# How to deal with reformed alcoholics at communion?



## Paul Nowlan

Please forgive me if I am a pest on this issue.

In two other posts on communion liquids there has been input from people from both camps.

In the poll I started, however, I think I did a poor job of phrasing the question. 

My question was too general.

I have a very specific scenario in mind.

I was in a men's meeting once. They were about to offer communion. One of the men broke down and cried because he was afraid the wine would lead him back into alcoholism.

What would you do?


----------



## AThornquist

jogri17 said:


> the reason why my church uses and offers both. Where the scriptures and the confessions are silent on this issue we should not make it a matter of polity. I would never join a church that said believers must to use alcohol for communion or else its not the sacrament. It can be a theological conviction but when you force something of this on your brothers and sisters you do the same as the roman church.



From the other thread. I concur.


----------



## Hungus

1) offer the man grape juice instead.

Nothing can be gained by forcing a man to sin and for a recovering alcoholic such as you described it is likely a sin for him to drink.


----------



## A.J.

Paul Nowlan said:


> Dear Moderators,
> 
> I am sorry. I just can't get this poll to work. Please help.
> 
> I would like to have 4 options if possible:
> 
> 1) offer the man grape juice instead
> 
> 2) tell him he can't take communion until he can take a thimble-full of wine
> 
> 3) instruct him on self control
> 
> 4) none of the above, please explain



Not a moderator here. 

Click the "Thread Tools" at the top of your first post. Then click the adding a poll option.


----------



## JennyG

*First option*

Thank you for sticking to the point, Paul, and following through to get it really clarified, after so much has been said all around it!
In the specific situation you have in view, I don't see how there can be any doubt that option 1 is the right one -- and isn't that all you were ever asking?


----------



## Reformed Thomist

Respectfully resign yourself to the fact that this man will not be partaking of the cup during the celebration of the Lord's Supper. Thankfully, the Lord has also provided bread, by which he may receive all of the spiritual benefits of the Sacrament.


----------



## LawrenceU

Is dealing with a reformed alcoholic different than dealing with an arminian alcoholic? 

Just wondering.


----------



## Pergamum

Well, the first step of AA I think is recognizing that you are powerless, or something like that.


----------



## TimV

It's all the fruit of the vine. That's why Sampson and John the Baptist couldn't eat raisins. Give the poor guy grape juice. I mean really, who here thinks that at Passover people just took a thimbleful of wine like we do? There are so many ways we don't even come close to observing the Last Supper the way it happened I can't see why anyone would say something like the amount of alcohol in the little thimble makes the difference between remembering and not remembering. Talk about straining at a gnat while swallowing a camel.


----------



## ewenlin

Thanks for holding onto this topic till now. Your perseverance in pursuing this matter has helped clear certain things up.

And I'd say give the man grape juice too.


----------



## rpavich

Now this is funny:



> Is dealing with a *reformed alcoholic* different that dealing with an *arminian alcoholic? *



But this is even funnier



> Well, the first step of *AA* I think is recognizing that you are *powerless*, or something like that.


----------



## Romans922

I chose other, you don't have to keep him from the supper, nor should he NOT drink wine. When the Jews at the time referred to 'fruit of the vine' they meant wine.

Here is a good article Andy Webb's church website: Providence PCA Mission Church - Bread and Wine


----------



## Paul Nowlan

LawrenceU said:


> Is dealing with a reformed alcoholic different than dealing with an arminian alcoholic?
> 
> Just wondering.




I think so Lawrence.

A reformed alcoholic has a particular weakness that can cause him to stumble very easily on a common element used in communion. I don't want to help him stumble.

oops... I misread the question. A arminian alcoholic probably has ancestors in Turkey, whereas a reformed alcohol could have ancestors from anywhere.

oops.... I mean an arminian alcoholic freely *chose *fo become an alcoholic.

-----Added 8/21/2009 at 02:19:32 EST-----



JennyG said:


> Thank you for sticking to the point, Paul, and following through to get it really clarified, after so much has been said all around it!
> In the specific situation you have in view, I don't see how there can be any doubt that option 1 is the right one -- and isn't that all you were ever asking?



Thanks Jenny.

I don't think option 1 is obvious anymore.

I grew up as a Christian in a church that ministered to many troubled souls - including me. A premium was always placed on "good intentions" and not causing a brother to stumble. 

Therefore, I always assumed that grape juice was always an option at communion. (In fact, I've seen a Reformed church that had grape juice as the only option.)

I posted this second poll because I want to get a feel for how Reformed pastors handle reformed alcoholics. About 5 to 10% of the US/Canadian population is alcoholic. I am sure that many of these people would be drawn to church to get ministry.


----------



## Glenn Ferrell

Is there any biblical basis for speaking of a "reformed alcoholic" or "former alcoholic"?


----------



## Marrow Man

Glenn Ferrell said:


> Is there any biblical basis for speaking of a "reformed alcoholic" or "former alcoholic"?



Perhaps "redeemed drunkard" (or repentant drunkard) would be more proper terminology:



> Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals, nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, will inherit the kingdom of God. Such were some of you; but you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and in the Spirit of our God. (1 Cor 6:9-11)


----------



## Paul Nowlan

Glenn Ferrell said:


> Is there any biblical basis for speaking of a "reformed alcoholic" or "former alcoholic"?



My apologies. There may be no Biblical basis for these terms. It's just that when I have spoken to these people in the past, they will often refer to themselves as former alcoholics.

Rev. Ferrell, what training did seminary prepare you with to deal with alcoholics?

(BTW I am not an alcohol, former alcohol or drunkard.)


----------



## a mere housewife

I didn't vote because I'm not in a position to make any such decision. But it seems acceptable on the same logic where we accommodate those who have an allergy because of malfunctioning bodies, to accommodate someone who has been addicted (and to deny that there is a chemical/physical side to such addiction seems to ignore that there is a such a side to our frame). To deny them the means of grace when grace is what they want and need doesn't seem Christlike. I'm not sure what to think, on realising that some positions argued seem to lead to a conclusion that I've never had legitimate communion in the blood of Christ: it would have been better for me never to have communion at all -- because I didn't have alcohol? Is this the joy of union with one another that one has more fully in alcoholic symbols? I don't mean that sarcastically. I find that thought distressing.

Does anyone know if all alcoholics are addicts in the same sense? I think many people drink because it's a drunken culture and that's how they socialise, party, forget about problems etc. -- whereas there are addicts who would spend the money for a dying daughter's medicine to satisfy a physical craving for alcohol. It seems like the first kind would have less difficulty making a recovery to drink alcohol in moderation again?


----------



## Curt

Why was the sacrament being offered at a men's meeting?


----------



## Paul Nowlan

a mere housewife said:


> Does anyone know if all alcoholics are addicts in the same sense?...... whereas there are addicts who would spend the money for a dying daughter's medicine to satisfy a physical craving for alcohol. It seems like the first kind would have less difficulty making a recovery to drink alcohol in moderation again?



Hello Heidi,

That is an issue we are having to sort through.

Can a reformed alcoholic drink alcohol without becoming an alcoholic again?

I think some can and some can't. Personally, if I were a pastor, I wouldn't want to chance it.

How do seminaries deal with this issue?

-----Added 8/21/2009 at 03:48:15 EST-----



Curt said:


> Why was the sacrament being offered at a men's meeting?



I have no idea.

Maybe "men's meeting" is bad terminology. All I know, that it was a gathering of men to discuss Christian topics and support one another. 

This happened years ago, before I realized all the rules of Christian sacraments. The leader wasn't even an ordained pastor. He was just a nice man who the church wanted to informally teach men about God on personal basis.

