle and cover the opening with a balloon, and over not too long, the balloon inflates. A lot of pressure builds up--sometimes prematurely bottled wines can explode. Accordingly, the old wineskin, having been stretched out already, would not be up to the task for such new wine.

BTW, the alcohol content increases fairly quickly at first, and then the rate of change slows--largely it is a function of the amount of sugar in the juice, the temperature, and the fact that as alcohol levels go up, the biological processes are suppressed. Even day-old grape juice has enough alcohol to taste.

I don't make much wine anymore. We have lots of grapes from our little vineyard, and I either freeze them immediately after de-stemming, or use a steam juicer and can the juice. I do make a gallon or so each year just to remember how.

Reactions: Like 2 | Informative 3


----------



## Bill The Baptist (Jan 11, 2018)

I personally prefer wine to be used as the element, and I say that as a Baptist, but I also agree with Logan that we go too far if we say that juice is forbidden altogether. 

It is an error to presume to be wiser than Christ by forbidding wine, but it is also an error to insist that fermented wine is the only element that qualifies as “fruit of the vine.” 

While there is much importance in all of the rich symbolism of the supper, we must remember that ultimately it is the thing signified and not the symbol that is important. If we insist that we follow the precise pattern of Jesus and the apostles down to the very letter, then we would be partaking of a Passover Seder meal rather than the Lord’s Supper.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Logan (Jan 11, 2018)

Andrew P.C. said:


> But where is “non-intoxicating” wine in the NT? I assume the same can be said of you in that you’re “assuming” this.



I'm not assuming it, I'm just not assuming its impossibility! From what I've read, "new wine" sometimes described unfermented wine.



Andrew P.C. said:


> I’m not assuming when the passage says it was: “and saith unto him, Every man at the beginning doth set forth good wine; and when men have well drunk”.



Which part necessitates it being fermented? It being called "good"? Or the common assumption that the man was referring to guests becoming intoxicated enough not to notice bad wine? As I said, it is definitely likely, but not absolutely certain in my mind. But that's a side-issue anyway.



VictorBravo said:


> If you take some freshly pressed grape juice and pour it into a bucket, it will be frothing with obvious fermentation within an hour in moderately warm conditions. The bubbles come from carbon dioxide as a product from the fermentation. If you leave it open to the air, the must (fermenting grape juice) will oxidize and become vinegar. This is because of acidifying bacteria also found in the air.



Thank you, that is quite interesting! Given that it happens so quickly, it apparently would only take a few days for "new wine" to become fermented.


----------



## Andrew P.C. (Jan 11, 2018)

Logan said:


> Which part necessitates it being fermented? It being called "good"? Or the common assumption that the man was referring to guests becoming intoxicated enough not to notice bad wine? As I said, it is definitely likely, but not absolutely certain in my mind. But that's a side-issue anyway.



So the men, not being intoxicated, wouldn’t notice bad grape juice? Seems like stretch at best.



Logan said:


> From what I've read, "new wine" sometimes described unfermented wine.



But where in the NT?


----------



## Parakaleo (Jan 11, 2018)

From "The Bible and Alcoholic Beverages" (Rev. Greg Price), which has a full discussion of all Hebrew and Greek uses for wine of various kinds:

"There was a Greek word available to the writers of the New Testament which might have been used to refer to grape juice (_trux_) had they wanted their readers to understand that the common beverage used by Christ, the disciples, Timothy, the elders and deacons, and the Corinthian believers was unfermented grape juice (_A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament And Other Early Christian Literature_ , by Bauer, Arndt, and Gingrich, p.564). The Holy Spirit of God chose not to use _trux_ (grape juice) even one time in the New Testament. There is therefore no reference in the New Testament to unfermented grape juice, but all references are to fermented wine."

Full text here: http://www.reformedpresbytery.org/books/alcoholb/alcoholb.htm


----------



## Logan (Jan 11, 2018)

Parakaleo said:


> "The Holy Spirit of God chose not to use _trux_ (grape juice) even one time in the New Testament. There is therefore no reference in the New Testament to unfermented grape juice, but all references are to fermented wine."



That seems like a big assumption to me. There are lots of words the Holy Spirit didn't use and it's difficult (or dangerous) to infer the reason why. 



Andrew P.C. said:


> So the men, not being intoxicated, wouldn’t notice bad grape juice? Seems like stretch at best.
> 
> But where in the NT?



Andrew, I have to admit that this seems unprofitable to me. I don't need to prove a positive here, all I need to do is show the possibility of a negative. I think I've made my concerns with the specificity in assumptions abundantly clear so I'm going to attempt to bow out.

Reactions: Amen 1


----------



## Jack K (Jan 11, 2018)

Several responses here seem to be making an assumption that whatever elements Jesus used at the institution of the Supper, the church today ought to try to replicate them as closely as possible. I'd like to challenge that assumption.

The words used in the Gospel accounts and in 1 Cor. 11 to describe the elements are words with broad meaning: The writers could have mentioned the unleavened bread eaten at Passover, but instead they simply say "bread." And they might have mentioned wine and explained the wine-making process if it mattered, but instead they use the broad terms "cup" and "fruit of the vine."

Even if we could figure out with certainty exactly what kind of bread was eaten that night and what fruit of the vine was in the cups, the Scripture seems to be signaling that there is flexibility. I think fermented wine best fits some symbolism that fits the Supper (due to passages like, say, Jeremiah 25), but the preparation process we choose does not seem central to the Supper's symbolism as it's explained in the Bible passages that directly address the Supper. To get the Supper right, we don't have to know exactly what was in the original cups.

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## OPC'n (Jan 11, 2018)

Jack has a point. We don't use unleavened bread for the Lord's Supper.....


----------



## RBachman (Jan 11, 2018)

Romans922 said:


> Summary of what is written below:
> 
> When dealing with this topic it is always easy to go to hypotheticals and those situations that are possible exceptions to the rule. We need to train ourselves to handle the principles of Scripture first and then dealing with hypotheticals and scenarios.
> 
> ...