The church was swamped with new members and pastors were overwhelmed.


----------



## Romans922

Paul Nowlan said:


> a mere housewife said:
> 
> 
> 
> Does anyone know if all alcoholics are addicts in the same sense?...... whereas there are addicts who would spend the money for a dying daughter's medicine to satisfy a physical craving for alcohol. It seems like the first kind would have less difficulty making a recovery to drink alcohol in moderation again?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hello Heidi,
> 
> That is an issue we are having to sort through.
> 
> Can a reformed alcoholic drink alcohol without becoming an alcoholic again?
> 
> I think some can and some can't. Personally, if I were a pastor, I wouldn't want to chance it.
> 
> How do seminaries deal with this issue?
Click to expand...


I see no one has read through the article I posted. It does cover these questions that everyone is asking, and also speculating or coming to personal conclusions. The article deals with the Biblical stance that we should take.


----------



## a mere housewife

Andrew, the article, though a helpful explanation of a position advocated here, didn't seem to add to the arguments already presented in these discussions, which have been countered by others (such as TimV)?


----------



## BertMulder

Voted other, as the Lord's Supper is to be celebrated in a church service only, administered by an ordained pastor, and accompanied by the preaching of the Word.


----------



## Hungus

Bert thats a cop out, since the poll specifically states communion you can safely assume your points are covered. Now assuming communion is being properly administered how do you answer?


----------



## BertMulder

Hungus said:


> Bert thats a cop out, since the poll specifically states communion you can safely assume your points are covered. Now assuming communion is being properly administered how do you answer?



Not having done sufficient research on the issue as to whether grape juice is a suitable replacement for wine (lacking the alcohol to gladden man's heart), at a properly administered communion service, I would suggest he partake of the bread, but abstain from the wine.

-----Added 8/21/2009 at 04:21:56 EST-----

Remembering the argumentation of pastor Lewis, elsewhere on this forum, for the common cup....

Is it proper that 2 different sources of liquid are being served, as we believe, as our communion form puts it:

_Besides,that we by this same Spirit may also be united as members of one body in true brotherly love, as the holy Apostle saith, "For we, being many, are one bread and one body; for we are all partakers of that one bread." For as out of many grains one meal is ground, and one bread baked, and out of many berries being pressed together, one wine floweth, and mixeth itself together; so shall we all, who by a true faith are ingrafted into Christ, be altogether one body, through brotherly love, for Christ's sake, our beloved Savior, who hath so exceedingly loved us, and not only showed this in word, but also in very deed towards one another._
For that matter, is it proper to use bread from 2 distinct loaves, or even 2 different types of bread, as is the practice where special gluten free bread is offered?


----------



## Wannabee

The man is dealing with the repercussions of his sin. Do we change or conform worship to adapt to the repercussions of sin? I have no desire to be insensitive and understand Tim's point. But this isn't a case of a man not being able to partake because of something someone else has done or imposed on him. He's dealing with the fact that he sinned and must live with the affects of that sin. We tend to dumb this down and placate man. But, as we see with David, sin has horrible repercussions, such as physically wasting away, weeping uncontrollably, spiritual torment and maybe even the death of a newborn child. God wiped out civilizations for their sins. He had every man, woman and child, along with all their livestock, destroyed because of sin. He brought great difficulties upon Israel because of their sin. Her sons were killed, eyes gouged out and sons made eunuchs because of sin. And, ultimately, He sacrificed His only begotten Son because of man's sin.
Though I certainly want to be careful not to be legalistic, I am equally concerned that we denigrate the sinfulness of sin all too easily in many cases. Perhaps we have a propensity to look at these situations through man's eyes too much and not through God's eyes enough.


----------



## Paul Nowlan

Well Andrew, I see Dr. Mark Herzer has answered all the questions.

That is one of the things I've noticed about this debate. Many here are truly certain that they understand church history and the condition of the human heart - and the proper interpretation of the Bible. 

For example, in another thread someone declared that churches for 2,000 years have always offered communion with alcohol with no real problems. How does this person know this? Has he known every reformed alcoholic that took communion in the past 2,000 years. Has he known every pastor in the past 2,000 years. Has every pastor refused to offer a grape juice alternative?

There is much we don't know about life and our history. 

For example, many people have never heard of the "Year with no summer (1816)" even though it was one of the great disasters of the 19th century

Dr. Mark Herzer seems to think that offering wine with communion poses no great danger. What scientific studies does he cite to prove this statement. Is he willing to pay for rehab if a reformed alcoholic stumbles?

Is anyone here willing to pay for rehab if a reformed alcoholic stumbles because of communion wine?

Pastors, if a reformed alcoholic stumbles because of communion wine, do you bear any responsibility at all? Is his own lack of self control totally to blame.

Forgive my ignorance. I have never heard of Dr. Mark Herzer. What is his track record with alcoholics. How many has he helped overcome this addiction?



(Boy, if someone tells me that Dr. Mark Herzer has dried up thousands of alcoholics and then had every one of them take communion wine with no relapse, am I ever going to look bad. I have never heard of Dr. Mark Herzer.)


Well Andrew, does this mean that in your church reformed alcoholics that humbly admit they can't handle any alcohol shall be expected to take communion with wine?

BTW Andrew, I read the article.


----------



## a mere housewife

Mr. Mulder -- could you clarify: would you think it better to deny someone the reality of heartgladdening of a means of a grace? (I don't have a dog in this fight, I'm trying to understand the view of means of grace that seems to suggest it prudent to deny them in many cases -- celiac also? -- a practice which I always equated with church discipline.)


----------



## BertMulder

a mere housewife said:


> Mr. Mulder -- could you clarify: would you think it better to deny someone the reality of heartgladdening of a means of a grace? (I don't have a dog in this fight, I'm trying to understand the view of means of grace that seems to suggest it prudent to deny them in many cases -- celiac also? -- a practice which I always equated with church discipline.)




Heidi, as I stated above, I have not done the research, nor do I have the wisdom, to give a more succinct answer...

Sorry.

For your information though, we serve regular and gluten free bread. Also, we serve wine only. My wife has abstained from the wine in the past, simply because of contra-indication with medication she was taking at the time.


----------



## TimV

I read it Pastor Barnes. A couple comments. He says



> *2. Doesn't a reference to 'fruit of the vine' suggest liberty of using grape juice, etc.?*
> It could if the reference was meant to be vague. The term itself was always used to refer to wine. As some have noted, the phrase 'fruit of the vine' is more pregnant with meaning than a direct reference to wine. It argues that God Himself created the vine and gave fruit from it. Therefore, this wine one blesses came from the hand of God.



and



> *Why not just stick with the grape juice and keep the peace?*
> Because our Lord has instituted wine and not grape juice. If peace at this juncture is more important than obedience to God's truth, then why baptize?



I see just more of the inconsistent reasoning I referred to above. If the phrase _fruit of the vine_ isn't meant to be ambiguous, to follow the author's reasoning, it must needs be given in the amount necessary to have it's *blessing* manifested. The little thimble doesn't bless anyone. Rushdoony once pointed out that drinking enough wine at the Lord's Supper to get you cheerful had been the practice of in some enclaves of the church in times past, and that would be consistent reasoning. 

If someone really wants to put their foot down on the issue, then they should go all the way, rather than picking their pet little irritation and focusing in on it. Personally I'd like to see a meal once per year with plenty of wine, unleavened bread and lamb with bitter herbs afterwards, but that's just me.

And for those who would take just the bread, would you take the bread if it was leavened? Since the reason that unleavened bread was used since leaven symbolized sin? And the NT word for bread in the Gospel passages could mean either leavened or unleavened bread?


----------



## Paul Nowlan

Wannabee said:


> The man is dealing with the repercussions of his sin. Do we change or conform worship to adapt to the repercussions of sin? .



Is accommodating this man by offering a grape juice alternative that much of an imposition?


----------



## Hungus

TimV said:


> Personally I'd like to see a meal once per year with plenty of wine, unleavened bread and lamb with bitter herbs afterwards, but that's just me.



Tim, you are welcome in my place every year for Pesach. We look back at that night and see how it was fulfilled in Christ.


----------



## TimV

> Tim, you are welcome in my place every year for Pesach. We look back at that night and see how it was fulfilled in Christ.



As do I. How is drinking more than a thimbleful of wine and only eating unleavened bread and only celebrating once per year NOT looking back at Christ? Not trying to start an argument, but I'd really like to know!

PS It's very possible that I'm misunderstanding you. Do you have a Passover type meal once per year? Sounds good!


----------



## a mere housewife

Mr. Mulder, thanks for your kind response.

I find the discussion a bit disheartening. Some of the happiest days of my life have been communion Sundays: I've never been in churches serve wine.


----------



## Romans922

Seems to me that maybe you are putting too much emphasis on science and starting from the position of sinful man instead of starting with Scripture and God and His Word. in my opinion this is what is implied in what you say.

The person who wrote this is of no matter, and his track record with alcoholics is not up for debate, what is is what are the elements in the Lord's Supper which HE has instituted. That is where we start not where we end. You cannot start with man, and alcoholics who are in sin, and then expect to end back up at the biblical position. That is backwards.

"Pastors, if a reformed alcoholic stumbles because of communion wine, do you bear any responsibility at all? Is his own lack of self control totally to blame."

Pastors bear the responsibility to worship according to the commands of God and to lead their flock as such.

"does this mean that in your church reformed alcoholics that humbly admit they can't handle any alcohol shall be expected to take communion with wine?"

There are no 'reformed alcoholics' within my flock. If there were, the session would meet with them and teach, rebuke, correct, and train in righteousness. 



Paul Nowlan said:


> Well Andrew, I see Dr. Mark Herzer has answered all the questions.
> 
> That is one of the things I've noticed about this debate. Many here are truly certain that they understand church history and the condition of the human heart - and the proper interpretation of the Bible.
> 
> For example, in another thread someone declared that churches for 2,000 years have always offered communion with alcohol with no real problems. How does this person know this? Has he known every reformed alcoholic that took communion in the past 2,000 years. Has he known every pastor in the past 2,000 years. Has every pastor refused to offer a grape juice alternative?
> 
> There is much we don't know about life and our history.
> 
> For example, many people have never heard of the "Year with no summer (1816)" even though it was one of the great disasters of the 19th century
> 
> Dr. Mark Herzer seems to think that offering wine with communion poses no great danger. What scientific studies does he cite to prove this statement. Is he willing to pay for rehab if a reformed alcoholic stumbles?
> 
> Is anyone here willing to pay for rehab if a reformed alcoholic stumbles because of communion wine?
> 
> Pastors, if a reformed alcoholic stumbles because of communion wine, do you bear any responsibility at all? Is his own lack of self control totally to blame.
> 
> Forgive my ignorance. I have never heard of Dr. Mark Herzer. What is his track record with alcoholics. How many has he helped overcome this addiction?
> 
> 
> 
> (Boy, if someone tells me that Dr. Mark Herzer has dried up thousands of alcoholics and then had every one of them take communion wine with no relapse, am I ever going to look bad. I have never heard of Dr. Mark Herzer.)
> 
> 
> Well Andrew, does this mean that in your church reformed alcoholics that humbly admit they can't handle any alcohol shall be expected to take communion with wine?
> 
> BTW Andrew, I read the article.


----------



## Glenn Ferrell

Marrow Man said:


> Glenn Ferrell said:
> 
> 
> 
> Is there any biblical basis for speaking of a "reformed alcoholic" or "former alcoholic"?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Perhaps "redeemed drunkard" (or repentant drunkard) would be more proper terminology:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals, nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, will inherit the kingdom of God. Such were some of you; but you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and in the Spirit of our God. (1 Cor 6:9-11)
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


Precisely, "Such were some of you..." Do we do them any service or convey biblical truth by calling them former, reformed or redeemed anything.

All Christians are presumed repentant sinners, in the process of sanctification. All of us need by God’s grace to modify former behavior, associations and thought patterns to avoid temptations toward particular sinful tendencies. But, is anything gained by referring to a brother or sister as a “redeemed drunkard”? Is anything added by labeling such sin as a disease, “alcoholism”? Addictions are a complex of associations, physical deficits, thought patterns and predilections. Like all sinners, they must be taught the truth of God’s word, shown their own weakness and need to depend upon the grace of God to help them control sinful attachments and actions. But, churches reinforcing pseudo-scientific definitions of disease are not helpful. Nor do we continue to label believers "reformed liars," "reformed fornicators," or "reformed blasphemers."

I do not hold an advanced degree in psychology or medicine, nor did my seminary offer courses on addiction. But, I have read a little concerning the disease theory of alcoholism, which seems to have been debunked by placebo studies: G. Alan Marlatt and Damaris J. Rohsenow, “The Think-Drink Effect,” _Psychology Today_, December 1981, pp. 60-69, 93; Barbara Critchlow, “The Powers of John Barleycorn: Beliefs about the Effects of Alcohol on Social Behavior,” _American Psychologisit_, Vol. 41 (1986) pp. 751-64. Concerning response to Alcohol as a learned reaction: Craig McAndrew and Robert Edgerton, _Drunken Comportment_ (Chicago, 1969) pp. 87-88.


----------



## Michael Doyle

I agree with the opinion of communion being improperly administered in a mens meeting if that is truly the case. It should be served in a church service by an ordained officer of the church and accompanied by the preaching of the Word.

Secondly, if this is the consensus, then by way of compassion, being unaware of who are all in attendance, would it, for the sake of consistency, be proper then to go all grape juice for service so as not to risk jeopardizing a repentant alcoholics spiritual condition?
Just asking.


----------



## Hungus

TimV said:


> PS It's very possible that I'm misunderstanding you. Do you have a Passover type meal once per year? Sounds good!


Yes, each year we have a passover meal


----------



## Paul Nowlan

Andrew you stated,"Seems to me that maybe you are putting too much emphasis on science and starting from the position of sinful man instead of starting with Scripture and God and His Word. in my opinion this is what is implied in what you say."

Andrew, my reading of Scripture tells me I must be very very careful not to cause a brother to stumble. 

Science tells me that even a little bit of alcohol can cause a brother to stumble. (If my science is wrong, please quote a licensed doctor who asserts that communion wine is *always* not dangerous for reformed alcoholics who cry at the thought of injesting communion wine.)

Therefore, Scripture and science suggest that if a brother cries for fear of communion wine, perhaps I should not offer communion wine.



Andrew you stated, "The person who wrote this is of no matter, and his track record with alcoholics is not up for debate"

Andrew I respectfully disagree. If he is making assertions on church history and a problem like alcoholism and further asserts that communion wine poses little danger to former alcoholics, his credentials are crucial. In essense, you have posted something online which purports that communion wine is not dangerous to reformed alcoholics. This has medical ramifications.

Your church may have no alcoholics, but alcoholism is quite widespread. His assertions -if wrong- can help a brother to stumble. Your decision, as a leader in the church, to further quote as truth online his work has ramifications on weaker brothers. 