Sorry for the question: what is PM? And how do I do it? I would like to ask you some questions sbou5 your communion. Even Ligonire hasn’t been able to help. Thx Randy


----------



## Romans922 (Jan 11, 2018)

RBachman said:


> Sorry for the question: what is PM? And how do I do it? I would like to ask you some questions sbou5 your communion. Even Ligonire hasn’t been able to help. Thx Randy



Private message. It is start a conversation or something.


----------



## Ryan&Amber2013 (Jan 11, 2018)

I think that could be a case that's made: leaven is generally seen as a negative thing in the new testament, and the passover was instituted using unleavened bread, therefore that's what we must do. 

I just don't personally see such bounds in the new testament, and see more of a focus on the heart and spirit of worship. We want to be biblical, but I for some reason have a hard time viewing God's thoughts as "These disobedient people better not take the alcohol out of that fruit from the vine!" Rather I think of God's thoughts as "Are they coming in a worthy manner? Have they examined themselves? Do they truly love me? Do they know how much I love them in my Son?"

So maybe a question is "How much does it matter to God?" If much, then it should matter much to us. If not much, then we should exercise our freedoms.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## JimmyH (Jan 11, 2018)

RBachman said:


> Sorry for the question: what is PM? And how do I do it? I would like to ask you some questions sbou5 your communion. Even Ligonire hasn’t been able to help. Thx Randy


Hold your cursor over the 'inbox' icon at the tool bar at the top right of the page. The drop down menu will appear and click on 'start a conversation.' Simply type the member's screen name in the 'to' section, title the message, and type your text in the text box.
In the older V-bulletin forum it was called a PM (private message) but in the current forum, using Xenfro, it is 'a conversation.'


----------



## CatRandy (Jan 12, 2018)

If you’re going to argue that only fermented wine is allowable because Christ instituted the Lord’s Supper therefore only fermented wine is acceptable, then you’d also have to logically conclude that only unleavened bread is acceptable for the same reasons. Or you could reason that the type of bread and juice is not the most important issue, especially since there are recovering alcoholics and prisoners who could not otherwise partake. Love, compassion and unity in Christ with these brothers and sisters would be more important than minutiae.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## earl40 (Jan 12, 2018)

OPC'n said:


> Jack has a point. We don't use unleavened bread for the Lord's Supper.....



This point has been made in the past and it does not stand. Leavened or unleavened bread is still bread. Fruit of the vine is wine, be it red or white, and grape juice simply is not wine. It is not a matter to "replicate them (elements) as closely as possible" but of a command to use specific elements.

Reactions: Like 1 | Informative 1


----------



## OPC'n (Jan 12, 2018)

earl40 said:


> This point has been made in the past and it does not stand. Leavened or unleavened bread is still bread. Fruit of the vine is wine, be it red or white, and grape juice simply is not wine. It is not a matter to "replicate them (elements) as closely as possible" but of a command to use specific elements.


I'm sure God didn't have in mind the same thing as you do when he said that they were to use unleavened bread.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## TrustGzus (Jan 12, 2018)

CatRandy said:


> If you’re going to argue that only fermented wine is allowable because Christ instituted the Lord’s Supper therefore only fermented wine is acceptable, then you’d also have to logically conclude that only unleavened bread is acceptable for the same reasons. Or you could reason that the type of bread and juice is not the most important issue, especially since there are recovering alcoholics and prisoners who could not otherwise partake. Love, compassion and unity in Christ with these brothers and sisters would be more important than minutiae.



And not only unleavened but did it contain gluten? My wife has an extreme gluten allergy. If she gets a couple crumbs she gets a migraine that takes her out of commission for a couple days and leaves her in bread. Every time she celebrates communion if she was required to take that we’d all lose her in our lives for a couple days.


----------



## Ryan&Amber2013 (Jan 12, 2018)

Is the juice from grapes not fruit of the vine? I am confused. Is the fermentation what makes it the fruit of the vine? Is the only possible translation with alcohol content?

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## NaphtaliPress (Jan 12, 2018)

Sprague who defended use of wine against temperance zealots just prior to the Welch's era (they advocated for use of water), when this objection was raised that advocates for wine were being strict about the one element, but not about using unleavened bread, replies,
But I come back to your interrogatories. You say, “The bread which our Savior brake, was surely _unleavened. _No other was in existence among the Jews on the Passover day. How do you justify the use of _leavened_ bread at our sacramental table?”​
I justify it on the ground that _the use of unleavened bread belonged peculiarly to the Jewish economy; and as that dispensation has passed away, this, among other of its peculiarities, has passed away with it. _You remember that the question how far the Gentile converts were bound to Jewish observances, once actually came up, and was referred for decision to an apostolic council. And the decision was that they were bound to observe nothing, even then, except what was enjoined in the letter from Jerusalem, which contained no allusion to unleavened bread. It cannot reasonably be questioned that the Corinthian church, in celebrating the ordinance, used the bread which was in common use among them; and as Corinth was a Gentile city, it was of course leavened bread. Is there nothing to this to “justify the use of” the same “at our sacramental table?”​
http://www.naphtali.com/articles/william-sprague/danger-of-being-overwise/

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Andrew P.C. (Jan 12, 2018)

The contents of the elements of worship are apart of the element. We aren’t allowed to read Shakespeare instead of scripture.


----------



## CatRandy (Jan 12, 2018)

It really boils down to one simple question: “Which is more important, every member of Christ’s body being able to partake of the Lord’s Supper, or what percentage of alcohol is in the juice.” I would argue that how someone answers that question speaks about far more then wine or juice.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## TylerRay (Jan 12, 2018)

It's a shame to me that the sacrament that symbolizes (among other things) our unity in the body of Christ has become a point of division. This can only be attributed to those who go beyond the Scriptural prescription for the sacrament.

Is it not clear that, 1, the fermented use of the grape was commonly used among the Jews in the first century, 2, that this drink was called wine by the writers of the New Testament, 3, that we have no clear evidence that anything else was called wine by the writers of the New Testament.



Ryan&Amber2013 said:


> Is the juice from grapes not fruit of the vine? I am confused. Is the fermentation what makes it the fruit of the vine? Is the only possible translation with alcohol content?