Andrew you stated," Pastors bear the responsibility to worship according to the commands of God and to lead their flock as such."

Andrew, I think pastors should *also* know the weaknesses of people in their flock where possible and accommodate if possible.



Andrew you stated, "There are no 'reformed alcoholics' within my flock." 

Andrew, how big is your flock? Are you sure there are no reformed alcoholics? Do you know how much shame is attached to alcoholism and its ramifications? How well do you know your flock? Have any ever been abused? Have any got an addiction to painkillers, p0rn0graphy, gossip, TV....

I know someone who has been a trained Christian counsellor for years, and she doesn't assume she knows people. The heart is desperately wicked, who can know it.


----------



## Glenn Ferrell

Paul Nowlan said:


> Is accommodating this man by offering a grape juice alternative that much of an imposition?



I have absolutely no problem with a session deciding to offer unfermented grape juice as an option at communion for those with medical, conscientious, or allergy concerns, though I’m not convinced such is necessary without a specific request from a member. The congregation I serve offers both; I’ve made no attempt to change this.

My concern is with changing the elements of communion based upon an unbiblical understanding of sin and addiction. If our practice and theology are controlled by prevailing opinion rather than scripture, drunkenness becomes a disease rather than sin; sodomy becomes neither sin nor a disease, but an amoral orientation. 

Alcoholism (the disease) was unknown and unheard of before the founding of Alcoholics Anonymous in 1935, upon unbiblical principles. With no scientific evidence to indicate such, the disease theory was adopted because it was easier to persuade potential recruits they were “powerless over alcohol” than of moral failing. The National Council for Education on Alcoholism was founded, which promoted the disease model in the late 40's and 50's. The brewing and distilling industries liked the theory because it did not blame them for harm caused. The medical community found it justified insurance payment for treatment.

The church is warranted to teach what may be established in the word of God and no more. While we should respond pastorally to those who suffer, even if partially caused by a misleading “theory,” we must not promote a politically correct prevailing opinion as equivalent to God’s revealed truth.


----------



## Paul Nowlan

I'm sorry Glenn, I had trouble understanding your post.

I'm not trying to "promote a politically correct prevailing opinion as equivalent to God’s revealed truth."

I just believe that if a reformed alcoholic cries for fear at the thought of communion wine than maybe church leaders should comfort him and offer grape juice.

Personally, I know little about "politically correct prevailing opinion." I am a nerd.

What I do know is that alcohol - especially a bottle of cold beer on a hot day - can be very good. 

I also know that alcohol - especially for a weaker brother - can be very bad.

I also know that helping prevent a brother from stumbling is crucial. And dare I say maybe even more crucial than replicating Jesus' Last Supper to a tee - at least physically.

Serving grape juice might miss all the *physical* aspects of the Last Supper, but may fulfill all its *spiritual* aspects.

And what does the Lord expect of you? To act justly, *love mercy *and walk humbly with the Lord.


----------



## Romans922

Paul Nowlan said:


> Andrew you stated,"Seems to me that maybe you are putting too much emphasis on science and starting from the position of sinful man instead of starting with Scripture and God and His Word. in my opinion this is what is implied in what you say."
> 
> Andrew, my reading of Scripture tells me I must be very very careful not to cause a brother to stumble.
> 
> Science tells me that even a little bit of alcohol can cause a brother to stumble. (If my science is wrong, please quote a licensed doctor who asserts that communion wine is *always* not dangerous for reformed alcoholics who cry at the thought of injesting communion wine.)
> 
> Therefore, Scripture and science suggest that if a brother cries for fear of communion wine, perhaps I should not offer communion wine.
> 
> 
> 
> Andrew you stated, "The person who wrote this is of no matter, and his track record with alcoholics is not up for debate"
> 
> Andrew I respectfully disagree. If he is making assertions on church history and a problem like alcoholism and further asserts that communion wine poses little danger to former alcoholics, his credentials are crucial. In essense, you have posted something online which purports that communion wine is not dangerous to reformed alcoholics. This has medical ramifications.
> 
> Your church may have no alcoholics, but alcoholism is quite widespread. His assertions -if wrong- can help a brother to stumble. Your decision, as a leader in the church, to further quote as truth online his work has ramifications on weaker brothers.
> 
> 
> 
> Andrew you stated," Pastors bear the responsibility to worship according to the commands of God and to lead their flock as such."
> 
> Andrew, I think pastors should *also* know the weaknesses of people in their flock where possible and accommodate if possible.
> 
> 
> 
> Andrew you stated, "There are no 'reformed alcoholics' within my flock."
> 
> Andrew, how big is your flock? Are you sure there are no reformed alcoholics? Do you know how much shame is attached to alcoholism and its ramifications? How well do you know your flock? Have any ever been abused? Have any got an addiction to painkillers, p0rn0graphy, gossip, TV....
> 
> I know someone who has been a trained Christian counsellor for years, and she doesn't assume she knows people. The heart is desperately wicked, who can know it.



So are you saying that if preaching offended people, maybe even caused men to sin because of their sinful heart, then we should try not to cause the weaker brother to stumble. Meaning we should do preaching in another way or just not do it at all? We could use drama to preach the word. (Sarcasm)

These are the sacraments of the Church, our confession (are we not confessional) says that the elements to the Lord's supper are Bread and Wine. Christ used bread and wine. So we should use grape juice? Because wine might cause a brother to stumble? The institution is the command, weaker brother verse has to do with things which are not necessarily commanded. Say: meat sacrificed to idols. Are we commanded to eat meat? No, it is good though, God created it. So we can partake, but if it causes the weaker brother to stumble, then by all means we should abstain. 

But meat and eating meat is not commanded in Scripture, neither is drinking of alcohol in general, although it does make the heart glad. It is a Christian Liberty.

But when it comes to the command of God and the example of Christ himself, it is not up to our Christian Liberty. God alone is Lord of the conscience, and God's Word shows that Christ used wine (science proves it too, grape juice wasn't invented until not so long ago). Confession says we are to use bread and wine. We should do so then.



As it has to do with my congregation, I answered based on what I know and what the session knows. If someone struggled with it, again the session would meet with that person and deal with the heart issues behind the problem.


----------



## Paul Nowlan

Romans922 said:


> Seems to me that maybe you are putting too much emphasis on science and starting from the position of sinful man instead of starting with Scripture and God and His Word. in my opinion this is what is implied in what you say.
> 
> The person who wrote this is of no matter, and his track record with alcoholics is not up for debate, what is is what are the elements in the Lord's Supper which HE has instituted. That is where we start not where we end. You cannot start with man, and alcoholics who are in sin, and then expect to end back up at the biblical position. That is backwards.
> 
> "Pastors, if a reformed alcoholic stumbles because of communion wine, do you bear any responsibility at all? Is his own lack of self control totally to blame."
> 
> Pastors bear the responsibility to worship according to the commands of God and to lead their flock as such.
> 
> "does this mean that in your church reformed alcoholics that humbly admit they can't handle any alcohol shall be expected to take communion with wine?"
> 
> There are no 'reformed alcoholics' within my flock. If there were, the session would meet with them and teach, rebuke, correct, and train in righteousness.
> 
> 
> 
> Paul Nowlan said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well Andrew, I see Dr. Mark Herzer has answered all the questions.
> 
> That is one of the things I've noticed about this debate. Many here are truly certain that they understand church history and the condition of the human heart - and the proper interpretation of the Bible.
> 
> For example, in another thread someone declared that churches for 2,000 years have always offered communion with alcohol with no real problems. How does this person know this? Has he known every reformed alcoholic that took communion in the past 2,000 years. Has he known every pastor in the past 2,000 years. Has every pastor refused to offer a grape juice alternative?
> 
> There is much we don't know about life and our history.
> 
> For example, many people have never heard of the "Year with no summer (1816)" even though it was one of the great disasters of the 19th century
> 
> Dr. Mark Herzer seems to think that offering wine with communion poses no great danger. What scientific studies does he cite to prove this statement. Is he willing to pay for rehab if a reformed alcoholic stumbles?
> 
> Is anyone here willing to pay for rehab if a reformed alcoholic stumbles because of communion wine?
> 
> Pastors, if a reformed alcoholic stumbles because of communion wine, do you bear any responsibility at all? Is his own lack of self control totally to blame.
> 
> Forgive my ignorance. I have never heard of Dr. Mark Herzer. What is his track record with alcoholics. How many has he helped overcome this addiction?
> 
> 
> 
> (Boy, if someone tells me that Dr. Mark Herzer has dried up thousands of alcoholics and then had every one of them take communion wine with no relapse, am I ever going to look bad. I have never heard of Dr. Mark Herzer.)
> 
> 
> Well Andrew, does this mean that in your church reformed alcoholics that humbly admit they can't handle any alcohol shall be expected to take communion with wine?
> 
> BTW Andrew, I read the article.
Click to expand...




Romans922 said:


> Paul Nowlan said:
> 
> 
> 
> Andrew you stated,"Seems to me that maybe you are putting too much emphasis on science and starting from the position of sinful man instead of starting with Scripture and God and His Word. in my opinion this is what is implied in what you say."
> 
> Andrew, my reading of Scripture tells me I must be very very careful not to cause a brother to stumble.
> 
> Science tells me that even a little bit of alcohol can cause a brother to stumble. (If my science is wrong, please quote a licensed doctor who asserts that communion wine is *always* not dangerous for reformed alcoholics who cry at the thought of injesting communion wine.)
> 
> Therefore, Scripture and science suggest that if a brother cries for fear of communion wine, perhaps I should not offer communion wine.
> 
> 
> 
> Andrew you stated, "The person who wrote this is of no matter, and his track record with alcoholics is not up for debate"
> 
> Andrew I respectfully disagree. If he is making assertions on church history and a problem like alcoholism and further asserts that communion wine poses little danger to former alcoholics, his credentials are crucial. In essense, you have posted something online which purports that communion wine is not dangerous to reformed alcoholics. This has medical ramifications.
> 
> Your church may have no alcoholics, but alcoholism is quite widespread. His assertions -if wrong- can help a brother to stumble. Your decision, as a leader in the church, to further quote as truth online his work has ramifications on weaker brothers.
> 
> 
> 
> Andrew you stated," Pastors bear the responsibility to worship according to the commands of God and to lead their flock as such."
> 
> Andrew, I think pastors should *also* know the weaknesses of people in their flock where possible and accommodate if possible.
> 
> 
> 
> Andrew you stated, "There are no 'reformed alcoholics' within my flock."
> 
> Andrew, how big is your flock? Are you sure there are no reformed alcoholics? Do you know how much shame is attached to alcoholism and its ramifications? How well do you know your flock? Have any ever been abused? Have any got an addiction to painkillers, p0rn0graphy, gossip, TV....
> 
> I know someone who has been a trained Christian counsellor for years, and she doesn't assume she knows people. The heart is desperately wicked, who can know it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So are you saying that if preaching offended people, maybe even caused men to sin because of their sinful heart, then we should try not to cause the weaker brother to stumble. Meaning we should do preaching in another way or just not do it at all? We could use drama to preach the word. (Sarcasm)
> 
> These are the sacraments of the Church, our confession (are we not confessional) says that the elements to the Lord's supper are Bread and Wine. Christ used bread and wine. So we should use grape juice? Because wine might cause a brother to stumble? The institution is the command, weaker brother verse has to do with things which are not necessarily commanded. Say: meat sacrificed to idols. Are we commanded to eat meat? No, it is good though, God created it. So we can partake, but if it causes the weaker brother to stumble, then by all means we should abstain.
> 
> But meat and eating meat is not commanded in Scripture, neither is drinking of alcohol in general, although it does make the heart glad. It is a Christian Liberty.
> 
> But when it comes to the command of God and the example of Christ himself, it is not up to our Christian Liberty. God alone is Lord of the conscience, and God's Word shows that Christ used wine (science proves it too, grape juice wasn't invented until not so long ago). Confession says we are to use bread and wine. We should do so then.
> 
> 
> 
> As it has to do with my congregation, I answered based on what I know and what the session knows. If someone struggled with it, again the session would meet with that person and deal with the heart issues behind the problem.
Click to expand...



Andrew, I'd rather not respond to your admitted sarcasm. I have enough trouble communicating without having to deal with sarcasm.

I didn't mention anything about meat, or Christian Liberty, or.....

*I said that if a reformed alcoholic cries at the thought of taking communion wine, then he should be offered grape juice instead.
*
If you don't agree with me, then that is your right.

If you want to post articles on the web that seem to purport the safety of reformed alcoholics taking communion wine, then that too is your right.

We do not agree. That is allowable

Maybe I'm wrong. Maybe I'm right.

Oh, I think grape juice was "invented" a long time ago. Perhaps because of spoilage concerns it was not used often. (I don't know about this last point. My focus is on the crying reformed alcoholic.)


----------



## C. M. Sheffield

I probably voted before fully understanding the options. I probably should have chosen "Other." I personally would use only wine in communion. If this was a problem for an alcoholic, I would counsel him/her as to the theology of the Lord's Supper and what its significance is. I would assure them that there is no sin in taking the wine in communion. If after that they still felt that they could not control themselves even with such a small amount, the process of church discipline would begin by fencing them from the Table and working toward their restoration in this regard.


----------



## TimV

> I said that if a reformed alcoholic cries at the thought of taking communion wine, then he should be offered grape juice instead.



You may be getting more defensive that this conversation warrants. The overwhelming majority of Reformed Churches allow grape juice for those who want it. I've been a member of several, and on three continents and it was always the same. I dare say most of the elders here would prefer wine, but most make allowances, as per Pastor Ferrell's post. I think the main difference you are having in this particular conversation is the insistence on using the phrase reformed alcoholic, and you are digging your feet in just as strongly as those here who insist on wine for everyone.

Regards, and thanks for being an inspiration to me as well, in taking this man's concerns so seriously.


----------



## Wannabee

TimV said:


> And for those who would take just the bread, would you take the bread if it was leavened? Since the reason that unleavened bread was used since leaven symbolized sin? And the NT word for bread in the Gospel passages could mean either leavened or unleavened bread?



It could mean either, as discussed in a previous thread. But we need to look back to the exodus to see the reason they used unleavened bread. It isn't sin, but because they left in haste and the bread did not have time to rise. Salvation was at hand, there was no time to dawdle for comfort's sake, to bury a father, to go on a honeymoon, to try out an ox or anything else for that matter. Today is the day of salvation. In fact, if one looks up leavening it can represent both righteousness and sin.

Interestingly, yeast is involved in processing wine as well, but dies during the fermentation process. Not that this has direct repercussions on our discussion, but may be a point for someone.



Paul Nowlan said:


> Wannabee said:
> 
> 
> 
> The man is dealing with the repercussions of his sin. Do we change or conform worship to adapt to the repercussions of sin? .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Is accommodating this man by offering a grape juice alternative that much of an imposition?
Click to expand...