Actually, neither wine nor juice is the fruit of the vine. Grapes are the fruit of the vine. In the Scriptures, wine (and only wine) is referred to as the fruit of the vine by way of metonymy. If what was meant was just anything made from grapes, brandy or jam would be perfectly fine for use in the sacrament.



Jack K said:


> Several responses here seem to be making an assumption that whatever elements Jesus used at the institution of the Supper, the church today ought to try to replicate them as closely as possible. I'd like to challenge that assumption.



"This do" was the command of Christ. "As I have received" was the orientation of the Apostle. The observance of a sacrament consists in the right use of prescribed elements. Should we not seek to be as close to Christ's institution as possible?

I frankly don't understand the attitude of those who want to stretch Scriptural commands as far as they can--"we know it was done in this way in the Scriptures, but why not do it some other way?"--why not just do what the Scriptures hold forth, simpliciter, unless prohibited in some way.




CatRandy said:


> It really boils down to one simple question: “Which is more important, every member of Christ’s body being able to partake of the Lord’s Supper, or what percentage of alcohol is in the juice.” I would argue that how someone answers that question speaks about far more then wine or juice.



That's a good thought, though I can't agree with it wholeheartedly. It's a good secondary argument for the use of wine, though, as many of us have a scruple of conscience against using juice in the Supper.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## NaphtaliPress (Jan 12, 2018)

We need to be scrupulous regarding the elements of worship. As Gillespie argues, "we hold, that not only we ought to obey the particular precepts of the Word of God, but that also _we are bound to imitate Christ, and the commendable example of His apostles, in all things wherein it is not evident they had special reasons moving them thereto, which do not concern us." _He applies this specifically to aspects of the Lord's Supper and I've cited G before on this same topic. https://www.puritanboard.com/thread...wine-in-the-culture.80022/page-2#post-1010674


TylerRay said:


> "This do" was the command of Christ. "As I have received" was the orientation of the Apostle. The observance of a sacrament consists in the right use of prescribed elements. Should we not seek to be as close to Christ's institution as possible?

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## Jack K (Jan 12, 2018)

TylerRay said:


> "This do" was the command of Christ. "As I have received" was the orientation of the Apostle. The observance of a sacrament consists in the right use of prescribed elements. Should we not seek to be as close to Christ's institution as possible?



If it means trying to replicate what happened the night of the Last Supper... no, we should not seek to be as close to Christ's institution as possible. If we did, we would recline at the meal and partake in an upstairs room. But we recognize that these things are incidental, not central to the meaning of the Supper.

The right question to ask is not, "How close can we get to doing the Supper exactly as Christ did it?" Rather, we must ask, "Which aspects of that first Supper are central to the meaning of the Supper, and which are not?"

For an answer, we look to the symbolism found in all of Scripture and particularly to those passages that directly address the institution of the Supper and instructions for observing it. Based on this, I find a pretty good case for fermented wine due to symbolism in passages such as Jeremiah 25. But I find it not necessarily required due to the breadth of possible meaning of the words used to describe the elements in passages that address the Supper more directly. It seems to me that Christ and the Bible authors could easily have provided more detail about the exact elements if such detail was required, and the fact they didn't suggests that whatever bread people commonly eat in a culture and whatever way they commonly drink their grapes will do.

Of course, some may argue that "fruit of the vine" is more specific and can only mean fermented wine, and that this means Christ was instructing us that fermentation is central to the meaning of the Supper. This is a proper argument, and perhaps it is correct and I am wrong. But it is an entirely different thing to assert that we must copy Christ's institution as closely as possible.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Jack K (Jan 12, 2018)

TylerRay said:


> If what was meant was just anything made from grapes, brandy or jam would be perfectly fine for use in the sacrament.



Clearly, jam would not be acceptable because Christ said to drink. We must pay close attention to what he said. The matters on which he chose to give direct instruction are likely those that matter most.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Andrew P.C. (Jan 12, 2018)

Jack K said:


> If it means trying to replicate what happened the night of the Last Supper... no, we should not seek to be as close to Christ's institution as possible. If we did, we would recline at the meal and partake in an upstairs room.



The location and way we sit are not aspects of the element. I’m not sure why you even brought this up when Tyler was referring specifically to the sacrament.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Jack K (Jan 12, 2018)

Andrew P.C. said:


> The location and way we sit are not aspects of the element. I’m not sure why you even brought this up when Tyler was referring specifically to the sacrament.



I brought it up to make the point that not everything present at the Last Supper must be replicated when we observe the Supper. Rather, we must determine which of them matter and which are incidental. As you suggest, not everything happening is part of the nature of the sacrament.

Reactions: Amen 1


----------



## TylerRay (Jan 12, 2018)

Jack K said:


> Clearly, jam would not be acceptable because Christ said to drink. We must pay close attention to what he said. The matters on which he chose to give direct instruction are likely those that matter most.


You can drink jam. You might need a straw, depending on how firm it is, but you can drink it.

I don't press this point to make fun; I know that no one would use jam. My point, however, is to show that, in principle, the sacrament could be made _that ridiculous_ if one simply maintains that all that is required is a drink made from grapes.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## TylerRay (Jan 12, 2018)

Jack K said:


> If it means trying to replicate what happened the night of the Last Supper... no, we should not seek to be as close to Christ's institution as possible. If we did, we would recline at the meal and partake in an upstairs room. But we recognize that these things are incidental, not central to the meaning of the Supper.
> 
> The right question to ask is not, "How close can we get to doing the Supper exactly as Christ did it?" Rather, we must ask, "Which aspects of that first Supper are central to the meaning of the Supper, and which are not?"


But what did Christ _do_ when he said "_This do _in remembrance of me"? He passed broken bread and a cup of wine around a table for everyone to partake of. What good reason do we have for not _doing that_, when he commanded that we _do that_. Both the substances used and the actions performed are elemental to a sacrament. Should we not be scrupulous to observe it just as it is recorded, all the while discerning that there are indifferent circumstances (location, etc.)?