Is this really the best question to ask? I'm trying to be careful how I phrase this, but this seems to be the very type of response I was indicating in my previous post. Are we more worried about an "imposition" or striving to honor Christ to the best of our ability? Grape juice might be acceptable to our Lord. I really am not sure and pass no judgment on others in regard to this. But the example before us and all references point to wine. Wine represents more than grape juice can. It was part of the blessing that God promised. It was a sign of the prosperity that God provided. It is celebratory in nature. There is much more involved here than simply a choice of what we're going to drink.
With this in mind, and the fact that we are talking about a man who is dealing with the results of his sin, do we change the bibilical example, and what I think is a mandate and a wonderful symbol of much that is inherent in the gospel? If we change it, are we being presumptuous and actually imposing on God's prescribed worship?
This is not an easy subject to nail down. But we must be very careful to avoid starting with man and looking at this from his standpoint. Much of the argumentation seems to come from this perspective in an effort to appease man. But we must start with God and examine the LS, our hearts, motives and the condition of such a man through the eyes of God, to the best of our abilities, to arrive at a biblical conclusion. And, whether it's an imposition on me or the church is really of no consequence. The real question is "Are we being faithful to God almighty and honoring what He prescribed in regard to the LS in a manner that brings Him the most glory?"

Blessings,


----------



## Paul Nowlan

TimV said:


> I said that if a reformed alcoholic cries at the thought of taking communion wine, then he should be offered grape juice instead.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You may be getting more defensive that this conversation warrants. The overwhelming majority of Reformed Churches allow grape juice for those who want it. I've been a member of several, and on three continents and it was always the same. I dare say most of the elders here would prefer wine, but most make allowances, as per Pastor Ferrell's post. I think the main difference you are having in this particular conversation is the insistence on using the phrase reformed alcoholic, and you are digging your feet in just as strongly as those here who insist on wine for everyone.
> 
> Regards, and thanks for being an inspiration to me as well, in taking this man's concerns so seriously.
Click to expand...


Tim, thanks for your response.

Tim, if the term "reformed alcohol" is a problem, I apologize. 

If I seem defensive, I apologize for this also.

I admit this gentleman who cried made quite an impression. When he reacted, you could see and hear terror. The leader quickly interjected and offered grape juice but still that moment of terror made quite an impression.

This happened in 1995 and I have since spoken to many reformed... er... former... er... rehabilitated alcoholics... er drunkards and drug addicts.

The one thing I generally notice about these people is their true humility. They generally have no illusions about total depravity. They generally are truly aware that they are sinners and need God.

I don't want to place any obstacle in front of them. 

This whole thread is very shocking to me. I have always assumed that communion is a truly spiritual exercise and that physical elements are important but secondary to health and addiction issues.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Other.

A Christian is not an Alcoholic any more than a Christian is a Homosexual, Thief, Aldulterer or any other number of sins by which we might name a person. A man outside of Christ, who is a practioner of Sin, might be named as such but those, in Christ, bear His name and are bondservants to Him. They bear His name.

I don't want to elaborate too much but this ties into another post where I mentioned that we have a disease view of drunkenness and come up with therapeutic or medical terms to describe the condition. The 12 Step Program, in fact, ingrains the individual with the notion that they are always an Alcoholic and one drink away from relapse. A person is a dry Drunk, in their terminology, if not linked into their counseling system.

Counseling for drunkenness is just like counseling for any other Sin that would seek to master the Christian. There are certainly some physiological issues that have to be overcome with many sins (including sexual sins). People that commit them after repentance are not, by definition, Homosexuals or Alcoholics but adopted Sons of God if they are in Christ. They need to be reminded that Christ put Sin to death as power on the Cross and that He lives an indestructible life of which they partake in union with Him by faith. 

The man who is tempted to drunkenness needs to battle the temptation daily and the Church needs to be beside to encourage and counsel. It would also be prudent for many to have a personal scruple that they do not drink alcohol but, even with that personal scruple, I believe a person can look higher and outside of themselves at the Lord's Table and be reminded that they Sup with the King of Kings and that, instead of viewing the Cup as that which leads to their destruction, as a means of grace that points to the Blood of Christ that died for their Sin once for all.

I'm not saying it will be easy to get that Gospel into their bloodstream but, if we labor with the Gospel in their lives then it has the only Power that can be true medicine to their souls.


----------



## Paul Nowlan

Rich, I am a little confused.

The moment after that man cried out, the leader reassured him that he had grape juice.

At the moment of his cry would you:

i) get grape juice 
ii) reassure him that the power of Christ could help him with wine right then
iii) forgo communion and minister to him

Sorry, if I seem stupid. I understand the problems with the disease model, but this was a crisis moment that necessitated a quick reaction.


Please note: the problem I had with my last poll was that it didn't emphasize the time-sensitivity of this issue. In churches that do a lot of outreach, there is little time for complex theology. A visitor can step into the church - after being absent for years - and knowing how to handle a crisis moment like this can make a world of difference.

This was a crisis moment. It required a specific action. 

Again, sorry if I am dense.


----------



## TimV

What ended up happening? And how's he doing after 14 years?


----------



## Semper Fidelis

I dealt with the disease model because you asked how I would deal with a "Reformed Alcoholic."

I don't think administering the Lord's Supper at that moment and simply giving grape juice would solve a deeper theological problem and it would be a good moment to take the Brother aside privately rather than trying to deal with a complicated Pastoral counseling issue on the spot.


----------



## Paul Nowlan

Thank you for your specific response Rich.

I should have asked: "How would you deal with *this* reformed alcoholic?"

Perhaps ministering to him right then and there could be life changing.

-----Added 8/21/2009 at 08:01:00 EST-----



TimV said:


> What ended up happening? And how's he doing after 14 years?




I ended up leaving the church because I was profoundly concerned with their Charismatic teaching. I was too young and immature to really grasp many of their (false) teachings, but I knew something was wrong.

I never met this gentleman again. 

In 1999, I started surfing the net. I started reading about calvinism, church history, etc.

But looking back on it, I admire the focus this church had on healing the heart.

In a previous post, I mentioned a Christian counsellor with years of experience. She is adamently opposed to Calvinism and used to serve in that church. 

The other day we were talking and she said that Armenism is true but faith and holiness comes from God, we are at God's mercy, and we really don't have choice.


----------



## py3ak

C. M. Sheffield said:


> I probably voted before fully understanding the options. I probably should have chosen "Other." I personally would use only wine in communion. If this was a problem for an alcoholic, I would counsel him/her as to the theology of the Lord's Supper and what its significance is. I would assure them that there is no sin in taking the wine in communion. If after that they still felt that they could not control themselves even with such a small amount, the process of church discipline would begin by fencing them from the Table and working toward their restoration in this regard.



[KJV]1 Thessalonians 5:14[/KJV]


----------



## Sven

What is wrong with this picture? Communion served at a men's meeting. Hello, men's meeting isn't church. No communion shouldn't be served at a men's meeting. Ergo, there would be no "Reformed" alcoholics there, because no one is practicing the sacrament in a "Reformed" way.

If it was in a Church service as the sacrament should be, and the same situation happened, I would counsel the man not to partake of the wine if he was absolutely certain it would drive him back to alcoholism. I would have the elders and myself meet with the man to help him through his addiction so that he could come to the point where he felt comfortable with taking the Lord's Supper. The Church shouldn't change it's practice because some can't handle the wine. Christ instituted wine and bread. It's pretty straightforward. There needn't be any debate over what is meant by wine or bread. Paul never said to the Corinthians who came to the LOrd's Supper drunk to change the wine to water or something non-alcoholic. He told them basically to practice self-control. I see no reason to go above and beyond his advice.