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## Jack K (Jan 12, 2018)

TylerRay said:


> You can drink jam. You might need a straw, depending on how firm it is, but you can drink it.
> 
> I don't press this point to make fun; I know that no one would use jam. My point, however, is to show that, in principle, the sacrament could be made _that ridiculous_ if one simply maintains that all that is required is a drink made from grapes.



And if I were a missionary in a remote place that had no access to many goods, but I had some grape jelly, I might think about watering it down and being thankful for the Lord's provision.

The proper question to consider in that situation would not be, "Is this the way Jesus did it?" but rather, "Does this fit the nature of the sacrament as it is explained to us in Scripture?"


----------



## Jack K (Jan 12, 2018)

TylerRay said:


> But what did Christ _do_ when he said "_This do _in remembrance of me"? He passed broken bread and a cup of wine around a table for everyone to partake of. What good reason do we have for not _doing that_, when he commanded that we _do that_. Both the substances used and the actions performed are elemental to a sacrament. Should we not be scrupulous to observe it just as it is recorded, all the while discerning that there are indifferent circumstances (location, etc.)?



Yes, I understand that some believers are quite insistent on replicating the actions of the Last Supper as closely as possible: Bread must be passed around, not just available up front. The words Christ spoke must be repeated verbatim. A common cup must be used. A table must be present. The bread and cup must be of a type matching a First Century Passover meal. And so on.

And that's my point, actually. My point is that the heart of the question is which parts of this replication are central (or "elemental," if you prefer) to the sacrament. I think we can take demands for replication too far, beyond what Scripture emphasizes when it explains the meaning of the Supper. So it is not enough to ask how things happened that first night; we must chiefly ask what parts of it belong to the nature of the sacrament.


----------



## NaphtaliPress (Jan 12, 2018)

Of course you would want to make sure it is not simply artificial grape flavored jelly (or maybe not; the same argument of remoteness is used for things lacking even an artificial claim to grapeness).


Jack K said:


> And if I were a missionary in a remote place that had no access to many goods, but I had some grape jelly, I might think about watering it down and being thankful for the Lord's provision.


----------



## Ask Mr. Religion (Jan 12, 2018)

Thread re-opened.


----------



## JimmyH (Jan 12, 2018)

Looking at the poll I'm frankly surprised at how many congregations use fermented wine exclusively, or offer the choice of wine or grape juice. In the Assemblies of God I began with, the SBC I shortly thereafter went to, and the OPC congregation I'm with now it has always been grape juice. 
This is important to me personally, because I am one of those unfortunate souls for whom 'one is too many, and a thousand isn't enough', so I have to abstain from alcoholic beverages no matter the rational, or the amount.


----------



## NaphtaliPress (Jan 12, 2018)

I guess I was surprised to see so many exclusively juice. But I shouldn't be, as that reflects the practice of mid last century in traditional Presbyterianism. The growing numbers doing wine or split has been a movement for several decades in conservative Presbyterianism coming alongside the interest in the regulative principle of worship. My church only went to split tray a few years ago before I joined. My previous church went to wine also circa 1984/5.
Poll referenced is here:


JimmyH said:


> Looking at the poll I'm frankly surprised at how many congregations use fermented wine exclusively, or offer the choice of wine or grape juice. In the Assemblies of God I began with, the SBC I shortly thereafter went to, and the OPC congregation I'm with now it has always been grape juice.
> This is important to me personally, because I am one of those unfortunate souls for whom 'one is too many, and a thousand isn't enough', so I have to abstain from alcoholic beverages no matter the rational, or the amount.


----------



## TylerRay (Jan 12, 2018)

Jack K said:


> And that's my point, actually. My point is that the heart of the question is which parts of this replication are central (or "elemental," if you prefer) to the sacrament. I think we can take demands for replication too far, beyond what Scripture emphasizes when it explains the meaning of the Supper. So it is not enough to ask how things happened that first night; we must chiefly ask what parts of it belong to the nature of the sacrament.


We risk getting off the subject of the OP here, but the question we've arrived at is, "What is essential to the right observance of the Lord's Supper." If I may, I'll try to lay out a few principles. If the moderators want to move my post to a new thread, that's okay, too.

1.The Lord's Supper is a communal meal.

So, we eat it like a communal meal--we face one another (rather than having our backs to one another in pews).
2. The items to be taken in this meal are bread and wine.

Bread (_artos_) is commanded. It is to be "one lump," a loaf of bread symbolizing the unity of the body of Christ. There is nothing in the institution of the supper that indicates that anything but common bread is to be taken.
Wine is commanded. I really don't get why there's a controversy about that. It's pretty simple, really.
3. What we do with the bread and wine:

The bread is to be broken, symbolizing the broken body of Christ, and then distributed to the communicants.
The bread is to be eaten.
The wine is to be passed around in a cup for everyone to drink (eating bread-soaked wine is not the same thing as eating bread and drinking wine).
All of these actions get at the meaning of the supper: The death of Christ and the union of the body of Christ are symbolized in _all_ of these elements and actions.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## KMK (Jan 12, 2018)

Jack K said:


> My point is that the heart of the question is which parts of this replication are central (or "elemental," if you prefer) to the sacrament.



I don't think this is the heart of the question of the OP.

The OP asked...

"what justification does one have for substituting wine for grape juice, knowing that the Lord Himself instituted the Supper with wine?"

In other words, "What were the biblical grounds for going against 1800 years of church history in the substitution of Dr. Welch's pasteurized grape juice for the wine?"

Jack, your question seeks to answer a different question, "What are the biblical grounds for insisting that the American church return to wine now that we have pasteurized grape juice?"

The answer to the question in the OP is, "The American church had no biblical grounds for making the change." 

Unfortunately, that does not answer Jack's (and others) question, "Now that we use grape juice, and we see the benefits of doing so, in regards to its availability, inoffensiveness, and tradition, what are the biblical reasons we should change back?"

It reminds me of the American illegal immigration issue. Saying "we should have never allowed them in," does not answer the question, "now that they are here, what do we do with them?"

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Jack K (Jan 12, 2018)

KMK said:


> Jack, your question seeks to answer a different question, "What are the biblical grounds for insisting that the American church return to wine now that we have pasteurized grape juice?"



Nah, I like wine. My question is more like, "Why do we insist that only fermented juice may be used when Jesus used broader language that seems to include anything that fits the description of 'fruit of the vine?'" Why insist on something narrower than his actual words call for?

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## KMK (Jan 12, 2018)

Jack K said:


> Nah, I like wine. My question is more like, "Why do we insist that only fermented juice may be used when Jesus used broader language that seems to include anything that fits the description of 'fruit of the vine?'" Why insist on something narrower than his actual words call for?



That's is exactly what I am saying. You are trying to answer the OP question with another unrelated question.


----------



## Scott Bushey (Jan 12, 2018)

Two things:

“Fruit of the vine”

Pumpkin, melons, berries etc...

If the mentality behind grape juice is a person sinning and possibly falling away, we attach an illicit attitude to one of the elements of one of our most holy convocation Christ left the bride, that being one could apostatize because of it.

Reactions: Funny 1


----------



## Scott Bushey (Jan 12, 2018)

Jack K said:


> Nah, I like wine. My question is more like, "Why do we insist that only fermented juice may be used when Jesus used broader language that seems to include anything that fits the description of 'fruit of the vine?'" Why insist on something narrower than his actual words call for?



You’re presuming much. If the supper is part of our worship, would Christ intended for the prescription to be vague? Think strange fire.


----------



## Afterthought (Jan 12, 2018)

Just pointing out: it seems to me that if the element really is wine, then partaking of something else is not partaking of the Lord's Supper at that point (I suppose partaking of the bread is still an option), due to the positive and specially revealed nature of the sacrament (although certainly, the Lord may choose to bless the ordinance despite its corruption; however, one cannot consciously and conscientiously seek such blessing if it is believed that the ordinance is one thing but another thing is used instead). So it seems to me that arguments about needing something besides wine or else one cannot partake of the Lord's supper presuppose that wine is not the element but rather that something else--that includes wine and grape juice--is the element.


----------



## JimmyH (Jan 12, 2018)

Afterthought said:


> Just pointing out: it seems to me that if the element really is wine, then partaking of something else is not partaking of the Lord's Supper at that point (I suppose partaking of the bread is still an option), due to the positive and specially revealed nature of the sacrament (although certainly, the Lord may choose to bless the ordinance despite its corruption; however, one cannot consciously and conscientiously seek such blessing if it is believed that the ordinance is one thing but another thing is used instead). So it seems to me that arguments about needing something besides wine or else one cannot partake of the Lord's supper presuppose that wine is not the element but rather that something else--that includes wine and grape juice--is the element.


In the OPC Book Of Church Order, in the chapter dealing with the Sacraments, there is no distinction made as to what substance the element consists of. "The cup" is the only reference to that element of the Sacrament. I think 'we', the congregation, have to rely on our Pastors and Elders to provide the correct elements and procedure for the Lord's Supper. Assuming that the OPC, and its officers allow one, the other, or both, I would think I can have confidence that I am indeed partaking of the Sacrament.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Jack K (Jan 12, 2018)

Scott Bushey said:


> You’re presuming much. If the supper is part of our worship, would Christ intended for the prescription to be vague? Think strange fire.



I figure he would make it exactly as broad or narrow as he wanted it to be.


----------



## Scott Bushey (Jan 12, 2018)

Jack K said:


> I figure he would make it exactly as broad or narrow as he wanted it to be.



Is worship ever ‘broad’?


----------



## Scott Bushey (Jan 12, 2018)

JimmyH said:


> In the OPC Book Of Church Order, in the chapter dealing with the Sacraments, there is no distinction made as to what substance the element consists of. "The cup" is the only reference to that element of the Sacrament. I think 'we', the congregation, have to rely on our Pastors and Elders to provide the correct elements and procedure for the Lord's Supper. Assuming that the OPC, and its officers allow one, the other, or both, I would think I can have confidence that I am indeed partaking of the Sacrament.



Jimmy,
The standards for the OPC is the WCF and it states clearly a number of times, “wine”.

Reactions: Like 2 | Informative 1 | Amen 1


----------



## Jack K (Jan 12, 2018)

Scott Bushey said:


> Is worship ever ‘broad’?



Of course it is. There is some breadth to what we may do in worship: We may sing our psalms in whatever order we choose. We may have a long sermon or a short one. If wine is involved, we may use a Merlot or a Cabernet. There's always _some_ breadth. The question is how much is indicated by the Scriptural instructions for the Supper.


----------



## Scott Bushey (Jan 12, 2018)

You’re conflating the RPW and acts of circumstance. That doesn’t work. God commands and directs worship principles, He doesn’t care if we use the air conditioner or if our chairs have cushions. Make the distinction.


----------



## Jack K (Jan 12, 2018)

Scott Bushey said:


> You’re conflating the RPW and acts of circumstance. That doesn’t work. God commands and directs worship principles, He doesn’t care if we use the air conditioner or if our chairs have cushions. Make the distinction.



Scott, I don't know if you were addressing me or not, but if so...

I intentionally mentioned parts of worship commonly considered _elements_ (singing, preaching, the cup) to show that within the elements of worship there is some measure of variety, some latitude or breadth, if you will. Not every detail is prescribed.

For instance, when it comes to the contents of the cup no specific variety of grape is prescribed. I think we probably agree there (although you never can be sure among Reformed folk). So there is at least _some _latitude about what goes in the cup. But is Christ's wording broad enough that it includes both fermented and non-fermented juice? As far as I know, it is no violation of Reformed worship principles to assume there is some latitude in his instructions—that some details are left unspecified—and that it is therefore a valid question.


----------



## Scott Bushey (Jan 12, 2018)

Jack K said:


> Scott, I don't know if you were addressing me or not, but if so...
> 
> I intentionally mentioned parts of worship commonly considered _elements_ (singing, preaching, the cup) to show that within the elements of worship there is some measure of variety, some latitude or breadth, if you will. Not every detail is prescribed.