----------



## Paul Nowlan

Sven you said, "What is wrong with this picture? Communion served at a men's meeting. Hello, men's meeting isn't church"

Sven, you may be very well right. At the time, I thought nothing of it. All I saw was one unordained church group leader desparately trying to help his fellow man. 

This church reached out to addicts, mentally disturbed people and the homeless. What troubled me at the time was this church didn't have the human resources to minister to all the hurt people. People would come and go, and the pastors didn't have the time to really get to know them

So, maybe your right; they didn't follow established church procedure. They certainly had questionable theology. But, personally, I think offering communion and Bible teaching at a men's meeting is tolerable.... wherever two are in agreement


Sven you said, "The Church shouldn't change it's practice because some can't handle the wine."

Sven, the unordained group leader allowed grape juice so that this individual could partake in the spiritual exercise of communion. If he said no alcohol, no communion, what would have happened?

This individual may have felt rejected and alone and never gone to any Christian event again. 

Lecture this guy with self control and maybe this individual would have felt great shame and never gone to any Christian event again.

We don't live in a perfect world. 

I wonder how Pergy would have treated this situation.

Sven, you and I don't see eye to eye on this issue. I believe that when this individual cried out in terror at the thought of wine, the unordained church leader of the men's group did the right thing by offering grape juice.

How I sum up the Bible in seven words: Love and honour God, love your neighbour. This unordained group leader in a non-traditional church setting did so in this situation. In my humble opinion he did good.


----------



## Paul Nowlan

Anyway, I like to thank everyone for their input. I have to be careful not to spend too much time in engaging in internet debates. (It's sorta addictive.)

I guess where we all agree is that we all want to honour God and do what is proper. 

One side tends to believe that the actual physical elements of Communion is paramount. This side definitely is sincere and well meaning. This side has a heartfelt desire to obey - which is commendable. This side focuses on maintaining alcohol in Communion to preserve this sacrament. This is "good intent."

The other side tends to believe that the physical elements are important but of secondary importance. This side tends to focus on the needs of the troubled individual. This side has the heartfelt desire to protect his brother - which is also commendable. This side focuses on a grape juice option to protect his brother from stumbling. This is "good intent."

We're not going to resolve this issue any time soon. Both sides are trying to obey two different Godly goals.


----------



## Brian Withnell

TimV said:


> It's all the fruit of the vine. That's why Sampson and John the Baptist couldn't eat raisins. Give the poor guy grape juice. I mean really, who here thinks that at Passover people just took a thimbleful of wine like we do? There are so many ways we don't even come close to observing the Last Supper the way it happened I can't see why anyone would say something like the amount of alcohol in the little thimble makes the difference between remembering and not remembering. Talk about straining at a gnat while swallowing a camel.



Tim,

They shared a common cup. That means 12 men, one glass of wine. Each of them having a sip and not much more. It isn't like they all had a glass of wine. The whine we get over the use of wine is not from a Biblical stand. Because the church has no authority to change the elements of the sacrament, those that have a problem with wine ought to assure they have no opportunity to stumble, not through attempting to change the sacrament, but through assuring they have no other alcohol available, that they remain in fellowship with other believers that know their weakness.

Given that there are those that go through programs to stop alcohol addiction that do not require complete abstinence, but require moderation after detoxification, the idea that a sip of wine would cause stumbling is something I find hard to believe is a physiological result of ingesting that small amount of alcohol. It might be that someone has conditioned themselves (or been conditioned by others) into thinking that any wine intake would mean they would absolutely have no control over remaining sober, but I don't buy it. If they decided to become sober before, they can make the much easier decision to remain sober.

The church has no authority to change the elements.


----------



## BertMulder

Paul Nowlan said:


> I ended up leaving the church because I was profoundly concerned with their Charismatic teaching. I was too young and immature to really grasp many of their (false) teachings, but I knew something was wrong.
> 
> I never met this gentleman again.
> 
> In 1999, I started surfing the net. I started reading about calvinism, church history, etc.



In others words, especially seeing that this was 'communion' in a setting for which it was not ordained,

this is no way can be regarded as 'communion' the way reformed churches practice it, and is more the (ana)baptist model of communion.

Reformed people generally practice 'close' communion, ie. with people that are 'one in faith' with them - someone just walking in off the street would not be allowed to partake, before he is examined by the church council on his beliefs, and especially if he even has been baptised.

In this regard, it would benefit you to study 1 Cor. 11 for some guidance on the Lord Supper, not least of which the requirement to first of all examine oneself.

Seems like the cup, in this particular concrete case, is entirely secondary, and hence moot.

And let us be wary of will-worship.

God has ordained in His Word that He is to be worshipped only in a certain way. Anything introduced by man contrary to that is against the 2nd commandment. And God has every right to dictate how He is to be worshipped, as worship, of its very nature, is God centred and directed towards God. That man benefits from the preaching and the sacraments is entirely secondary, even though God is glorified when His people are fed through the Word and the sacraments.


----------



## TimV

> The church has no authority to change the elements.



I'm not quite there yet, especially as we're not sure what the elements were e.g. the honest debate as to whether the bread was unleavened or not. What we do know, or as Reformed people strongly suspect, was that this was a Passover feast. So unlike Baptists who start (in some things) almost from scratch, we naturally look to the OT to fill in gaps we are presented with in the NT.



> They shared a common cup. That means 12 men, one glass of wine.



How big was the cup? How many times was it re-filled? We don't know. We do know it was a meal, and even though I love the OPC and PCA and NGK and APK none of the Reformed churches that I've attended have a meal. I personally think those little wafers and thimbles and silver holders will have gone the way of Fish on Friday in a couple hundred years. And I don't make waves. Unless someone pushes too hard to force me into accepting their personal peeve while ignoring 90 percent of the rest that isn't commonly done like the Last *Supper* was obviously done.

But for now, I'm thankful for Lord's Supper, and I don't think Heidi needs to worry about all those she's participated in her whole life having been invalid. She's got enough to worry about with her plumbing.


----------



## Paul Nowlan

Mr. Mulder:

I think the fact that the leader was unordained is secondary.

I think the fact that this Communion didn't take place in a church building is secondary.

I think the fact that the "troubled soul" was in terror is primary.

The fact that I just sat there doing nothing and never followed up is also primary.

What's more important: comforting a troubled soul or fulfilling all the physical requirements of a ceremony?


----------



## BertMulder

Paul Nowlan said:


> Mr. Mulder:
> 
> I think the fact that the leader was unordained is secondary.
> 
> I think the fact that this Communion didn't take place in a church building is secondary.
> 
> I think the fact that the "troubled soul" was in terror is primary.
> 
> The fact that I just sat there doing nothing and never followed up is also primary.



Thus you maintain that the honor of God is secondary?

You reply against God that God was unreasonable in the 2nd commandment of His Holy law?

And, God has ordained the preaching as the primary means of grace. The Lord Supper is NEVER to be used to simply 'comfort a troubled soul', in and of itself, especially not without being accompanied by the preaching.


----------



## Paul Nowlan

Mr. Mulder:

When you help a "troubled soul," you honour God and love your neighbour.

God's children are more important than bricks and mortar.

If a church is on fire, letting it burn to the ground if the firefighters fear for their safety is not dishonouring God. It is loving God by loving your neighbour.

Mr Mulder you said, "The Lord Supper is NEVER to be used to simply 'comfort a troubled soul',"

Mr Mulder, where did I say this? On a number of posts in various threads, I said that Communion is a spiritual ceremony focused on Jesus.

Mr Mulder you said, "You reply against God that God was unreasonable in the 2nd commandment of His Holy law?"