Seems to me, that which I describe in worship are, as I say, acts of circumstance. At least the way I am reading your previous post.



> For instance, when it comes to the contents of the cup no specific variety of grape is prescribed.



Red. To be within a biblical description.



> I think we probably agree there (although you never can be sure among Reformed folk). So there is at least _some _latitude about what goes in the cup.



I disagree



> But is Christ's wording broad enough that it includes both fermented and non-fermented juice?



There was no refrigeration in Christ’s day. No refrigeration equals automatic fermentation.



> As far as I know, it is no violation of Reformed worship principles to assume there is some latitude in his instructions—that some details are left unspecified—and that it is therefore a valid question.



Apply this mentality across the whole of the RPW. This is not Regulative, but normative.


----------



## Scott Bushey (Jan 12, 2018)

Preaching is to be done- this is commanded-the content is a circumstance. Singing the Psalms are commanded- the Psalms chosen on any given day is circumstantial. Wine is ordered for the cup via Christ’s own words. Surely you don’t believe he meant pumpkin juice.

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## earl40 (Jan 12, 2018)

CatRandy said:


> It really boils down to one simple question: “Which is more important, every member of Christ’s body being able to partake of the Lord’s Supper, or what percentage of alcohol is in the juice.” I would argue that how someone answers that question speaks about far more then wine or juice.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk



So what do you do if a member refuses to drink Grape Juice instead of wine because of principle based on what (wine) Jesus instituted.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## CatRandy (Jan 13, 2018)

earl40 said:


> So what do you do if a member refuses to drink Grape Juice instead of wine because of principle based on what (wine) Jesus instituted.



So, whether you eat or drink, or whatever you do, do everything for the glory of God. Give no offense to Jews or Greeks or the church of God, just as I also try to please everyone in everything, not seeking my own benefit, but the benefit of many, so that they may be saved.
1Cor 10:31-33
Offer wine and juice, use gluten free bread, if someone needs accommodations in some way, we do what we can.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Scott Bushey (Jan 13, 2018)

CatRandy said:


> So, whether you eat or drink, or whatever you do, do everything for the glory of God. Give no offense to Jews or Greeks or the church of God, just as I also try to please everyone in everything, not seeking my own benefit, but the benefit of many, so that they may be saved.
> 1Cor 10:31-33
> Offer wine and juice, use gluten free bread, if someone needs accommodations in some way, we do what we can.
> 
> ...




Me thinks u are using the 1 Cor passage erroneously....

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## earl40 (Jan 13, 2018)

CatRandy said:


> So, whether you eat or drink, or whatever you do, do everything for the glory of God. Give no offense to Jews or Greeks or the church of God, just as I also try to please everyone in everything, not seeking my own benefit, but the benefit of many, so that they may be saved.
> 1Cor 10:31-33
> Offer wine and juice, use gluten free bread, if someone needs accommodations in some way, we do what we can.
> 
> ...



You are accommodating to what is commanded by Jesus.


----------



## Scott Bushey (Jan 13, 2018)

earl40 said:


> So what do you do if a member refuses to drink Grape Juice instead of wine because of principle based on what (wine) Jesus instituted.



In fact, this is the situation that my family and I find ourselves in at present. The same consideration given to the temperance idea should be given me. Why is it that everyone is so concerned for the teetotalers and not concerned about bruising mine by demanding I drink grape juice?

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Gforce9 (Jan 13, 2018)

Scott Bushey said:


> In fact, this is the situation that my family and I find ourselves in at present. The same consideration given to the temperance idea should be given me. Why is it that everyone is so concerned for the teetotalers and not concerned about bruising mine by demanding I drink grape juice?



This is an excellent point, Scott. I think this is why previously, solidly confessional churches have become compromised. Why must it be, when there is a difference of opinion at the Session, Presbytery or GA level, that the confession must be the one to raise it's hands in surrender? Why must the the conscience violations always occur on the same side? Everyone agrees that special considerations will have to be taken in any given congregation (someone mentioned their spouses dire reaction to alcohol. No Christian and no Session should ever want to put a saint in such a position and should make immediate provision).

Like the difficulties in any document, book or any literature, care must be taken to find out the original intent of the author(s). In the case of the WCF (and by stolen extension, the LBCF), the authors were pretty clear on intent. They were Puritans. They were not 21st century Millennials. If the details aren't spelled out, the tenor of the whole document gives the overall "feel" to their intent.

It seriously boggles my mind that the largest PCA congregation in Chicagoland, when we visited some six years ago, practiced intinction, had a full band ( I inquired of the band and they had studied Frame's book on "worship" and adopted his view of regulation) and had the fake decorative trees adorning the "stage". How does one, with a straight face, say they are confessional and practice as that congregation does? My guess is the same way as the Methodists, the PCUSA and others: first you admire the slide for its construction and beauty. Then you think it can't hurt to sit on it. Before you know it, the wind in your hair feels good as you slide toward the ground.........

To reiterate, I am not suggestion a Session cannot make provision in special cases, in fact, to properly care for the saints, they may have to from time to time. These are exceptions and should not be the rule. Culture should not dictate worship.....

Reactions: Like 3 | Amen 1


----------



## Scott Bushey (Jan 13, 2018)

It does boggle the mind. The confession is clear on this matter. I have no idea why this is even an issue of discussion. 

For Presbyterians, that being that we see the LS as a sacrament and not just a tribute, i.e. the supper has a level of spiritual mystery in it, to even for a second to consider it as a tool to possibly be the catalyst in apostasy, may be itself, sinful, never mind the substituting the element for something other than that which is commanded.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## CatRandy (Jan 13, 2018)

if wine makes my brother stumble, I will never drink wine, lest I make my brother stumble. 
It’s amazing that we can make the mesh fine enough to stain gnats and still find a way to swallow elephants.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Scott Bushey (Jan 13, 2018)

CatRandy said:


> if wine makes my brother stumble, I will never drink wine, lest I make my brother stumble.
> It’s amazing that we can make the mesh fine enough to stain gnats and still find a way to swallow elephants.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk




Again, me thinks u are using this passage erroneously. Do u seriously believe the Apostle was referring to sacramental wine usage? If we use this in the way u are using it, the church prior to the 19th century is guilty of stumbling people, not to forget mentioning Christ instituted wine in the supper....are u saying that Christ was mislead in the miracle at Cana and His institution?

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## NaphtaliPress (Jan 13, 2018)

*Moderating: *The below assumes the answer to the question under debate, that it is indifferent if grape juice or wine are used as the sacramental element. If wine is actually commanded, then it is not subject to the rules of use of things indifferent in nature. So it is quite unbecoming to call brethren who think wine is commanded 'strainers of gnats.'
So let's debate the actual question and not assign ill actions or motives to folks. Jack and Logan have put forward the answer to the OP that the NT usage gives enough pause to not agree with the OP's statement. Debate that.


CatRandy said:


> if wine makes my brother stumble, I will never drink wine, lest I make my brother stumble.
> It’s amazing that we can make the mesh fine enough to stain gnats and still find a way to swallow elephants.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## Scott Bushey (Jan 13, 2018)

As well, consider that your use of grape juice stumbles me; given your penchant, the Church should ultimately abstain from the supper completely in fear of stumbling anyone on either ground.


----------



## Gforce9 (Jan 13, 2018)

Scott Bushey said:


> Again, me thinks u are using this passage erroneously. Do u seriously believe the Apostle was referring to sacramental wine usage? If we use this in the way u are using it, the church prior to the 19th century is guilty of stumbling people, not to forget mentioning Christ instituted wine in the supper....are u saying that Christ was mislead in the miracle at Cana and His institution?



This is what I was trying to get at earlier, not just in relation to the topic of wine/juice, but the confessional departures in general....

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Ryan&Amber2013 (Jan 13, 2018)

I do not drink any alcohol outside of church, but I do take wine at communion. But I was doing some research outside of the reformed circle, and it seems that the argument really is not that clear as to what exactly we should use.

And there is no command to use wine as far as I know. There is a command to take the supper, but not a command for fermented grapes.

How far can we take this argument? I know this situation is not the exact same, but the thought is similar: when we see water baptisms in the new testament, we see only natural water being used, not water treated at a plant with chemicals. Therefore, it is outside of our regulative principle to use water that has been treated in a plant with chemicals to do our baptisms. By using treated water, the Lord is displeased with our worship.

Almost laughable, right?

I know you all are very smart and very wise, and careful about biblical practices, but maybe, just maybe, this is a bit silly. (I don't mean to step on anyone's toes)

As well, I feel bad for those who are denied wine when they want it. We should be considerate both ways.

I do believe wine was probably used in the institution, but I don't think that was the only way the fruit of the vine could have been interpreted.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Gforce9 (Jan 13, 2018)

Ryan&Amber2013 said:


> I do not drink any alcohol outside of church, but I do take wine at communion. But I was doing some research outside of the reformed circle, and it seems that the argument really is not that clear as to what exactly we should use.
> 
> I would not anticipate nor expect anti-Reformed, anti-confessional folk to speak clearly to this issue. Don't you think the confessionally Reformed and confessional Baptists have both more at stake and take a much more careful approach to the Scriptures than do others?
> 
> ...

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Parakaleo (Jan 13, 2018)

The more in-depth I have gone in understanding the biblical law of worship (the RPW), the more I have found it requires us to distrust ourselves and become almost infantile in our thinking. We do well in becoming as babes to whom Christ reveals the Father.

Our Savior says "the fruit of the vine", which could be viewed in various ways, but Paul tells the Corinthians not to drink so much at their services, thus becoming drunk. The approved Standards in every Reformed church all say "wine".

_"Be not righteous over much; neither make thyself over wise: why shouldest thou destroy thyself?" Ecc. 7:16_


----------



## Gforce9 (Jan 13, 2018)

Parakaleo said:


> The more in-depth I have gone in understanding the biblical law of worship (the RPW), the more I have found it *requires us to distrust ourselves and become almost infantile in our thinking*.




This is absolutely critical and the necessary conclusion of good, biblical, Reformed, and simple worship! Thanks for sharing it, Blake. As Dr. Sproul has stated on more than one occasion, when you come to see the holiness of our God, like Isaiah, we are undone and see just how corrupt we really are......

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Logan (Jan 13, 2018)

Parakaleo said:


> Our Savior says "the fruit of the vine", which could be viewed in various ways, but Paul tells the Corinthians not to drink so much at their services, thus becoming drunk. The approved Standards in every Reformed church all say "wine".



Again, challenging assumptions, I see a problem with this conclusion. What do we know?
1. We know that the last supper had the fruit of the vine.
2. We know the Corinthians had the fruit of the vine.
3. We know what the Corinthians had was intoxicating.

Yet it does not necessarily follow that the fruit of the vine _must_ be intoxicating, even if we know of at least one instance where it was. B is a subset of A, but it does not necessarily follow that all A=B. It could very well be an entire spectrum.

As to bringing in Reformed Confessions and Puritans, I have an issue with making them speak to a controversy which simply didn't exist in their day and as has also been pointed out earlier, there are further complications in that at least some used the term "wine" to refer to a broad range of things, _including_ freshly squeezed grapes.

It would be like taking literally a Reformed Confession saying to read from the "book" of the Scripture. "Well, they didn't say iPad or Kindle so we can't confessionally use anything other than a physical book." They never had the opportunity to speak for or against iPads and Kindles, so we can't say whether or not they would have been opposed to them. So too, we can't say "they never said anything but wine, therefore they would have been opposed to all else." They may have been but we can't just anachronistically insert our controversies into their times.

As a side note, I'm sure this was debated when it first came up and I'm sure not everyone during the 1800s were dummies. Are there arguments for and against available from that time period? The church debated this and came to a conclusion. They may have been wrong but I'm willing to acknowledge they thought about it seriously.