Mr.Mulder, where did I say this? 

PS. In the Bible, church refers to a group of people, not bricks and mortar.


----------



## KMK

TimV said:


> I'm not quite there yet, especially as we're not sure what the elements were e.g. the honest debate as to whether the bread was unleavened or not. What we do know, or as Reformed people strongly suspect, was that this was a Passover feast. So unlike Baptists who start (in some things) almost from scratch, *we* naturally look to the OT to fill in gaps we are presented with in the NT.



Whose 'we'? All Presbyterians? All Reformers? All PBers?


----------



## BertMulder

Exactly. The Church is the Body of Christ. Not a building of bricks and mortar. But that you seem to regard of no import. Communion is to be celebrated by the Body of Christ, not in 'men's meeting' with people partaking of whom you don't even know what they believe or if they even have been baptised.

No, many of these things you have not said in 'so many words'. However, you have made it loud and clear that your beliefs are accordingly.

Honoring God is not by 'helping a troubled soul' engage in sin against the 2nd commandment. The way of love would be explaining the sanctity of the sacrament to him.


----------



## Paul Nowlan

Mr. Mulder:

If a German civilian lies to a Gestapo agent about the whereabouts of Jews in Nazi Germany in 1944, he probably isn't trying do dishonour God by lying. He's lying to protect and love his neighbour.

If a pastor serves grape juice to a person with an alcohol allergy, he is not trying to violate Communion. He is trying to protect a member of his flock.

Mr Mulder, I attended a men's meeting and took Communion in 1996. I have already said I was an immature Christian in 1996 and attended a church with dubious theology.

What bothers me about this most in hindsight, though, is the fact that this man was very troubled . The fact that the pastor was unordained and the building was not a church is secondary to me.

I guess I just don't meet up to your standards.

Good night Mr Mulder



do and do
rule on rule
a little here and little there


----------



## Edward

Brian Withnell said:


> TimV said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's all the fruit of the vine. That's why Sampson and John the Baptist couldn't eat raisins. Give the poor guy grape juice. I mean really, who here thinks that at Passover people just took a thimbleful of wine like we do? There are so many ways we don't even come close to observing the Last Supper the way it happened I can't see why anyone would say something like the amount of alcohol in the little thimble makes the difference between remembering and not remembering. Talk about straining at a gnat while swallowing a camel.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tim,
> 
> They shared a common cup. That means 12 men, one glass of wine. Each of them having a sip and not much more. It isn't like they all had a glass of wine. The whine we get over the use of wine is not from a Biblical stand. Because the church has no authority to change the elements of the sacrament, those that have a problem with wine ought to assure they have no opportunity to stumble, not through attempting to change the sacrament, but through assuring they have no other alcohol available, that they remain in fellowship with other believers that know their weakness.
> 
> Given that there are those that go through programs to stop alcohol addiction that do not require complete abstinence, but require moderation after detoxification, the idea that a sip of wine would cause stumbling is something I find hard to believe is a physiological result of ingesting that small amount of alcohol. It might be that someone has conditioned themselves (or been conditioned by others) into thinking that any wine intake would mean they would absolutely have no control over remaining sober, but I don't buy it. If they decided to become sober before, they can make the much easier decision to remain sober.
> 
> The church has no authority to change the elements.
Click to expand...


Show me, from scripture, where it is commanded that only alcoholic wine may be used, and I would do well to be convinced. And if you want to take it a step farther, you might also explain why the posture in which the elements are taken should be different than that which is shown in scripture.


----------



## BertMulder

Paul Nowlan said:


> Mr. Mulder:
> 
> If a German civilian lies to a Gestapo agent about the whereabouts of Jews in Nazi Germany in 1944, he probably isn't trying do dishonour God by lying. He's bearing false witness to protect his neighbour.
> 
> If a pastor serves grape juice to a person with an alcohol allergy, he is not trying to violate Communion. He is trying to protect a member of his flock.



Mr. Nowlan, don't change your story to suit your ends...

This was never about a poor saint, member of the church, served communion by the pastor...

this was about an evangelism 'men's meeting'...

Let us not play at revisionism here...

What this really is about you pushing your point of view on grape juice as an element at the Lord's table, rather than wine.

You have the poll in your favor, though I do not believe you have the Word of God in your favor. So let it rest already.


----------



## TimV

> Whose 'we'? All Presbyterians? All Reformers? All PBers?



I said



> So unlike Baptists who start (in some things) almost from scratch, we naturally look to the OT to fill in gaps we are presented with in the NT.



So at the very minium you are ruled out, since you are a Baptist. What was the purpose of that remark? The PB allows Baptists to post, and to be members, and even to be moderators. And I think it great. The PB does a great service to the Kingdom, and is the best cyber fellowship venue for serious Christians in the world. But the PB isn't a church. Ken, you couldn't even be a deacon in my church, or the church of pretty much any elder from a Reformed denomination who's a fellow moderator on this board. And not because they don't think you are a Christian, but simply because you don't see the world the way we Reformed people see it.

It's a question of continuity. And you Baptists are different than "us" i.e. Reformed people. I don't get your needling. Please don't use your status as a moderator to needle me. If there is something that I've said which offended you, please let me know via PM and I'll try and make it right.

Edit: We may be talking past each other, and if so, I'm sorry.

PS,


----------



## Paul Nowlan

BertMulder said:


> Paul Nowlan said:
> 
> 
> 
> Mr. Mulder:
> 
> If a German civilian lies to a Gestapo agent about the whereabouts of Jews in Nazi Germany in 1944, he probably isn't trying do dishonour God by lying. He's bearing false witness to protect his neighbour.
> 
> If a pastor serves grape juice to a person with an alcohol allergy, he is not trying to violate Communion. He is trying to protect a member of his flock.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mr. Nowlan, don't change your story to suit your ends...
> 
> This was never about a poor saint, member of the church, served communion by the pastor...
> 
> this was about an evangelism 'men's meeting'...
> 
> Let us not play at revisionism here...
> 
> What this really is about you pushing your point of view on grape juice as an element at the Lord's table, rather than wine.
> 
> You have the poll in your favor, though I do not believe you have the Word of God in your favor. So let it rest already.
Click to expand...


I have no poll in my favour. Where did I change my story?

I say and do what I think -and hope- is proper.

Mr Mulder, in spite of our differences, I hope the Lord blesses you and your family. I do admire the honest sincerity, however perhaps a heated conversation like this is not appropriate in a public venue. 

One side in this debate is clearly wrong and its viewpoints are being exposed to any innocent lurker searching for Truth on the web. 

I fear these threads have not been a constructive use of my time. One side is propagating incorrect theology and/or possibly applying pressure on reformed alcoholics to expose themselves to a dangerous substance with potential legal implications for church elders.

Mr. Mulder, how do you handle weak brothers under your care with alcohol issues at Communion?

Be careful.


Good night again Mr Mulder


----------



## KMK

TimV said:


> The church has no authority to change the elements.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not quite there yet, especially as we're not sure what the elements were e.g. the honest debate as to whether the bread was unleavened or not. What we do know, or as Reformed people strongly suspect, was that this was a Passover feast. So unlike Baptists who start (in some things) almost from scratch, we naturally look to the OT to fill in gaps we are presented with in the NT.
Click to expand...





TimV said:


> It's a question of continuity. And you Baptists are different than "us" i.e. Reformed people.



So, 'reformed' people look to the OT to fill in the gaps as to what the elements of the LS were. What is the conclusion of 'reformed' people as to the elements? Perhaps we are talking past each other, but it sounds like you are implying that 'reformed' people have come to some kind of consensus.


----------