And let me note once again that I am not arguing for juice. I just don't think the arguments against it are completely logical and assume too much in order to make absolute claims. A biblical case for wine is not the same as a case against juice, and vice versa: an OR is not the same as an XOR. But wine certainly seems to be the safe option.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Parakaleo (Jan 13, 2018)

Logan said:


> Yet it does not necessarily follow that the fruit of the vine _must_ be intoxicating, even if we know of at least one instance where it was.



Isn't _*one clear instance*_ where the element is intoxicating _*enough to shatter*_ the typical arguments of those who would call it sinful or even unwise to use fermented wine? After all, we don't have any _*clear instance*_ of non-alcoholic drink being used.

_"And of the children of Issachar, which were men that had understanding of the times, to know what Israel ought to do," 1 Chron. 12:32
_
Can we not step back and discern the times in which we live, and the reasoning usually employed by those who wish to have a non-alcoholic "option"? Is it loving to these souls to cater to them and let them remain life-long weaker brothers?

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Logan (Jan 13, 2018)

Parakaleo said:


> Isn't _*one clear instance*_ where the element is intoxicating _*enough to shatter*_ the typical arguments of those who would call it sinful or even unwise to use fermented wine?



Certainly the former, but unless I misunderstood you, that wasn't the point you were making when I replied to you, and wasn't the point I was making, so I'm not sure why you bring it up to me.


----------



## JimmyH (Jan 13, 2018)

Personally I feel that the WCF spoke to the element when fermented wine was the obvious choice, probably the only choice. Nothing for them to debate since non fermented grape juice wasn't a beverage of the period as far as I know ? 

For what little it is worth, since 1986 I've partook of the Lord's Supper in one Assemblies of God, two SBC, and one OPC congregation. All used grape juice. 

Going back to the ironworker's union versus the operating engineers ..... area practice.


----------



## Andrew P.C. (Jan 13, 2018)

Logan said:


> And let me note once again that I am not arguing for juice. I just don't think the arguments against it are completely logical and assume too much in order to make absolute claims. A biblical case for wine is not the same as a case against juice, and vice versa: an OR is not the same as an XOR. But wine certainly seems to be the safe option.



Brother, I mean this in the most loving way:

deviation from what was instituted and appointed by Christ, is deviation from the command itself. 

It seems that the only conclusion you come to is agnosticism towards the Lords Supper. If wine was appointed, then to deviate, one must give a positive case for that deviation. Casting doubt doesn’t answer any questions but only causes doubt. That’s not how we function in Reformdom or Christendom when it comes to elements of worship. The RPW simply states: what is NOT commanded is forbidden. If grape juice (unfermented) is not commanded or practiced in the scriptures, concerning the Lords Supper, we are forbidden to use it.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Andrew P.C. (Jan 13, 2018)

To add:

If Paul states that he handed down to the Corinthians what was handed down to him, from the Lord Himself, in the Supper, than the only conclusion we must come to is that fermented drink is what was instituted. That fact alone should suffice.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Logan (Jan 13, 2018)

Andrew P.C. said:


> Brother, I mean this in the most loving way:
> 
> deviation from what was instituted and appointed by Christ, is deviation from the command itself.



Brother, I'm a big proponent of the regulative principle. If Christ had said "this wine is the new covenant in my blood" we wouldn't even be having this discussion. But you are making assumptions that lead to conclusions that don't follow of absolute necessity.

It is a fallacious syllogism to say for example that Bob is a man, Bob is bald, therefore all men are bald. And that's what I see you doing with this. The command is the fruit of the vine, the Corinthians drank wine, therefore all fruit of the vine is wine. It's possible but not a logical certainty. If it were, no one would be arguing.

Once again, I'm perfectly content with wine, but I can't in good conscience state that other fruits of the vine are sin.


----------



## Andrew P.C. (Jan 13, 2018)

Logan said:


> Brother, I'm a big proponent of the regulative principle. If Christ had said "this wine is the new covenant in my blood" we wouldn't even be having this discussion. But you are making assumptions that lead to conclusions that don't follow of absolute necessity.
> 
> It is a fallacious syllogism to say for example that Bob is a man, Bob is bald, therefore all men are bald. And that's what I see you doing with this. The command is the fruit of the vine, the Corinthians drank wine, therefore all fruit of the vine is wine. It's possible but not a logical certainty. If it were, no one would be arguing.
> 
> Once again, I'm perfectly content with wine, but I can't in good conscience state that other fruits of the vine are sin.



This is wrong as it implies that Paul didn’t hand down wine as the practice to the Corinthians, excplicitly from the Lord. Instead, he states such. At this point, you ignore that fact for the sake of doubt.


----------



## Logan (Jan 13, 2018)

Once again, I feel as though the majority of what I've laid out is simply ignored for the sake of a quick repartee...

The question can be phrased in four different ways, and they are not at all the same:
1. is there biblical evidence _for_ wine?
2. is there biblical evidence _for_ fruit of the vine including something other than wine?
3. Is there biblical evidence _against_ wine?
4. Is there biblical evidence _against_ the fruit of the vine including something other than wine?

Very few would argue for 3 and number 1 is usually a given. Number 2 is a possibility and therefore number 4 is where this hinges for me. I just don't see that there is a case for it.

I'm _not_ holding to something other than the regulative principle. I'm _not_ ignoring something for the sake of doubt. What I _am_ trying to do is not add to the commandment or go beyond what Scripture teaches. I trust you'll recognize that going zealously beyond the commandment is just as much a danger as not scrupulously holding to the commandment. I'm trying to go for balance here.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Afterthought (Jan 13, 2018)

Google Book that has some things on the "Fruit of the Vine:" https://books.google.com/books?id=LVwXAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA108#v=onepage&q&f=false

Another paper dealing some with "fruit of the vine:" http://www.providencepca.com/essays/herzerbreadandwine.html

I have heard that "new wine" (contra the above google book) in the bible is intoxicating. Might be worth clarifying in the debate, although on the other hand, I'm not sure if it's all that relevant.

Thomas Boston on the spiritual significance of the wine: https://archive.org/stream/wholeworksoflate02bost#page/484/mode/2up

Reactions: Like 1


----------

